Site admins provide 3rd party assistance??

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, the result of the game is not as it 'should be'. If a player lacks the knowledge to win the game, then they don't deserve to win it. Yes, it's bloody awful when a 3rd party's advice changes the result of the game. Most of us didn't sign up to play consultation games.

Let them learn the lesson of EP after the game. Maybe the loss will help i ...[text shortened]... ladies got stranded on sidewalks while you argued the Ireland situation over in Debates??!

In this case, it's not the person who has to make the en passant move that is being told about it.

If chuck hatfield had made the en passant move, then Diner Hank would ask if this is a bug at which point there would be no problem in explaining the en passant rule.

How is it OTB? If a player takes a pawn en passant and the opponent calls a ref, is the ref forbidden to explain the en passant rule?

Originally posted by Palynka
In this case, it's not the person who has to make the en passant move that is being told about it.

If chuck hatfield had made the en passant move, then Diner Hank would ask if this is a bug at which point there would be no problem in explaining the en passant rule.

How is it OTB? If a player takes a pawn en passant and the opponent calls a ref, is the ref forbidden to explain the en passant rule?

It is possible that chuck hatfield could have read the forum and learned of the EP rule, even if he was not directly told about it.

I would agree that there is no problem with confirming the EP rule after the move is played. For OTB, the player would probably get the arbiter and claim an illegal move was played, at which point the arbiter would rule that it was legal. He can, at his discretion, give a warning or time penalty for false claims.

I am not sure that he has any obligation to actually explain the EP rule.

www.lawsofchess.com/doc/fide_e.pdf

12.2
a. During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of
information, advice, or analyse on another chessboard.

13.6
The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of
Chess. He shall not indicate the number of moves made, except in applying Article 8.5
when at least one flag has fallen. The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that
his opponent has completed a move or that the player has not pressed his clock.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, the result of the game is not as it 'should be'. If a player lacks the knowledge to win the game, then they don't deserve to win it. Yes, it's bloody awful when a 3rd party's advice changes the result of the game. Most of us didn't sign up to play consultation games.

Let them learn the lesson of EP after the game. Maybe the loss will help i ...[text shortened]... ladies got stranded on sidewalks while you argued the Ireland situation over in Debates??!

If there is only one possible move and a player makes it, then the result of the game is "as it should be". Last I checked, there was nothing in the Site Rules forbidding a player from gaining more knowledge of the game of chess while his games are ongoing. The situations being described are extremely unusual and the problem is caused by the mechanics of the site, so it seems to me that asking the Site Admins is appropriate. The Site Admins have determined that the educational value of telling the players about the en passant rule outweighs the factor that you keep harping about i.e. that somehow, someway some possible scenario will occur where it might conceivably effect the outcome of a game (it never has here as far as we know). Their decision is at least rational, so, again, what is the BFD? What are the chances it will have any actual effect on any of your games?

That you would equate the importance of this trivial, non-issue with the struggle for Irish freedom and full independence just shows how completely off the rails you've become over it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It is possible that chuck hatfield could have read the forum and learned of the EP rule, even if he was not directly told about it.

I would agree that there is no problem with confirming the EP rule after the move is played. For OTB, the player would probably get the arbiter and claim an illegal move was played, at which point the arbiter would rule t ...[text shortened]... g a player that
his opponent has completed a move or that the player has not pressed his clock.

But Chris' said they explained the rule by PM, so it's a bit unfair to accuse the site admins of providing 3rd party assistance based on this.

If your opponent is unclear on a rule of chess, you should happily enlighten him yourself. That's good sportsmanship.

As to whether an arbiter (or in this case Site Admin and not a 3rd party as envisioned by rule 3b) should intervene when asked: It is not a move suggestion, but a clarification of the rules. In any sport, it is quite valid for a referee/arbiter/umpire to make such a clarification of rules where necessary during a game.

Do you want to beat your opponent because you have a better knowledge of the rules, or because you played a better game of chess?

If there is only one possible move and a player makes it, then the result of the game is "as it should be".

Not if someone told him what move to make.

Last I checked, there was nothing in the Site Rules forbidding a player from gaining more knowledge of the game of chess while his games are ongoing.

Yes, he may do his own research. That's all well and good, and should be encouraged. But he should not be allowed to have a 3rd party tell him what to move in a specific position.

The situations being described are extremely unusual and the problem is caused by the mechanics of the site

Huh? No, it isn't caused by mechanics of the site. It's caused by ignorance of the rules.

EP may be an uncommon rule, but we set a dangerous precedent by allowing 3rd party assistance in specific cases. What's next - admins telling them how to castle so they can get their King out of danger?

The Site Admins have determined that the educational value of telling the players about the en passant rule outweighs the factor that you keep harping about

If this is primarily an educational site, can I consult a master during my games here and have him give me some hints on what to play? I'm sure it would improve my game greatly.

that somehow, someway some possible scenario will occur where it might conceivably effect the outcome of a game (it never has here as far as we know).

OK, so if I see that one of my clanmates is winning a game, can I show him a quicker way to win? After all - I haven't affected the outcome of the game - he was going to win anyway.

Their decision is at least rational, so, again, what is the BFD?

3rd party assistance isn't a big deal to you?

What are the chances it will have any actual effect on any of your games?

"We frequently receive this question via feedback and our policy is simply to tell the person asking the question (whether it be they or their opponent who they believe to be in checkmate) about the en passant rule."
-Chris
(emphasis added)

Apparently, better than you think.

That you would equate the importance of this trivial, non-issue with the struggle for Irish freedom and full independence just shows how completely off the rails you've become over it.

I never did. Rather, I mocked your flapping of gums on an internet thread for 400+ posts, as if that was any less 'trivial' than what I was doing.

Really, if the Irish cause is so damned important, why don't you grab a gun and go help them? Why are you wasting your time in this thread which you deem trivial when you could be out there doing BIG, IMPORTANT STUFF~! and saving the world??

Originally posted by Palynka
But Chris' said they explained the rule by PM, so it's a bit unfair to accuse the site admins of providing 3rd party assistance based on this.

Huh?

"We frequently receive this question via feedback and our policy is simply to tell the person asking the question (whether it be they or their opponent who they believe to be in checkmate) about the en passant rule."
-Chris
(emphasis added)

Intermission

In case you have just joined this thread.

I cannot recall the details but apparently a player thought he was
mated - the system said he was not - so Admin informed the
player he could get out mate by En Passent.

A number of good chess players have had an inteligent conversion
about this and you join it at the bit where Swiss Gambit wants
No1 Marauder to join the IRA.

read on....

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]If there is only one possible move and a player makes it, then the result of the game is "as it should be".

Not if someone told him what move to make.

Last I checked, there was nothing in the Site Rules forbidding a player from gaining more knowledge of the game of chess while his games are ongoing.

Yes, he may do his own ...[text shortened]... ial when you could be out there doing BIG, IMPORTANT STUFF~! and saving the world??[/b]

Your hysterical histrionics are comical. All your "points" have already been addressed, so it's absurd to continue on with this. As Gatecrasher correctly points out, the Site Admins are not a "3rd Party" for the purposes of the rule. And you may rave and rant all you want, but the situation is incredibly rare and there is a good reason for the Site Admins to do what they do. You may keep pretending that the practice is equivalent to having a GM tell you what moves to make throughout the game or other such gross violations of the rule, but I think most people are sufficiently well-balanced to see that you are comparing apples to oranges.

BTW, this thread is really in the wrong forum; it has very little to do with chess per se. It should either be in Help (as the original thread was but you decided you wanted a bigger audience to preach to) or in Site Ideas (where it could be ignored like all the other site ideas).

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Huh?

"We[b] frequently receive this question via feedback and our policy is simply to tell the person asking the question (whether it be they or their opponent who they believe to be in checkmate) about the en passant rule."
-Chris
(emphasis added)

[/b]

I applaud said policy (I'm sure the word "frequently" is a bit of an exaggeration).

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
If your opponent is unclear on a rule of chess, you should happily enlighten him yourself. That's good sportsmanship.

As to whether an arbiter (or in this case Site Admin and [b]not a 3rd party as envisioned by rule 3b) should intervene when asked: It is not a move suggestion, but a clarification of the rules. In any sport, it is quite valid for ...[text shortened]... because you have a better knowledge of the rules, or because you played a better game of chess?[/b]

I've no problem with someone voluntarily informing their opponent of the EP rule during the game.

As to whether an arbiter (or in this case Site Admin and not a 3rd party as envisioned by rule 3b) should intervene when asked: It is not a move suggestion, but a clarification of the rules.

The FIDE rules strongly indicate that external advice is not permitted during a game. [See earlier response to Palynka.] Telling someone about a type of move that they were not aware of before certainly qualifies [and so blatant to tell them right at the time when the move happens to be possible!] The rules also have a perfectly good way of dealing with someone who does not know what move to make: they either figure it out, or lose on time.

Do you want to beat your opponent because you have a better knowledge of the rules, or because you played a better game of chess?

Since both hinge heavily on superior knowledge, I'd take either. Especially if the alternative is drawing or losing.

Mainly, I want a fair contest that pits my knowledge and skills against the opponent's. I don't want outsiders giving help.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your hysterical histrionics are comical. All your "points" have already been addressed, so it's absurd to continue on with this. As Gatecrasher correctly points out, the Site Admins are not a "3rd Party" for the purposes of the rule. And you may rave and rant all you want, but the situation is incredibly rare and there is a good reason for the Site Admin ...[text shortened]... e to preach to) or in Site Ideas (where it could be ignored like all the other site ideas).

Haha! You made no argument at all to show why telling someone about EP is different than telling them about another move they could make.

So much for 'points being addressed'. 🙄 Good riddance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I applaud said policy (I'm sure the word "frequently" is a bit of an exaggeration).

Did their 'rationality' lapse a bit there? 😛

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Huh?

"We[b] frequently receive this question via feedback and our policy is simply to tell the person asking the question (whether it be they or their opponent who they believe to be in checkmate) about the en passant rule."
-Chris
(emphasis added)

[/b]

It's not posted in the forums. So the person asking a clarification on the rules gets that clarification.

Simple. I hope you don't need to grunt this time.

Originally posted by Palynka
It's not posted in the forums. So the person asking a clarification on the rules gets that clarification.

Simple. I hope you don't need to grunt this time.

Why does it matter if it's posted in the forums or not?

Does a policy of 3rd-party assistance become acceptable if it's a secret?

Edit: *GRUNT*!