Two inexperienced players are playing out the end of a G/10 with seconds left on the clock.
White keeps checking black with the queen. Black can take a pawn with the king and stop the checks…but he doesn’t notice this and the position repeats 3 times.
This is the last game to finish of the night and has many spectors.
White does NOT stop the clocks and get the TD. He checks black again (still a repeated position on the board)…presses the clock…and says (I think to his opponent) “is that 3?”
Now the TD knows that this is not really a proper claim for white and remains silent. (Clocks are running and White does NOT have the move…)
But a spector says to the TD (within earshot of the players) TD is that 3?
Now what does the TD do?
The players are likely to be waiting for the TD to respond…and the TD would need to stop the clock to explain the rule (they are inexperienced and would need an explaination).
If the TD stops the clock and intervenes, then he just gave Black the time he needs to see how to get out of the draw. [white could argue he never intended to make a claim (but an offer) in the first place…having not stopped the clocks]
If he hesistates, (which happened), then another spector(s) points out that yes has been repeition…and now someone has kbitized. (They think the TD is looking for a witness) In this case the players heard that and agreed to the draw.
Or should the TD have itervened and ruled the game drawn under 14C8 after the repition occured (even without a player’s valid claim)?
In the acutal case, neither player contested the draw - so I let it go.
Draw seems the right decision to me in this case…But how is the TD supposed to handle this?
The first thing the TD should do is tell the spectators to shut up, and maybe chase them away.
14C8 is confusingly phrased, but it seems clear that it does not allow the TD to intervene on his own initiative. What it means is that if a player makes a repetition claim in sudden-death time pressure, and if the TD knows from direct observation that the claim is correct, he can uphold the claim even without a scoresheet.
In the case you describe, a hard-nosed interpretation of the rules would call for the TD to silence the spectators but do nothing else unless one of the players made a claim properly. (You can also make an argument that the players should be penalized for receiving unsolicited advice.) I think this is unnecessarily legalistic, however, and a more equitable solution would be to interpret the first “Is that 3?” as a claim, ask the player “Are you making a claim of threefold repetition?”, and assuming he says “Yes” uphold the claim.
Finally, since the players agreed to a draw, there is no dispute and no grounds for TD intervention – unless you want to invoke the “unsolicited advice” rule and double-forfeit them. I hope no experienced TD would abuse his authority that way.
Inexperience players are going to have unknowledgeable quandaries. The director was correct for not rewarding the inexperienced procedures. If and only if the director did reward with a statement, both players or one would have a valid reason to object to the ruling. The players did have agreement to the draw, even with a spectator. It would be best to punish the spectator than the players. With the spectator, it would be best to talk with the spectator, informing the spectator of the error. The other players watching the board, have by this time pointed out the error.
If one or both players appear to be expecting some kind of a response from the TD (even if one player’s initial question was directed toward his opponent), that might be enough of an excuse for the TD to jump in and act as though a claim had been made. Perhaps he could stop the clocks, then ask the player who spoke, “Are you making a claim of some kind?” Sometimes, especially with inexperienced players, TD intervention at an opportune moment can head off serious trouble later.
That’s just sometimes, though. More often than not, unsolicited TD intervention causes more problems than it solves.
Sometimes (there’s that vague word again) it’s better for a TD not even to be present when trouble develops. It can cause the players to believe the TD is about to intervene, making them think they don’t need to make a claim.
Ah, sometimes. TDs often need Solomon-like wisdom in these situations.