You probably missed it because my sister’s game started late. At the start of the rounds the TD’s announce that if both players are present, they may begin their games. Those with absent opponents are told to wait a few minutes before starting their clocks. If the opponent has still not arrived, only then do the TD’s instruct the players to start their clocks with the opponent absent. This is the procedure followed at those Quest tournaments - my sister and I have been attending them for a long time.
I think that the directors really did not mind the player getting two half-point byes because he was not going to receive the trophies anyway - he works for Renaissance Knights, the organization that was running the tournaments. He was not a house player, but he just does not get the trophies. The player in fourth place was also an employee of Renaissance Knights, so I believe that the only trophies awarded were those for first through third places. However, awarding two half-point byes for a non-house player in a four-round event with prizes is unfair for other players, like you, who would have played all rounds and wound up with a lower score. I think that a second half-point bye in a four-round event should make the player taking the bye ineligible for prizes and the prize he may win go to the next player in line.
I disagree. Chess is a game where the first responsibility is with the player. A simple “What are you doing, my Rook is on f1.” probably would have solved it as well as anything else. The time pressure, smoothness of the board and whether the sun was in her eyes or she tripped over a rock doesn’t alleviate what she SHOULD have done.
I don’t mean for that to sound callous, but your comments are sounding more and more like excuses - all the reasons she couldn’t have done this. The opponent played on the same board, with the same time control. I coach that players need to be responsible for themselves first.
That doesn’t imply that potentially the directors couldn’t have done better. But the issue starts with your sister’s unclear move completion. Let’s not forget that.
Was this tournament so large that a director wasn’t watching the relative time scramble?
This sounds like the TD might have seen this as a 10G issue (accidental release on a legal square is considered a completed move). Last weekend in a different event I ruled that a rook momentarily released primarily or totally (different stories on that) on a bad square would be considered to have been played to that square (for an immediate free capture by the opponent). The differences are that the game continued to a normal conclusion and the blundering player was so far ahead that she still won.
The director was, I believe, not watching, but not because there weren’t enough directors. Only the games in the 13 player Open section were running to the end of the time control, but I know in the same round that there was no director watching my time scramble on board 2 (which, as I noted earlier in the thread, ran down to the last seconds on both clocks).
Anyways, that’s a new wrinkle I didn’t realize on the prizes…so the players are ineligible to receive the prizes, get them based on half point byes and a lousy TD decision, and then they go back to the organizer rather than to the next player? I think I just lost my interest in playing in another Knight’s Quest. It also calls into question the impartiality of the director in your decision. Extraordinarily fishy, and intolerable if any real prize were at stake.
How did the TD get involved in this game? Did either player stop the clock and get the TD?
If the young lady did stop the clock and got a TD, she did take responsibility for the game.
Did the players discuss the situation before getting the TD? In other words, did the young lady ask her opponent why he took the rook on f1 with a pawn?
It certainly appears that the TD did not act correctly. By that, I mean both TDs acted incorrectly. The younger TD obviously mishandled the situation at the board and then sought his father’s counsel and advice as to what to do. The father who was the Chief TD made a wrong call by forfeiting the game at both ends and then giving each player a full point. The game was played and needed to be rated, one way or the other. A decision should have been made at the board so play could resume. That didn’t happen and that was wrong.
Sorry Ron, the TD had every right to make the decision he made. Agree or disagree, but he had that right. This is a rules, not a TD, consideration. There are a lot of steps missing here regarding the TDs actions. I would like to hear from him and not make assumptions. All we have is the testimony of a relative here. That is only one side of the story. Was the piece properly moved to begin with? How much of the piece was on which square? To continue the game there are two choices: The Rook got taken or the Rook is on a different square. How can a TD decide? To end the game the TD has other options: Draw, Double Win, Double Forfeit–and yes a double rated win is possible (read those helpful hints Mike Nolan posted on the USCF site).
In addition to win-win, it is also possible in theory to have a game rated as win-draw, draw-loss or loss-loss. See the FAQ on TD/A for the specifics as to how to code all of these inconsistent results.
Personally, I’ve never run across situations where any of these options made sense to me as a TD.
Game-determining interference from an unbiased spectator seem to be the most likely ones for a rated win-win or win-draw (yelling out “that’s mate-in-one” or “flag” in time pressure situations where a different result is quite feasible otherwise). In most such cases this may better fall under 20E2d, 20E2h or 14J for a rated draw.
Game-determining interference from oppositely biased spectators seem to be the most likely ones for a rated loss-draw or loss-loss (penalizing both players for receiving “solicited” help by giving them the worst possible result they could receive).
Do you know how the argument was initiated? It started when she specifically said after he took the rook that she placed it on f1. Her opponent disagreed and said that the rook was more on f2 than on f1, and then the TD, who was not looking at this game, came over after hearing the argument. I did not call the TD over for my sister and I don’t think that I should need to spell out such a simple procedure as how the arguments started when there are more complicated ones in question. She did indeed do what you suggested. She did say a statement to the effect of “a simple ‘What are you doing, my Rook is on f1.’” How else did you think the argument started? My reasons only excuse how the incident itself took place, not the method by which the argument started.
If it could have been made sure that the rook was primarily on f2, then I believe that the capture of the rook would have been made legal without issue. However, because of the lack of unbiased witnesses, this was not possible.
Since I wasn’t there, of course I did not know how the disagreement started. I did say that it would PROBABLY have taken care of it - but not definitely. But the disagreement did not start there. The disagreement started because the move was unclear.
I disagree with the director’s decision and think it was a poor decision - for two simple reasons.
Someone could dispute ANY move in a game and frequently there would be no independent witnesses available to verify what actually happened. The interpretation of Rf2 where the R was en prise to a Pawn was not very reasonable, whereas Rf1 the claimed intended move was. IN GENERAL, we accept moves based on reasonability since there isn’t an independent record of every move played. So, absent independent evidence, the director’s interpretation is inconsistent. You stated that the director said that he couldn’t assume that your sister would play good moves - but neither could he use the same discretion to assume that she would play bad moves. Therefore, the decision he made should have been based on consistency, and Rf1 was in your description reasonable and consistent.
You state in your original post “But her opponent claimed that the rook was more on f2 than on f1” The opponent therefore AGREED that there was some ambiguity (he didn’t say the Rook was on f2, but in fact indicates that it was on both squares.) Given the lack of additional evidence, the only determination that can be verifiably made is one of touch move - everyone agrees that your sister touched the Rook. Your sister should therefore be allowed to move the Rook since the move completion was ambiguous.
Your sister could have appealed the decision, although with a free point I’m not sure why she would want to.
To your points 1 and 2 - Exactly what I think, although while the disagreement started with the unclear move, the verbal argument started with my sister specifying her move.
With regards to appealing, my sister was pretty happy with the decision (to be honest, she was lucky, because her position was bad) so she didn’t even think about appealing.
Now that I check rule 21F3b in the rulebook, I think it could have applied here. The rule states the following: “A director who is unable to satisfactorily determine the facts must make a ruling that will permit play to continue.” So, if the director was unable to satisfactorily determine the square primarily covered by the piece, he could have taken the game back to the last point of agreement, which was that she touched the rook. He could have gone further and said that it is pretty much agreed that the intended square was either f1 or f2 and that my sister should continue by playing her rook to one of these two squares (and not any other ones). In any case, he should have permitted the “play to continue” and could not have ended the game there with a double win, right?
What did she write on her score sheet? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t delay require you to still record moves regardless of time? When I play, my basic sequence is, opponent moves, I record, I move, I record, and then observe opponent’s next move. So, if she had recorded her move as f1 before realizing that her opponent took the rook as being on f2, I think it would have been easier for the TD to just continue play with the rook on f1. This is especially true since the opponent agreed that the rook was on both squares.
However, and as a reminder for those who may see this post but not read the entire thread, G/30 does require writing moves unless one of the players is in time trouble, which was the case here.
Good TDs try to be aware of which games are in time trouble so that they can observe them and (hopefully) be their own witness.
Since the player made an illegal move in capturing the rook, she should have 2 minutes added to her clock and the game allowed to continue. Funny how a rook sliding along the first rank suddenly ends up on f2 allowing a capture. Most experienced players know that is not possible and would seek to correct the piece position rather than grab the rook. The first player appears to be trying to steal a win and/or rattle the other player who is in time pressure. Not the first time such sharp business has occurred in tournament play.
Based on all of the business connections of the participants and the willingness to make a decision to keep everyone by giving happy by giving both sides a point rather than observe the rules, this incident does not reflect well on the organizers. In addition, wow, $30 entry fee for a trophy tournament. Those had better be some huge trophies.