Wesley So Forfeited In U.S. Championship Round 9

[chessico]

No, I would not have asked the arbitrator to disqualify my opponent. I don't think this is what happened in this case either or am I wrong on this point?

It is what happened, indeed.

[Dann Corbit]

If Kasparov did not know the exact rule, I should not be surprised if a large percentage of chess players do not know it.

Now, ignorance is no excuse of the law, but I guess that this sort of thing is rather an edge case or we would hear of it a lot more often.

Few players ignore two warnings plus the message that they'll be forfeited for the third infraction.

This is so vague that it ought to be unenforceable.

Without it there are a million ways to annoy your opponent without breaking a rule. Note that it is unusual to be forfeited immediately.

So's opponent knew he had a tendency to jot down notes (has been warned for it before), and so he simply waited for it, to collect an easy point.

Maybe. Or maybe he decided to help So. Better lose a game in a tournament that isn't going too well anyway than in one that he is about to win. There can be little doubt that this would happen some day.

Aside:
Does anyone really believe that the rule as interpreted here is a good idea? If so, I would like to know why.

Visualizing boards? I can visualize them a thousand times faster in my head than writing them down. I should hope that my opponent starts drawing boards.

Formulating a brilliant plan? I might just get a clue of what he is writing and be able to ponder has plan as he is forming it.

Suppose that Anand wrote a brilliant book on some opening for white.
Suppose further that my opponent brings this book along and plays the opening described in the book.
Suppose further that my opponent thumbs through the book, shouting, "Aha!" after he finds the response in the book to the move I have made.

For that sort of thing, I would become very annoyed.

Can the intent of the rule really have been something besides this?

[syzygy]

No, I would not have asked the arbitrator to disqualify my opponent. I don't think this is what happened in this case either or am I wrong on this point?

It is what happened, indeed.

How about getting your facts straight?

[AdminX]

No, I would not have asked the arbitrator to disqualify my opponent. I don't think this is what happened in this case either or am I wrong on this point?

It is what happened, indeed.

What exactly, Reported his opponent, or asked that he be Disqualified? My understanding is that all he did was report him.

[syzygy]

Aside:
Does anyone really believe that the rule as interpreted here is a good idea? If so, I would like to know why.

Reasons for the rule have been given many times already in this thread. You're not going to be convinced, which is fine.

Visualizing boards? I can visualize them a thousand times faster in my head than writing them down. I should hope that my opponent starts drawing boards.

Eh you mean the reason for not allowing to work out calculations on paper? That's simple, in OTB chess you're supposed to do everything in your head with no other help than the board position in front of you. Why is that so? Why does a knight move like a knight?

Look up the FIDE rules. There a lots and lots of little rules that could have been different, but they are what they are. There is a 50-move rule and not a 51-move rule, etc.

[gordonr]

Quite so.
I see no reason why anything written down during game play that does not rely upon outside sources should be frowned upon.

Over-the-board chess is a challenge of mental abilities. It's not like some math exam where if I'm poor at mental arithmetic it's fine because I can do my working on paper.

And there will be disputes over whether a note was written during or before the game. Or what if during a team match, my team mate sitting at the next board decides to write a note that is actually for my benefit? Who can prove that it wasn't for his own use?

No notes is the only workable rule.

[chessico]

What exactly, Reported his opponent, or asked that he be Disqualified? My understanding is that all he did was report him.

He is not an idiot, nobody goes to the arbiter and says: Disqualify him! of course not, you report the "crime" and the arbiter takes the required action or what he thinks is required. Please, let's not be naive.

[Dann Corbit]

(That's why I think it is not such a bad idea to have a certain experience in what one is talking about).

And the thousands of experienced players and arbiters that do recognise the rule and its validity can simply be disqualified as conspirators...

Do thousands of players really recognize the validity of this rule?
(Note that I recognize my dissension counts for zero votes, since I do not play in Fide events).
I shall be astonished if a majority of chess players would be annoyed at an opponent writing something down during game play.

[chessico]

No, I would not have asked the arbitrator to disqualify my opponent. I don't think this is what happened in this case either or am I wrong on this point?

It is what happened, indeed.

How about getting your facts straight?

Haven't you already outed yourself as someone who is neither involved nor has any actual experience? Why does someone like you have to make such a noise?

[syzygy]

Do thousands of players really recognize the validity of this rule?
(Note that I recognize my dissension counts for zero votes, since I do not play in Fide events).
I shall be astonished if a majority of chess players would be annoyed at an opponent writing something down during game play.

Do you realise you are mixing up things here.