menniepals wrote: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.
That reminds me that GK is a political individual that do not miss any single chance to attack FIDE for any reason. He is totally wrong in his logic (see the comment at the end of this link) http://www.chess-news.ru/en/node/18625
Still, he acknowledges that the arbiter followed the rules.
See old rules to understand why is an old knowledge that this is not ok. It was spelled out back then: http://www.chessvariants.org/fidelaws.html
"The use of notes made during the game as an aid to memory is also forbidden, aside from the actual recording of the moves and the times on the clocks. "
This is not a new addition of FIDE as Kasparov seem to imply.
michiguel wrote:
Whenever you write, you are creating a note that could be immediately be read. That is _using_ a note.l
That is a very odd interpretation in my eyes.
I have not followed this thread closely. But I would like to to interject that, for some people (such as myself), the act of writing a note is a memory aid regardless of whether it is looked at in the future or not.
AdminX wrote:
All of them, maybe you should go over it again and read the link to the article as well.
OK, I have read the article. I cannot comment on the distraction part, anyone may be distracted by anything, or claim to be so, who can refute that?
What I am sure of is that Anand or anyone else never complained about Carlsen drinking from his orange juice although I am sure that is much more distracting than quietly writing on a paper. Poor Akobian must be extremely sensitive... I predict he won't progress much if he cannot concentrate on his own game.
As to writing on his scoresheet: He did it twice, he was told he'd be forfeited if he did it a third time. He did not do it a third time, he wrote on a separate piece of paper. The picture in the article was from another tournament.
"He seemed unclear on the specifics of the FIDE Laws of Chess in regards to note-taking," Rich said. "He was under the impression that he wasn't allowed to take notes on his score sheet but that that did not preclude him from taking notes on a separate piece of paper."
He was rightly under that impression. No law forbids that, or if there is such a law, it was not quoted.
Therefore, he did not refuse to comply with the rules, infact he did comply with them by not writing notes any more on his scoresheet.
If he broke any rule it must have been 11.3 if using his own not chess related notes is considered to be such.
So all of them is actually a faint one of them, maybe. If the arbiter forfeited him for that, I can accept that. For Akobian complaining to the arbiter, I'm simply sick.
Actually that is a good point. He certainly did not break the "notes" rule as from the way it is written in the rule book it clearly implies no notes or advice should be used that were written PRIOR to the competition ... or in other words no "cheat sheet". Thus the arbiter must have used the breaking of the rule of "distracting the opponent" ... and that is simply a stretch.
Having said that and after reading how So treated his mother, the guy So does come out as a dickhead, but that is a private matter that should have no bearing on the tournament.
AdminX wrote:
All of them, maybe you should go over it again and read the link to the article as well.
OK, I have read the article. I cannot comment on the distraction part, anyone may be distracted by anything, or claim to be so, who can refute that?
What I am sure of is that Anand or anyone else never complained about Carlsen drinking from his orange juice although I am sure that is much more distracting than quietly writing on a paper. Poor Akobian must be extremely sensitive... I predict he won't progress much if he cannot concentrate on his own game.
As to writing on his scoresheet: He did it twice, he was told he'd be forfeited if he did it a third time. He did not do it a third time, he wrote on a separate piece of paper. The picture in the article was from another tournament.
"He seemed unclear on the specifics of the FIDE Laws of Chess in regards to note-taking," Rich said. "He was under the impression that he wasn't allowed to take notes on his score sheet but that that did not preclude him from taking notes on a separate piece of paper."
He was rightly under that impression. No law forbids that, or if there is such a law, it was not quoted.
Therefore, he did not refuse to comply with the rules, infact he did comply with them by not writing notes any more on his scoresheet.
If he broke any rule it must have been 11.3 if using his own not chess related notes is considered to be such.
So all of them is actually a faint one of them, maybe. If the arbiter forfeited him for that, I can accept that. For Akobian complaining to the arbiter, I'm simply sick.
Actually that is a good point. He certainly did not break the "notes" rule as from the way it is written in the rule book it clearly implies no notes or advice should be used that were written PRIOR to the competition ... or in other words no "cheat sheet". Thus the arbiter must have used the breaking of the rule of "distracting the opponent" ... and that is simply a stretch.
It is not only about notes written prior to the competition.
Here is 11.3
During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.
You can claim that writing a note is not using it but
I disagree with this claim and I think that even if you do not look at a note that you write you still use it(for example it is possible that writing the note can help you to memorize it better even if you do not look at it).
AdminX wrote:
All of them, maybe you should go over it again and read the link to the article as well.
OK, I have read the article. I cannot comment on the distraction part, anyone may be distracted by anything, or claim to be so, who can refute that?
What I am sure of is that Anand or anyone else never complained about Carlsen drinking from his orange juice although I am sure that is much more distracting than quietly writing on a paper. Poor Akobian must be extremely sensitive... I predict he won't progress much if he cannot concentrate on his own game.
As to writing on his scoresheet: He did it twice, he was told he'd be forfeited if he did it a third time. He did not do it a third time, he wrote on a separate piece of paper. The picture in the article was from another tournament.
"He seemed unclear on the specifics of the FIDE Laws of Chess in regards to note-taking," Rich said. "He was under the impression that he wasn't allowed to take notes on his score sheet but that that did not preclude him from taking notes on a separate piece of paper."
He was rightly under that impression. No law forbids that, or if there is such a law, it was not quoted.
Therefore, he did not refuse to comply with the rules, infact he did comply with them by not writing notes any more on his scoresheet.
If he broke any rule it must have been 11.3 if using his own not chess related notes is considered to be such.
So all of them is actually a faint one of them, maybe. If the arbiter forfeited him for that, I can accept that. For Akobian complaining to the arbiter, I'm simply sick.
Actually that is a good point. He certainly did not break the "notes" rule as from the way it is written in the rule book it clearly implies no notes or advice should be used that were written PRIOR to the competition ... or in other words no "cheat sheet". Thus the arbiter must have used the breaking of the rule of "distracting the opponent" ... and that is simply a stretch.
It is not only about notes written prior to the competition.
Here is 11.3
During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.
You can claim that writing a note is not using it but
I disagree with this claim and I think that even if you do not look at a note that you write you still use it(for example it is possible that writing the note can help you to memorize it better even if you do not look at it).
If what you say is true, then it should be very easy to describe this accurately in the rules. As it is now things are extremely vague, and when something is vague it invites many different interpretations ... sort of like religion I guess.
