In a recent tournament, Player “Black” called me on the telephone two days after a tournament game to state that during one of his games he made a draw offer to his opponent (Player “White”) by holding out his hand and saying “draw?”. His opponent apparently reached out his hand and shook it, then took it back and said “no draw, no draw”. Black, not knowing the rules, just continued to play to a finish, which he eventually lost the game. He called me to claim that after analyzing the game with a “stronger” player and explaining what had happened that the draw be upheld.
I have ascertained the following facts, without yet speaking to White:
The draw offer was made at the incorrect time (before Black had made his move), the draw offer may have not been heard by White who may have thought Black was resigning and also the position, when the draw offer was made, was such that White was a pawn up in a position that was probably winning.
My first assumption is that White never heard the draw offer and just thought that Black was resigning. When he realised what was going on he did not want a draw (understandable in the position) and so took it back.
I told Black that my ruling is as follows:
I will speak to White to ask him about the situation. If White admits that he knew it was a draw offer then took it back, then I will uphold the draw claim. If however White thought Black was resigning then I will let the game result stand as there was a TD in the room who could have resolved the conflict immediately, the draw offer was definitely made at the wrong time and may not have been clear, and the fact that the game continued to a conclusion.
The game is over and white won the game, the tournament is over and it is time to send in the tournament report. Change the game from a win for white to a draw for white and black would change the crosstables. If black gets the half point could make him get a prize fund, are you going to call up the player that won a prize and say sorry please send the money back.
Even that black did ask white for a draw during the time white was on move is annoying for white, white did declined the draw. Never had anyone shake hands to say “no draw” but it is legel to shake hands at any time of the game. Even that black did call you on the phone, and you say you have personal memories of this game: it looks clear that white declined the draw. As black did play on, and white did play on would show poor judgement for white and black if they thought someone resigned the game; or that they both accepted a draw and wanted to play on till black resigned.
20L. Manipulating results. Collusion to fix or trow games, wether before or during the game, in order to manipulate prize money, title norms, ratings, or for any other purpose is illegal and may result in severe sanctions, including revocation of USCF membership. Such agreements to split prize money no matter what the results of the game.
Even if black wants to change the game score and white is willing, then white and black and the tournament director are manipulating results: if and only if you do so. If you would change a win for white into a draw for white and black, then you would be manipulating the ratings. Having black calling you up after the tournament asking you into manipulating the score of the game is asking you into manipulating the ratings.
I agree with Mr. Forsythe’s conclusion (the game is over, no further appeal is possible), but not with all his reasoning. The only reason this is even worth discussing is 14B (“The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players. This immediately ends the game.”) However, that’s not relevant here because of 21F1, Timing of requests. (“A player with a valid claim or complaint of any type should immediately stop both clocks and see a director. In most cases, the player who defers such a claim waives the right to make the claim.”) There are exceptions to this, but the case you describe is a textbook example of where it should be applied.
The other major factor is this, even at that time both players wanted a draw and shake hands: both white and black still made moves. White does not need to tell black of the decline: as white made a move after black asked for a draw, with making a move the draw is declined.
If black did asked for a draw and then got a hand shake when the other player say “no draw” is a little strange. If black did feel that the game is a draw and white made a move then he should have stopped the clock. If the person is from a different country, then would understand the director could look into the problem of error of information. The idea of a hand shack to say “no draw” is strange but as not being next to the board then only can use my fantasy to think how that would look.
Just tell black that since white made a move then the draw is declined. Even if white and black want a draw you still have to keep the score of white wins the game. The tournament is over you can not keep the tournament report from not being reported to check on one game. White could be on a two week vacation or have been deployed in the military, it could take weeks to be able to talk with white.
Two days later is WAY too late to consider such a claim. If black believes he was cheated out of a draw, he should have complained to the TD on site immediately. By playing on, he has forfeited whatever claim he may have had to a drawn result.
It is often unclear what a player means when he offers a handshake. Unless the intent of the handshake is crystal clear at the time, it is best to rule the handshake meaningless. There was, in all likelihood, no meeting of the minds.
You should not speak to white now. This would be putting unfair pressure on a player who did nothing wrong. Just rule that white won the game, on the day of the tournament, because black continued play rather than accepting the draw offer (if that’s what it was).
It is extremely likely that black’s delayed desire for a draw was fueled by his analysis with a stronger player after the tournament – all the more reason to turn down his claim now.
The fact that black offered the draw without moving is inconsequential. This would simply mean that white would have the right (but not the obligation) to defer his decision until after black made a move.
As black resigned the game, black has given up any rights to any claim that during the game it was a draw. Black resigned the game and makes any claims during the game void. Black had free will and resigned, black was not forced to resign: when resigning any game gives up any and all claims. Resigning a game ends the game, any tournament director can not force anyone to play a game that a person resigned or force to change the final score.
If any tournament director reports the score different then the game score: then the director is manipulating results; in the case of manipulating the results after the tournament is manipulating results only for ratings and that is not ethical. As black asked you to talk with white after days past the tournament, black could have talked with white and made a deal with white with collusion to change the game into a draw. As the tournament is over, both black and white could have talked on the phone, in person, or emails to change the game score. As black and white could be in collusion to change the game score, then they are asking you to manipulate the game score for ratings.
Nobody can prove that white or black are in collusion to manipulating rating results. As the tournament director informing that you are willing to manipulating results for ratings: if and only if you do manipulate the score in the tournament report. Then as a tournament director you have broken rule 20L, and as a tournament director could have santions place on yourself.
I want to thank everyone for their input and also want to clarify the tournament situation.
This is not a prize money tournament and the tournament is played at a pace of one game a week for the whole month. This game happened in round two and round three has not taken place yet.
Please understand that there is absolutely no intention here to manipulate or change results for rating (both players only rated about 1000 to 1100) or for prize issues. I raised the question for clarification as amending the result would not have changed any prize issues but may have made the next round pairings more accurate if indeed a draw was possible via the rules.
It appears I should deny the claim as per the rules stated (14B and 21F1) and keep the result as a white win, which it currently stands as.
I decided to double check the text of the rules in question before I let the claimant know about rule 21F1 but it states “A player with a valid claim or complaint of any type shoudl immediately stop both clocks and see a director. In most cases, the player who defers such a claim waives the right to make the claim. However, a delayed claim may still be in order if it is based on evidence not previously available, such as the testimony of a witness…”
Does this mean that if White DID know that Black was offering a draw, AND admitted it, then you can rule a draw based on the new evidence offered?
The question has to become as this, black needed to stop both clocks and ask you the tournament director on this issue. Even if black did stop both clocks and have you come over, you would ask the question to white if he did accepted the claim of a draw. If white does say he did accepted the claim of a draw and now black still wants a draw then the game would be a draw. As white is now making a statement that he accepted the draw and on his own move making a draw request, it is now up to black to accepted the draw.
As white did shake hands does give me a problem, shaking hands is not the means of drawing or ending a game; as in a hand shake one player could think it is the other player resigning and the other player accepting a draw. With black asking for a draw and place his hand out for a hand shake, white did not want to be rude in not shaking blacks hand but he did say “no draw” after the hand shake.
There is one problem with the logic if making a judgement on white, if white did thought that black made the draw offer, and white accepted then why would white make his next move; or that black informed white that he resigned his game then why would white make his next move. In my judgement black asked for a draw and white declined, in the end black resigned the game.
I honestly think that White thought Black was resigning and didn’t hear the words that were spoken by Black offering the draw, and that is why he shook his hand. When he realized that he wasn’t resigning that is when he said “no draw” and both players continued.
We all know that Black should then have stopped the clocks and summoned the TD who would still have probably let the game continue under rule 21F3b “a director who is unable to stasifactorily determine the facts must make a ruling that will permit play to continue”, which would have let the game continue to its conclusion, unless both players agreed it was an accepted draw offer in which case the game would have ended immediately.
The only reason I feel you could rule it as a draw was that if White knew that Black was offering a draw AND admitted to such. I feel this probably should be considered as “evidence not previously available” under rule 21F1, which incidently makes no reference to a claim having being made, and rejected, during the game.
Of course, I have the luxury (?? more like opportunity!) of asking White whether this was the case and ruling immediately based on his answer so that I can get the pairings for the next round accurate and the correct result according to the rules.
Guess the big question is really whether Black’s claim falls under the “evidence not previously available” clause of rule 21F1 and whether or not a claim should be allowed since it was made two days after the game, even though a time limit is not stated in rule 21F1.
Everyone on this form has made the same statement, white has won the game. Even is white is willing to change the win to a draw, then you would be manipulating results that change the ratings. Even making the claim that both players are Class E players does not change the facts. If you change the score the rating of white could have a minor different in rating and so would black have a minor different rating.
During the next tournament that little difference could change the ranking of the players. If you keep whites’ win the rating could be 1090 and if it changed to a draw the rating could be 1080. During the next tournament someone could have a rating of 1085, with white having a rating of 1090 or 1080 would change the ranking for both players. Then during that tournament the pairings would be different for both players and who they play at the board would be different.
What you do in one tournament will always effect what happens in tournaments from then on. If you change the the score then you are opening a parodox that can never be closed.
I understand what you are saying, but Black came to me with a claim and I need to respect that and answer it in the correct manner, PER THE RULES.
Players ALWAYS have the right to have the TD show them the Rule Book for clarification of a rule and I would prefer to be able to do so rather than just “the result stands and that’s it!”.
I would just like to get things right, which in turn would mean the ratings would be right, the pairings for the next round are right, etc.
This seems pretty clear to me, Chris. Black is making a claim after having analyzed with another player. Of course, the outcome of any game cannot be based upon analysis from another player. “A game is between two players”. Besides, this particular claim revolves about whether or not white agreed to a draw, not about a 14H claim, and therefore the “stronger player’s” opinion is of no consequence to the premise of the claim. Only if this “stronger player” was a witness for the claimant that white did indeed agree to a draw, would I even consider it.
This, coupled with the fact that the game is over and a result has been agreed upon, should lead you to deny black’s claim.
BUT,
(I assume the result had been agreed upon during the scheduled game time)? Please see my summary at the end!
This is not relevant to this particular case. White declined the draw offer by saying “no draw”, and the game continued. That is, Black continued the game to a loss without making any claims to the TD during the game. If that would have been the case, then it would have been up to White to make the charge that the timing of Black’s draw offer should be considered. This point is moot.
In any case, Please answer the following questions so that we might bring this case to a swift close:
1). Did Black make a claim to the TD at the time of the game? If so, what was the TD’s ruling?
2). Absent a claim by Black to the TD, did both players report their score?
In answer to the questions, yes there was a result agreed upon on the night as both players marked it down as 1-0 and no there was no claim during the game or even on the night of the game.
The rule in question is 14B, which states the game is a draw upon agreement between the two players. Player Black is claiming that White agreed to a draw by shaking his hand and then retracted the draw agreement by playing on. (My opinion is that White actually thought Black was resigning and that is why he shook his hand).
I agree with you that him going over the game with the strong player has nothing to do with it, but according to rule 21F1, Black is well within the rules to make a “delayed” claim that a draw was agreed upon AFTER the conclusion of the game, irrespective of whether he decided to do that himself, or after being told about rule 14B by another player.
Guess I’m just missing the interpretation/application of rule 21F1, which doesn’t indicate that a claim had to have being made during the game and also doesn’t state a time limit to make such a “delayed” claim.
I decided to call one of the “Special Referees” since it is easier to have a conversation on the phone rather than through the message board. The Referee stated that the interpretation of rule 21F1 should be for more immediate/serious claims (e.g. a missed checkmate) and definitely should not apply to someone calling two days after the game to claim a draw from a “questionnable” draw offer.
Result stands as everyone stated although maybe because of this instance rule 21F1 should include one of those useful little “TD Notes” to clarify its interpretation and instances it should be use in.
Sorry for playing “devil’s advocate” but I wanted to have my story straight! Once again thanks to everyone for your help and valuable input.
That eases, considerably, my objections to what you were going to do, since no “should-have” pairings would be involved, etc.
But I stick with my (and everybody else’s) opinion that, if black played on, he was not assuming a draw agreement, and that the next day is way too late.
The reason the rules are set up for black needing to make the claim during the game: as it is harsh on the other player, or the tournament director. It does not matter, as black resigned the game then called you up two days or two weeks after the tournament, or two years after the tournament. If black made a claim during the game: and then you turned him down, then he would have some grounds on his appeal. If everyone makes a appeal after they resigned the game, then resigning would be pointless. Even that you do have a month long swiss, does not matter that the tournament is over in two weeks or that day. Making any claims must be done during the game.
Not always true! Sometimes, a tournament game is played without the presence of a TD. This is often true for club Ladder games. Sometimes, a player may continue play “under protest”, with the intent of making a claim ASAP after the completion of the game. ASAP may be 2 or 3 days later.