30-03-2016, 03:17 PM
Time is inevitably a factor in blitz; if you fall behind you are always liable to be at a disadvantage. Some of the means of taking advantage of this are more ethical than others. On Sunday I thought some instances went beyond what is reasonable.
In my previous post I tried to explain why I see a claim requiring an arbiter to deal with an illegal move, etc is different from a claim requiring an arbiter to watch one game for an extended period.
A player is entitled to pause the clock to call an arbiter – time to speak to the arbiter should not depend on the chance of how close the arbiter happens to be at the time. However, the arbiter would be entitled to give the player a time penalty if he thought the claim was frivolous (or designed to gain thinking time).
It has been made clear “officially” that taking the king is to be regarded as an illegal move. Though I have sympathy with the tradition (and have done it myself often enough) (a) it destroys evidence of the king being in check and (b) the arbiter has to follow the Laws as they are, not as he might wish them to be.
In my previous post I tried to explain why I see a claim requiring an arbiter to deal with an illegal move, etc is different from a claim requiring an arbiter to watch one game for an extended period.
A player is entitled to pause the clock to call an arbiter – time to speak to the arbiter should not depend on the chance of how close the arbiter happens to be at the time. However, the arbiter would be entitled to give the player a time penalty if he thought the claim was frivolous (or designed to gain thinking time).
It has been made clear “officially” that taking the king is to be regarded as an illegal move. Though I have sympathy with the tradition (and have done it myself often enough) (a) it destroys evidence of the king being in check and (b) the arbiter has to follow the Laws as they are, not as he might wish them to be.