Why no invisible status showing one offline?

[tbhp]

11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. [italics mine]

That seems wonky. I mean, what is the player supposed to do? Do other moves instead and end up losing the game? That wouldn't be a fair outcome either.

Also, let's say the player devised the checkmate, then some stupid spectator blurts out the last move. So the player who was supposed to win now has to refrain from checkmating. What are their options after that? How different does the board situation need to be for a new checkmate to be considered a "different" one than the cheating one? If they just delay things by creating some action in other parts of the board, is it considered a new legal checkmate? Or does the position of the King and other involved pieces need to be different? By how much?

As you can see, this sounds like a total headache and something that would be impossible to reach an objective agreement on.

Another example: let's say the player devised a "risky" checkmate where they absolutely need to do the checkmate at the point they planned, otherwise the other player will be able to checkmate themselves on the next move. Not actually risky in reality, since they are in control of what they are doing, but what if a spectator decides to blurt out the checkmate move at the last moment? Now the player is forced to do any other move instead, and as a result lose the game on the next move.

[Mathew5000]

11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. [italics mine]

That seems wonky. I mean, what is the player supposed to do?

The player is supposed to call for a ruling before taking further action in the game.

...
As you can see, this sounds like a total headache and something that would be impossible to reach an objective agreement on.

I agree that after a spectator gives unsolicited advice to a player, it causes a headache as to how the game can proceed. The player who received the advice considers it unfair that she is barred from a move that she might have discovered herself, while the opponent considers it unfair that she uses a winning move that she might not have discovered herself. There is no great solution to this problem.

The point is, that the spectator wrecked the game by giving unsolicited advice, and regardless of the outcome, the spectator deserves a harsh penalty.

You say "it would be impossible to reach an objective agreement" about this, but in a chess tournament no agreement is necessary; the arbiter makes a decision which is final.

[FrankJones]

In high-level chess games of significant importance, are spectators really permitted to be within earshot of the players such that the players can hear their comments?

[Meeplelowda]

In high-level chess games of significant importance, are spectators really permitted to be within earshot of the players such that the players can hear their comments?

What? You mean someone made up an implausible scenario solely for the purpose of making some kind of contrarian argument based on it?

[tbhp]

In high-level chess games of significant importance, are spectators really permitted to be within earshot of the players such that the players can hear their comments?

In any case, there are referees watching the players. You could imagine a situation where a referee has been paid by an outside party to cause the loss of a player by taking advantage of the situation I described in my previous post.

It seems that the way the rules are (the player benefiting from the advice must lose) can easily be exploited by badly intentioned people.

People tend to imagine that cheating in Chess would involve receiving help from outsiders. But the opposite is more likely to happen: to cause someone's downfall by making them a "cheater" through no fault of their own. That's because when grandmasters are playing, it's very unlikely that someone in the crowd would see something they don't (almost impossible even). So that method of cheating would be very ineffective.

It's the same thing when I play my most played games on here: I don't care if my opponent may be receiving advice from someone, because any help they might receive is something I would expect a high level player to already have realized anyway.