First round of a 24 person tournament, our weekly Tuesday Night Swiss. On board one an adult master is paired with an eighteen hundred rated child of about 10 years of age. In the middle of the game the kid gets up, apparently to go to the restroom. After some time the adult gets up to go look for his opponent. Upon entering the men’s room the master sees the kid AND his father exiting the same toilet stall. He doesn’t hear the toilet flush and they don’t wash their hands. The kids takes his seat at the board and moves almost immediately (which isn’t that abnormal for the kid, he usually uses very little time). The master stops the clock and makes a claim for cheating, assuming the father had been passing moves to the son in the toilet. I talk to the father and the kid together, and then separately. They don’t deny that they were both in the toilet stall at the same time. But, they both say the kid wasn’t feeling well and wanted his father with him in the toilet. But then nothing happened, no vomit, no bowel movement, so they returned to the game. The father went so far as to say that he still frequently has to ‘clean up’ his kid after he goes to the restroom, and I can call his wife to verify this if I want, which is why he was in the toilet stall with him. For a ten year old kid? Seemed fishy to me, but I didn’t see any actual proof of cheating so, I warn the kid and his father that is doesn’t look right; but as there is no actual proof of cheating I tell them to resume the game but if he has to go to the restroom again to let me know and I will accompany him to ensure no cheating. The master says he is continuing the game under protest. The game continues for another hour and a half and the kid eventually wins. By the way, the master was very short on time the entire game as he habitually arrives late, which may have contributed to the 1800 player being able to beat him. The master withdraws in a huff, saying I should have forfeited the kid for cheating because ‘obviously’ the two of them being in the same toilet stall was proof of collusion.
i ain’t a td but has the kid done this before? first time at your tournament? one-time occurrence? he leave the board repeatedly? how did the kid mention his “distress” to his father? i’d probably give him the benefit of the doubt just as you did if it appears to be an isolated incident. defnitely keep close tabs for further irregularities though.
There is a lack of actual proof. Also there is a common assumption of guilt (with innocence needing to be proven) when somebody complains rather than an assumption of innocence with guilt needing to be proven.
I had a case where a player leading the U1800 section was accused of getting signals from his brother signaling to him what to play during the game (the brother was remaining near the board and did not have a computer or cell phone). The complainant said the brother was a master-level player but it turned out that the brother was playing in the U1200 section, implying that if the U1800 player was taking the brother’s advice then that would actually help the complainant rather than cause harm.
In the pre-chess-computer days there were numerous claims that a kid was receiving signals from a parent, and usually the kid was a much stronger player than the parent. Closing the floor for scholastic events eliminated such almost certainly erroneous claims (and set a precedent for keeping the floor closed once chess programs reached a point where they were stronger than the players and such signaling complaints became slightly more plausible).
If there is a chess engine running on either person’s cell phone and the engine has the game on it then the plausibility of the accusation goes way up (I have ruled an immediate loss in games where a player came out of the bathroom with a chess app having the current game plus a few moves - with the chief TDs following up with ejections). If the father is stronger than the son then the reasons for suspicion go up.
Based on the limited facts as described, in my opinion you did the right thing.
USCF “21G. Evidence. Unbiased evidence is required to support any claim by a player that the opponent violated a rule.”
A father going into stall with kid may be reason to be alert, but in my opinion it is not substantial evidence. In other words it is not evidence which a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion in the conduct of his affairs.
I realize that the USCF rule does not say “substantial” evidence, but I think it is implied because I cannot imagine assessing a penalty based on less. Certainly a penalty should not be based on mere suspicion or a mere accusation.
On these facts, I would have handled this the same way you did.
I would certainly keep tabs on the son/father in the future to see if a pattern develops.
If the kid played a “computer line” once he returned that an 1800 would be unlikely to find, I would be more suspicious. If he won because he played 1800-2000 level moves and the master played less than 1800-2000 level moves in time trouble, I’d be less suspicious.
In the cold light of day, I would remember to ask if either father/son had a phone of similar device. Agree with Jeff that if either does and said device has the game in it with an analysis program, I would immediately forfeit the kid absent a very good explanation.
I think it’s highly suspicious behavior, and I’d be interested in knowing the rating of the father, but this still wouldn’t be enough evidence, for me, to forfeit, or expel the player. It would, however, cause me to watch this player for future games.
I’d also say that not enough evidence was provided. Some complainants seem to feel that it is the obligation of the accused to prove innocence because they think their take on the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Most TDs feel guilt is what needs to be proven.
Most parents of class B kids are weaker than their kids. There are some exceptions (I know of at least one early teen B player with a master for a father)…
We’ll find out eventually when the tournament is submitted for ratings by the affiliate (probably shortly after 6/23).
If the master had won this game he most likely would not have withdrawn. After carefully reading this scenario I fail to see where any evidence of cheating occurred. How was the board position communicated? Telepathy?
A player under ten and around 1800 could be (and most likely is) a lot stronger than that rating, especially with the powerful programs available these days. Salient information, such as what could the father see of the game in progress and did an electronic scoresheet go into the bathroom stall are things that could support this being a case of cheating. There was none of this in this story and if nothing like this is in the appeal the USCF ought to be a few dollars richer for having to waste time on a frivolous claim.
Will the appeal be successful? Likely not. Will the deposit be forfeited? Absolutely not. There’s enough “strange” in this story to provide grounds for an appeal. (Most parents don’t accompany their 10-year-olds into bathroom stalls - and the ones who do, typically spend a lot of time flushing. That alone is suspicious to me.)
As a TD, I would be very hesitant to forfeit a player on mere suspicion. Yes, the situation as presented does appear suspicious. I have known kids who had developmental issues in this area. Quite often they are a source of ridicule from other kids, and the harassment can be great. So, care for the child in dealing with this claim can be of vital importance as well, as can possible legal issues which could arise if a parent is not allowed to attend their child’s legitimate, physical requirements.
You mentioned 10 years old as to age. What if the player is 5 or 7 years old?? Clearly as tournament directors we should never evaluate a player as regard who age who is playing in open regular tournament sections. By their very attendance in these sections, they should be treated the same as all other players, regardless. For example, at several of my scholastics, we have had a very talented 6 year old appear whose father has been very distraught after several of the kids losses believing the kids stories that in one way or another the opponent cheated, was unethical, rude, etc. Quite frankly, I and the other Tournament directors present did not observe such negative behavior, and thus, of course took no action. Certainly, despite being instructed by many tournament directors at many events, the 6 year old has not been confident enough, apparently, to make claims on his own behalf.
Another example (actually occurred) a 4 year old rated about 1100 falls asleep at the board. Is it proper, or an unfair advantage granted for the tournament director to wake him up?? The adult opponent rated about 800 had no desire to do so. Is this unethical??
no, you don’t wake up a player if he or she falls asleep at the board. not your responsibility as a TD. just like if a player forgets to pucnh the clock after his or her move.
The one time I can see waking somebody up is if the player’s sleeping (and possibly snoring) is causing a distraction for the players at the boards around the sleeping player. I know of this specific situation happening at a national HS.
PS Let it be the TD that is doing the waking in a “distraction” situation. The action of waking is a judgement call and should fall to the TD being the one to make that judgement call. A spectator, coach, parent or other player should not be the one making the judgement call.
As a player, I have awakened sleeping opponents. I also indicate to opponents when they have not pressed the button on their clocks. I don’t have to. The rules allow me to not be courteous. I prefer not to win a game that way. Most opponents are embarrassed that they had to receive a nudge or warning.
As a TD, I tell the player that he does not have to awaken the opponent, but it is up to him. I tell all others that it is not their responsibility to interfere in the game. If he is snoring or talking in his sleep, then I would be inclined to wake him, but it depends on the level of distraction. I have seen players drunk at the board who fall asleep. They get no slack.
As for the alleged cheating, I would need more evidence before I would make such a serious ruling. The situation bears more attention and I would warn the parent and the child that the appearance of impropriety will raise suspicion. In cases of illness, the player or the parent should be informing the TD because they are likely to be leaving the playing area for an extended period. This falls under rule 20H.
With a four year old kid, I would probably wake him/her up at least the first time to make sure he/she was OK. Kids can spike 102 fevers at the drop of a hat and I certainly wouldn’t want a sick kid sitting a couple of feet from several other people for hours on end.
Anyone who’s ever run an insanity tournament has probably encountered at least one sleeping player. I worked at the Edsel Insanity in 1992, which started at midnight after the last round of that year’s US Open. There was one snorer there. I did wake him up.