Columns | March 30, 2010 15:50

To protest, or not to protest...


Photo & text GM Dimitri Reinderman



European Ch (Rijeka) 2010


The rules say the following about this:




a. warning
b. increasing the remaining time of the opponent
c. reducing the remaining time of the offending player
d. declaring the game to be lost
g. expulsion from the event.




A webcam still of Sutovsky vs Reinderman in Rijeka









Anonymous's picture
Author: Anonymous


Castro's picture


I'm glad you also think that way.
And with the advantage of being much clearer and sucint than me, in explanation. :-)
Also your closing point is another very important one, and I assure you it is already so, for some "problematic players". That said, of course a good arbiter should never judge in advance, not even with such players. (Obvious thing to say!)

Castro's picture

Sofia rules NOWHERE! Go play that absolutely unneeded chess-variant with other weird games lovers. Don't try to impose it.

Jesper Norgaard's picture

Regarding the displaced pieces and pressing the clock with 1-2 seconds on the clock (and 30 seconds increment on the clock) I think the correct procedure for the offended player, is to call the arbiter as Dimitri did, and the arbiter should probably award the offended player 1-2 minutes for the disturbance, but not just let the game continue from there, which would be clearly to the advantage of the offending player, because he avoids completely the issue of correcting the pieces in his *own* time. Instead the arbiter should retract the 30 seconds from his clock (and adjust move counter) and the displaced pieces should be put where the player left them on the board (in the case he corrected them in his opponents time, tsk, tsk) and then the clock should be started again to let him correct the displaced pieces and press the clock. If he can reach that within the 1-2 seconds the game simply continues, if the flag falls he is punished with the loss, and if he does not put the correct position before pressing the clock, the procedure is repeated once again, until there is an actual correct position on the board, or he has lost on time. An arbiter that just says "oh that's too bad, you receive a warning" and just let the game continue with 31-32 seconds on his clock, is avoiding the issue that pieces needs to be corrected in your own time, with an obvious advantage for the offending player.

Still you might say that the offending player is gaining an advantage from making the infraction, since he was in a state of confusion when he displaced the pieces and pressed the clock (incorrectly) and he is allowed to compose himself while discussing this with the arbiter, and prepare mentally where to place the displaced pieces, but I think that is not too unreasonable, and the other player also gets 1-2 minutes extra on his clock to compensate.

Castro's picture

@Jesper Norgaard

Always understanding and respecting that point of yours, it is necesary to tell you that is NOT the "correct procedure". At all!
Other than being forbided by the rules, it is not necessary for making some "justice".
The game should simply be declared lost, at that point.
As you mentioned, even if it were legal, one cannot reproduce the exact factors of the previous situation by reverting clock and position.
Something that is, in general, a minor break of rules, a disturbance payed with some minutes on the clock
(By the way, the warning is NOT aplyable here. Even if it was on move 2, that fault must be punished at least on the clock, and the warning is inerent, of course)
is here a much more serious fault, and as arbiter --- given that the circunstances described were confirmed beyond doubt --- I would give the direct loss of the game.
But (as I said before) I recognize it's a difficult situation, and players should be prepared to accept other softer aproaches. But not a mere warning, let alone what happened in the real game, as Reinderman described: "nothing"! :-)

Castro's picture

Just to precise my point, as an arbiter:
In ANY situation of near-loss on time, the player risks 99% of being punished with direct loss, if:

1. He hits the clock before his right of doing so.
2. That fact is perfectely confirmable.
3. The arbiter (was present to the fact, or) have been regularly called by the opponent claiming about the fault.

I let 1% chances, for some (I imagine) rare circunstances where the experience and good judgment of an arbiter tell him that he must make an exception, based on
1. The fault is completely and notoriously unvoluntary (like some piece getting momentaniously stuck to the player shirt) AND
2. The correction can be made quickly, and with negletable difference on the situation's general situation (and then quickly adding extra time to the opponent).
To judge something like this must be extremely rare, if the arbiter wants to be realy conscious.

Castro's picture

* One should rather read something like "on the situation's general factors" :-)


Latest articles