Clock Setting vs Forfeit in Scholastic

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I’ve been playing scholastic and open tournaments for about 8.5 years, am not a TD but have read the rule book (a long time ago, about 3-4 years) and am rated slightly over 1500 (my abilities range from about 1000 to 1900 depending on various factors). I played in a tournament today - a three round, Swiss system, girls’ state championship consisting of 8 players rated 600-1600. There were no set round times, with the tournament announcement indicating that rounds would start as soon as reasonable upon the previous round’s conclusion. However, the players of the last game would get 10 minutes after the conclusion of the previous round before they had to start their games.

After unexpectedly losing the first round against an 1000 who I usually beat, I quickly won the second round against a relatively new player (600). I left the tournament site, going about 5 minutes away, for another brief activity, with one of my friends, who is also a TD but was not directing this tournament, planning to text me once the second round finished. I got back on site immediately when the last game finished. The director pointed me to the pairings and said I could start my opponent’s clock; none of the other players were in the room, as all were taking a break, and someone else’s set was on my board, so I said I’d wait until she returned or at least until the other players started. I went into the break room and talked with some of the other players and parents.

The director came into the break room and informed me that my opponent and I would each start with 5 minutes off of our clocks because we didn’t start at the round time. I pointed out that no players were in the room and no one knew where my opponent had gone, and that I assumed (incorrectly, as I later found) she was the last game in the 2nd round. We got into an argument (including him, but not me, yelling), with him telling me that I’m forcing him to go by the “rules.” Once my opponent showed up, having needed some personal time, and all of the games were starting, he ordered me to remove the 5 minutes from the clocks of myself and my opponent. I told him no, because we were starting at the same time as the other games and we were not breaking any rules.

He informed me that I would be forfeited if I did not “obey the rules” and I continued to point out that neither my opponent nor I were later than the other games. After I asked him to show me where in the rule book he referenced (I know time can be deducted if both players are late to a round; neither of us was actually late, though), he told me that if I didn’t start the game right now that I would be forfeited. I finally gave in, deducted the time as he indicated, and started the game, which I won. During the game, I felt bad for my opponent (I didn’t feel she should have lost the time), so I “forgot” to hit the clock a few times and had her think on my time in order to make up for the 5 minutes she lost; it wouldn’t be fair for her to be penalized because the director has personal issues with me and I talked back to his ruling.

I was just trying to be nice to my opponent. Also, when he originally told me that I “could” start the clock, it sounded like “you can start if you want to” - and I wanted to let my opponent (an 1100 who uses her time a lot more than other scholastic kids) have her full time, since we wouldn’t be holding up the tournament (I planned, of course, to start when the other games started, regardless of if she was present).

What are your thoughts? Am I totally in the wrong? What would you have done, and is there anything that the director did that is inappropriate?

2

I don’t think you’ve presented enough facts yet.

Was this a US Chess rated event?

What was the time control?

Did the venue have a ‘must finish by’ time?

Was the tournament providing any equipment (sets and clocks) or did the players have to provide them? If the latter, did you have a set and clock you could use?

3

Yes, USCF rated; G/75d5; no must-finish by time (well, midnight, but that’s not a concern when the last round is starting around 2pm). Yes, I had a set and clock, which I used when we played the game (no sets or clocks provided, players instructed to provide their own).

4

I think you should mentioned (or point out) to the TD about the other set being at your board. There are people who are very picky about others touching there stuff. I do agree that an ASAP schedule is meant to speed up a tournament, but it usually does not apply to individual games. Rather an ASAP round schedule is for the start of most/all games for the next (and subsequent) rounds. I would wonder about the level and experience of the TD of the event, especially as regards ASAP rounds. Personally I have never organized an event using ASAP round times, but I have been a TD at a few of them. You do not find many non-scholastic events that use ASAP round times.

Larry S. Cohen
ANTD

5

If your account of the events is fair and accurate, the TD was probably in the wrong. At the very least, a TD should be able/prepared to show you the basis in the rulebook for his/her ruling.

But it’s not evident to me from your description that the ruling affected the outcome of your game. So I’d suggest just letting it go.

Bob

6

For ASAP tournaments, I personally don’t allow players to start a clock on their opponent until I’ve started the round officially, which I don’t do until I have most of the players in the room.

7

This sounds like one of those “there must be another side to this” situations. I’d like to hear from the organizer.

Bill Smythe

8

I can’t claim to know the full side of the organizer (who is also the director), but to the best of my knowledge this, below would be at least part of his perspective.

Also, I’m more curious on this, as it really doesn’t matter going forward. He only runs scholastic tourneys (all ASAP rounds) and this is my last year in high school. I think he’s been directing for at least 20 years. Once before his ruling has affected my game result (loss instead of draw) and I didn’t do anything about it (besides protest at the time, but he insisted he was right), but this time it didn’t (or at least not negatively; I think my opponent may have been affected).

Just as a note, there were 8 original players with the following incoming ratings:

1 1599 (lost to #5, beat #7, lost to #6)
2 1529 (me; lost to #6, beat #8 and #3)
3 1076 (my 3rd round opponent; beat #7, lost to #5 and #2)
4 1052 (beat #8 and #6, lost to #5)
5 1041 (beat #1, #3, and #4)
6 1021 (my first opponent; beat #2, lost to #4, and beat #1)
7 646 (left after 2nd round when #8 withdrew, lost to #3 and #1)
8 633P5 (my second opponent, withdrew after second round, lost to #4 and #2)

So at the beginning of the 3rd round, there were 6 players left: 1-6, 2-3, and 4-5. As the 1-7 and 2-8 games in round 2 finished quickly (within first 30 minutes), the 3-5 and 4-6 games continued. The 3-5 game finished third and #3 disappeared with a parent, with the 4-6 game finishing around 10 min later. Player #4, the younger sister of player #3, was looking for #3 when I arrive (immediately upon 4-6 finishing).

Since #4 and #6 each had 10 minutes before their games had to start, the only game that didn’t have that allowance was mine vs #3. So, the director intended the round time to start when I arrived (since I was the first player to arrive).

Of course, I (a) for some reason thought player #3 was in the last game and hence had the time allowance because she usually will disappear for her break when she is the last game, (b) didn’t see the point of starting one game when none of the others were playing because none of the ASAP tourneys I’ve played in have ever started just one game, (c) didn’t want to move player #2’s set because I recall her being particular about her expensive set, (d) didn’t realize original, fairly relaxed statement was a command, and (e) knew my opponent tends to use most/all of her time and didn’t want to have her disadvantaged.

ETA: I assume the basis for the director’s ruling was wherever in the rule book the clock time is adjusted if both players are late to a game. I’m aware of that rule but disagree with the ruling because to be late to a game, the round needs to have started.

9

If Ms. Darsey will assure us that she will not file a complaint with the office, I will offer an opinion.

Alex Relyea

10

Said friend is filing a complaint based on various actions of the TD (none of which, except this one, am I party to) and I’m writing a statement at their request, as regardless of the ruling, I felt the TD was exceptionally rude. So I can’t make such an assurance. I’d appreciate anyone’s opinion, however, as I’d like to be as unbiased as possible in my statement.

11

A look at the crosstable for this event sheds a little more light, at least confirming the mechanical details in your story.

I am less reluctant than Alex Relyea to express my opinions, since I am not on any committee that may end up ruling on the issues raised.

The organizer/director who ran this event also did a three-section scholastic event the previous weekend. Apparently the current event was held separately so that its participants could play in both events if they desired.

The event had 8 players, one of whom dropped out after the second round, leaving one other player with a full-point bye in round 3. Thus, only 3 games were scheduled for round 3.

Two of these three games involved the two players involved in a long game in the previous round. So, only the third game (yours) could start right away, because of the 10-minute break awarded the two players in the previous round’s long game.

To me, it is absurd for the director to insist that a single game be started as soon as the previous round is over, when none of the remaining games can start just yet.

Also, it is not typical for an event run at G/75 d/5 to have an ASAP schedule to begin with. Normally, I think ASAP schedules are used mostly for younger players who are playing at controls like G/30 d/5.

As for the player with the expensive set occupying your assigned table, I suppose you could simply have played your game at another table. No doubt you were concerned that this director would be so tyrannical as to insist that all games in a 3-board event be played at precisely their assigned tables.

Directors need to remember that they exist for the players, not the other way around. From this distance it appears that this director needs to learn that lesson.

Good luck with your letter assisting another player in her dealings with this director.

By any chance, can you contact the director, let him know that his actions are being discussed in these forums, and suggest that he post his side of the story here?

Bill Smythe

12

Thirty years ago a lot of IL scholastics ran at 40/60, SD/15, a number of them with an ASAP schedule. I still do IL HS tournaments using G/60;d5 on an ASAP schedule.

13

I’ve been an assistant TD at numerous scholastic events so I’ll throw in my two cents. First, I’ve never heard of a tournament where all of the games don’t start at the same time for that round. The ASAP condition is supposed to apply to the last game finished, and players don’t start their games until the official start signal is given (which I’ve had the honor of doing sometimes). And I understand the OP’s concern about moving another player’s board; some people hate to have their things touched. Since it was such a small event, it shouldn’t have mattered if she simply played at a different table. The 5 minute penalty does not seem appropriate to me and I wouldn’t have handled it that way. However, arguing with a TD is not appropriate and it is grounds for expulsion if it gets out of hand. The TD is the tournament authority and if a player challenges that authority he is compelled to take action against the player. In a G 75 match I really don’t think 5 minutes would make that big of a difference; it would have been best to subtract the 5 minutes and then report the TD to US Chess later if there was a problem that affected the outcome.

14

Even in tournaments with fixed start times a game that legitimately runs quite long often has the players allowed to start the next round later than all of the other games start.

For ASAP tournaments I will often do a rolling start (start the games with two players at them once maybe 25% of the players are there) at small scholastic events. Some parents don’t like their kids sitting around waiting and thus will wait until the last minute to bring them in. When you have a number of such parents you will find that waiting until they are almost all at the board will result in significant delays. Having a rolling start gives players and parents an incentive to get to the boards quickly, gives them a disincentive to delay (I can then have clocks for missing players started more quickly since 90%+ are already playing) thus speeding up the event (which will sometimes adversely affect an organizer that wants to sell all the food they brought on site).

The best example of that is a tournament with (somewhat aggressively) scheduled round times for four 160+ player sections (one not rated) in different areas of a large convention hall (I had one 225-player section where I soloed both the floor and the computer - submitted to MSA with incorrect section attribution) and I announced three to five minutes before the round time that if both players were there and were willing then they could start early at that point. I would have parents suddenly noticing that the section had pretty much everybody playing and rushing their kids over to minimize the amount of time they lost, ended up relieved when they realized their kids’ clocks hadn’t been started yet. The other sections that waited until most of the players were present ended up late and kept getting later each round as the cumulative lateness added up.
uschess.org/assets/msa_jooml … 0501150481

15

Thesis: ASAP round starts are poor practice for the reasons illustrated in this thread. Discuss.

16

Having run my share of kids events, mainly at G/30, 90% of their games are done within 15 minutes of the start of a round. Having kids with nothing to do for 45 minutes invites problems.

17

I’ve done many tournaments with a K-3 G/30;d5 section. If you schedule the rounds then an aggressive schedule would be every 75 minutes. I see many of those rounds taking 20-30 minutes, some going up to 45 minutes and the occasional one taking the full hour plus. They usually allow starting roughly every 40 to 45 minutes on the average, and doing ASAP cuts a five round 6 hour schedule to a 3.5 to 4 hour schedule, which is a huge difference for kids that young (and their parents). I’ve sometimes finished the K-3 awards ceremony three hours after the start of the tournament.
My most recent five-round G/30;d5 ASAP schedule had the K-5 section temporarily run ahead of the K-3 section (some K-3 games used most of the hour in round one) but K-3 ended up finishing round five before K-5 started round five.
If you have everybody close by (or a way to get the message out for a larger area - generally a school PA or multiple runners to the team rooms) then you can do ASAP and save a huge amount of time for the kids and parents, with that time savings often being a major factor in getting them to keep coming to events.

18

Completely agree with Jeff’s points here.

Frankly, it would be very bad for the organizer in today’s world to do anything other than ASAP in these situations.

19

G/75 with a very small field isn’t going to be easy. You could have 3 games finish in 30 minutes and the last go the whole mile. Two hours is a long time to kill, particularly if you don’t know whether you can leave. You could also have 3 games finish in 30 minutes, have some of the players take off for lunch and the last game end unexpectedly a few minutes later. A fixed schedule has the strong possibility of ending up taking (many) hours more than an ASAP schedule. However, the only way you can make “ASAP” work with this is to set a “clocks start” time when the final game finishes and text it to the players. Starting the next round on a game by game basis just seems like a really bad idea.

It’s much less of an issue with a shorter time control and more games. I’ve done it and done it successfully. I’ve been to dozens of tournaments that have done it and done it successfully. At G/30, someone who gets scholar’s mated has at most an hour before the longest game could finish, and you can probably guess that there will be at least some game go at least half that. So the range of how much time there is might be to wait is much, much narrower.

20

Especially if the pairings are made before all the results are known from the previous round. I’m curious to know whether that was the case here. Perhaps the OP could weigh in again and let us know. With just 6 players remaining, it’s entirely possible that the final-round pairings might have been the same regardless of the result of the still-being-played long game from the previous round.

It’s still a bad idea to start early, though, unless both players readily agree.

Bill Smythe