I see no personal insult given…makes me wonder why you’re seeing an insult?
Earlier you called a MonRoi a scoresheet. Now it’s a “scorekeeping device.” Two different terms. It would be appreciated if you announced your change in opinion position.
It’s not that I dislike a MonRoi. I just don’t want my opponent the opportunity to analyze the position on a 2D representation unless I also have that opportunity. Looking/viewing is one thing; analyzing is another. Players with a MonRoi should be aware that they +could+ receive a warning if they are staring at their MonRoi 2D board without taking action on it.
They’ve reached the stage of written appeal. There’s nothing to stop a parent from writing something up or helping the child write it up, having the child sign it and sending it in with the parent’s $25 check. I bet this wouldn’t be the first time this has been done.
It’s still technically the child’s appeal, not the parent’s. That is a meaningful distinction.
The implication is that it’s a lack of chess-playing ability that’s responsible for their point of view when it’s just a precise use of the word “analyze” within the context of the rules and the history of previous decisions.
“looking at” a demo board has been ruled to NOT be analysis, so “looking at” a MonRoi shouldn’t be analysis either. The rules never say, “no using another board for analysis unless your opponent can also”. So just the fact that anybody can see the demo board is NOT the reason that just looking at it isn’t considered analysis. It’s clear from the rules and from past practice that just looking at a board is not what is meant in the rules by “analysis”.
I’ve called a MonRoi a “scoresheet” because that’s simpler than “score keeping device” and because it gets treated the same way (mostly) by the rules. In particular, there are several instances where a player might need or want to look at his scoresheet (or scorekeeping device) for an extended period of time – considering implications of repeating a position, considering claims, etc. A player can look at his or scorekeeping device for as long as he wants. Any other decision is contrary to the explicit rule that allows the device to be used for scorekeeping – a game score CAN be consulted during the game.
If a parent submits an appeal as guardian for and on behalf of his minor child, it should be treated as coming from the child. That’s a right (and obligation) that parents have, IMHO.
In adult tournaments, the kids have the same responsibilities and rights as an adult player. I don’t that includes getting someone else to argue your appeal. In an unrated scholastic event, I might look at it differently.
I think that Tim is saying it is part of TD discretion. Opening the can of worms carte blanche that any parent can speak on the tournament floor for their minor child in all cases would not fit all situations. A 17 year old GM is a minor, but I don’t think the TD needs to be subject to his father during a tournament. He should be able to cover all of his bases on his own. A case by case bases as Tim implies and suggests is good enough.
Because there might be an appeal in this case, and I am on two of the committees that may hear it, I think it inappropriate for me to answer that question.
I think one of the things that bothered me about this whole incident was the child spoke to his father while the game was in progress.
“The parent did not “protest”. He did come in and ask the TD questions about a ruling. I’m sure it is not an uncommon practice for a TD to take some time to explain rules to a parent. The game wasn’t stopped while this discussion went on, and the players weren’t aware of the discussion until later, so its not fair to say it was a protest. (unfortunately, the parent did decide to discuss it with his son several hours into the game, which magnified the problems)”
I don’t think a parent should be allowed to speak for a child during the game. It should be between the tournament director and the players. I have had situations where a parent has tried to butt in when something involving his child has occurred during the round. I have told parents that they have no say, and that I want to hear what the player has to say.
If there is an appeal I feel the parent can accompany his child, but that the child need to explain for himself why he doesn’t agree with the ruling. I have no problem with any discussion that the parent and child have with each other before meeting with the TD or appeals committee. However I do feel the TD or appeals committee should not be having answer to the parent. Questions should be asked by the child, or answered by the child if asked something. If the TD or the appeals committee wants to ask the parent a question to try to clarify what the child is saying, that is their right. There may be cases where the child is having difficulty answering a question and having the parent help in that situation might be useful. However the parent should not jump into the discussion with unsolicited remarks.
I’ve been involved with decisions where having the parent there made it a lot harder, and other times where having the parent there has been helpful. I think directors need to use discretion in how they handle disputes involving children, but parents don’t automatically get the right to intervene on their child’s behalf.
Please read again my post on Fri May 01, 2009 9:48 pm #141221 on page 8 this thread. I agree most of what you said, but this case is totally different from the case you talked about
Let me repeat what happened again:
Right before the game started, the TD informed Kevin and ME that Kevin can not look at MonRoi. I, parent, questioned TD’s ruling right way in front of both players, meantime another TD started the games.
I walked out of the playing area. Kevin knows there is discussion going on. And he knows I am getting an answer from TD while the game in progress.
Later during the game, the TDs told me (they should have told both players about his wrong ruling) that they cannot find rule backing the TD’s ruling and Kevin can use MonRoi the way he want next round. Later, Kevin asks me what TD say about his ruling, I told Kevin: TDs can not find any rule support they ruling, you can use MonRoi the way you want.
Kevin start to look the MonRoi, because the ruling itself is totally wrong and the TD knows his ruling is wrong.
Kevin’s opponent went to complain about Kevin starting to look at the MonRoi, TDs told Kevin’s opponent, they can not find any rules says the player can not look at MonRoi,
Kevin’s opponent protest TD’s 2nd ruling and dig out the rule 20D. The TD forms the committee, and finally ruled in favour Kevin’s opponent.
Here is the rule regarding parent’s involvement
Rule 20M5. Spectators cannot make claims. Spectators, including parents and coaches, may point out irregularities to the director in a manner neither heard nor noticed by the players, but have no right to make claims of any kind on behalf of players. If a problem arises during play, a player of ANY AGE should understand that he or she should promptly stop both clocks and see a director. A spectator who makes a claim may be ejected."
I want ask you same question I ask before in this thread, The question is whether a parent can raise an objection regarding a TD ruling happened before play begins. And what you should do when the TD come talk to you during the game, I let you to interpret the rule or show me the rule, after that read your previous comment again.
And why is
Who create this problem first?, magnified the problems is because parent didn’t let TD’s wrong ruling live longer? TD is tournament director, not Tournament goD.
One more question I need clarify from people here, if an adult player can talk to someone during the game, can kids talk to their parent during the game? Or just cannot talk at all?
My comments appear inline and in blue text, and at the end.
You’ve answered your own question:
And a TD discretionary act of including APPEALS isn’t wrong.
The TD made a ruling, and unless the player him/herself asks to appeal, the decision is final.
As to looking at the MonRoi, this is not a settled issue, in my opinion.
Looking at another board *[with the same position as is being contested by the player] during play is forbidden by 20D, and in my opinion, the prohibition against such activity could be extended to Demo Boards. It’s just that nobody has made such claims before, as far as I know. The same could be extended to diagrams of positions, as well. [size=85]* In case anyone is wondering, I don’t believe this rule applies to the common practice of generally allowing players to watch other games.[/size]
I know I’ve contradicted myself in this thread a couple times, so suffice it to say I’m still on the fence about this one, though I’m leaning toward the “turn off the MonRoi diagram mode during play” side, if there is one in this thread.
This could be a good chance to get Rules Committee or Delegate action on this one. As far as I’m concerned, as long as 20D is still in it’s current language, looking at one’s MonRoi while it’s in diagram mode could cause a TD to “not incorrectly” rule it a violation.
Yes, it has. Several times. For example, as I pointed out much earlier in this thread, during the Korchnoi-Spassky march in 1977. Both FIDE and the USCF have consistently rejected that interpretation. Among other things, it’s obviously unenforceable unless you ban demo boards completely.
I agree that such a ruling can be defended under the rules. I also think it’s a poor decision, which raises serious doubts about the TDs judgment. (See 21K2.)
