I have a question regarding a problem I recently had and although the 4th edition rules are clear I am not sure about the 5th edition rules and wanted to make sure I made the correct ruling.
White starts blacks clock while waiting for black to arrive.
White writes his move down, but does not move his piece.
Black on arriving sees this and makes a claim that the time elapsed (10 minutes) should be split since white did not move.
What is the correct ruling on this?
I know in the 4th edition the claim would be denied (Rule 16), but I am not sure in the new edition. [/b]
The claim should be rejected and the game continues with ten minutes elapsed on Black’s clock. 16J makes it clear that the reason for this rule is to accomodate clocks with move counters.
I disagree with you, John. The enforcement of a rule should not depend upon the equipment unless something about the equipment (such as a faulty clock) is the reason for the claim.
The TD Tip under 16J also says that Black has the option to stop the clock and make a claim. That seems directly on point here.
Why even suggest a penalty if there wasn’t a valid claim to make? If you’re not going to accept this claim, what circumstances would you accept?
The TD can either assess the standard penalty and add 2 minutes back to Black’s clock or split the time in accordance with Black’s request. The latter makes more sense here, IMHO, but I’d probably just add back the 2 minutes, because Black DID show up late and White DID NOT follow the letter of the rulebook.
At a minimum, White should be warned here, because this is one of the places in which the rule changed from the 4th edition.
16J. Black not present. If Black is not present for the start of the game, White shall start his own clock, make his move on the board, and start Black’s clock.
In the previous edition (4th edition):
16J. White’s first move optional if black absent. If the player with the black pieces is late, white may either make the first move and start black’s clock, or may start black’s clock without making a move.
To me the new Rule 16J isn’t as clear as the old rule on this matter. By saying “not clear” I should say that a penalty is not clear.
You should be aware that I’m only a Senior TD, and I have a long track record of disagreeing with NTD’s on interpretation of certain rules. (There’s one rule in the books to specifically overturn a ruling I made at the National HS in Kansas City over 10 years ago.)
Well I made the same ruling that you just confirmed for me on so it looks like we might have a correct understanding on this one. (Althought I am a Local TD)
The key word here is “may assess the standard penalty.” The only case in which I can imagine assessing a penalty here is if the player expressly refused to make his first move after being told to do so.
If you read the rest of that “TD Tip,” it seems pretty clear that the “claim” Black is making is that the move counter is off, and he wants the TD to fix it.
Since the only reason for this rule is to keep the move counter in synch, penalizing a player for violating it is a pointless legalism. Would you also suggest that the TD penalize a player for not writing a question mark on his scoresheet to indicate a draw offer?
It is important to keep in mind 21K2 – “No one’s interests are served by what appears to be the arbitrary or high-handed exercise of authority.” Penalizing a player half the elapsed time for a trivial infraction like this is grossly disproportionate.
It isn’t clear to me that the only reason for this rule is the move counter.
As I recall, the FIDE rule for many years has been that White must make a move before starting Black’s clock. USCF rules were at odds with the FIDE rules.
For example, here’s rule 12.3 from the 1984 FIDE rules:
It seems to me that the USCF is now much more consistent with FIDE’s rule.
I do agree with you that splitting the time difference is probably a bit extreme, which is why I would probably give Black 2 minutes extra.
well in my case I deducted the full 10 minutes from black and 20 minutes from white because of the disturbance he caused. Ultimately in hindsight I should have forfeited them both for the disobedience to me and unsportsmanship they showed.
That’s not a good argument. That rule only says that White’s clock should be started at the beginning of the round, not that he has to make his first move on the board if Black is absent. The assumption in the FIDE rules is that clocks have been supplied for all the games, and the arbiter will go around and start them at the beginning of the round. (To take an extreme case, if White is not present, his clock would be started anyway, and he obviously can’t make a move until he arrives.) This is obviously not applicable to Swiss tournaments.
Aside from the move-counter business, the “make White’s move first” rule is simply an arbitrary choice, since they had to pick one. This is the case with many of the USCF rules. Arguing that one or the other is “better” is fairly pointless. If you penalize a player for something picayune like this, what do you plan to do for a serious infraction?
I wrote the new rule 16J so I might have some insight as to what was intended.
It was our intention to take care of the move counter issue and make White move first. It is not an option for White to move first, it is a requirement.
In this case Mike Nolan is right on target; i.e., White should be penalized by having two minutes added to Black’s remaining time (though a warning might be considered) .
Spliting the time between the players is unfair to White. White was on time but simply failed to make his move (a relatively minor offense), Black was late. Black should not be rewarded for being late. Black should have to pay the traditional price for tardiness, not get rewarded with half his time being restored. White should not have to eat half of Black’s lost time just because a move is not made. Spliting the time between the players is a penality used when both players are late, not when one of them is at the board and makes a minor misstep. Minor missteps are penalized with the addition of two minutes being added to the opponent’s remaining time.
If you ask me, this entire discussion is a tempest in a teapot.
What’s the big deal if white fails to make his move first? Black can simply press his clock when he gets there. If this causes a move-counter error, white (who presumably owns the clock, since he started it in black’s absence) can fix it on the spot, at the request of the TD if necessary.
The whole problem could be avoided if the TD would go around the tournament room shortly after the round has started, looking for games where the clock has been started but no move has been played. When he discovers such a game, he can simply ask white to play his first move immediately (before black arrives).
Certainly, failure to make a move first deserves AT MOST a 2-minute penalty – and probably not even that, considering that white is simply following what used to be the correct procedure, until just a few years ago.
In that case, when Black arrived at the board, White’s clock should have still been running. Once White’s clock is started at the beginning of the game, White cannot start Black’s clock without making a move on the board.
Had this been the resumption of an adjourned game, it would have been permissable and appropriate for White to seal his move and then start Black’s clock. (I was talking to a couple of local TD’s at the US Open, one of whom is likely to advance to the Senior level soon. Several of them have NEVER had to adjourn a game. I wonder if sudden death time controls will make this a lost skill among TDs, rather like pairing by hand?)
Bill’s right that this is not a major issue, but many rule disputes have at most a minor impact. If I understand the TD’s implied report of what happened afterwards, this blew up into a major dispute. I think we’ve all had that happen to us. (I know I have!)
Bill’s also correct that the TD could have probably avoided the whole issue by making a quick tour of the room and looking to see which players have arrived. An ounce of prevention might have prevented the blowup. (And I think applying at most the 2 minute standard penalty might have minimized the reaction by the players, too.)
I have made it a point since the 5th edition came out to EXPLICITLY say at the start of each round that if Black is not present, White must start his own clock, make a move, and then start Black’s clock.
All this is completely irrelevant to the situation in large Swiss tournaments, and you are raising a straw man.
I agree with Tim that the 2-minute penalty is an acceptable option for a purely technical infraction like this – that is, one which does not affect the course of the game or in any way disadvantage the opponent. Whether one should give a penalty or a warning depends on the specific situation.
My problem with your advice to the original poster is that you seem to be encouraging novice TDs to intervene in games unnecessarily. TDs are not referees carrying flags and whistles. Heavy-handed intervention over a trivial rules infraction is likely to provoke dispute rather than resolve it (as seems to have been the case here).
Note that I am making a clear distinction here between purely technical rule infractions (involving arbitrary matters of form), and substantive violations (which affect basic fairness, or disadvantage the opponent). It is absurd to suggest that Black was harmed by White not making his first move before he arrived.
IMHO, the 5th edition of the rulebook also encourages the TD to do that. Personally I’d rather have a TD walking around the floor and monitoring the games than back in the TD room drinking Coca-Cola or playing skittles.
You are deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote. Patrolling the playing room to watch for problems is one thing. Officiously intervening in games “just because I can,” or to show that “I know the rules better than you,” is quite another.
I will restate it as clearly as possible: All games should be decided over the board. The function of the TD is to make sure all games are conducted fairly. The TD should interfere in a game only if absolutely necessary to correct an inequity. Anything beyond this is an abuse of authority.
Black has made a claim here. The TD needs to rule based on 16I, 16J, 16K and 1C2a. Note that 16K doesn’t really apply here, as only one of the players was late. I added it simply to complete the relevant rules.
Black’s claim that the time is to be split evenly is incorrect. Unless black can show that white was blatently and intentionally in defiance of the laws of chess, or that black was in some way severely harmed by white’s omission of a move on the board, no penalty beyond that of the standard penalty (1C2a) should be exacted.
Of course, the TD has discretionary powers to penalize beyond that listed as a standard penalty, for intentional, non-obedient infractions (as in refusing to obey the laws of chess) but of course, this does not sound like the case here. It doesn’t sound like white was intentionally refusing to obey the laws, but rather that he may have been unaware of a change in the rule.
In this case, as a maximum penalty, 2 minutes could be added to black’s clock. On the other hand, perhaps there’s no penalty at all! The TD could simply require black to start white’s clock and allow white to make a move, and the game can continue. This, of course, would be the TD’s call, and would be based on whether or not the claimant could show to the TD’s satisfaction that he was in some way intentionally harmed.
So, you deducted a total of 30 minutes from the game? What disturbance did white cause? In what way was white disobedient to you?
Of course I agree, but there are cases when a little prevention can go a long way.
If the TD notices a game where white has started black’s clock without making a move, the TD can save a lot of trouble by asking white to make his move now, before black arrives.
Very much support Bill on this issue. If it is a small tournament with a limited amount of boards, the tournament director would know before hand if someone is late at the start of the round. If the person is white, tell white to punch their clock and make their first move, then let blacks clock run till the person comes to the board.
Some players will hold off a number of minutes before they start the clock. During the start of round 3 (Jackson Action V, 9/18/04) 4 out of 7 boards were late for the start of the next round – they went out to lunch and they were late on the drive back. They all understood the next round started at 2 pm, even told the dirver before they went out to lunch the next round will start at 2 pm.
If it is a large tournament, say 25 boards: then the ‘tournament director’ with all the other duties could ‘not’ performed all the duties in the first 10 minutes after the start of the round. Dealing with problems that happen with any large tournament, walking the floor, checking and telling players they need to start the clock, – very low on the list at that time. Then, if and only if black is late must inform the director before could inform the ‘tournament director’, if black is upset that white did not make the first move. In this case that started the debate, would take 2 minutes off black clock and in only would make black 8 minutes late. Would inform white the norm of starting a clock when black is not present.[/b][/code]