Increment Sudden Death?

[GKarRacer]

@wilecoyote

@GKarRacer

Also, I believe you are allowed to ask for your opponents score sheet to update your own regardless of the time control and time remaining. The only stipulation is that you must do it on your own time. Is there a restriction for under 5 minutes? I didn’t think there was.

Please review rule 15D1.

Thanks. That was helpful.

[wilecoyote]

@Sherman

Mr. Ballou

Would you require updating the scoresheet or just keep score from then on after claim and leave the gaping hole in the sheet?

I respect your opinion and knowledge of what the rules say and don’t say. But sometimes a WWBD is helpful.

WWBD? I’d better take care to keep my ego in check! Thank you for your confidence; I hope it is not misplaced.

I would not require the player to update the scoresheet and fill in the missing moves. It’s not clear what the point of forcing the player to do so would be. True, the player has saved time by not recording moves, but that is taken care of by awarding the standard penalty of two minutes to the opponent. (Again, one has to be careful of gamesmanship in the case of an opponent who strategically waits to claim the player has not been recording the moves until the player is low on time, hoping to cause the player to run out of time bringing the scoresheet up to date.) The “gaping hole” in the scoresheet is in itself a form of penalty; in a non-sudden death time control, it likely prevents the player from claiming a win on time, and in any time control it can prevent the player from making claims such as triple occurrence of position or the fifty move rule. I tend to think of that as a “self-inflicted wound.”

NTD Ernest Schlich has said something helpful I try to keep in mind when making rulings and settling disputes: “The TD’s role is to restore equity.”

[Sherman]

Ok, that makes sense. I think I will start to rule that way. And it means I only have the weight of one bad ruling on my shoulders personally and the wronged person was definitely losing on the board at the time if that’s any consolation to me. It’s not my first bad call and certainly won’t be my last. I just don’t want to be passing bad information on to others, whether they’re new TDs or experienced ones who aren’t so sure how to handle the increment.

I really appreciate your time helping me sort this.

I’m seeing now it’s the same as if the situation were in a SD control without the +30. If a player stops keeping score too soon before either of them are below 5 mins and a claim is made, you penalize but the offender must only start keeping score to move not update scoresheet. But wouldn’t they at a minimum need to write their last move before they move again to meet the manner of keeping score move after move requirement? If they just move without writing last move, they haven’t complied as a result of the claim and ruling. Opponent could make another claim then. Now how to do you rule on failure to obey the rules?

[wilecoyote]

@Sherman

Ok, that makes sense. I think I will start to rule that way. And it means I only have the weight of one bad ruling on my shoulders personally and the wronged person was definitely losing on the board at the time if that’s any consolation to me. It’s not my first bad call and certainly won’t be my last. I just don’t want to be passing bad information on to others, whether they’re new TDs or experienced ones who aren’t so sure how to handle the increment.

I really appreciate your time helping me sort this.

I’m seeing now it’s the same as if the situation were in a SD control without the +30. If a player stops keeping score too soon before either of them are below 5 mins and a claim is made, you penalize but the offender must only start keeping score to move not update scoresheet. But wouldn’t they at a minimum need to write their last move before they move again to meet the manner of keeping score move after move requirement? If they just move without writing last move, they haven’t complied as a result of the claim and ruling. Opponent could make another claim then. Now how to do you rule on failure to obey the rules?

I’m not sure I would get tremendously excited about this. If this is a concern, the director can instruct the player that he must record the moves starting with his most recently made move. (And, while it has not yet come up in this discussion, one should bear in mind that there is no rule requiring a player to record his move while his own clock is running. It is perfectly acceptable to make the move on the board, press the clock, and then record the move.) In particular, I really wouldn’t award a second two-minute penalty for the player not recording the move just completed – overkill.

[Mulfish]

@Sherman

A warning isn’t a penalty.

A violation deserves a penalty unless the offender is young or inexperienced.

I think the rules allow for not penalizing a new or young player. I
think if you don’t penalize when you should, the claimant may appeal and you should tell him so.

I would challenge the assertion that a violation deserves a penalty. For many violations a warning is quite sufficient. It depends on the rule and the impact of the violation. Ballou and Schlich’s perspective that you want to restore equity is an excellent one. You don’t want to shoot flies with cannons. Moreover, to some extent a warning really is a penalty. The player now knows he can’t get away with it again. If it’s an ingrained habit, that could actually weigh on their mind and disrupt their equilibrium. If it’s gamesmanship it could really disrupt their equilbrium. And of course if they do it again they certainly will feel the pain. Ask Wesley So about that.

Unless the rules prescribe a specific penalty, any appeal based upon a decision to merely issue a warning would likely fail.

[wilecoyote]

@Mulfish

Unless the rules prescribe a specific penalty, any appeal based upon a decision to merely issue a warning would likely fail.

Now I am curious whether there has ever been an appeal of a ruling in favor of a claimant where the rule in question does not specify a penalty based on the claimant believing the imposed penalty was insufficient. If there has been such an appeal, I’m also curious about the result. One should remember that it is not the role of the appeal committee (or the special referee) to substitute its own judgment for that of the chief TD:

21I5. Function of committee (standard of review). The function of an appeals committee is not to substitute its judgment for that of the director, but rather to overrule the director only if it is clear the latter’s ruling is incorrect. The committee should not overrule a proper decision simply because it prefers an alternate proper decision.