I agree that split results should be used sparingly, but really, how often do circumstances calling for a split result occur? In 25 years of directing I have entered a split result two or three times. I would guess that’s about par for the course for most TD’s. Any effect on the rating system from something that happens so infrequently is just not worth worrying about.
In the specific case presented here I cannot understand entering a result of draw-draw. Assuming that your announced penalty for a cell phone going off was a time penalty for the first infraction and a game forfeit for the second infraction you must abide by what you have stated and enter a result of zero for the forfeited player. Refusing to abide by your own rule because you are concerned about the effect on the rating system of entering a split result is not defensible in any way that I can imagine. If this reasoning doesn’t make sense to you then we may just have to agree to disagree here.
I think USCF rule 20N1b (about audible noises such as a cell phone ring) makes this pretty clear:
b. Second (and subsequent) offense for the same player during the same event is loss of the game currently in progress.
There isn’t any provision about mating material. From this alone it sounds like 1-0 is the correct score rather than 1/2-0.
I guess the question whether to do 1/2-0 or 1-0 depends on whether or not having a cell phone on enters into the potential cheating area. A cheating offense clearly gets 1-0. Normally you want cell phones off just to eliminate the suspicion of cheating even if it didn’t actually occur here.
It’s not that I’m strongly opposed to split results, it’s just that, to avoid proliferation, they should be used sparingly. In this case I simply don’t see the need, but obviously, YMMV.
Perhaps the first of these two sentences needs a bit of clarification. What is the antecedent of “and”? Is it “events external” or “actual moves”?
In the former case, you are saying “events external to the actual moves of the game (counting resignation, draw claims, and acceptance of draw offers as external events) should not produce an outcome that could not be produced with over the board play”.
In the latter case, you are saying “events external to the actual moves of the game (counting resignation, draw claims, and acceptance of draw offers as actual moves) should not produce an outcome that could not be produced with over the board play”.
I tend to agree with your first sentence, whichever way you intended it. It seems to me, though, that the first sentence (either interpretation) leads to a conclusion exactly the opposite of your second sentence. How would it be possible for a loss-draw outcome to be produced with over the board play?
In my opinion, the OP’s case involves an infraction that occurred “off-the-board”, so to speak, as opposed to over-the-board.
A cell phone ringing has nothing to do with what happens OTB, and is unlike a forfeit that would occur if, say, a player failed to show for the round, or left and didn’t return, or refused to obey a TD ruling.
You’re quite right; I’m not going to hold that up as my best writing sample.
You’re also obviously right that a loss for one player and a draw for the other player is not an outcome that could result from over the board play. So, my final sentence utterly failed to convey my meaning.
I just have a fundamental objection to awarding a full point to a player with only a king left on the board, even in an extreme penalty situation. I suppose one could argue that a player with just a king left could still win the game if the opponent were to resign. (However, as a director, if I were to see a player resign against an opponent with just a king, I’d certainly want an excellent explanation of how that is not a pre-arranged result or an attempt to sandbag.) So, I suppose one could argue that the player with the lone king can still be awarded a full point because the opponent’s cell phone rang a second time.
Interestingly, although the FIDE Laws of Chess do allow for a draw-loss outcome, Article 11.3b (the “no cell phone” rule) does not:
By comparison, Article 11.7 states:
So, under the FIDE Laws of Chess, a loss-draw result would only be possible only in the most extreme case of a player refusing to comply with the rules.
I’m rethinking my stance on this question – although I’m still plenty uncomfortable.
If split results bother you that much, and you truly can’t see why they should be used here, then scoring this as a win-loss is possible. I would prefer to score it as a draw-loss, but I can see a rationale for entering it as a win-loss. I don’t see any justification for scoring it as a draw-draw, and thereby giving half a point to a player who has been forfeited.
I am much more comfortable with either draw-loss or draw-draw than I am with win-loss. Giving a win to a player with a lone king, even in an extreme penalty situation, bothers me much more than a split result.
Some of these, too, might be regarded as “off-the-board”, especially the last one. It depends on your definitions.
In fact, if you define a position as
“win-possible” in case there exists a sequence of legal moves leading to the player checkmating the opponent, and
“loss-possible” in case there exists a sequence of legal moves leading to the opponent checkmating the player, and
“draw-possible” in case there exists EITHER a sequence of legal moves leading to stalemate OR a sequence of legal moves leading to an eventual repetition of position
– then it might be reasonable to regard resignations, draw agreements, time forfeits, and TD penalties as “off the board” as well.
I do not agree with the second part (a sequence of legal moves leading to an eventual repetition of position) as then one could claim the game is always draw-possible if both the player and the opponent is shuffling pieces. (e.g. Ke4-Ke6-Ke3-Ke7-Ke4-Ke6-Ke3-Ke7 -->Ke4. etc.)
Perhaps the better definition for “a sequence of legal moves leading to stalemate” which is similar to helpmate example, is that the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any means - thus “draw-possible”.
Best,
Acerook
edited: notation so three-fold was possible (Ke4-Ke3*, Ke7-Ke6)
If one adopts the purist definitions I proposed in my response to Terry Winchester above, one could argue that a resignation in that situation is not permitted.
In fact, one could even argue that if a position is win-possible and loss-possible but not draw-possible (as defined in that prior post), then a draw agreement is not permitted.
In an earlier thread along these lines, Jeff Wiewel came up with a position where white has only two legal moves, one of which checkmates black immediately, and the other of which leaves black with only one legal move, which checkmates white immediately.
Yes, I noticed that inconsistency in the FIDE rules too. It seems that, in recent years, FIDE has had its act together quite well regarding clarity and consistency, but when the cell phone penalties were tacked on, they blew it (slightly) in their haste.
Me too, especially in the case of the super-purist “no draw agreement permitted” example above. Maybe that would go just a bit too far?
Nah. We’re just talking about options that are already possible. Besides, maybe FIDE should correct its oversight here, before we try to jump in.
That’s not what I meant by “draw-possible”. In fact, 99.99% of the positions you’ll see over the board are draw-possible, in that it is almost always possible for the players to mutually shuffle their pieces back and forth. (By the way, I think you meant something like Ke2-e3 Ke7-e6 Ke3-e2 Ke6-e7 etc.)
If the player on move has only one legal move, and that move administers checkmate, then that would be one of those rare cases where the position is not draw-possible.
The FIDE rule is intentionally written as it stands. The receipt of unauthorized assistance ought to be and is imputed to the player whose cell phone goes off, compelling a result of win-loss in all cases. The offending player is not entitled to the presumption that s/he reduced his or her opponent to insufficient mating material with clean hands.
I, too, don’t much like giving a full point to a player with a lone king, which is why I prefer to score this as draw-loss, but if forced to choose between giving an extra half point to the opponent of the player who broke the rules or an extra half point to the player who broke the rules, I would unhesitatingly choose the former. The miscreant should never profit from his actions.
I can’t help thinking that the FIDE and US Chess rules on cell phones are becoming totalitarian. When the idea of making rules concerning cell phones ringing was first considered, it was because of the noise being a distraction, however minor it might be. Now the rules have morphed into a draconian wielding of a hammer against individuals who have the ubiquitous devices.
Below are my rationales I used when I made the ruling, using strictly US Chess Rules:
Using 20N1. Disturbing noise or disruption of games - “1st offense is to subtract 10 minutes or half the remaining time from a player’s clock, whichever is less.”
Using 20N1. Disturbing noise or disruption of games - “2nd offense for the same player during the same event is the loss of the game currently in progress.”
The game is loss for Black due to the cell phone penalties. The opponent with the lone king (14E) at best can do is a draw. No helpmate, pawn promotion, time forfeit could help white produce a better result than a draw. In addition, rule 14D4 states, “No legal moves leading to checkmate by opponent. There are no legal moves that could lead to the player [with black pieces] being checkmated by the opponent.” Thus, the game is a draw for white. Thus, the split result of (1/2 - 0). Furthermore, 1A scope allows the TD to reach this fair decision.
Bonus: How a TD reports the result is after uploading the tournament data to the TD/A, one edits the crosstable with N-R-S – (win = N, draw = R, loss = S) with the appropriate seed numbers to record. For example, R60 - S75.
As far as I can tell, MSA is not broken after rating this tournament - both players achieved ratings changes and the offending player had a provisional rating. I doubt I will have a split result soon as this is my first split result in 8 years of directing.
My understanding is that the FIDE Anti-Cheating Commission has requested a change to article 11.3.b of the Laws of Chess to ease the restriction on possession of a cell phone in “minor tournaments.”
Yes, the rules are strict. The problem is that it is now extremely feasible to have a device in your pocket capable of playing grandmaster level chess very inexpensively. And the problem will only get worse.
While I agree with your interpretation of the words constituting rule 14D4, I believe the rule was never intended to mean what that interpretation says. The rest of rule 14D concerns itself with positions in which neither player can possibly checkmate the opponent by any sequence of legal moves. I believe the intent of 14D4 is to cover any other positions that were not enumerated in 14D1 through 14D3 in which neither player can produce checkmate (example: white king on e1, white pawns on a4, b5, c4, e4, f5, g4, white bishop on a2; black king on e8, black pawns on a5, b4, c5, e5, f4, g5, black bishop on c7 – a so-called “dead position”). Based on 14D1 through 14D3, I don’t think the intent of 14D4 was to apply to a position in which only one player cannot checkmate the opponent. (I submitted an ADM to change the wording of 14D4 to what I believe its true intent was. That motion was referred to the rules committee.)
