Originally posted by SwissGambitIt matters because only the person who asked for a clarification gets it.
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*!
In your post you gave the example of chuck reading the forums and indirectly receiving assistance. Don't blame me if you don't remember what you wrote.
Originally posted by PalynkaAhem...I ALSO gave an example of a Site Admin admitting that they have frequently provided assistance to users on BOTH sides of the question.
It matters because only the person who asked for a clarification gets it.
In your post you gave the example of chuck reading the forums and indirectly receiving assistance. Don't blame me if you don't remember what you wrote.
In fact, when I started this thread, that was the very example I quoted!
Haha ... which means YOU are the one who 'lost the thread' here. Thanks for playing, though.
Originally posted by SwissGambitMy post was in response to your second example, not your first.
Ahem...I ALSO gave an example of a Site Admin admitting that they have [b]frequently provided assistance to users on BOTH sides of the question.
In fact, when I started this thread, that was the very example I quoted!
Haha ... which means YOU are the one who 'lost the thread' here. Thanks for playing, though.[/b]
Regardless, if someone ask for clarification on a rule, isn't it normal that the referee obliges? This is standard in most sports and it seems like common sense to me. Nobody is telling the player who asked which move to make.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou're really a child; do you think you're "winning" something here by being a petty prick?
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.
Here's an hypothetical:
If a player sent Feedback to the Site Admins, saying "I tried to move my Knight from g8 to g6 and the site wouldn't let me. Is there a glitch?"
Site Admin responds: "Please go to http://www.redhotpawn.com/help/index.php?help=moves and look at the section entitled Knight."
According to your "logic", this would be cheating, correct? After all, the diagrams on that page give possible moves by the Knight. In fact taking your position to its logical extreme, anyone suggesting that another player go to that page is cheating.
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, I am aware of that...but the point remains that my choice of thread title was motivated mainly by the Chris post quoted in OP.
My post was in response to your second example, not your first.
Regardless, if someone ask for clarification on a rule, isn't it normal that the referee obliges? This is standard in most sports and it seems like common sense to me. Nobody is telling the player who asked which move to make.
That's not what's going on here. No one is asking for a clarification of a rule. They're asking about a bug in the site. They have no clue their conundrum has anything to do with rules. They're being told about a rule they didn't even know existed.
Originally posted by no1marauderNote that the supposedly 'childish' behavior achieved its end in motivating you to provide an actual argument.
You're really a child; do you think you're "winning" something here by being a petty prick?
Here's an hypothetical:
If a player sent Feedback to the Site Admins, saying "I tried to move my Knight from g8 to g6 and the site wouldn't let me. Is there a glitch?"
Site Admin responds: "Please go to http://w logical extreme, anyone suggesting that another player go to that page is cheating.
Yes, this should be considered cheating. Pointing out a specific portion of the rules can be used as a means of giving a hint to move a certain piece, or make a certain type of move [like castling or promotion].
The correct admin response is, "No, that is not a glitch."
The question boils down to whether you view the site admins as abiters. I do. Nobody else here fulfills that role. They are not a 3rd party in terms of the rules. An arbiter is the only person you can approach for assistance.
There is no specific rule that states that an arbiter cannot clarify a rule, or make a rule known to a player when asked (or due to special factors unique to an online chess site).
The Preface to the FIDE Rules of chess states:
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
Interpreting this, I do believe the admins have acted appropriately, objectively, and in the spirit of the game.
Originally posted by GatecrasherYes, I would also view them arbiters.
The question boils down to whether you view the site admins as abiters. I do. Nobody else here fulfills that role. They are not a 3rd party in terms of the rules. An arbiter is the only person you can approach for assistance.
There is no specific rule that states that an arbiter cannot clarify a rule, or make a rule known to a player when asked (or d ...[text shortened]... s, I do believe the admins have acted appropriately, objectively, and in the spirit of the game.
However, my interpretation is that you are doing more than merely clarifying rules when you tell players about a rule that they have never even heard of before, especially at a point in the game when the rule is applicable.
I would categorize this as giving advice, which is forbidden under FIDE rules.
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf it isn't a bug, it must be a rule they don't know. It's an isomorphic question.
Yes, I am aware of that...but the point remains that my choice of thread title was motivated mainly by the Chris post quoted in OP.
That's not what's going on here. No one is asking for a clarification of a rule. They're asking about a bug in the site. They have no clue their conundrum has anything to do with rules. They're being told about a rule they didn't even know existed.
Highly amusing thread.I wish to play a part 🙂
Candidates final 1974,Korchnoi-Karpov,21st game,move 18:
Korchnoi asked the match referee,Salo Flohr I believe,whether he could castle in the current position. His rook was being attacked by Karpov’s bishop - could it then participate in a castling manoeuvre.
The referee said he could and Korchnoi castled.
Nobody protested.
Originally posted by RomanticusA classic and famous example.
Highly amusing thread.I wish to play a part 🙂
Candidates final 1974,Korchnoi-Karpov,21st game,move 18:
Korchnoi asked the match referee,Salo Flohr I believe,whether he could castle in the current position. His rook was being attacked by Karpov’s bishop - could it then participate in a castling manoeuvre.
The referee said he could and Korchnoi castled.
Nobody protested.
However Korchnoi went and asked the contoller.
The controller did not tap Korchnoi on the shoulder and said.
"By the way you can castle here."
That is what the this thread was about - I think.