Fortunately, this is just a “for instance” rather than a real event for me…yet!
Imagine player A is in time trouble, but he’s got player B on the ropes. He overhears a spectator whisper to another, “knight to f6 wins.” He picks up the knight and puts it on f6. The opponent, who also heard the comment, stops the clock and raises his hand. You go to the table and the opponent says, “he got help from a spectator” and player A, being an honest guy says, “yes, I heard his comment about the knight.”
First thing is that the spectator should be immediately removed from the tournament site.
As far as what should happen to the player, rule 20E2 covers this exhaustively. In this case, as TD you should consider whether it is likely that the player would have found Nf6 on his own based on rating and such. If not, then you can require him to make another move. If so, then you needn’t impose a penalty.
Of course all this goes out the window if the spectator is a coach or relative of the player.
If the comment was unsolicited, you probably need to be very careful about any penalty. I’ve seen even lower ranked players make brilliant moves by accident and only realize after their opponent’s move that they had made a great move. It’d be really hard to say that they couldn’t have found the move on their own.
Of course, if the player admits hearing the comment he might also admit “I wasn’t even considering THAT move”.
There are two problems, the spectator and the players at the board. Take care of the players at the board first, than deal with the spectator second. It becomes a question on the position of the board … in theory the player should not have the right to make the move. The director has to study the position of the board, before the final judgement.
The reason the spectator is second, as the final judgement made to take care of the position of the board is important to deal with the spectator. If you told the player they could not make the move … the spectator should pay a price. The rating of the spectator and the rating of the players at the board, will have a major factor on the final judgement you deal with the spectator. The director can forfeit the spectators game if its’ still in progress. Remove the spectator from the tournament, fine the spectator. If the director is in a bad mood after dealing with the board … the director is sure to take it out on the spectator … this is the reason the spectator is always second.
Unless the player admits that hearing the comment was the only reason (or the main reason) for playing the move, be very careful in punishing the player. Like a previous poster already mentioned, sometimes even very weak players can play brilliant moves out of sheer dumb luck.
You did read the rule book in order to become a TD, right? How can you continue to get so many rulings wrong? Read 20E2. A blanket decision to not allow the move from an unsolicited suggestion is simply NOT the explicit intent of the rule. Only if the player is judged to be unlikely to find the move (20E2b) would such a decision be justified. And, as I said above, that is a very difficult decision to make.
I’m not even sure your suggestion about forfeiting a playing spectator is correct. If the unsolicited comment was not meant to be overheard, as in this case, I think a somewhat lesser penalty might be called for. Re-read the original post: the spectator was whispering to another spectator. Yes, he should be more careful and should be penalized. But this isn’t the same situation at all as a person that intentionally gave advice. Actually, this wasn’t precisely “advice” since it wasn’t addressed to the player.
By contrast, relyea was precisely correct. I had just wanted to point out that the question of whether the player would have found the move was a very difficult one. I don’t think he considered what should be done to a playing spectator – that’s more complicated. Spectators have no rights, but players do. For someone that’s both, this is a tough question.
You make the claim it was an unsolicited advice (20E2b). The director needs more information from the floor. The person that started this post, made a statement. The same statement could have been told to the back room director. You have made the claim it is an unsolicited suggestion without a visit to the floor. If you want to make a final judgement with only one person, and make the judgement without a visit to the floor – you could get it wrong. You got to question the players, not the word of only one man.
There are a number of rules with a spectator, and know spectators will whisper moves to other spectators. Its’ hard to say it is a whisper when both players at the board over hear the advice. One of the rules I can use … with a number of other spectator rules would be rule 20M5. The director has the right to eject the player.
Look at it this way, if I eject the player from the tournament, and the spectator still has a game. How can the player play the game, when the spectator has been ejected? If the director has ejected your opponent, why should you need to move your board outside the tournament room? Even if you did move your board, the director would have to give an adjourment. Why would you as the player … be forced into an adjourment, be forced into a different room, just because your opponent was ejected. If your opponent was ejected, I am going to forfeit the game and you win.
The director has to make the final judgement on the floor. How myself or relyea would rule in a case of theory is different. Even support the views of relyea. The question from the person that started this post if from one person, you have forgotten the views of the players at the board. The only way to find out … is to ask the players … not put your own ideas what they are thinking.
Suddenly it’s all very clear, Douglas. Now I understand. When a person asks a question here and you reply, you’re not trying to answer his question. Instead you imagine how the situation MIGHT have been if somebody you don’t trust was reporting it to you and shape your comments to some imagined situation that’s completely different from what was stated! Your comments here now make complete sense!
The QUESTION involved a whispered comment made by one spectator to another. That was the question that everyone else was talking about.
Thats how I take care of the problem. How you take care of the problem at the floor, not how you take care of the problem in the back room.
How directors or members of this forum deal with the problem. Would be just as equal as the director locked away in the tournament directors room. There is not much of a difference with the judgements people make on this forum … as the director only in the tournament directors room, or the directors and members at their computer. You have to take in for this forum … what would the player for white would say … what would the player for black would say.
What member would accept the judgement of the director, if a note was given to the director. You can trust the person that gave you the note, as the director you need more than the statement of one person. As the director you got to question more than one person. You got to question both players … you got to question other people around the board.
If someone can’t keep Douglas on a leash, then I’m not going to bother coming back here. I want to hear discussion on ways that I can become a better director, not listen to Douglas go off into fantasyland and try to hijack every other post.
Nolan, any futher progress on being able to limit the number of posts a member can make in a month?
If you want to become a better director, you got to talk with both sides of the issue. Just because it looks to be cut and dry with only one voice … asking questions will find the error or no errors.
Now tell me how would you rule. Would you take the first statement and never ask questions? Do not think of yourself behind the computer … do not think of yourself locked away in the tournament directors room. What would you do, if you are on the floor with the players.
If you only take the word of only one player, without asking the other … everyone would find you as the director as being unfair. What if the other player makes a statement, your going to say your hijacking the issue?
The point of this problem was it solicited or unsolicited advice. It is still unclear, as the players have not been questioned. How a director will rule, is very much how the director sees the issue. Were they young, are they new, was the position of the board so simple anyone can see the move. These are very important factors to make a fair judgement.
That is not the point of this problem. The situation was clearly defined (at least to the rest of us) as an unsolicited piece of advice that was inadvertantly spoken loudly enough to be overheard by both players. By jumping off into other situations, you distract everyone from the point of the thread. (And now I’m contributing to it, so I apologize to the rest of the board.)
If we just want to limit the scope … than it would be unsolicited advice. The director would not have to visit the floor … as you have spoken for everyone … even the players. If your opponent has a problem, than to follow your example … he will be speaking for you also. Why would you find that to be fair and just?
Have to look at it as the director, with rule 21F … its’ the directors duty to have a finding of facts. Only the evidence of one person, only having one witness … is not the spirit of the rule. The point of rule 21F, at the directors level is to understand all the issues … from both sides. Having a director understand both parties … would stop an appeal (rule 21H and 21I).
If it does go into an appeal … the committee has the right under rule 21I3 to hear the witnesses. The rule 21I3 talks about the witnesses, not the only witness. Is that not the spirit of the director … to understand the witnesses not just the only witness! If the director rejected the right to hear the statement of both players. Than the committee would be just … the committee would find the director had a clear bias. The director could be right … how the director did perform the duties were wrong.
Isn’t there already a way to put a specific poster on your do-not-view list? That way all you have to see are the replies, but they will invariably include a snappy comeback to make them worth reading.
I really don’t see this any different than someone saying “flag fell” or anything. I would immediately eject the kibitzer.
It seems to me that typically chess players seem to be honest and not really care about the result, but to be fair to their opponent since most likely, they’ll play each other around again.
Tough situation though for the players, but not for the kibitzer, you have to make a stand on that.
