The ClosetGrandmaster is providing excellent on the spot coverage of the Australian Championship. In his post on Round 6 he reported a bizarre incident from the Major tournament, where a player requested the clocks be stopped so he could go to the toilet. At the time he had 60 seconds left, while his opponent had about 25 minutes. The arbiter agreed with this request.
If it had been me as the arbiter I would have been mean and refused it out of hand, as it is up to the player to manage his time (and bodily functions). Indeed once FIDE had introduced the faster time controls to the Olympiad (90m+30s a move, the same as being used in the Australian Major), GM Michael Adams would not drink water (or any other liquids) before or during the game, so he wouldn't have to use the toilet, and eat into his time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Adam's reaction is excessive. Of course a short walk mid game, say, to the toilet is a mental refresher, but he seams to think not.
BTW, if I had 25 to their 1 minute and they wanted a pit stop. I would offer to stop clocks. It may be important to win, but you have to win in a gentlemanly way.
Oh and I just thought, what if it was for a quick vomit due to illness, or diarrhea?
At World Youth Championships it is standard to allow the kids to call over the arbiters and ask to stop the clocks so the one or both players can use the loo.
Shaun's reaction is simply uncivilised and if it forces players not to drink during games, could lead to him being sued for causing kidney damage to players.
Matt, as an arbiter I wouldn't allow it, but if I was a player I probably wouldn't object (unless I suspected the request wasn't on the level).
But this raises another issue which I am quite strong on, and that is as an arbiter I feel that players should not enter into "gentlemen's agreements" over the rules (such as ignoring touch move etc). Why? Because it opens the door to players being intimidated by their opponents (and I have seen it happen). It is better that the arbiter enforce the rules impartially and as they are written/intended, so both players know in advance what the match conditions are ('Oh I didn't realise we could ask for toilet breaks, I wouldn't have rushed my 25th move').
I can see Shaun's point of view as an arbiter, but I am with Matt here. Who really wants to win, because your opponent needed to go to the toilet? If you have 25, they have 1 minute you have a huge advantage anyway and surely a bit of sportsmanship and wanting to win on the board should prevail.
However I guess Shaun is right - if the opponent was unsporting and an arbiter was asked to rule, then the rules should prevail.
Jenni
SP: I feel that players should not enter into "gentlemen's agreements" over the rules ... [b]ecause it opens the door to players being intimidated by their opponents ...
DNM: Fair enough.
However, don't be surprised if players were to circumvent your ruling using clock button to add a few minutes of time increment. Humans are pesky when it comes to following rules that do not suit them.
In my opinion Shauns reaction is completely right. The experienced arbiter must have been quite confused, or??
Greetings from Copenhagen (now without snow...)
I agree with Shaun. Never would I have considered it appropriate to request a toilet break. On the other hand, if your opponent is squirming in his seat in obvious agony, how could you refuse? The player should have more closely monitored his situation and visited the facilities earlier, at the "first sign of trouble" and when he had more time on the clock.
This matter has also been discussed on Chess Chat Forum and in both discussions everyone seems to have ignored the practical implications of an arbiter refusing the request, not only for the player making it but for those nearby (assuming that the request was genuine). A refusal might lead to the arbiter's needing to suspend play while the air, and perhaps other things, were cleared.
DJ
What most people are really overlooking (both on Chesschat and here) is that somehow losing on time in a game of chess is worse than soiling yourself in public (or sustaining kidney damage).
Seriously, if I was an arbiter and a player created such a disturbance by *refusing* to go to the toilet, because they thought the game was more important, then I would have no hesitation in declaring their game lost, and would consider excluding them from the rest of the tournament.
Post a Comment