Here is an example that occurred at an US Chess tournament:
In round 5, with time control of 40/120, SD 30, d10 from move 1, the player with the black pieces had his cell phone go off. What is the penalty?
After addressing this issue, 8 minutes later, the same player had his cell phone go off again. What is the penalty?
To complicate matters a little bit, the player with black pieces had two queens vs. the player with white only had a lone king. What is the correct result?
Bonus: Now, the TD has to report the result (from question 3) to TD/A in order to submit the tournament shortly after the tournament is completed. How do would the TD input the result into tournament crosstable (TD/A for submission)?
Best,
Acerook
P.S. I just learned the answer to the bonus question so just wanted to share. =)
Depending on the disturbance created, up to 10 minutes could be subtracted from the player’s remaining time for the 1st occurrence. Subsequent occurrences forfeit the game.
Number 3 doesn’t seem complicated to me. Black has mating material, his phone went off, black can lose. Now, if the other guy who has only K, and no mating material, and his phone goes off, or if black (being the one to have his phone ring) had no mating material, I can see a TD being curious. Nevertheless, I don’t believe that mating material is required for penalties involving this type of offense.
The Bonus question: If a move had been played on the chessboard, it is a rated loss.
Depends on what was announced (either in pre-event publicity, or in a written or verbal announcement at the start of the event) regarding cell phone policy. In the absence of such an announcement, and if the event is not FIDE-rated, a 10-minute penalty would be appropriate.
Assuming the original violation was addressed as above, the appropriate penalty now would be loss of game.
Draw. If there is no sequence of legal moves leading to white checkmating black, white cannot win.
I assume you are referring to the possibility of reporting the result as a win for one player and a draw for the other, or as a draw for one and a loss for the other. I believe the codes for these are N (unmatched win), R (unmatched draw), or S (unmatched loss).
In this case, however, I see no excuse for reporting an unmatched result. Just report it as D (normal draw) for both players. Reporting an unmatched result should be done seldom, if ever. That option is intended for highly unusual circumstances, such as when a spectator kibitzes a move that changes the probable outcome of the game.
Split Result - draw-loss. White has no way to checkmate Black, so cannot win. Black has been forfeited, so loses.
This certainly qualifies, I think, as a “highly unusual circumstance.” How often has this happened in a game you were directing? In any case, scoring this as a split result is the consistent way to rule. Saying in (2) that Black should be forfeited, but in (3) that you are awarding Black half a point for a draw is inconsistent. You can’t have it both ways. A split result is also fairer in this instance. White cannot checkmate Black, so cannot score more than half a point. Black fully merits his loss from the forfeit penalty. I would not want to give this player half a point just because his opponent lacks mating material, or for any other reason.
This is a very interesting question. I just took the FIDE National Arbiter exam and will send it to USCF later today. The FIDE Laws of Chess are very strict on this topic. The default penalty is automatic loss of the game. In 2014 FIDE altered the Rule (Article 11.3.b) to read, “However, the rules of the competition may allow such devices to be stored in a player’s bag, as long as the device is completely switched off. A player is forbidden to carry a bag holding such a device, without the permission of the arbiter. If it is evident that a player has such a device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. The rules of the competition may specify a different, less severe penalty. ” Without this rule change, many USCF tournaments would not be able to hold FIDE rated events. (There are many sites where there is no separate room and or holding area where cellphones could be checked in and held.) This would also be a complete headache for the organizer and arbiter. (TD)
In the actual instance cited below, I would have thought that the TD would have strongly notified the cell phone violator after the first violation that a second violation would be automatic loss of the game. This would have simplified matters. (Of major importance is what pre-tournament policy was posted for this event as stated by one of the respondents.)
Bill Smythe said:
“I assume you are referring to the possibility of reporting the result as a win for one player and a draw for the other, or as a draw for one and a loss for the other. I believe the codes for these are N (unmatched win), R (unmatched draw), or S (unmatched loss).”
These codes are for unrated games. Does anyone know how to submit a rated split result?
No, those codes are for rated games with inconsistent results. See https://secure2.uschess.org/TD_Affil/faq-partb.php and scroll down to “How do I enter split (or inconsistent) results such as a win for one player and a draw for the other player?”.
No, I’m quite sure the codes I listed (N, R, S) are for rated split results. For not-to-be-rated results, you can simply use X for forfeit win, Z for forfeit draw, and F for forfeit loss. Whether these not-to-be-rated results are “split” or not does not matter to the USCF software, I’m pretty sure.
The way to remember the codes N, R, S is to note that each of these letters is the second consonant in the corresponding “non-split” result: wiN, dRaw, loSs.
The TD did in fact told the player the penalty the first time and to completely power off his phone.
Also, all 3 questions including the bonus question, can be answered without having any pre-tournament announcements - all the rules applicable can be found in the 6th edition of US Chess Federation Official Rules and any updated rules since publication. Thus, references to FIDE rules are not applicable since it is a US rated chess tournament, not FIDE.
Why are we thinking that insufficient mating material (IMM) matters in this type of penalty? In my mind, IMM applies only to winning OTB on time (14E. Insufficient material to win on time). The penalty we’re discussing, however, is one involving failure to obey the rules of Chess.
Also, if the game was in progress, it should be rated.
Personally, I believe there is a compelling argument that events external to the actual moves of the game (and resignation, draw claims, and acceptance of draw offers) should not produce an outcome that could not be produced with over the board play. This may very well mean that the total points awarded to the two players in a game sum to less than one.
Non-offending player could get 1/2 point as that was the best he could get on the board, or could get a full point. Like Ken is suggesting I would probably rule the non-offending player gets 1/2.
It could get rated as a loss/draw split result, or loss/win separately of the points applied for prizes, although I probably would not do that. So if I did a split loss/draw I would rate it htat way.
To be sure, there is something appealing about loss-draw in this example. The offender gets what he deserves after a blatant violation (repeat offense), and his opponent gets the best he could have hoped for.
However, I still believe that split results should be reported only if absolutely necessary. In this case, draw-draw would have been acceptable. The offender would be penalized enough by having to accept a draw two queens up.
I dislike split results, in part because of what they do to the rating system. A loss-draw is deflationary, because the rating points lost are not compensated for by rating points gained elsewhere. A win-draw would be inflationary, for the corresponding reason in reverse.
Of course, the effect on ratings is negligible if split results are rare. That’s why they should be used only sparingly.
Following is an example where a split result might be appropriate. Player A’s position looks hopelessly lost, but he has one hard-to-find move that draws brilliantly. While player A is studying the position, a spectator blurts out the brilliant move. Player A looks at the position for a few more seconds and then plays the brilliant move. Player B objects, claiming that player A never would have found the move on his own and player B surely would have won.
This is only true in the extremely unlikely event that the players have the same k. Already it is rare for the winner to gain as many points as the loser loses, or both sides in a draw. Floating point ratings make this vanishingly unlikely.
