This is a well reasoned decision. I would have ruled win-loss, but I’m not sure I would be right.
I am not inclined to apply either Rule 14D or Rule 14E because we are lacking an element in the preambles of each rule. 14D explicitly requires an ending “in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side.” 14E requires a player to have exceeded the time limit. Neither of these conditions exists in the fact pattern you describe.
I’m conflicted here, because awarding a full point to a player without mating material is disfavored in a number of other explicitly stated cases. But this case is not explicitly stated, and there is a plausible policy argument (which I gave above) to treat the result as win-loss.
In no case can the result be draw-draw. The language of both the US Chess and FIDE rules is explicit and unmistakable that the offending player loses. Period.
Your reasoning for scoring this as a win-loss is legalistically plausible, and is along the lines of what I would use if the possibility of a split result was not available for some reason. However, I think rules 14D and 14E can be used in this situation. What point total to award a player having only a lone king whose opponent has been forfeited is a situation not clearly addressed by the rules. Rule 1A states, “In situations not explicitly covered [by the rules], the tournament director can usually reach a fair decision by considering similar cases and applying their principles analogously.” As you say, “awarding a full point to a player without mating material is disfavored in a number of other explicitly stated cases.” These lead me to the conclusion that the fairest way to score this is draw-loss.
Both of these rules (among others) need some work.
In the case of 14D, if a player can escape a loss (e.g.by time forfeit) if neither player can be help-mated, why shouldn’t a player similarly escape if he cannot be help-mated but his opponent can? This is a Stupid Discontinuity, or maybe a Stupid Anti-Monotonicity.
In the case of 14E, if a player can get a draw if his opponent’s material is too weak and the player’s time has expired, why can he not also claim a draw if his opponent’s material is too weak but the player still has time remaining? Another Stupid Discontinuity or Stupid Anti-Monotonicity.
In other words, yes, 14D and 14E ought to be useable in this situation, but you may have to stretch the literal wording of these rules slightly to the point where they make sense.
Agreed. I would make a “spirit of the rules” argument in favor of rated 1-0. There is no proof that player whose cell phone went off achieved the overwhelming position on the board by cheating, but the board position is nevertheless “tainted” and should not be used as evidence. An (admittedly imperfect) analogy is with doping in athletics, where one is disqualified if “masking agent” substances are discovered, even in the absence of proof of taking substances that actually enhance performance.
Our (USCF) Cell Phone/Disturbing Behavior penalties are the same … 1st Offense, loss of 10 minutes (or half of remaining time, whichever is less) … 2nd offense, loss of game in progress … with an additional of 3rd offense of loss of game in progress and expulsion from tournament.
Now … in the case of a player who commits a “2nd (or 3rd) offense” against a player with “non-mating material” … where technically the player cannot win (with the pieces on the board) … I would still award that player a win … … as in, no matter the material, a player can still win – either on time or the player with winning material may suddenly go nutso and resign!
True, there are many explicitly stated cases where a player without winning material theoretically “wins” the game, but is fairly only credited with a draw – but, those are all “during play.” However … if a player loses a game due to any “Unsportsmanlike Conduct,” then the opponent should, in my opinion, receive full winning credit. Similar example – if a player has every single piece he started the game with and the opponent has a lone King … and the “winning player” suddenly went ballistic and intentionally knocked the entire board, clock, bottle of tequila, whatever, in the floor … then I am awarding “Mr. Lone King” a win.
In FIDE, possession of an electronic device (especially a phone) is considered evidence of cheating, and thus Mr. Maness’s penalty is completely appropriate. It is obviously not the case in US Chess because no one would assess a ten minute time penalty for cheating. Therefore I believe a split result is appropriate.
In non-rated sections I have no qualms converting a resignation or “I want to quit” to a drawn result if the opponent has only a king. Such sections are designed to introduce players to tournaments without having them jump straight into rated play, so they are also teaching opportunities (sometimes for the parents as well when they ask what happened).
In rated sections, a player resigning against an opponent without mating material requires review as well since such an anomalous result may indicate collusion and potentially the need for an ethics complaint (possibly disallowing the “resignation” and turning it into a double-forfeit if there really was collusion).
The rulebook has some types of positions that are automatically drawn (insufficient material to continue) where the TD should point inform the players about the draw when they don’t realize they are playing out a game that is already drawn. A resignation in such a position would come after the game is already over, and thus be invalid.
I have to agree with Alex as I feel strongly that a second ring should be a rated loss in this scenario - despite the material situation on the board.
As a side note, I am likely biased as I am annoyed and find it jarring when a stranger’s phone rings in public - much less at a tournament. Who still uses ring tones in 2016? Perhaps in the next rollout of IOS or Android there will be a new setting next to airplane mode: chess mode.
OK- follow up question:
All of the same facts as OP gave- except instead of an adult’s cell phone ringing- it’s a child who won’t stop talking at a scholastic event?
At one national scholastic a team was informed of the “no distractions” rule and many members used it, including one who tried to claim it against an opponent who didn’t realize it was his move and was quietly watching the board next to him. The claimant didn’t realize the rule was to stop distracting others and thought it also applied if a player let himself become distracted by something else.
Under what rule(s) would you award a person a win without non-mating material due to time forfeit?