From: Larry Kaufman <lkaufman <at> WIZARD <dot> NET>
Date: 16 apr 2000
Subject: Re: Shogi Rules (Re: 2 funny things happened)

At 12:01 AM 4/17/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Some good-night Shogi stories from the vaults of Shogi history.
>
>On 00/04/16 at 15:03 -0400, Larry Kaufman wrote:
>
>>I
>>recall one incident at the Mind Sports Olympics where a strong (western)
>>player tried to refuse to accept a time forfeit that he felt he did not
>>deserve, though the TD ruled that it must stand.
>>
>The clock apparently had not beeped to indicate byoyomi, but this
>could not be reproduced after the game when the clock did beep.
>However, what if it could be reproduced? I would still rule the
>result stands as it is the players' responsibility to verify that the
>clock works before they start. Or is it the organizer's
>responsibility? And what if the clock did work when the game started,
>but failed later on?
>
>Although the above result stood as I had initially ruled, I proposed
>to the FESA ratings officer not to count the game for Elo rating
>purposes. That was acceptable to both players, but wasn't that
>inconsistent on my part?

     I would say so.  While I would not fault your ruling, if I were the TD
I would not call a time forfeit if there were any serious doubts as to
whether the clock was working properly.  To me it's a question of the
greater injustice; an unjust forfeit is much more unfair than than not
calling a questionable but legal forfeit.  My motto: when in doubt, play it
out!

>>Never have I seen anyone
>>try to claim victory by any shady or dubious method.
>>
>I recall one incident where a chess player "by accident" dropped the
>clock on the floor in a blitz Shogi game. Although picking it up with
>only one hand, he managed to turn his clock back to give him a few
>minutes more.
>
>>In my opinion, a
>>major reason for clear rules is that without them players who are very nice
>>and/or shy may be reluctant to claim games that they really do deserve to
>>win, while less unselfish folks will have no compunction about doing so.  I
>>don't like to see someone's good will turned to his detriment.
>>
>Or he may claim the game and feel bad about it. When the rules are
>clear and everybody is used to applying them then nobody needs to
>feel uncomfortable. Indeed, taking it to the extreme, if player A
>makes an illegal move and player B presses the clock (to allow A to
>take the move back and make another move) then indeed A can claim the
>game because B pressed the clock without making a move. That may
>sound ridiculous (as Mike Sandeman surely thinks), but the fact is
>that A by knowingly violating the rules has himself to blame for the
>consequence.
>
     I would side with Mike on this one.  Not all improper actions call for
a forfeit.  In this case, as TD I would say either that his hitting the
clock and mentioning the illegal move was a claim, and if true he should
win, not lose, or else that the proper "penalty" for his action is that the
game should continue; he loses the chance to claim the forfeit (as was his
intent).  Again, it's a question of the lesser injustice.  Sometimes in the
real world police know that someone is technically guilty of a crime, but
due to mitigating circumstances they choose not to prosecute.  I think
that's reasonable.

Good night,
>
>Pieter
>
     Larry