Wesley So Forfeited In U.S. Championship Round 9

[AdminX]

...

'Reap What You Sow' Yeah, I had to go there also!

So So did sow something ? I don't think so.

Yeah of course, he violated the rules of the event. That you don't think so is irrelevant as you were not the arbiter in that event.

[Matthias Gemuh]

So So did sow something ? I don't think so.

Yeah of course, he violated the rules of the event. That you don't think so is irrelevant as you were not the arbiter in that event.

Someone else caused the whole mess, partly including So's alleged violation of rules. I hope So will not be pursued in up-coming tournaments too.

[michiguel]

Yeah of course, he violated the rules of the event. That you don't think so is irrelevant as you were not the arbiter in that event.

You have short memories, Ted. It was you who opened this thread by carefully quoting the relevant rules. I repeat them here for convenience:

8.1b The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.
11.3 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. (...) The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.
11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.
11.7 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game.

Now please state which of them was broken by So.

The ones you have listed above and...

4. Honour thy father and thy mother



Miguel

[AdminX]

Yeah of course, he violated the rules of the event. That you don't think so is irrelevant as you were not the arbiter in that event.

You have short memories, Ted. It was you who opened this thread by carefully quoting the relevant rules. I repeat them here for convenience:

8.1b The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.
11.3 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. (...) The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.
11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.
11.7 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game.

Now please state which of them was broken by So.

All of them, maybe you should go over it again and read the link to the article as well.

[syzygy]

It seems to me that the arbiters were pressurized and they did not know the rules themselves.

Then why do we hear so very little from the professional chess world about the illegality of So's forfeiture? All I hear are complaints from isolated individuals. Are those the only ones that see through this conspiracy?

Well, those isolated individuals do post on the Internet, so I guess it must be true.

The problem is that So is said to have been forfeited because of violating the rules, but no mention of actually what rule he violated. The only relevant rule cited here was using notes, which he certainly did not do. Then what did he do?

He did use notes. Ask Tony Rich. Ask Franc Guadalupe who was consulted by Rich. Ask the appeal committee. But what am I saying... those were all in the conspiracy, of course...

[BBauer]

Great thread!

The good: So
The bad: Arbiter Rich
The ugly: Akobian

The ugly wants the point as early as move 6.
The good has done nothing.
The bad gives the point to the ugly.

It is interesting to notice the wording in this thread.
One guy tries to use logic but he does'nt play tournaments. So what?

How long will this nonsence continue?
Kind regards
Bernhard

[syzygy]

He did use notes. Ask Tony Rich. Ask Franc Guadalupe who was consulted by Rich. Ask the appeal committee. But what am I saying... those were all in the conspiracy, of course...

Ronald, I ask you instead: How did he use his notes at move 6?

Using notes includes taking them.
How did he not use his notes.

If he really thought his way of getting around the earlier warnings was OK, and maybe he did really think that, then he should have asked the arbiter first and not have risked infuriating the arbiter for defying his warnings. Failing to ask the arbiter for clarification was effectively what lost him the game. (Look in the mirror and ask yourself if you, in Wesley's place, would have been completely convinced that bringing your own piece of paper to write on was OK and not risk even a warning. Try to be honest...)

Again, what's the big deal, this is just a single lost game. There will be many more games. He's not banned from playing chess or anything like that.

(This is also what people ask Akobian: so you got a little annoyed with the note taking, but what's the big deal! Well, there was never any big deal here, it's just a game. Akobian did what he is supposed to do if his opponent infringes the rules and the arbiter did what he's supposed to do. And all that happened was that So lost his game.)

[michiguel]

He did use notes. Ask Tony Rich. Ask Franc Guadalupe who was consulted by Rich. Ask the appeal committee. But what am I saying... those were all in the conspiracy, of course...

Ronald, I ask you instead: How did he use his notes at move 6?

Whenever you write, you are creating a note that could be immediately be read. That is _using_ a note. Chess player are NOT supposed to do that, and the tradition goes way long ago. You cannot write "remember to check the sac line before I move". We can agree on that, I think. Then, somebody may argue that writing gibberish is not chess related. But, there is no way to know that, and that is reason why is not allowed. You write a note, your are creating a note, that means it is available to be used the next second.

There are a lot of things that could be open to interpretation. That is why we have an arbiter. Once you are told by the arbiter "that is not allowed", things become crystal clear and it is not up to debate anymore. By insisting on it, he violated more rules. He became distracting. The fact that he used his scoresheet to hide the notes, it violated yet another one. There are certain rules in place (in many sports) not to avoid a specific problem, but to avoid a "slippery slope" into more serious ones. The line is drawn very tight.

Another thing that makes this an obvious and blatant violation is that the order in which you write your moves is pretty well defined (for distracting purposes). We may or may not agree on that, but the intention of the rule is clear. It will be really contradictory if you are not allowed to write your move before it is player, but it is ok to write something in a separate sheet of paper.

So deserved some penalty. Maybe the Arbiter should have added a time penalty before? possible, but I think that is a different question.

Miguel

[syzygy]

(Look in the mirror and ask yourself if you, in Wesley's place, would have been completely convinced that bringing your own piece of paper to write on was OK and not risk even a warning. Try to be honest...)

I would not have thought it was OK.

However, try to be honest implies you think I am a liar otherwise, which I think I am not.

No, if you had said "I would have thought it was OK" I would have not thought you were a liar, but I would have thought you had trouble being objective about this affair.

As for So, he may really have thought it was OK, and in that case I think he was too naive.

Btw, I should have written "honest with yourself" (as you're looking in the mirror). Sorry for giving the impression I thought you would lie to me.

[menniepals]

Akobian is an intelligent person. He knew he will get an extra easy point, if he complains to something very trivial. As Kasparov said, this rules were made by morons.