Hall of fame
Back to forum
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-02)
Request for adjudication & rules
In game *** my opponent has a completely lost position for more than 2 months by now and refuses to resign.
How long will he require that I play child-level uninteresting moves?
I announce mate in 8 moves and request adjudication against this completely disgraceful way of playing.
I am evidently able to prove the win.
I already said how I felt this kind of proceeding to be completely disgusting.
If my requirement is not fulfilled I will leave this site being the first master-class tournament winner.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-02 23:07:36)
Adjudication, forced mate & rules
According to the rules, the game has been adjudicated.
I think this is a good moment to discuss this adjudication rule.. (see 11.5 - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html)
Surely it can be improved, but how.. I'd like to have players opinion on what cases (position + time) should be adjudicated or not, so that we find a better & fair compromise.
Any ideas ?
Graham Wyborn (2006-08-02 23:14:20)
Your opponent is not breaking any rules! I have an opponent who has not moved for about 6 weeks. Now with less than 24 hours left on his clock, he goes on holiday! Our opponents can use the time how they like. In the UK you can be arrested for wasting police time, but you cannot be arrested on any chess site for wasting opponents time! If you leave this site, which I hope you will not do, you will come across the same problem on other chess sites.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-02 23:38:35)
Patience... what limit ?
Actually, he did break the rules... (obvious result + 30 days lasting) so game has been adjudicated. But this may be ambiguous in some cases... Not perfect for sure.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-02 23:52:15)
I was not aware of the 11.5 rule which is very good IMHO and I am very glad that you agreed to apply it in my game.
I think this is a good rule "as is" and it does not need to be changed.
To Graham : Sure you are right.
But it's the same in OTB play : almost nobody waits until the final mate move.
However when one disgracefully requires you go until mate has effectively been done, you just have to wait for less than a few hours at most.
In my case the win was evident for more than two months and my opponent still meticulously waited until he only had a few hours left...
Did he wish to wait for a new rating,did he wish to have won other games to take the lead in the tournament : I really don't know (and I truly cannot fully understand)...
In any case the rules were respected...
Maybe this could be an additional argument for limiting the maximum amount of accumulated thinking time ?
Graham Wyborn (2006-08-03 00:07:52)
Sorry for my mistake, I was not aware of 11.5 rule!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-03 20:30:44)
Update of the 11.5 rule
A small update of the 11.5 rule, that should clarify some ambiguous cases (referee calls are stored) :
"In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious. If a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."
Gino Figlio (2006-08-04 02:55:44)
Players use tricks to distract the opponent when they suspect they are losing, one of them is offering draws many times, another trick is to delay the game.
I am afraid this rule can be used as another trick by a player losing the game, but still able to call the referee and claim a draw.
If you allow them to do this once a month, even better for them.
I suggest using more strict criteria to call the referee: obvious checkmate or tablebase win...otherwise this rule may be abused to distract the opponent...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-04 12:02:56)
You may be right... However many cases (ie. clear material advantages, draws in closed positions) couldn't be considered. I think we can try this rule as is, if it's not sufficient I'll add some criterias or abuse cases.
Note : This rule also works for Go game (and all games on FICGS)!
I think that's an interesting rule, as the "human decision" (I agree with you it must be avoided as much as possible) finally is provoked by the player who obviously lasts the game.
[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
FICGS is also a social network including seo forums, a hot news & buzz blog, a free web directory and discussion forums to meet people from all over the world. Discuss the last events, improve your search engines optimization, submit your website, share your interests...
Feel free to link to FICGS chess server, register & win Epoints :