General Forum

General Forum

  1. Account suspended
    Joined
    10 Dec '11
    Moves
    143494
    22 Jan '14 12:31
    Well, inspired by recent case of a murder over chess dispute, and having in mind old rule in correspondence chess, which rule we prefer to forget because we don't like death as such, namely the rule - a player who deceases loses a game, inspired by that I am posing several hypothetically questions.

    1. ICCF championship or an ordinarz RHP tournament, two players would have had tied score, but... one of them wants chess "salad bowl" that he kills other player.

    Now, a rule is a rule: the murdered player loses the game, the murderer is a champion.
    What do ICCF rules say about this? Probably nothing. There is nothing on FIDE rules about people who would throw a knife at their opponents, neither.

    There is a moral question that might be raised: should the murderer take salad bowl because of a stupid rule? Some lawyers might say - yes, if he is insane. Other lawyers would use the reason for the murder as a proof of insanity.

    In OTB chess, things are clear: if you hit your opponnets, you are disqualified. In corr. or RHP chess, there is a job for detectives.

    In the most diabolic scenario, a perfect crime can enable a chess player to win. There is a motif. We need a murder and a Poirot.
  2. Joined
    10 May '07
    Moves
    10128
    22 Jan '14 13:16
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    Well, inspired by recent [b]case of a murder over chess dispute, and having in mind old rule in correspondence chess, which rule we prefer to forget because we don't like death as such, namely the rule - a player who deceases loses a game, inspired by that I am posing several hypothetically questions.

    1. ICCF championship or an ordinarz RH ...[text shortened]... perfect crime can enable a chess player to win. There is a motif. We need a murder and a Poirot.[/b]
    ... and his "little grey cells".
  3. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    22 Jan '14 17:48
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    Well, inspired by recent [b]case of a murder over chess dispute, and having in mind old rule in correspondence chess, which rule we prefer to forget because we don't like death as such, namely the rule - a player who deceases loses a game, inspired by that I am posing several hypothetically questions.

    1. ICCF championship or an ordinarz RH ...[text shortened]... perfect crime can enable a chess player to win. There is a motif. We need a murder and a Poirot.[/b]
    There's a mystery novel in the making.
    I suspect foul play.
    What do you think he used? Houdini? Stockfish?
    Strychnine.
    Maybe not. 😞
  4. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    23 Jan '14 00:34
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    Well, inspired by recent [b]case of a murder over chess dispute, and having in mind old rule in correspondence chess, which rule we prefer to forget because we don't like death as such, namely the rule - a player who deceases loses a game, inspired by that I am posing several hypothetically questions.

    1. ICCF championship or an ordinarz RH ...[text shortened]... perfect crime can enable a chess player to win. There is a motif. We need a murder and a Poirot.[/b]
    The plot of the mystery should be somehow analogous to the moves in the game, with the murder occurring when a mate in one was available but was not noticed by the killer. The detective replays the game and detects means, moment and motive by studying it.

    There needs to be a poisoned pawn coated by a skin-contact poison that takes a while to act.
Back to Top