The International Correspondence Chess Federation 2014 Congress Sydney, Australia Table of Contents
Download 1.23 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Discussions The Tournament Rules Commissioner made his case for why this proposal should be defeated. Mr. Per Söderberg
- Dr. Dennis Doren
Flag Fall ProposalThe first proposal was the Flag Fall Proposal proposed by the United States federation. Games ending on time will be scored as an automatic loss by the webserver without a claim step. Proposal Specifics
Discussions The Tournament Rules Commissioner made his case for why this proposal should be defeated. Mr. Per Söderberg made three statements during his proposal debate.
This rationalization has been refuted by the Executive Board. “In organized sports, match fixing, game fixing, race fixing or sports fixing occurs as a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law” (Bing, 2013). Bing, W. (2013). A case study on the match fixing in Korea pro sports. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, 7(13), pp. 360-364. Retrieved from http://www.aicit.org/JDCTA/ppl/JDCTA3535PPL.pdf Speaking as a long-time Tournament Director, Per retorted, “I have allowed players to take back moves and allowed players to step over time with a good explanation, but I would never allow it in games that matter”. As a follow-up and speaking as the ICCF Tournament Rules Commissioner, Per stated, “We are not mandated to follow ICCF Rules at all” (October 14, 2014 @ 14:51). Following the ICCF Tournament Rules Commissioner presentation to Congress on this proposal, two more presentations were offered for the voting members. First presenter was Dr. Dennis Doren, representing the United States. “The USA proposal concerning flag falls is to automate what happens in each server-based game when a player's time expires. This proposal was discussed among the ICCF-US board members, with a unanimous view of support. There were numerous reasons mentioned during that discussion. I will be presenting five reasons that I ask for your support today in favour of this change in our procedures. These five include what was discussed by the USA board, but also some added by me. The first of these reasons is pertinent for every Delegate who believes that the ICCF should follow FIDE rules to the extent possible. I am aware of the arguments against such a view, and for those who do not believe such, this reason will not apply. For those who believe in our basing our rules and procedures on FIDE's, this reason is the most important. I say this because the FIDE rules actually mandate that we adopt this proposal. If you will indulge me, let me read the relevant FIDE rules, from July 2014: Rule 6.8 reads, "A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when ether player has made a valid claim to that effect." I point out that the word "or" is contained in this rule. There is no requirement in FIDE for any player to make a claim for there to be a determination of a win through a flag fall - not if the arbiter has already observed that fact. Further in the rules, at 12.3, "The arbiter shall observe the games, especially when the players are short of time, enforce decisions he has made, and impose penalties on players where appropriate." Here I point out the word "shall" - meaning, "Must". The arbiter must observe the games, especially when the players are short of time. In addition, in rule 12.4: "The arbiter may appoint assistants to observe games, for example, when several players are short of time." Of course, in postal chess, arbiters cannot observe any of the games directly. Likewise, there is no realistic option for appointing assistants to observe the games. Therefore, players must make claims to win by time expiration. That was why our rules were what they were - to reflect the reality of postal play. Now, in server play, however, all TDs have the assistance of the server itself. The server always watching every game and knows exactly when each flag falls. The server is the TD's assistant, thereby fulfilling the FIDE requirement (from 12.3) that arbiters "shall observe the games". Through this assistant, the TD becomes aware of each flag fall without any player needing to make a claim. In other words, in order to fulfil the FIDE rules, TDs in server-based ICCF games are required to use the server as their assistant, and through doing so, never require the player to make a claim related to a flag fall. The second reason for supporting this proposal applies even for those Delegates who do not believe the ICCF need follow the FIDE rules. In our own Arbiter's Manual, in section 2.4.1.1 entitled Player's Claims, it says, "If a TD becomes aware of a problem, he may act on it without waiting for a player to first make a claim." I am aware of the rules pertaining to players making claims to win by flag fall, but our own Manual for TDs does not mandate this procedure if, and I stress if, the TD is already aware of the issue. Again, in postal play, there is almost no way that TDs can know of a flag fall without a player making a claim. However, in server play, the TD, through his assistant (the server) always knows. Therefore, we need to pass this proposal in support of our existing TD rule as it applies to all server games instead of postal games. The third reason is the incredible waste of time and effort that currently exists for players, TCs, and TDs related to flag fall claims. I am a data oriented person. I conducted an informal (non-random) survey of all the TDs from 5 countries of my choosing to find out how many had ever had a flag fall they ruled to be a draw. Over half of the TDs responded to the survey. In total, none, I emphasize no one had ever ruled a flag fall to be a draw in a server game. For the record, one and only one TD had ever ruled such in any postal games. He reported having done so twice, both over 10 years ago. One involved a "crazy guy" and as not based on the material left in the game. Only the one other one involved a draw determination based on insufficient mating material. When Austin Lockwood heard of my survey, he, through his kind initiative, decided to look at all the server data possible. What he found was that over the past nearly 6 years (since January 2009) there have been over 275,000 games played on the server. Of those, just shy of 20,000 (specifically 19,572) games involved flag falls. That is about 7.5% of all server games. Do you know how many resulted in a proper determination of a draw at the time of the flag fall? One. One out of nearly 20,000 games. That means for all the other games, players had to make claims, TDs had to respond to these claims and in many cases, TCs had to be involved in these emails as well, all to determine what the server already knew: the flags had fallen and the game was a win for the side still with time. Our players, TCs, and TDs, have been wasting a great deal of time and effort. The fourth reason is the fact that the TDs are not as accurate as they might be. I am not saying anything here except that TDs are human and people make errors. Specifically, besides that one case of an accurate determination of a draw at the time of a flag fall, TDs ruled draws in 11 other cases. Those 11 were all inaccurately determined to be draws. Of course, 11 out of nearly 20,000 is a small error rate, but the server would have made none of these errors. Put another way, when TDs made the determination of a draw at the time of a flag fall, they were incorrect 11 of 12 times. The server will not make this error. Finally, there is another human factor. Again, I wish to emphasize that I am not criticizing the vast majority of TDs who do a fine job. The fact is, however, that there are regular instances when TDs do not respond in a timely way to claims that are made, sometimes not at all. These situations require many emails by players, TCs, and sometimes-other officials. The server will finalize flag fall results immediately, such that none of these problems will exist. In summary, there does not appear to be any good reason not to support this proposal. If it matters to you, the FIDE rules require we make this change in our procedures. Even if FIDE rules do not matter to you, our own rules already allow it. The amount of time and effort through the claim procedures being wasted now can be eliminated. TDs errors can also be eliminated. We will also have far fewer instances of TD non-responsiveness, given they will have far fewer calls on their time. With all of these reasons, I ask for your support for this proposal. Next was Dr. Ambar Chatterjee, our ICCF delegate from India with a presentation that addressed not just the Flag Fall Proposal, but the topic of automation as well. 
A vote was then called on the Flag Fall Proposal. If this vote passes, then a subsequent vote would determine if Congress wishes to allow a 14-day appeal window for automated server results. 
Directory: Congress Congress -> The international correspondence chess federation Congress -> DR. virginia burkett chief scientist for global change research u. S. Geological survey Congress -> Hon daniel webster Congress -> Presentation to the commerce, science and transportation committee united states senate Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|