OK, so I was at this weekend G/30 tournament recently and had finished my game. My sister was still playing and I was standing behind her and watching the game. Under time pressure (she had a bit over a minute), she moved her rook - but to which square became the main issue. She intended to move it to f1, which was a reasonable move. But her opponent claimed that the rook was more on f2 than on f1, and simply took the rook with his pawn that was on e3. To be sure, I thought that the rook was more on f1, although there was really not much time to see since my sister’s opponent took the rook almost immediately. The director was summoned and I told them what I saw. The director said that he could not take my word - that I was biased because I was related to one of the players. When I said that that was understandable and that I just wanted to discuss with him about the procedure to resolve the situation (I’m a Club TD myself and wanted to learn on how to solve these anomalies), he then enforced the almost-forgotten rule at that tournament that once players were done with their games, they could not reenter the room (I never left the tournament hall after my game was done and the rule was not really being enforced at the tournament anyway) and ordered me, and others who were standing by, to leave (they went slack on enforcing the rule again for the next round). Anyway, the director left himself with no witnesses. Afterwards my sister narrated that a draw was suggested, to which my sister declined. Then, the director called his father, who is more experienced, and his father said to void the game and give both players one point. This was what happened in the end. I personally thought that this was the about the best they could do on the spot, but if this happened in a more serious game, I think giving both players one point would seriously upset prize calculations and would be very unfair for the other players. Any thoughts - especially from the experienced TD’s - on how this case should have been settled?
The opponent could have asked your sister to verify the square the rook was intended to be on before making his move.
The closest rule that comes to mind is 11C. Accidental piece displacement.
Giving full points away to players…I think is the wrong thing to do.
Several points here-Mr. Green–
It is obvious that there were standing rules in regard to no parents and spectators allowed. Some times, for whatever reason, the number of certified tournament
directors needed for an event, simply cannot be found, or afforded. The price attached
for entry fee, thus quite often, directly related to the quality of the event that can be
offered. That you and others chose to make the tournament director’s lives more
difficult is hard to understand. That others were joining you in creating this problem is
not much of an excuse either.
In regard to the actual decision made by the tournament directors, quite often the stories
as presented leave out decisive pertinent details. As such, commenting on them, myself,
would be improper.
Rob Jones
Senior TD USCF
I don’t even understand how this is possible. Are you saying that the game was changed to forfeit wins for both players, or full point byes (same thing, practically), and that the game was just ignored? I don’t think that such a thing is at all reasonable. Since both players had played at least one move, it should have been rated, and if it is determined that the game should be considered a forfeit for, for example, cheating in a later round, then the result of the game should have been placed in the “Extra Rated Games” section. Since this ruling makes no sense, your sister should have appealed.
Alex Relyea
P.S. Now I know what to do the next time I have a losing position. Simply capture a piece, any piece whether it is in take or not, and then have the TD order all spectators away from the board and give me a full point.
Moderator Mode: Off
First off, the author of the first post is a Junior player himself and an Expert as well. He did state that he wanted to learn from the situation as he is also a TD.
The rule to leave the tournament area was not being enforced and after this incident it ceased to be enforced again. The enforcement of this rule really did not help the game situation or decision.
It appears the TD that handled the situation was relatively young as he asked his father, the Senior TD (all puns intended) for his opinion on what to do.
I think the younger TD did not handle the situation correctly:
-
Even though the brother gave his opinion of what occurred, that was no need to make him and others go away from the scene. In fact the brother stated that he wanted to learn from the experience, as a TD. So, letting him remain makes all kind of sense.
-
The TD should have asked the young lady for her side of the story and what she thought she had done with the placement of the piece.
-
Whenever a situation occurs, I as a TD always ask both opponents for their side of the story. I make sure they each have a chance to tell me without interruption from the opponent or anyone else.
-
Well over 97.68342% of the time that I do the above, the truth is evident as is what the correct thing to do.
-
In this case, I can imagine the girl saying she meant to put the rook on the square where it was not to be taken. I would then ask the opponent if this was possible and if the piece was on the edge of the square, and if it was possible that the rook was indeed more on the square she intended than on the square he took it to be. I bet dollars to donuts that he would have reluctantly agreed that the rook was not placed en prise as he played it.
-
If the disagreement stood, as happens in 2.31658% of the time, I would have taken the move back to the earlier part of the game and had them resume play. Yes, the young lady would have the opportunity to play the rook to the better square, but with the evidence available, that seems to be the best decision.
So, I didn’t realize this when I first read this, but I was also playing in this tournament and commented on a different but related issue in another thread, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17987
As I noted in my thread, the awards for this tournament were all trophies, making it not worth it to appeal anything. But the tournament outcome should be a powerful lesson to TDs that “just give everyone a full point” is a terrible resolution because it’s unfair to other players. The net result, as can be seen from the crosstable for the tournament (uschess.org/assets/msa_jooml … 1-12588987), was that the author’s sister’s opponent grabbed the 5th place prize with 2 half point byes, an unfair full point bye, and a draw, over me (in 6th place with a hard fought 2.0 and top tiebreaks).
Question: As a player ultimately denied a prize due to the bad ruling, do I have any rights to appeal or anything? Again, not that I’d use them because it’s just a trophy.
And incidentally, shraavan, when did this happen and how did I miss it? I was on board 2 that round and our game went down to seconds on each clock…
Moderator Mode: Off
Wow, he gave the full point for mis-playing the rules. The player that finished 5th, also the same player that took the rook in dubious circumstances, sure did come out of this tournament ahead, because of the TD decision(s).
I notice that the young lady is actually an 1800 rated player. I strongly suspect she would not have put her rook en prise, as her opponent played and “claimed”.
To add some specifics, this definitely doesn’t fly. There were about 100 players total, all in one room, a senior TD, an assistant TD, and 2-3 other assistants, and the EF was $30 for a tournament that offered only trophies as prizes. Lack of money or manpower isn’t at all an excuse here.
Games played in a tournament cannot be voided. All games played in a USCF Rated event are rated. Games where one side has made a move but the other hasn’t are not rated. Directors do not have the ability to hand out free full points to players when they want to.
I’m not sure what was meant by these statements.
At National Scholastics awarding the double win is not unheard of. Right or wrong, it has been around for some time. Sometimes it is the only equitable solution to an impossible situation. Yes, the game was played but what is the outcome the TD is suppose to report for rating purposes?? The only evidence here are two conflicting accounts of the events at the board. It is a rock and a hard place.
But Tim, this hurts other players as well. The one witness, albeit an interested one, said the piece was at least partially on f1. Playing on with the rook on f1 looks like a pretty clear best choice, since the preferred solution is almost always the one that continues the game. Barring that, adjudicating a draw would seem preferable. But a double full point bye awards both players (who were both in contention for prizes) points they didn’t earn, pushes them ahead of other players, and rewards the wrongdoer for creating a flimsy rule dispute, whoever it was.
Tim, what would you expect to happen if a well-coached kid was pushed out of the trophies because of a bad double full point bye given to someone else in a late round at a national scholastics? I imagine it wouldn’t be very pretty.
I am only reporting on a tool that TDs can, and have, used at National Scholastics. I am not taking a stand regarding its use either way.
True, insofar as it goes. But it doesn’t take you actually being biased - the point is that the TD is supposed to try and find neutral witnesses so that there is not the possibility of bias. A possibly biased player is impossible to tell from a biased player, usually. That said, I will sometimes take the testimony of a biased witness to play it off other witnesses (i.e. not making a judgment as to the truth of the information I’ve been given, but can use that information to try and develop objective facts.)
The TD immediately trying to clarify a situation or make a ruling is not the time to want to discuss the procedure unless the player-claimant is objecting to that procedure.
The TD’s first objective is to handle the situation at the board. If “brother of player” wants to talk to me, and I’ve already determined there is no further information available, then I’m through talking with that person until the ruling has been made. And my style can be abrupt at times - I do my best to manage that, but that’s how it can be. I’d hope that in the future I’d be tactful enough to tell a similar person, “After this situation is resolved and I have time, I’ll discuss the matter with you. Until then, you are a spectator who cannot make a claim and for the sake of making my decision I am telling you to step away from the board [or outside the room.] Please wait there so if I need further information I can find you.”
By the base rules, 20M1 and M2 are interesting to this situation. Spectators have no special privileges, and for spectators who are players the situation, “is less clear,” as there is some right to observe other games. But in the context of making a ruling (while, by the way, trying to preserve the environment for the other players as much as possible,) I believe the TD has every right to clear everybody else away from the board. Or clear the room.
Can you imagine the ugliness in a different situation where a spectator pipes up, “Yeah, but it’s mate in three either way!” and the opponent’s eyes light up and starts to confirm that? Not to mention, in he said/she saids, it can be critical in finding the truth to either separate the players or combine them, but almost never does it help to have a third party in the byplay.
Or the director decided any witnesses present could not help him in making an objective decision.
If both players agreed to the draw, that settles it. A good try, maybe.
As long as the TD is prepared to stand by the decision, the phone call is irrelevant. It’s the TD’s decision to act. Best may have been to call a Special Referee and ask for advice, but there are only so many of them, and their prime function is for appeals of decisions. The one time I was involved in doing that, we could have found the rule and made the ruling if we had enough time. (Actually, our default judgment in that situation was correct to the rules anyway.)
I think a lot of us have our go-to people whom we rely upon for advice. I’ve done it myself. I’ve also ruled, then run the ruling past mentor(s) to see how on target I was for the next time.
So, what are the possible rulings?
a) What happened
b) Declare game drawn by both players as most equitable solution. (14J.)
c) I suppose could declare game as lost by both players.
A-C: Rated, unrated?
d) Adjudicate (wouldn’t do - not appropriate here.)
e) Rule it similar to an illegal move. If the opponent really said he “thought it was more on f2 than f1,” then one might conclude there was ambiguity about where the Rook landed. If, unsolicited, the moving player would have said something like, “I saw that my Rook on f2 would be en prise [or whatever] before I moved it,” even more so. Yet, even in time pressure, there should be an obligation to place one’s pieces accurately enough that situations like this do not happen. So allow Rf1 and award the opponent two minutes clock time.
f) Rule that if the moving player also thinks it could have landed on f2, let the move stand as a warning that even in time pressure one doesn’t get to slop pieces in ways that can be misinterpreted.
g) Reserve judgment (not really applicable here)
h) Others?
[i)[Edited]: Rule it as a touch-move claim. In the absence of witnesses, the moving player gets a free pass and it lands on f1. Not optimum, as it may have rewarded sloppy time-pressure play. I think I still like e better, but i is defensible I think.]
And all of which in the context that, in time pressure, I as a TD would feel obligated to move as quickly as possible, to avoid giving both players free analysis time. But with accuracy - there’s the trick.
Given that my sister’s opponent had more than five minutes on his clock, he could have asked my sister to adjust the piece on her time, but he took it immediately, thinking that the piece was on f2. Probably he was excited that he was going to win.
Yes, the game was unfortunately voided and full-point byes were effectively given to both players. I don’t think my sister wanted to appeal, though, because her position was bad anyway.
What you are wondering is what I am wondering, too. If my opponent has to checkmate me with a queen and king under time pressure, I can just say that the queen was left en prise and just take the queen. In the absence of witnesses, I can steal half a point or two!
This was exactly what I was thinking. By allowing what seems to be a second chance, the TD could have let the game go on in good spirits. I actually told the TD that he could use discretion (he is a 1900, I believe). One move was a reasonable one, and the other was a putrid and gross one - everyone knew that in the past and knows that in the present. He could have used the facts that since the players involved were not patzers and that my sister had more than a minute left on the clock (there was a five-second delay as well), there were not many chances that she could have intentionally left the rook free to be captured on f2 by the pawn (in reality I have eye witnessed a queen being lost to a pawn in a non-time-pressure situation, but considering the uncertainty of the case here, it is best to go with practicality and not consider those exceptional gems). Then, the TD could have decided that the rook being on f1 would be the best way to proceed with the game (after all, my sister’s opponent had the better position anyway and certainly could not have lost the game due to Rf1). Or, he could just the position back a full move and make my sister play her move again. But, the TD in actuality decided that he could not use any discretion (really?) and that he could not assume that my sister “would play good moves.” I think in the rulebook it states that the TD can use some discretion when unsolicited advice is given, like that he does not have to penalize the player to whom the advice is given if the advice is poor.
What is meant by this is simple-- (I did not know when I wrote this that there were as many TDs available),
that the known rule of the tournament (as posted) was that spectators were not allowed (a typical rule for
scholastic events). That others chose to disregard this tournament rule is not an excuse for one to do the same.
Rob Jones
Of course, your sister could have also made sure that the Rook was on the correct square. Let’s not put all of the lack of clarity on the opponent.
I wrote this in response to Mr. McGreen’s comment. My sister was the one with more severe time pressure and given that the board was smooth, she slid the rook to wherever it was kept (it was not lifted off the board) and pressed her clock half a second later. Her opponent then took the rook three-fourths of a second later. The incident happened so quickly that the fact that there were no efforts made by either player to adjust the piece becomes a minor issue in comparison to what should have been done afterwards.