Wesley So Forfeited In U.S. Championship Round 9

[chessico]

The fact that you did not observe it is because nobody will dare to do it. Weird, really weird. The rule and its spirit is very old and precedes the use of computers. That is, you cannot use mental crutches, you cannot do anything that is distracting. It is really shocking that a GM attempted this, but after hearing that So said that "Akobian wanted a gift point" I am starting to wonder about his personality. Either something is wrong or he is a spoiled brat (reminds me the "eccentricities" of Fischer). Neither of those two things are expected from a player like him.
Miguel

I suppose you are not a tournament player either. The way you put it is a total distortion. I don't see why people should have such a strong interest in distorting the view of chess players' world when in fact they know nothing about them.

[Dann Corbit]

The fact that you did not observe it is because nobody will dare to do it. Weird, really weird. The rule and its spirit is very old and precedes the use of computers. That is, you cannot use mental crutches, you cannot do anything that is distracting. It is really shocking that a GM attempted this, but after hearing that So said that "Akobian wanted a gift point" I am starting to wonder about his personality. Either something is wrong or he is a spoiled brat (reminds me the "eccentricities" of Fischer). Neither of those two things are expected from a player like him.
Miguel

I suppose you are not a tournament player either. The way you put it is a total distortion. I don't see why people should have such a strong interest in distorting the view of chess players' world when in fact they know nothing about them.

Miguel is an IM.

[Dann Corbit]

The fact that you did not observe it is because nobody will dare to do it. Weird, really weird. The rule and its spirit is very old and precedes the use of computers. That is, you cannot use mental crutches, you cannot do anything that is distracting. It is really shocking that a GM attempted this, but after hearing that So said that "Akobian wanted a gift point" I am starting to wonder about his personality. Either something is wrong or he is a spoiled brat (reminds me the "eccentricities" of Fischer). Neither of those two things are expected from a player like him.
Miguel

I suppose you are not a tournament player either. The way you put it is a total distortion. I don't see why people should have such a strong interest in distorting the view of chess players' world when in fact they know nothing about them.

Miguel is an IM.

I guess that from the feedback I have seen from actual chess players, that my opinion is simply wrong, and chess players do care about it.

That I would not care is irrelevant.

[chessico]

Miguel is an IM.

In this case i was blatantly wrong, but still do not understand what he is talking about. He makes it sound like Wesley So tried to cheat. This is plain and simply not the case. Using his scoresheet for writing his little notes ono was clearly wrong, but we already have all agreed on that.
How can it shock you if a player writes "Keep fighting!"? that's out of proportion, no matter if in the end the people who really know the rule (very few, I guess) decide that the decision was correct after all. But by no means is it a kind of distracting unfair behaviour that is against all what chess players stand for. Obviously his colleagues in earlier tournemants did not feel disturbed, althout they would have been right had they made a protest. They decided that was not what they were interested in and that they did aas a matter of fact not feel disturbed or distracted. Now someone claims to have been disturbed (at move 5 ... lol). well so be it. He got a point and some money and will certainly be proud of himself.

[Dann Corbit]

Miguel is an IM.

In this case i was blatantly wrong, but still do not understand what he is talking about. He makes it sound like Wesley So tried to cheat. This is plain and simply not the case. Using his scoresheet for writing his little notes ono was clearly wrong, but we already have all agreed on that.
How can it shock you if a player writes "Keep fighting!"? that's out of proportion, no matter if in the end the people who really know the rule (very few, I guess) decide that the decision was correct after all. But by no means is it a kind of distracting unfair behaviour that is against all chess players stand for. Obviously his colleagues in earlier tournemants did not feel disturbed, althout they would have been right had they made a protest. They decided that was not what they were interested in and that they did aas a matter of fact not feel disturbed or distracted. Now someone claims to have been disturbed (at move 5 ... lol). well so be it. He got a point and some money and will certainly be proud of himself.

I think that you and I agree on it but we are probably in the minority.
Since it really does bother some people if opponents make notes in opposition to the rule, then I think the rule does make sense.

If I were ever to play in a Fide event (extremely unlikely) and someone were to take notes, I would not summon the arbitrator. I suspect that you would not summon the arbitrator. But the fact that some people are annoyed by it probably means that it is a good rule and not a bad one.

[chessico]

I think that you and I agree on it but we are probably in the minority.
Since it really does bother some people if opponents make notes in opposition to the rule, then I think the rule does make sense.

If I were ever to play in a Fide event (extremely unlikely) and someone were to take notes, I would not summon the arbitrator. I suspect that you would not summon the arbitrator. But the fact that some people are annoyed by it probably means that it is a good rule and not a bad one.

Maybe you are right. Like so often.
But nevertheless i want to compare this case with a phenomenon that is common: The fact that something is reported in the news makes it seem much more important than it may be. In the end there has hardly ever been a similar case, so its rare, and it is also pretty clear that So did not have any remotely bad intentions. These simple two facts come out of view and in the end everything seems "terrible, shocking, almost criminal".

Maybe I am getting too old, I was always under the impression that we chess players, almost of any strength, are proud that we hardly ever need an arbiter and all too explicit rules at all. I have played many blitz tournaments, up to the German championship, which tend to become quite chaotic by their very blitz nature, and in which there was not a single protest, and at best absolutely minor stuff. I have watched literally hundreds of elite player videos online and came to the conclusion that the situation there is not different at all. Almost all the real problems in the recent past are related to computer cheaters.
People should not have the impression that we are just waiting for the opponent to cough so that we can report an unwanted disturbance to the arbiter, it is just not that way (well, maybe with the exception of some wc matches, just too much at stake, I guess), or maybe it was not that way. Thats what makes me kind of sad about this special case, but maybe I'll have to get used to the new spirit. We'll see.

[michiguel]

Miguel is an IM.

In this case i was blatantly wrong, but still do not understand what he is talking about. He makes it sound like Wesley So tried to cheat. This is plain and simply not the case. Using his scoresheet for writing his little notes ono was clearly wrong, but we already have all agreed on that.

Writing it in a separate sheet of paper, hiding it from the opponents view, in a mysterious way does not make it better. It makes it even more weird. Whatever intentions So had is irrelevant. Maybe there is nothing evil to start talking to your shoe like Maxwell Smart, and maybe someone could do it because is crazy rather than communicating moves. Whatever it is, is weird.

How can it shock you if a player writes "Keep fighting!"? that's out of proportion,

I find it shocking that a competitor cannot follow a very simple instruction from the arbiter.

no matter if in the end the people who really know the rule (very few, I guess)

It is not few. He was warned by coaches, team mates, colleagues, and several times in the past.

decide that the decision was correct after all. But by no means is it a kind of distracting unfair behaviour that is against all what chess players stand for. Obviously his colleagues in earlier tournemants did not feel disturbed, althout they would have been right had they made a protest. They decided that was not what they were interested in and that they did aas a matter of fact not feel disturbed or distracted. Now someone claims to have been disturbed (at move 5 ... lol). well so be it. He got a point and some money and will certainly be proud of himself.

[michiguel]

The fact that you did not observe it is because nobody will dare to do it. Weird, really weird. The rule and its spirit is very old and precedes the use of computers. That is, you cannot use mental crutches, you cannot do anything that is distracting. It is really shocking that a GM attempted this, but after hearing that So said that "Akobian wanted a gift point" I am starting to wonder about his personality. Either something is wrong or he is a spoiled brat (reminds me the "eccentricities" of Fischer). Neither of those two things are expected from a player like him.
Miguel

I suppose you are not a tournament player either. The way you put it is a total distortion. I don't see why people should have such a strong interest in distorting the view of chess players' world when in fact they know nothing about them.

Miguel is an IM.

FM

Miguel

[Ferdy]

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.

Mr. So did not do any chess calculations on paper. If he did so, playing against me, it would not bother me in the least. To tell the truth, I would think it was really funny.

You're again mixing up things. You asked why one is not allowed to work calculations out on paper. That is the question I answered.

Look, this affair has about 1000 ways of looking at it. If you fire a question from 1 direction, you'll always be able to fire at the answer from another direction.

Tell the truth:
On playing OTB, will using a pen to write down notes as you play make you play any better?

Now, maybe I think about chess strangely, and other people would benefit greatly from a pen and a paper.

And an opponent using pen and paper to help them think not bothering me may be at odds with the majority of the population.

To my way of thinking, the rule is stupid because I would not care if my opponent wrote down notes. But if it would bother other people who actually play in these tournaments, the likely the rule does make sense.

I just have a very hard time visualizing that it could actually give any sort of advantage to the person doing it. It seems logical to me that the rule is supposed to be against using prepared notes, rather than writing them on the spot.

But if I am wrong and this really bothers other chess players, then I am wrong.

I can also understand why some chess players would not like it simply because it is in violation of a rule.

I am not making any claims to say that Mr. So did not violate a rule.
I am only saying that the rule is stupid.

I played tournaments in the past, the one thing that bothers me most is my opponent while going to comfort room and back talks to some people perhaps his friend just short chat and go.
I knew him and he knows me but we are not really friend. I did not complain, the atmosphere is friendly. If he gets assistance on those occasions he should be ashamed to himself, and it is my job to answer his best move with my best move which I really like. Once I meet an IM this man does not go to the comfort room at all, he shared his analysis on difficult positions after the game - good manners.

I am not bothered at all if my opponent writes notes during a game as long as there are no old notes. To determine whether which one is old and new is bothersome to arbiter of course.

[AdminX]

My understanding is that all he did was report him.

Oh, only that. How hypocritical.

That is factual and legal, I don't care what his intent was. Good luck with proving your intent theory.