He touched the piece he attended to move. So it's OK
@Cunctator said in #21:
> He touched the piece he attended to move. So it's OK
He moved a different piece...
> He touched the piece he attended to move. So it's OK
He moved a different piece...
@Sarg0n Surely if his opponent didn't complain at the time and then moved a piece of his own without complaining, then as pointed out by another user, he loses the chance to complain... so this all a bit of a non-issue. Nepo must know the rules too surely? If he missed it because he wasn't at the table, then that's also surely his fault.
In snooker, players will often announce that they have played a foul shot (though there is no rule to say they should) even if the referee has missed it and also if the other player doesn't see it. Thats honesty and good sportsmanship. The referee though as I understand it has to call foul for it to be official even when a player admits his error...
So... does a player admit his mistake? Only he knows if he meant to 'adjust' or move. Thats one for a players conscience and personal honour. Im sure, at this level, if he meant to move the knight and then didn't, he'd be man enough to admit it at the time and then move the piece even if it means losing.
Irrespective though, if the rule says Nepo forfeits the right to complain by moving himself after the event, then this is all a waste of time. JMO
In snooker, players will often announce that they have played a foul shot (though there is no rule to say they should) even if the referee has missed it and also if the other player doesn't see it. Thats honesty and good sportsmanship. The referee though as I understand it has to call foul for it to be official even when a player admits his error...
So... does a player admit his mistake? Only he knows if he meant to 'adjust' or move. Thats one for a players conscience and personal honour. Im sure, at this level, if he meant to move the knight and then didn't, he'd be man enough to admit it at the time and then move the piece even if it means losing.
Irrespective though, if the rule says Nepo forfeits the right to complain by moving himself after the event, then this is all a waste of time. JMO
nepo was not at the board when this occurred seems to present another problem?
If the arbiter was supposed to intervene at this point and did not could the game be considered no good?
If the arbiter was supposed to intervene at this point and did not could the game be considered no good?
@Sarg0n said in #19:
> The arbiter has to observe and intervene. It’s not that way that Nepo has to claim and no one else.
Rules say nothing about arbiter intervening this situation
"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."
Best of my recollection illegal move and time running out are ones arbiter intervenes
> The arbiter has to observe and intervene. It’s not that way that Nepo has to claim and no one else.
Rules say nothing about arbiter intervening this situation
"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."
Best of my recollection illegal move and time running out are ones arbiter intervenes
@petri999 said in #25:
> Rules say nothing about arbiter intervening this situation
> "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."
>
> Best of my recollection illegal move and time running out are ones arbiter intervenes
Of course he has to. Basics...
> Rules say nothing about arbiter intervening this situation
> "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."
>
> Best of my recollection illegal move and time running out are ones arbiter intervenes
Of course he has to. Basics...
I need to ask the arbiter trainer here BUT there are lots of situation in which arbiter must not intervene.
But looking at situation way MC grabs the piece it looks very suspicious
But looking at situation way MC grabs the piece it looks very suspicious
Seems pretty obvious that he violates a rule. Whether it should be penalized or not? I have no idea.
Having watched the video now: This looks clearly like touching with the intention to move this piece.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.