Disabled Players & Scoresheet Claims

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Please opine …

In my area (DC/VA/MD), we have a physically disabled player who plays regularly. He cannot take chess notation (he cannot use a Mon Roi or similar device) and he needs help moving the pieces, usually by his opponents. Then when in time trouble TDs have someone step in to assist him in moving so that his opponents are not over-burdened. The TDs in the area usually compensate his opponenets by either taking 5-10 minutes off his alloted time, depending on the time control, and/or by disallowing the draw claims that require a scoresheet (3-fold repetition, 50-move, etc.). While there may be initial questions, in two-three years of constant tournament/club play, there have never been sustained objections from any of his opponents. He plays at local clubs, local tournaments, large state tournaments and the few CCA events that are staged in the area.

We also have a team-chess league in the area for the A/X/Master level players, in which he has recently begun to play. 4-6 players per team playing at a 30/90, SD/60, d5 time control. Over the years, there has developed a focus by many captains in the league on a strict adherance to any USCF or league rules, to the point where they are constantly looking for any advantage to bring to bear on their matches (probably the same in every other chess league).

I played in one of the league matches that night and I am not the TD for the league but my club is typically home to some/most of the games/matches every round. Disputes and rulings are handled between the two captains and the league board can be appealed to, after the fact.

THE ISSUE/CLAIM: One of the opposing captains recently declared at the beginning of a match including this disabled player, that since the disabled player did not take notation and did not have a scoresheet, he could not claim the time forfeiture in the first time control. We weren’t sure he was serious at first (a lot was going on) and games started.

The claimant actually was on move 23 and had used 110 plus minutes of his time when counter objections started flying. While the issue was being debated, the two players agreed to a draw in a position of equal material. But the debate over a correct ruling rages.

The claimant declared that since he could not lose on time in the first period, he could go over the time control limit with impunity. However, allowing that to stand means he could take 100/110/120/130 minutes or more without hitting the 30 move limitation. This left us at a loss for what to do.

Some originally sided with the opponent. Most were outraged at this treatment of the disabled player. We are so far at a loss as to how to remedy the situation.

RELEVANT RULES: 15.A. and 15.A.1.a specifically state that disabled players do not have to take notation but then cannot make any claims based on the non-existant scoresheet. As I said before, me and other TDs in the area traditionally assumed this only applied to draw claims (3-position repetition, 50-moves, etc.). But as the opponent correctly pointed out, it also applies to a forfeiture claim in any but the last time control period (13.C.a.) - he is correct on that rule but he is the first to claim it in the 2-3 years since this disabled player became active in the area.

The other disabled-specific rules in section 35 should have bearing but so far we have not come to any agreement on a solution (what I think are relevant sections are paraphrased below):

35.A. - there are many types and severity of disabilties and TDs are given wide discretion to institute special rules
35.B. - disabled players get special consideration in meeting rules ( and no player can refuse to play the disabled player)
35.D. - most of section 35 is written for the blind and should be applied analagously to other disabled players
35.F.5. - special chess clocks are permitted for the blind/disabled
35.F.6. - disabled players can use a tape recorder (to speak into), or other specially-designed device to keep score

QUESTION: What should the ruling be regarding this claim that the disabled player’s opponent cannot lose on time in the first time control? None of the clear options seem to be fair for the disabled player:

  1. Letting it stand and allowing the opponent to have an inordinant amount of time to play his moves is patently unfair to the disabled player (and even the other members of his team) on the grounds that the opponent has so much more time at his disposal to work out his first 30 moves.

  2. requiring the disabled player to have someone take notation for him, seems perfectly reasonable to his opponents but is not practicable for any disabled player wanting to play more than once in awhile - there is simply no one willing to devote their time to sit there for weekly/monthly events and the disabled player can’t afford to pay someone to do it. Such a ruling is an effective barrier to play for the disabled and is not in the spirit of either good sportsmanship, the ADA (the federal disability laws) or the rules (part of 35.A. states that the purpose of section 35 is to encourage more disabled player participation).

  3. someone suggested letting him tape his moves (35.F.6.) - but with all the talking required and given his inability to speak lowly or whisper, this is not a solution.

  4. someone suggested letting him use one of the DGT electric boards - but this is also technically prohibitive for most venues and cost prohibitive for him.

  5. one option that I think has merit, is to let the disabled player use a clock with a move counter - granted this flies in the face of 13.C.a. that move counters are not the sole evidence of a forfeit - but this is about reasonably accomodating the disabled player - and the opponent’s scoresheet can be used for corroboration.

5a) that option was discussed and someone wanted to know what happens if during a game using the the move counter if/when the counter is hit too many times thereby throwing off the counter, whether accidently or intentiaonally, what happens then - we thought the opponent’s scoresheet could be used to verify the move.

So, are we missing some obvious point/rule/reasoning? Are they any other suggestions?

2

I think that the tournament organizer should be required to find someone (a spectator) to move and keep score for the disabled player. The same should be offered to the opponent (35B). It is possible for both of the “assistants” to be the same person. If the opponent prefers to keep score, a small time penalty is probably appropriate for the disabled player, but not necessarily, as the opponent had the same opportunity. In no case would I let the opponent move for the player. There is too much margin for dispute.

In the rare event that there is no assistant available, I would disallow any scoresheet claims, but I consider this a very last resort.

Alex Relyea

3

I agree with Alex that the best solution is to find someone to record moves for the disabled player, but if an assistant can’t be found I think the entire game should be played at sudden death, e.g. 40/2, SD/1 becomes G/180. That way the disabled player doesn’t need to have a reasonably complete scoresheet to claim a win on time. Also, the disabled player should be able to claim a draw based on three-fold repetition or the 50 move rule if a TD can verify the claim, e.g. by direct observation or the testimony of unbiased witnesses. To make it fair, if this is allowed for the disabled player it should also be allowed for the opponent.

Since this is a rules variation it should be announced in advance, but I think it should be sufficient for the TD to post/announce it before the start of the disabled player’s first game. In a continuing situation such as a league which includes a disabled player it could be included in a printed set of league rules.

I had a similar situation a few years ago where one of the players in a tournament I was directing had lost both of his hands and had prosthetics. He could move the pieces using his prosthetics but couldn’t record his moves. He asked if I could find someone to record the moves for him. I tried to find a spectator to do this but couldn’t get a volunteer, so I said that the disabled player could play without recording his moves, and he was O.K. with that. I have to admit that I hadn’t thought through all of the implications of his not recording his moves. Fortunately there were no problems as far as I know and his opponents didn’t take advantage of his disability as described in the OP.

By the way, if the disabled player has an assistant recording moves for him no time should be taken off his clock. He’s not gaining an advantage by having an assistant. The assistant is only doing things that the player could have done for himself if he weren’t disabled.

Edit: G/180, not G/3.

4

Thanks @Bob - your suggestion is where we ended up, if absolutely necessary. This was mostly a hypothetical as the league captains and most other players are frowning on the whole episode. We thought it important to explore an answer in case it ever comes up in other events with a more regional/national exposure.

5

I am deeply saddened that someone would choose to take advantage of a disability for purely competitive reasons. It is one thing to deduct a small but fair amount of time at the start of a game (e.g. 10 minutes) from a player unable to keep score. It is something completely different to claim that the intermediate time control (30/90) simply doesn’t exist–for the able-bodied opponent only!

Finding a volunteer to keep score for a 5 hour game is admittedly difficult. Maybe best would have been to play that one board at G/150 (with a 10 minute deduction for not keeping score). If the game dragged into the 5th hour, a teammate (who already finished) could possibly start recording. In worst case scenario, either player could summon the TD for assistance in making (verifying) a claim of 3rd repetition or 50 moves.

Gens summa uns.

Michael Aigner

6

Chess arbiter Geurt Gijssen repeatedly reminds us that the written rules of chess can never hope to cover all circumstances. There is shame in the “coaches” trying to bully the T.D. into rejecting the essence of Gijssen’s observation. But if the T.D. falls for the bully’s “arguments” the T.D. is to blame.

Next time the T.D. should look the coach in the eye and tell him that his able-bodied teammate must accept the extra burdens of (A) keeping his own scoresheet up to date, and (B) honoring and facilitating all reasonable requests (not too frequent) requests by the disable player to see and cite the able-bodied player’s scoresheet; by your fiat ruling.
Then thank him for helping in this needful situation.

Yes the rule book is flawed in its attempt to identify how all disabled player situations should be handled. That section of the rule book should be written in a more flexible tone. It should say more about the potential responsibility of the able-bodied player to give more than half-way in such situations.
As an earlier poster noted, the 5th edition rule book if taken literally leads to absurd rulings like literally no time limit for the able-bodied player. The T.D. can see this weakness and thereby give less weight to the exact written specifics.

I played against a severely disabled opponent in Las Vegas in Dec 2012. He could sorta almost keep score, and only with great effort. He dropped his pen, I picked it up. Once during the game I could see he had become lost in keeping moves, so I took his scoresheet and corrected and filled in to bring it up to date.

Being hyper-competitive by nature is no excuse for lacking common wisdom, especially in a leadership position.

7

We had a disabled player compete in events around here many years ago. Because of his disability, he could not reach or move the pieces. He could not write down moves. He could call out the moves to the opponent and with great difficulty press the clock button. His speech was a little slurred. The rules for blind players was readjusted and combined with FIDE rules to establish the following ground rules:
First, if assistants were available, they could write down the moves and make the move for the disabled player. There were rarely people about who could or would help.
Second, if help was not available, the disabled player would call out the move and the other player would move the piece. The clock was not pressed until the move was completed.
Third, the scoresheet of the player who was not disabled would be used if there was a dispute.
Fourth, the TD was permitted to call the flag. He was also able to note three move repetition or the 50 move rule. It was imperative that the TD or an assistant be available if the game was in time trouble.

The disabled player only played in long time control tournaments. Sometimes he would get into time trouble. He shrugged it off as his problem and did not want any extra favors. He kept track of how many moves he had played. I once teased him that if he called out a really good move when we played, I just might move a pawn by his king instead. He laughed. The only problem that interfered with the conduct of the game was his speech. Occasionally it would get a little garbled when he was excited, but he would make a great effort to clarify his words. I do not recall him calling his opponent’s flag in a game. But then, players in the tournaments he played in were gentleman and called their own flags. We used to carry his wheel chair up two flights of stairs so that he could play.

8

For a number of years we had a player who had a very severe case of cerebral palsy and took heavy doses of tranquillizers to help control his movements. His play varied a lot, depending on how heavily medicated he was at the time. (His best rating was only around 1100, as I recall.) But he was a college graduate, a working free-lance journalist and a published author.

He could only speak using a voice computer and keyboard and could only move the pieces using a head stick on a small magnetic board. We were seldom able to supply him with an assistant to make moves, so we allowed his opponents to set up a separate board and parallel the position on the smaller board. I do not recall ever having problems with the two board getting out of sync. We often didn’t bother with a clock. Notation was not a major issue, either, because he would almost always lose the game before he could have lost on time. He did win a gold medal in his class one year, winning 2 of 5 games. He wore that medal around his neck for months!

Sadly, he passed away several years ago.

9

With regard to the DC area league and the handling of the disabled player, I will say the following. The officers and tournament director should step in firmly and put a stop to the gamesmanship. The Pittsburgh Chess League has made accommodations for disabled players as a simple matter of course. The officers and TD of our league as well as the team captains would find breaches of established tournament etiquette unacceptable. The DC area league could set up more formal guidelines, but they should not have to. It is well within the discretion of the TD to announce and conduct conditions of play.

10

Thanks for all of the comments … i’m responding to various points as follows:

First, our league is self-policing this - my request was about if this hypathetical comes up again. Everyone in the DC area is extremely accomodating for our disabled player - this was just an issue where someone was being “cute” or “over-zealous” in looking for an advantage - and I brought this up as a “what if” scenario (see orignial post) so we could be sure how to handle this if it ever comes up in our area again.

Our disabled played does have CP and right now is an 1800 player (he’s improving) - clocks are not a problem for him, he speaks with difficulty (whispering is not realistic as motor control, amongst other items, is the problem for those with CP) and while he can move the pieces most of the time, the more compact the position, the greater the chance he knocks over all the pieces. When he can’t move it himself, he points to the piece and the intended square. When they do help, his opponenet is helping him on the disabled guy’s time, not his opponent’s, and the clock is not pushed until the move and any re-setting is over. In the events I run, I step in during time scrambles (under 5 minutes for either player) and move the pieces for him so the opponenet is not burdened.

As @tmag… noted, assistants are not always available and when they are, they are not always willing, unfortunately …

In the long time controls, we do impose a 5-10 minute penalty as compensation, as desired by the opponents (rarely an issue for this player as he plays quickly despite his limitation) - we already drop his scoresheet driven draw claims … 3-fold repetition and 50 move - he just asks the TD to step in so he can demonstrate it on the board when he wants such. We do it in shorter time controls as well, as desired by the opponent - but its never asked for (so far).

The problem with TD decision-making in the league is that the resident TD (me) is only involved in an advisory capacity - the league leaves policing/decision-making to the two captains as often the matches are played at a “home” site where often there is no TD present. Any remaining disputes are appealable to the league board and president.

11

Note that their opponents are also to be offered the same or equivalent special considerations.

Note also:
35.C. - disabled players must be able to unambiguously convey their choice of moves

and:
35.F.2. - disabled players must clearly announce their moves

As noted in rule 35.D, the TD has to figure out how to fairly apply the rulebook to disabilities other than blindness. Ideally, these accommodations should be made clear to the disabled player and his/her opponents before play begins.

And now some comments on proposed solutions:

I wouldn’t assume that it is not practical for any disabled player to provide his/her own assistant. A disabled person is unlikely to be able to travel to and from a tournament site without assistance, and unless the person who assists them with transportation is also playing in the tournament, I’d suspect that they might also be willing to act as an assistant during play. There may be reasons why that is not practical for this player, but I wouldn’t assume it’s a problem for every disabled player.

I don’t understand this at all. You said that “He cannot take chess notation (he cannot use a Mon Roi or similar device) and he needs help moving the pieces, usually by his opponents. Then when in time trouble TDs have someone step in to assist him in moving so that his opponents are not over-burdened.” But all of this requires that he be able to convey his moves in an unambiguous fashion (see rules 35.C and 35.F2). I can’t see how he could be able to convey his choice of moves clearly to an opponent or TD without it being possible to tape record those moves. Or am I missing something?

Bob

12

@bob - to your last point, it might be possible for him to video record his moves but tape record is not possible wihtout disrupting other games - see my follow up message and the paragraph that starts “Our disabled player does have CP and …” … for how he practically plays …

13

I would say every organizer and tournament director I have personally worked
with is extremely interested in doing what is at all reasonable to aide the disadvantaged player in order for them to compete. Some players have objected, and committed despicable actions while playing these gentle spirits.

Funny thing is this: Quite often these disadvantaged players are very well aware of their opponents lack of sportsmanship, and simply use it as an internal fire to compete to their best.

For example, I saw a blind A player at a match in Texas. His opponent clearly
did not make time control, but his blind opponent, did not say anything about it. After the game, which the blind player won convincingly, I asked him if he
knew. He said first, yes he did know, second he thanked me for not interfering
(for his utmost wish was to be treated as everyone else), and third knowing
his opponent had an obvious lack of ethics gave him all the more reason to
concentrate.

Rob jones

14

I do agree with Bob that this is something that the League should settle ahead of time.

Since it was not… Were I the TD I’d be inclined to rule that the non-disabled player automatically effectively gets SD/150. The non-disabled player may make a time claim of the disabled player by 30/90 if he still has time and wants to appear as a complete bottom-chapeau [work it out] to the rest of the league (and I might well use exactly those words but unbowdlerized.) If the abled player is out of time, both players then get SD/150 by virtue of a player out of time cannot make time claims.

I would use director discretion to waive the 2 minute addition of 13C11 if the claim were made out-of-time. (i.e. the disabled player makes a safety claim that the other player ran out of time and can’t prove it by moves.)

With the league context given, I would be inclined upon a 30/90 time control claim against the disabled player to require the game to continue to an SD result, such that the disabled player can appeal the ruling of forfeit to the League board. (i.e. if the disabled player lost anyway, there may be nothing to appeal. But if the player wins, he can appeal that this should be the result instead of the time forfeit.)

It doesn’t quite provide full equity, as it does penalize the disabled player into making the time control when opponent doesn’t have to. But despite the situation present (and if one takes the ruling out of league context) there is nothing preventing a disabled player from having brought an assistant of his/her own. Would I do my best to provide one? Absolutely. Do I feel good about an effective penalty to a disabled player? Heck no. But is it my absolute obligation as a TD to ensure that I have an assistant? Um, no. It is the player’s responsibility.

Other alternative:

Does the player own or have access to a Laptop or Tablet? I would strongly consider allowing the player to use a laptop with WinBoard in game-recording mode. (i.e. I’d be inclined as a TD that this is a special case where a non-approved device is allowed to record the game.) I wonder if the Surface Pro can run Winboard and accept touch input? I’ve got a Windows 7 tablet at work with a touchscreen (and left it there today, darn it… I’d like to get a photo of it running Winboard for size.) Less ideally, any standard laptop with control that the player can use (trackball, maybe.) The problem in your league play is, is there someone to spot-check the player is using it properly or would argue it?

15

time to change the arcane and ridiculous rule about score sheets … no one should have to keep score if they do not wish to do so …its a draconian and insipid rule that a flag fall cannot be claimed due to a score sheet issue. just pure bollocks and one more reason why so many players think the uscf and its rule makers need to replaced, updated, and brought into the light of the modern world

16

. .

Your post could have value if you continue and explain how else a flag fall could ever be called.
So, how else?

I think the automatic DGT chessboard, with their auto-detected piece movements, are the only way you could argue that a score sheet is unnecessary for the calling of flag fall.
No chess clock has a “move” counter. Many clocks have a “button press” counter, but those are meaningless for the game.

The only time-control I can think of that does not need proof of the number of moves is the “Game/#minutes” single-segment time-control. In Game/ time-control, and only in this control, the number of moves is not relevant to flag fall. Is that right?
. .

17

Get an ADM on the agenda for next year’s Delegates Meeting.

Why do you feel this is true?

In a sudden-death time control, you don’t need a scoresheet to claim a win on time anyway. In a non-SD time control (say, 40/120), how can you call a flag fall if you can’t prove that fewer than 40 moves have been made?

Every major federation of whose rules I am aware requires scorekeeping.