Originally posted by iChess87'5. No single player may make two consecutive moves or more than one move in a 24 hour period.' 🙁
It's a mate in 7 now mate 😉
Black: Be7
[pgn] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 Nbd7 7. f4 Qc7 8. Qf3 e6 9. O-O-O b5 10. Bxb5 axb5 11. Ndxb5 Qb8 12. Kb1 Be7
[/pgn]
4 edits
5. No single player may make two consecutive moves or more than one move in a 24 hour period.'It would seem that iChess87 has jumped the gun. He played on 9 Dec at 18:38, move 10. ... axb5, then again on 10 Dec at 02:06, move 12. ... Be7. According to the clock running here at this thread, his next allowed move would have been on 10 Dec at 18:39. Is there any dispute about that?
Is there a penalty to be applied?
If no dispute about the timing, does anyone have any further comments?
Perhaps the clocks should be stopped at this point with a moratorium on further moves until the Captains decide how they wish to proceed (e.g., retract iChess87's previous move, or grant to the opposing team some compensation, or something else.).
It's the wee hours here (Zurich time) & I'm going to bed now. I'll log on again about 8 a.m. & see who all has replied.
Originally posted by moonbusThere is nothing in the rules about penalties. The only possibility is to take the move back. What is your decision Herr Arbiter ? I am ready to continue white's all out attack.
It would seem that iChess87 has jumped the gun. He played on 9 Dec at 18:38, move 10. ... axb5, then again on 10 Dec at 02:06, move 12. ... Be7. According to the clock running here at this thread, his next allowed move would have been on 10 Dec at 18:39. Is there any dispute about that?
If no dispute about the timing, does anyone have any further comment ...[text shortened]... (Zurich time) & I'm going to bed now. I'll log on again about 7 a.m. & see who else has replied.
Originally posted by moonbusI propose a couple options:
It would seem that iChess87 has jumped the gun. He played on 9 Dec at 18:38, move 10. ... axb5, then again on 10 Dec at 02:06, move 12. ... Be7. According to the clock running here at this thread, his next allowed move would have been on 10 Dec at 18:39. Is there any dispute about that?
If no dispute about the timing, does anyone have any further comment ...[text shortened]... (Zurich time) & I'm going to bed now. I'll log on again about 7 a.m. & see who else has replied.
1: The move is automatically declared null and void.
OR
2: The opposing team captain (who would be the highest rated) can choose to let the move stand or have the move taken back. If it's taken back the move that was played may NOT be played by the offending team.
Originally posted by thaughbaerI would like to hear from both Captains (at least) before making any rash decisions (which might then be ignored). Good night. You'll hear from me tomorrow.
There is nothing in the rules about penalties. The only possibility is to take the move back. What is your decision Herr Arbiter ? I am ready to continue white's all out attack.
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI would suggest that a warning (to the team) is given in the first instance and that the move is allowed to stand. The two alternatives to allowing the move played to stand are:
If it's taken back the move that was played may NOT be played by the offending team.
1) Taking the move back and not allowing the offending team to play that move. This could be disastrous in many positions and effectively end the game, though I have no comment about whether that is the case in this particular position.
2) Taking the move back and allowing a different player to play a move. This seems to be too generous as the move played might have been weak and this would allow someone to play a better one.
Perhaps a suitable penalty for future infractions would be to prevent some of the higher rated players to play a move for a certain number of moves?
It is not a matter of taking the move back as technically he cannot move and thus this move should be ignored. The biggest problem is how to prevent this from happening. I think most of us want to follow the rules and this was an honest mistake.
We ignore the move and we learn from this mistake. Anyone who is playing please read the rules posted in the beginning of the thread
2 edits
Originally posted by Fat LadyFL, Thanks for weighing in. As with most laws and regulations, cases arise which were not foreseen by the legislators, and so it seems here. No provision was made for punitive measures in a multi-layer game. I assume all players are acting in good faith (no Ivanovs amongst us).
I would suggest that a warning (to the team) is given in the first instance and that the move is allowed to stand. The two alternatives to allowing the move played to stand are:
1) Taking the move back and not allowing the offending team to play that move. This could be disastrous in many positions and effectively end the game, though I have no comment a ...[text shortened]... uld be to prevent some of the higher rated players to play a move for a certain number of moves?
Given that no measures were provided for in the rules in case of infraction, I would be guided by what a tournament director would do if an illegal move were made OTB (such as a player moving a piece which could not move): the piece would be replaced and another move would be made instead. The difference here, as I see it, is that some other player must be called upon to make some legal move, rather than the same player who made the illegal one.
It seems to me that the question whether to rescind the move should be decided on completely abstract principles, not on whether the position in any given game would be improved or dis-improved thereby. That is, the principle, whatever it turns out to be, should apply equally to all positions, regardless of positional (dis-)advantages resulting therefrom. Otherwise you are liable to get mired in a debate about whether it was a good move or a bad move, whereas the issue is whether it was legal.
FL: "Perhaps a suitable penalty for future infractions would be to prevent some of the higher rated players to play a move for a certain number of moves?"
If a punitive measure is to be introduced, FL's suggestion could be considered. An alternative punitive measure might be as follows: the opposing Captain may stipulate that any member of his team (including himself) shall play 2 moves within 24 hours or two consecutive moves (deterrent effect), provided he announces upon the first of the two moves that said player shall also be making the second move. This would mirror and therefore exactly compensate the original error: oculus pro oculo.
Or, the infraction could be ignored--as GP & MISTER CHESS suggest--as this is all just good fun. I.e., play on with Black's 12th move as is. Just a reprimand this time. But consider this: you may be the Founding Fathers (& Mother) of a whole new chess for(u)m. You don't want to screw up your legacy, now do you?
Are you there, White Captain? Any opinion on this?
Originally posted by moonbusAnd I thought I over-analyzed things.
FL, Thanks for weighing in. As with most laws and regulations, cases arise which were not foreseen by the legislators, and so it seems here. No provision was made for punitive measures in a multi-layer game. I assume all players are acting in good faith (no Ivanovs amongst us).
Given that no measures were provided for in the rules in case of infraction, ...[text shortened]... want to screw up your legacy, now do you?
Are you there, White Captain? Any opinion on this?