Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:01:31 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2000 at 04:52:38, Francesco Di Tolla wrote: >On May 17, 2000 at 09:45:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>No again: also doing it in the "worng way" is not correct. 9 explicitly states >>>that one must not disturb referring to article 12 >> >> >>I see no "disturbing" here. The rules allow a draw offer at any point, so long >>as it is made on the clock of the player offering the draw. But even if it >>is not offered correctly, a single draw offer is not cause for any sanction, >>because one is not considered significant disturbance. Repeated offers on the >>opponent's clock would be cause for sanctions of course... but not just one. > >Sorry but again, just one at the wrong moment, can be a disturbance. > >>Just look at the position. A simple pawn race where you promote first is easy >>to win in a minute. This position was _not_ a simple pawn race or mate. It >>was still full of potential problems for both sides. I would be happy to test >>my hypothesis by playing _any_ GM you care to find from that position on ICC. >>Give them 2 minutes on their clock, give Crafty 30 minutes on its clock. I >>would expect a tactical oversight and would expect Crafty to at _least_ draw >>that position with that kind of time handicap... > >I would be happy too, but I would have preferred to see Tiviakov to play >undisturbed (again, if he was disturbed). > >>So we _always_ assume dark motives??? Seems to be a prevalent idea nowadays. > >I don't, in this case. I just stated Tiviakov protest had some grounds. I don't >claim his request for a win is correct (still penalties can imply also a >declaration of a lost game), but hi was not necessarely "whining" he "might" be >right to say he was disturbed. > >regards >Franz As a many-time TD, I don't believe you would find _any_ arbiter that would say a single draw offer is a disturbance significant enough to cause the game to be forfeited. Repeated offers? yes. But _not_ a single offer. A single occurrence of any type of distraction is just that... a single occurrence. The FIDE rule was intended to stop repeated distractions. This clearly didn't fit. IMHO.
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.