Go Back   OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum > Australian Chess and General Chess Topics > Chess Tournaments in Australia
Connect with Facebook

Reply
 
LinkBack (1) Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 10-09-2009, 12:31 PM   #61 (permalink)
MOZ
Volunteer
 
MOZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters.
Posts: 3,495
Default

Originally Posted by mowcop View Post
Let me try to understand things right here.

Elliott Renzies has been allowed into the Reserves tournament after the entry deadline. I am assuming Wallmuller pulled out so Elliott has evened the numbers up, so fair enough, and good luck in the tournament, Elliott.
Yes, this seems fair enough to me too. Joerg was an entrant and survived the selection process. He subsequently withdrew from the event and names that were on the substitutes list became candidates to fill the vacancy. Elliott came in to fill the vacancy.

Last night a similar phone call was made by a young IM asking to play in the Championship. I know for a fact that a player in the Championship was willing to give up his place to let the young IM into the tournament, but this offer was refused.
Similarly, I would anticipate if the Arbiter or Tournament Organiser received notice of a withdrawal from the Championship that they would seek to fill the vacancy from a list of interested parties (including the highest ranked RESERVES player).
The Championship player you reference needs to formalize his withdrawal to those running the tournament. It is a State Championship and the rules need to be observed in the interest of all participants.

Where is the consistency in these 2 actions?
The two situations can be entirely consistent if a second withdrawal is formally notified.

regards

MOZ*

ps call me on 0409 259 490 if you wish to discuss.
__________________
FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.
MOZ is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 08:27 PM   #62 (permalink)
MOZ
Volunteer
 
MOZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters.
Posts: 3,495
Default

The Victorian championships takes on another dimension with IM qualified James Morris taking a place in the field. The absence of strong juniors from the Championship has been well discussed above, and JM's presence will add special interest on behalf of this part of the demographic.

First game is tomorrow; see CV web-site for detail.

The RESERVES has two vacancies caused by two late withdrawals.

Contact me on 0409 259 490 or Leonid Sandler if you are a candidate for the RESERVES.


MOZ*
__________________
FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.
MOZ is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 09:56 PM   #63 (permalink)
fireeater
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 805
Default

Good work Trevor and Leonid

James was only aware of his availability after the deadline for entry to the tournament, so thanks goes to the organisers for letting him play.

The State Championship will be a great experience for James, and as others have said, it is unfortunate that more juniors can't participate in the State's most important event.

Good luck James
__________________
Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand

I'm trying out a new blog site.....
http://gorkachc.blogspot.com/
mowcop is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 03:42 PM   #64 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 77
Default Round 2 Pairings

Championship:
Morris : Kildisas
Johansen : Dragicevic
Pyke : Rujevic
Hacche : Hamilton
Levi : Lindberg
Sandler : Lee

Reserves:
Beattie : Toper
Wijesuriya : Hayman
Beaumont : Renzies
Dizdarevic : Ivanov
Flude : Gamage

Chief Arbiter
IA Gary Bekker
gbekker is offline  

Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 06:20 PM   #65 (permalink)
MOZ
Volunteer
 
MOZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters.
Posts: 3,495
Default Proxy for the SANDMAN

Round 1 results

Code:
Championship

Sandler-Morris 0-1
Wang-Levi draw
Lindberg-Hacche draw
Hamilton-Pyke 1-0
Rujevic-Johansen 0-1
Dragicevic-Kildisas 1-0



Reserves

Flude -Beattie  1-0 by forfeit
Tumula Gamage- Dizdarevic 0-1
Ivanov-Beaumont draw
Renzies-Wijesuriya draw
Hayman-Toper draw
__________________
FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.
MOZ is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2009, 07:27 PM   #66 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 232
Default

Good work James!
ChessGuru is offline  

Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2009, 09:02 AM   #67 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Firegoat7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB
Posts: 1,924
ICC Handle: guest
Default article 5 +8 +9

Greetings,



Had a dispute in my first round game. There is a bit of background to this story which I will fill in later. Basically the dispute revolves around me playing a move 63...Qe2 and my opponent then declaring the game a draw and me remaining silent watching him carefully. I had been threatening perpetual check for a few moves, but had not offered a draw. My clock is then taken away by a spectator as Ivanov begins analysing the position. The first move he makes is Qd6 which is an error. I then get the arbiter and all hell breaks loose. The decision goes against me and I send it to appeal which also goes against me. I am 100% certain that my reading of the situation is correct and that my claim is completely legitimate.


Originally Posted by fide

Article 5: The completion of the game

c.
The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during the game. This immediately ends the game. (See Article 9.1)

d.
The game may be drawn if any identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the chessboard at least three times. (See Article 9.2)



Originally Posted by Fide


Article 9: The drawn game

9.1
a.
The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.
b.
If the rules of a competition allow a draw agreement the following apply:

1. A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before stopping his clock and starting the opponent’s clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 12.6 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.
2. The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his scoresheet with a symbol. (See Appendix C.13)
3. A claim of a draw under Article 9.2, 9.3 or 10.2 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw.

9.2The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
a.
is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
b.
has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

Positions as in (a) and (b) areconsidered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.
9.3

The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:
a.
he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, which shall result in thelast50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
9.4
If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.
9.5
If a player claims a draw as in Article 9.2 or 9.3 he may stop both clocks. (See Article 6.12.b) He is not allowed to withdraw his claim.
a.
If the claim is found to be correct, the game is immediately drawn.
b.
If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent’s remaining thinking time. Then the game shall continue. If the claim was based on an intended move, this move must be made as according to Article 4.
Originally Posted by Fide
Article 8: The recording of the moves
8.1


In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibily as possible, in the algebraic notation (See Appendix C), on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition.


It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.


A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another.


Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (See Appendix C.13)
cheers,
__________________
"...What I meant?

Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public.

What they meant?

Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic


Firegoat7 is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2009, 09:45 AM   #68 (permalink)
MOZ
Volunteer
 
MOZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters.
Posts: 3,495
Default

All a bit mysterious fg7.

First, the reference to 'bit of background', could mean anything; so I let that one go through to Rodney (Iron-gloves) Marsh.

Second, without having the benefit of seeing all this occur, I can only speculate (from your brief description) that Qd6 was not part of a 'repetition' sequence.

I am left thinking what is the obligation on the player to know the process
<If I need assistance I should stop the clocks and call an Arbiter>.
<<In this case, the assistance being how to make a 'repetition claim'.>>

regards
MOZ*
__________________
FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.
MOZ is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2009, 08:16 PM   #69 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
flavid dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 329
Default Why not post the score of the game.

Why not post the score of the game in PGN format. Ten we can al se whether there was a three fold repetition.
flavid dude is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2009, 10:37 PM   #70 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Firegoat7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB
Posts: 1,924
ICC Handle: guest
Default

Originally Posted by flavid dude View Post
Why not post the score of the game in PGN format. Ten we can al se whether there was a three fold repetition.
With due respect, I played the last move, not my opponent. Therefore I do not see how my opponent can claim three fold repetition in the manner described. If we remember that my opponent did not notify the arbiter.


So basically we have a situation where the arbiter has overided the rules of the game. We then have a dispute committee that then upholds the ruling of the arbiter. The dispute committee consists of Malcolm Pyke, David Hacche and James Morris. In my opinion they have made a gross error. I don't think it is wise decision to select James, simply because he is a minor.

Furthermore, Is it true that Roger Beattie turned up 45 minutes late for his game against you?

cheers,
__________________
"...What I meant?

Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public.

What they meant?

Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic


Firegoat7 is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2009, 01:58 PM   #71 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 77
Default Round 1 Games

Championship division games from round 1:
Attached Files
Your browser is completely ignoring the <APPLET> tag!
gbekker is offline  

Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2009, 02:26 PM   #72 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 77
Default Disputed Reserves Result

Ivanov - Beaumont

In the position after 63...Qe2+, Nikola Ivanov verbally claimed "draw" (not using the correct procedure) and the tournament director Leonid Sandler accepted the draw and then stopped and removed the clocks. At that point Nikola Ivanov and others began some analysis, commenting that White must repeat the position since 64.Kg3 loses. Nikola moved his king to this position to examine the consequences. At this point, David Beaumont explained that the correct draw claim procedures had not been followed, and that the move 64.Kg3?? should stand and the game should continue. I as Chief Arbiter disagreed and declared the game drawn.

An appeals committee upheld David Beaumont's appeal, and decided that the game should be continued, from the position where the irregular draw claim occurred, otherwise the draw should stand. The appeals committee agreed that Nikola Ivanov could not be compelled to play a move made during analysis after the clocks had been stopped and removed.

The players will be asked to continue play from the position after 63...Qe2+ on Tuesday, or accept the draw result.

Chief Arbiter
Gary Bekker
Attached Files
Your browser is completely ignoring the <APPLET> tag!
gbekker is offline  

Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2009, 03:21 PM   #73 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
flavid dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 329
Default Roger Beattie default

Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
Furthermore, Is it true that Roger Beattie turned up 45 minutes late for his game against you?

cheers,
Thirty minutes after the clocks were started the Arbiter declared me the winner.

Roger arrived after 45 minutes. The arbiter discussed the situation with Roger. I have no idea as to what was said.

I deliberately did not involve myself in the discussion.

I had taken Adamo home before your dispute occurred so I will make no comments.

Best wishes
flavid dude is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2009, 05:25 PM   #74 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 653
Default

Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
With due respect, I played the last move, not my opponent. Therefore I do not see how my opponent can claim three fold repetition in the manner described.
If that is the case then you clearly do not understand the laws of chess regarding three fold repetition claims.

In accordance with Article 9.2b since the position has appeared 3 times once you moved Qe2+ on your 63rd move then your opponent on his move is entitled to claim the draw.
Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
If we remember that my opponent did not notify the arbiter.
There is no such requirement under the relevant artcile which is Article 9.2b.
Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
So basically we have a situation where the arbiter has overided the rules of the game.
That does not appear to be the case.
Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
We then have a dispute committee that then upholds the ruling of the arbiter.
According to the Gary Bekker they rejected the ruling of the arbiter that the game was drawn.
Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
The dispute committee consists of Malcolm Pyke, David Hacche and James Morris. In my opinion they have made a gross error. I don't think it is wise decision to select James, simply because he is a minor.
His age is unimportant.
What is relevant is how well all members of the appeals committee understand the laws of chess.

Based on your comments above you clearly do not and hence should not serve on an appeals committee.
Bill Gletsos is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2009, 09:27 PM   #75 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Firegoat7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB
Posts: 1,924
ICC Handle: guest
Default

Originally Posted by gbekker View Post
Ivanov - Beaumont

In the position after 63...Qe2+, Nikola Ivanov verbally claimed "draw" (not using the correct procedure)
Correct. And this is the key point. My opponent clearly does not understand the rules of chess. If he is offering a draw then that offer has to be accepted by me for the game to end, and I never accepted the draw offer. If he is claiming draw by repetition he has to inform the arbiter that the position is a triple repetition position, which he did not do.
Originally Posted by gbekker

and the tournament director Leonid Sandler accepted the draw and then stopped and removed the clocks.
I think this interpretation is false. I most certainly did not know at the time that Leonid had accepted the draw offer. I most certainly never believed that he was the arbiter or that he had any official role at the time since he was playing in the Championship.

Originally Posted by gbekker

At that point Nikola Ivanov and others began some analysis, commenting that White must repeat the position since 64.Kg3 loses. Nikola moved his king to this position to examine the consequences.
This is news to me. My recollection is as follows. I am watching Ivanov and he starts moving the pieces. The first piece he moves is 64.Kg3, his hand places it on the square and then leaves it. He then begins to move other pieces and starts analyising the position. Nobody else moves a piece, but Dizdaravic, I think, starts talking to him in a foreign language and Ivanov responds (again a clear violation of the rules). I then say to Ivanov "Why are you moving the pieces? I never agreed to a draw in the position? I try to enforce touch move and then notice that I don't have a clock anymore!!
I then get Gary too adjudicate.
Originally Posted by gbekker
At this point, David Beaumont explained that the correct draw claim procedures had not been followed, and that the move 64.Kg3?? should stand and the game should continue. I as Chief Arbiter disagreed and declared the game drawn.
True. And a heated conversation occurs between Ivanov and myself that disturbs everybody and brings the game into disrepute.

Originally Posted by gbekker
An appeals committee upheld David Beaumont's appeal, and decided that the game should be continued, from the position where the irregular draw claim occurred, otherwise the draw should stand.
I believe their decision is wrong.
Originally Posted by gbekker
The appeals committee agreed that Nikola Ivanov could not be compelled to play a move made during analysis after the clocks had been stopped and removed.
It is quite clear that the clock should have nothing to do with the decision. Touch move should stand and furthermore, analysing the game is totally illegal when the game is in progress.
Originally Posted by gbekker
The players will be asked to continue play from the position after 63...Qe2+ on Tuesday, or accept the draw result.
This decision is weak. furthermore it negates the responsibility of the players to play the game in accordance to the rules. I agree that there is such a thing as arbiters discretion and that Gary may be correct here if he so wishes to use that rule. But as point of order on the rules this decision must be just wrong.

I would like to make a point here. Imagine if this same scenario occurred in the Championship with both players short of time. Imagine if the person in Ivanovs position did exactly the same thing and let their time run out. I reckon that he would lose on time and the arbiter would then argue that this is CORRECT because his draw offer was invalid. You know it makes sense.

As a side note, some will say that my actions are not in the spirit of the game because this is a Mickey mouse tournament and you can't expect a player of Nicks experience (over 15+ years) to understand the rules. That is fine, but remember Beattie was forfeited for turning up late. Either this tournament is a Fide rated event or its a Mickey mouse tourney.

cheers,
__________________
"...What I meant?

Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public.

What they meant?

Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic


Firegoat7 is offline  

Users Flag!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum > Australian Chess and General Chess Topics > Chess Tournaments in Australia

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.ozchess.com.au/chess-tournaments-australia/1172-2009-victorian-championships.html
Posted By For Type Date
Chess Rules This thread Refback 10-14-2009 10:47 PM

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:



All times are GMT +11. The time now is 11:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2010 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

The views and opinions expressed in posts on this site are exclusively those of the member who made them, and do not represent the views or opinions of OzChess or OzChess's owners. OzChess does not endorse any post, and makes no representations about the truth or accuracy of any matter contained in any post made by members of this site.