The following scenarios are based around a claim made at a tournament this week- where I was not the TD- but thought it was an interesting fact pattern. What are your thoughts?
Scenario 1:
Player A correctly makes a draw offer. Player B immediately says “No” and then sits back to think for a couple minutes. Finally, Player B accepts the draw offer and extends his hand but player A claims that he rejected the draw and cannot now accept. Player B protests that a draw offer can be accepted at any time on his move and isn’t abrogated until he makes a move or deliberately touches a piece. How would you rule?
Scenario 2:
Player A correctly makes a draw offer. Player B shakes his head no but doesn’t say anything. After thinking for several minutes, Player B accepts the draw offer and Player A protests claiming that he had already declined by shaking his head. How should you rule?
Scenario 3: Player A correctly makes a draw offer. Player B shakes his head yes but says nothing and does not extend his hand. Player A walks away from the board to use the restroom and marks the wallchart a draw. Returning to the tournament hall to watch a friend’s game, player A notices that player B has made a move and that Player A’s clock is now ticking. Player A protests to you that the game is already drawn upon agreement.
How should you rule?
Scenario 1 is not a draw, as B refused the offer. B could, of course, make an offer of his own, but A’s offer no longer exists.
Scenario 2 is a little tricky. If B admits to shaking his head “no”, then this is not a draw. If B says he didn’t do that, and there are no impartial witnesses around to counter that, then the TD must assume the draw offer - and acceptance - are valid.
Scenario 3 is similar to Scenario 2, except that now the question is whether B admits to nodding his head in response to A’s claim.
An associated question in all of these is whether either A or B have a reputation for sharp practice in past tournaments. Such a reputation should not be dispositive, but may be useful as a contributing factor when resolving Scenarios 2 and 3 in particular.
As I was involved in this issue as well, I want to push on that answer a bit.
At least for scenario “B”, what constitutes a clear refusal? The player shook his head, and admits shaking his head, but claims the shake was reflecting his disappointment with the position which was previously won, not indicating his refusal of the draw offer. The player who made the draw offer interprets it as a no. (And - 14B1 says the offer may be rejected orally or by touching a piece. Do we then interpret that rule to include nonverbal gestures, based on some level of clarity?)
Further, there is disagreement over whether there was a verbal “No.” Witnesses cannot confirm - but player who made the draw offer then proceeds to say “If you didn’t say “No” out loud, then I didn’t make the draw offer.”
Right and so this is why I thought the 2nd and 3rd scenarios were interesting.
Rule 14B makes it pretty clear that a verbal acceptance or rejection of an offer is sufficient with nothing further (i.e. handshake), However, the rules are predictably silent on non-verbal gestures.
I can easily imagine a scenario where a player may shake his head in dismay at realizing that he has no better option than to accept a draw offer, which is what makes scenario 2 tricky for me. Let’s assume there is no dispute on the facts- both players claim that Player B shook his head no immediately after the draw offer was correctly made. What’s in dispute is what Player B meant by that gesture. Player A clearly thinks he meant to decline the offer, while Player B contends he was expressing disappointment with his position while contemplating the offer.
The 3rd scenario is the kind of the issue that makes me never want to TD another event again haha.
Nonverbal gestures are always risky, but regardless of native language (and I’ve dealt with a lot of non-English-speaking players), it’s been my experience that a head shake means “no”, and a head nod means “yes”. If I ask a yes/no question, and someone responds with one of those two gestures, it’s completely fair to interpret the gestures as a definitive response.
In any disputed situation, if there are no impartial witnesses, and insufficient facts have been established to make a clear ruling, then there’s nothing a TD can do, for the most part. The players must play on from wherever they are.
It’s important that a TD asks good questions, in the right order, to solicit as much direct information as possible from the two involved players.
In the case of scenario 1, the other player actually said “no”, so there is a clear indication that the draw was accepted. The other player cannot go back and now withdraw his decision. In this type of situation, I would suggest that the first player sign his scoresheet as a “draw”, and have his opponent sign it to make sure there is no mistake.
In scenarios 2 and 3, there is no clear indication of anything. I have had players sit for many minutes in a Buddha-like posture after receiving a draw offer, one even drifting off to sleep. If you are not sure what the response to the offer is go get the TD. Have the TD elicit a response so that there is an official witness. Personally, I think it is pretty rude for the player who is offered a draw not to respond in some kind, or at least say something like, “Let me think about it.” Merely sitting there causes the confusion of the latter two scenarios.
I am restless and rarely sit still. If I am rocking back and forth, somebody focusing only on my head (moving along with the rest of my body) can easily misinterpret that as a nod (and swaying from side to side can be easily misinterpreted as shaking the head no).
About the only non-verbal cue I’d accept is silently shaking hands after a draw offer.
I’m not bothered by people not saying anything about the offer until a decision is made. Making the comment “I’m thinking about it” may give more information to the opponent than the opponent deserves to get, the most obvious being that a winning plan is not yet evident (something I’d appreciate knowing when I’m in a difficult position). For that matter, regularly making the comment “no” in positions you see as clear has the result of meaning the lack of a comment is the equivalent of “I’m thinking about it”. For that reason, it is tactically legitimate to only comment when you are ready to either accept or make a move.
Re: situation 1. An interesting answer from Boyd. Based on 14B1, I would have ruled that player A can’t withdraw the offer until after the opponent touches a piece.
I think I can agree with Boyd’s interpretation, and I wonder how many times I’ve been in error on this.
Since rereading 14B1, I see that “[in] the interim” refers to the time between player A’s offer, and player B’s declining. But I always interpreted it as being valid until B touches a piece.
Lesson: the rules mean what they SAY, not what I WANT them to say
Giving further thought to verbally saying no, I remember a situation I once had. My opponent rated about 500 points below me confidently made a move and said “Draw!!” I actually had a huge edge (only one pawn but it was only one square from queening and I figured I could trade or eject the opponent’s blockading piece) but still had to take care to avoid perpetual checks, so I simply and calmly made a move. He responded and said “I don’t see how you can make any progress.” A few moves later, moves he did not spend trying to orchestrate a desperate try for a perpetual, he resigned. Any verbal response may have had unintentional intonations that would have revealed just how horrible his position was, and prompted a search for desperate countermeasures. The lack of any verbal response and moving quietly and calmly lulled him into a false sense of security that made the win easier to obtain.
On second thought, Boyd, I do want to debate this with you for a little bit.
Attempting to understand the full intent of the wording, my preface is: why wasn’t the rule written requiring that A has up until Bdetermines a move, or until he completes a move to withdraw the offer? There must have been a reason for the Touch Move rule to be used.
Assuming that the intent of using the Touch Move rule as one prerequisite of preventing A from withdrawing the claim is that B, for instance, might play a bad move, and A should be able to then withdraw the claim based on touch move.
Verbally saying “No” gives no indication to A of B’s plan. Since touch move was used, can’t we discern that, until B has touched a piece, player A is not allowed to withdraw the offer?
It’s not clear to me that player A can withdraw the offer simply because B has verbally rejected it.
13B1 has:
Except for a draw claim, which is an implicit draw offer (14), a player should make a proposal of a draw only after determining a move (9G) and before pressing the clock. The opponent may accept the proposal or may reject it either orally or by deliberately touching a piece (10B). In the interim, the player who made the offer cannot withdraw it. See also 9G3, Draw offers.
If you want to debate changing the rule to mean that only touching a piece is rejection then that is fine.
If you want to debate that “may reject it … orally” can be ignored then I’d disagree with you. As long as the rule is as it is written, the oral “no” means that the offer was rejected (though one can still be made again by either player).
I’ve seen players that will often shake their head in a subconscious move to clear/reset their train of thought. I have my own subconscious responses that I often don’t even realize I’ve made until after I’m done. I wouldn’t trust such silent responses without the verbal information that explains what the responses mean.
Well, I guess you explained it very clearly, Jeff. I also agree that this thread is about what the current rules are, again, not what I WANT them to be. I guess I was just trying to justify my own previous erroneous rulings. Thanks for the input.
I withdraw my debate, and defer to the NTDs experiences
I’ve dealt with a lot of games - in and outside of USCF play - where the two players don’t share a common language. Often, during those games, such nonverbal responses are the only way they can communicate efficiently.
That said, my response wasn’t sufficiently clear. I will ask questions during the fact-finding that are designed to measure both action and intent. Based on those answers, I’ll make a decision.
FLC 5.2(c) states “The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during the game.” The key word in this rule and the equivalent USCF rule is “agreement.” The behavior described in the OP may or may not be an agreement; investigation or credible observations are needed to determine whether it was.
In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of an agreement, I suspect I would order that play continue.
P.S.–This thread is of immediate interest to me, as I am taking this weekend during an overseas work trip to play in the Lugano Open (link includes a tourism video with sound). Lugano is in the Italian speaking part of Switzerland. I know no Italian, and dread having to offer a draw.
On the contrary, it is the player who expects an immediate reply that may be committing an act of questionable sportsmanship.
A recent opponent of mine once played his move, then asked “Draw?” and let his hand hover over the clock, without pressing it, while he looked me in the face, waiting for my immediate response. I did not respond, and he eventually pressed his clock.
A less intrusive way of offering a draw is to state the offer as a declarative sentence. Instead of “Draw?”, say “I offer a draw.”
Specifically:
Make your move.
Say “I offer a draw.”
Press the clock.
– and do not pause significantly between any two of these three steps.
The draw offer is then on the table, your opponent knows it’s on the table, and he knows you know it’s on the table.
