Adjudication: If you had to do it, how would you?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

In my relatively new capacity as webserver TD for the Correspondence Chess League of America, I recently adjudicated a game in which one of the players died. It was an easy call; the win for the surviving player was readily evident to my Class C over-the-board eyes, and Rybka confirmed my analysis.

This got me to thinking about how adjudication is highly disfavored in over-the-board play (I’ve done it once in 20+ years, under circumstances that are now explicitly covered by rule, and only after getting buy-in from the coaches and parents of the K-3 players involved).

So I present these topics for discussion:

  1. Have you ever adjudicated an over-the-board game?
  2. Under what circumstances did you or would you adjudicate an over-the-board game?
  3. How would you go about evaluating the position or seeking advice in the event if you did undertake an adjudication?

I suspect this discussion is more theoretical than practical, but thought it might be interesting anyway.

2
  1. No.
  2. The only time I would do it was when one player has clearly lost interest in the game. For games with increment time controls that are running very long that are dead drawn but one of the players is too stubborn to admit this, adjournment is a better option.
  3. It is a loss for the player who has lost interest.

Alex Relyea

3

  1. Yes, once.

  2. This was in the U2000 section of a major tournament, a number of years ago. I was working the floor at this event. The game in question was 40/120, SD/60, around move 45. Both players had over 1.5 hours left on their clocks. The Hero came to me and complained that the Villain had been gone for “at least 15 minutes”. When I got to the board, I saw the Hero had K+R+B+4P, and the Villain had K+R. The only things I saw on the Villain’s side of the board were his scoresheet and a pencil (the Hero’s equipment was being used). As people sometimes exaggerate conditions for emphasis when complaining, I kept an eye on the board for another 15 minutes. When the Villain still hadn’t returned, I adjudicated the game. The Villain returned about 20 minutes after adjudication, and appealed my ruling, which was upheld by the floor chief and the chief TD.

  3. In general, I’d need a fairly extreme combination of circumstances to adjudicate a game. The situation described above (reasonably skilled players, easily evaluated position, and solid evidence of abandonment) is a good functional example.

4

My only time adjudicating OTB:

Last game round 4 out of 6 in a K-3 scholastic state championship, G/60 d5. K+Q v K, stronger side doesn’t know how to finish, weaker side doesn’t know how to claim 50 move rule or threefold repetition, neither side is keeping score, and no time is running off the clock because all moves are being completed within 5 seconds.

I count 100 move pairs and about eight threefold repetitions within those move pairs before leaving the room and asking to speak to anyone related to the players. I immediately get the attention of both sets of parents and both coaches, who are wondering what’s going on. As it’s the evening of the first day, they want to leave, badly, and concur with an adjudication as a draw, which I put into effect.

I must admit that none of us thought of an adjournment. And under recent rule changes, the game would have been drawn after 75 observed moves anyway.

5

I have done quite a few adjudications over the years. Most of them have been in scholastic tournaments where adjudication was part of the process of the event. Generally, only time constraints involving getting the following round paired and started required doing any adjudication. On a couple of occasions, in the 1970’s, I also adjudicated games with adults playing. Once again, these games were judged because of time constraints. The players did not want to do an adjournment and agreed to have the game adjudicated. The games I adjudicate now are only in non-USCF rated scholastic events.

The procedure I use is to ask the players who is on move. I request that he make his move. Then I assess the position and make a ruling. Most games at this point are trivial to determine the result. It is important to establish who is on move, as the having the move may determine the result. I have seen occasions where a player is down material, but has overwhelming compensation as long as he has the move. Too often adjudicators only look at the material on the board but have little idea what can be done with it. They point count rather than figure out how the game would go. It is also important not to have a biased individual do adjudications. I have seen a few games where one of the kids was a student of the adjudicator. I overruled one such adjudicator and the fanciful variation he came up with to determine his player would win the game. This is a major reason why we no longer do adjudications in USCF rated games.