This past weekend we had an interesting (as interesting goes) situation at Foxwoods. Player A set up his board, set and clock and at the scheduled start time he started his clock, made a move as white, and started black’s clock running. Player B turned up 20 minutes late but it turns out that he should have been white, not Player A.
Here is the rule in question with the relevant sections highlighted:
11F. Incorrect initial position: If, before the completion of Black’s 10th move, it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, or that the game began with the colors reversed, then the game shall be annulled and a new game played. However, the players shall begin the new game with their clocks still reflecting the elapsed time each player used in the annulled game; however, move counters on clocks that have them may be readjusted. If the error is discovered after the completion of Black’s 10th move, the game shall continue. See also 16R, No time adjustment for reinstated position.
The question is should should Player B still have 20 minutes elapsed time showing on his clock per the above rule or should the clocks be reset (to a full game or 10 minutes off both sides) to start the new game with the correct colors?
The rule is clear. “Elapsed Time”. 20 minutes late is 20 mintues late and if your opponent was there for the start of the game you are down 20 minutes.
I agree. In fact, given the clear language of the rule I’m not sure why the question is even being asked. Perhaps the issue is whether time can be considered “used” by a player if he was not present at all for 20 minutes?
It seems to me that the common sense answer to that is yes, as that seems consistent with the intent of the rule. I don’t think it makes sense to split the time equally between the two players just because the one who was there at the start set the board up with colors reversed. The late player should be penalized; no penalty is specified (or implied) anywhere in the rules for being the one who sets up the pieces with colors reversed.
If there are specific tournament rules involved that require the board and set to be set up properly before starting the clock then that may muddy the waters a bit. I’d still rule that the 20 minutes is only taken off the clock of the late player.
Can you think of such a rule? I can’t. The only relevant rule I could find is 16M, which requires the board and pieces to be in place before a clock is started but just doesn’t consider the case where the pieces are not correctly placed.
16M is similar to CCA rule 5.
11F is an explicit override to 16M (for reversed colors and an incorrect initial position) but 1B1 and 1B2 might be cited to argue that CCA rule 5 would override 11F.
I’d still rule the clock as having the entire 20 minutes off of the late player (figuring that the listing of CCA rule 5 is simply a convenient way of making sure everybody knows about 16M, and that 11F is still intended as a modifier to that).
I’m not so certain about this. When both players are clearly at fault then I have no issues but when one player is at fault and not the other (for ensuring he plays with the correct color) then I feel there has to be some middle ground. For instance, Player B could have checked the pairings, seen someone else sat in white’s place, gone back to double check the pairings, etc.
Also, what about the scenario if Player A was white but erroneously sat in the spot for black thinking he had those pieces? White’s clock has been running for 20 minutes and he was actually sat at the board and started the game with the colors reversed. (In fact you could say he was just sat in the wrong spot.) I don’t think he could argue that Player B should then have 20 minutes taken off his clock because Player A had his own clock running the whole time, thinking it was his opponent’s clock.
Well, the OP is a real life situation but that is the first and only time I have been made aware of such a situation. I think the real question could even be phrased “at what stage is a game really being played with colors reversed?” In the scenario above, Player B could assume everything was set up correctly and that Player A was just sitting in his seat for some unknown reason while he was thinking of his move. Even in the OP scenario, if Player B decided that the move on the board was going to be the one he wanted to make then isn’t it Player A’s move and his clock is running? I admit it would take a quick thinker to think along those lines but we all know what some chess players are capable of.
In cases of ambiguity, all reasonable assumptions should be made against the late player. Any ambiguity arising from reversed colors could have and should have been resolved by the late player arriving on time and speaking up.
Making all reasonable assumptions against the late player, the game has begun with colors reversed, and Rule 11F is directly on point. Flip the colors and charge all elapsed time to the late player.
Could a TD decide that by making a move with the wrong color, the first player has made an illegal move and award the second player two minutes of additional time, giving back some of the 20 minutes that player lost by showing up late?
Time for resetting the board (which was apparently the first player’s error) should not be charged to the player who arrived late.
Many years ago I played a ten-minute game at Chicago’s No Exit Café against Al Sandrin, who was blind. After I set up the pieces, but before any moves were played, I realized I had given myself the white pieces when I was supposed to have black. Rather than resetting the entire board, I simply reversed the positions of each player’s king and queen, and gave him the first move. That didn’t bother me at all, and of course it didn’t bother my opponent either. Some spectators were weirded out, though, especially when I told them I had the black pieces.