Author: Telmo Escobar
Date: 00:28:42 04/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2003 at 02:54:47, Valentina wrote: >I need urgent assistance in the following: > >In the game (2 hrs each to the end) Whites-Blacks (mechanical clocks readings: >Whites about 5 sec, Blacks 1 min and about 5 sec), Blacks make illegal move >(leaving king under check). Whites stop both clocks and apply staying near chief >arbiter with 2 min claim due to p.7.4.b. But Blacks reply: "this isn't rapid >chess", arbiter sais: "yes, yes" and starts Blacks clocks to correct the illegal >move. In 3-5 moves Whites flag falls, Whites and Blacks sign 0:1 scoresheets, >and assistant arbiter immediately makes SwissPerfect98 pairings for the next 5th >(from 7) round. In this moment Whites' coach (it was girls tournament under 14 >year old) asks arbiter why he didn't add 2 min due to p.7.4.b. Arbiter decides >to reinstall position before illegal move and to set up Whites clocks reading to >2 min and about 5 sec, leaving Blacks clocks reading unchanged (1 min). In about >15 moves game comes to position king+knight for both sides, in which Blacks >simply stop both clocks (with readings: Whites 1 and half min, Blacks half min). >Whites and Blacks sign 1/2 scoresheets, and arbiter makes new pairings for 5th >round based on draw result of this game. No appeals are made before 5th round >starts. After the last 7th round the tournament was closed with medals and >diplomas for winners. In a week after closing Blacks made written appeal >insisting on the 0:1 result of this game from 4th round based on 2 reasons: 1) >the result 0:1 was fixed, and pairings made; 2) when arbiter decided to >reinstall position, he should also add to Blacks several sec. CAN SUCH APPEAL BE >SATISFIED? PLEASE ANSWER CORRESPONDING TO THE FIDE RULES. I have no copy of written FIDE rules at hand, and I hope somebody else could provide better founded stance :( But the situation you describe is known to anyone with decades of tournament experience (as myself). The usual practice, assuming my memory still works decently, is this: 1) pairings made according to the provisional "0:1" result hold, but the result itself could be revised. So the original decision by the arbiter has been correct. 2) as Black was the cause of the original problem, he couldn't ask for additional time. In short, Black's written appeal must be rejected. Maybe another person could give more authoritative support for my answer. Otherwise visit FIDE webpage, maybe there is some valuable link there.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.