Maybe you’ve finally answered your own question with this statement. You could simply wait until the player who came to you was again on the move, and then investigate. The opponent deserves not to be pestered when it is his or her turn.
Now that John Hillery is gone, am I the last TD in the country to have this belief? Also, I would hope that every TD following this discussion realizes that I argue from the experience of having been a player - starting as a beginner before entering high school, and continuing up to and at the master level. To serve the game, one must serve the players, and it helps a lot to have been one of those players. Being a TD is not a path to fame and fortune - it is a service to chess and to chessplayers, plain and simple. Let us not forget this, please.
As a player from Hal’s generation, I don’t actually remember ever having the TD called to my game, by me or by the opponent. Ever. It may have happened but not very often.
I remember once my opponent ran out of time and he was nowhere to be found. I called a TD to document that.
I remember once being distracted by my opponent in a club championship that we were playing on an off-day at the club, because that’s when we could schedule it. No director was around, and I would have called one if there were. Of course my opponent wouldn’t have done those things in that case, either. That statement isn’t hypothetical. He was a sneaky sort of guy who only bent the rules when the cost/benefit tradeoff was well in his favor.
That’s it, for my whole playing career! I guess the OTB playing mindset and/or environment has changed, primarily for the worse. In my day, the TD was the guy who did the pairings and kept the room cleaned up. We all knew the rules of chess, didn’t need him for that …
In the rulebook changes .pdf (uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf) on page 28 there is a rule (12) saying that the TD can only pick up the clock to assess penalties or adjust time. The player may have felt you were violating that rule and didn’t realize that it is a blitz-only rule.
I heard that Koltanowski, as TD, was once called to a game by the opponent of a player who castled by moving his rook first. The opponent wanted the player to be forced to move the rook only. The intention to castle was obvious, so Kolty let the player castle, and simply warned him never to do that again in that game.
Indeed. As I recall, the rule was at some made to call for a warning - perhaps as a result of this story you are citing.
Along the same line, I recall a time when the touch-move rule read “…touched with the intention of moving…” - which obviously calls for some assessment of intention, such as when a player who is dyslexic picks up a bishop from c3 and captures a pawn on h7 with check…and then says he meant to pick up the adjacent bishop from d3 and to capture on h7 with check. Fortunately, this situation is rare. And, again, it might be addressable via the introductory statement to the FIDE Laws of Chess, so the arbiter might actually have leeway to make the most fair possible decision.
Standing on ceremony about an OTB player touching the rook first when castling is swiftly and confidently executed is hardly serving Caissa, though it may be the letter of the law today. On the other hand, clicking on the rook first and releasing it two squares closer to the unmoved king will be interpreted by a computer program as a complete move, for an obvious and hard to dispute reason.
As a TD, I had wanted to enforce that, but how to keep track of who has been warned not to castle with rook first and who hasn’t? Warn a player then report that fact on the rating report? Look for a flag next to a player’s rating telling me he has been warned already and the rook move alone should stand? Needless to say my attitude changed to FERGETABOUTIT.
As a long time football official and chess tournament director, I wish this myth would die the miserable death it deserves. Controversies are almost universally caused by player act or omission, over which an official has zero control.
There are other issues created by waiting and “simply” isn’t the word I would use to describe the potential problems that could occur. Among them are that it requires a TD to make an extra visit to the same game. It may lead to having to reset the clock after it reaches zero because some clocks stop if it was set to only one control. Some clocks don’t reset as easily after one side has no time left. If I take the argument that White made in the game that inspired this topic literally, then I should have waited until he moved no matter how long he took even if his time would have expired long before he moved. It does not seem fair that a player be allowed to take as long as he likes to come up with his next move and not have all that time deducted from his remaining time for doing so.
As for how it is determined that verifying that a clock is set properly constitutes pestering is unclear to me. If it could be considered to be pestering when a TD is involved then the only way to avoid pestering is to do nothing. It will always be one player’s or the other’s move until the game ends even when the clock is paused. I am of the opinion that it is the TD’s job to make a ruling sooner rather than later so that any decisions made by the players will be based on accurate information rather than speculation on how the TD will handle the situation.
I would not feel free to stop a player’s clock when on the move, and to feel that it has no impact on his or her conduct of the game. I would only do so if I felt the impact was necessary, and then I would also take steps to restore calm as well as possible.
I think we have different perspectives on this. I would think yours could be called “TD-centric”, and mine “player-centric”.
I respect very much that there are TDs who toil selflessly who have less experience as players than I, but the experience of being a player is important, and should be channeled if it can’t be obtained first hand.
In the instant case, Harold was already in a worse than optimal situation, because White did not need to have his clock stopped before Black came to him to seek advice or intervention. The damage to the game was done by Black - unnecessarily.
To those who think that TDs cannot head such things off more often - well, there are TDs for whom such situations do occur less often, and that’s not always pure luck. But I won’t convince anyone in the absence of a demonstration, and cannot produce a demonstration here.
What criteria would you use to determine the definition of “necessary” impact?
I am also a player and have a different view on this. As a player I would prefer the director not to wait in making a decision about my game so that I can continue the game without any doubts about the clock having been set properly.
The clock setting was unknown to the players and myself until I examined it. I am of the opinion that both players have a right to know if the clock was set properly before continuing. White clearly indicated that he would rather play without knowing but based on 35 years of directing this appears to be a minority opinion (I cannot recall another case of a player asking me to wait to examine an incorrectly set clock). I can certainly agree that both players should have made sure that the clock was set properly before the game was started but as the game was now 40 moves old that was impossible. At that point Black noticed what he thought was a problem and brought it to my attention as soon as he noticed. To delay a decision until after White’s 41st move invited potential problems that could not occur if the TD examines the clock immediately.
To “head such things off” may work sometimes but there is no guarantee that avoiding one potential complaint won’t create a more significant one by delaying a ruling. The TD has a much weaker defense for avoiding the second complaint as the second was completely preventable.
Sometimes you “head such things off” by explaining rules and procedures, emphasizing clock rules, and answering questions. In many events I asked players to look at there clocks and asked them to check if they were set properly. I told them to explain how the clock works to their opponent. (Very important as there are so many types of clocks.) I told them I would come around to check as many clocks as I could, but if there was any problem they should stop the clock and come to me. Time controls and some rules were emphasised. Then I took questions.
During the round I made sure to be a presence, not an intrusive force, but a presence, to check the clocks again and to be a deterrent to noise and antics by a very small number of players. A hand gesture was all that was needed to inform players who were done with their games to go to another area to analyze. I preferred not to look at game positions; too busy with TD/organizer details plus it preserves the neutrality of the TD. When you TD enough tournaments you can scan a room of games and sense where there may be problems. One of the “arts” of directing that I was taught by mentors and is not in the rulebook.
With the given set of conditions, I see no reason why White had any reason to complain. There was a legitimate question and a TD interest in resolving a potentially worse problem. It appears the decision was done quickly. Usually when a TD comes to a table it is the other games around which are disturbed. Since the decision was made off to the side and his clock stopped, White’s being disturbed is a frivolous complaint. If anything, White was benefitted with extra time to analyze while the issue was resolved.
Here is an example (from the analog days) showing that “the TD should not intervene unless requested” is a good policy only 97% of the time, not 100%.
Time control is 40/90, SD/30. The players are using an analog clock, and set it initially to 4:30 so the first control will expire at 6:00. The players reach move 40 with several minutes to spare, and keep on playing. Neither the players nor the TD step in to advance the clocks 30 minutes so that the next control will expire at 7:00 rather than 6:30.
The game drags on and eventually the clocks read 6:00, then 6:10, then 6:25, then 6:29. What now? A time scramble is looming, but nobody wants to say or do anything for fear of disrupting the game.
A good TD might intervene (unrequested) at about the 6:05 mark or so, and advance the clocks. This is long enough after 6:00 to make it unlikely that any problems will arise concerning the first control, yet long enough before 6:30 to not affect the second control either.
Another poster claimed that good TDs somehow avoid having to intervene in the first place, with or without a request from the players. I normally wouldn’t agree with this claim, but circumstances – such as the above scenario – could make it likely on occasion. In this case the TD could insist that the tournament use a single control of G/120, or that any second control be 1 hour. This decision, of course, must be made when the TLA is prepared, not once the tournament has started. If the TD is not the same person as the organizer, the TD could simply refuse to direct the organizer’s event because important details were not well thought out in advance.
In other words, TDs can enhance their reputations by carefully selecting the events they agree to direct.
Assuming that the 97% number is accurate (I would think it’s much lower), it is not always possible for a TD to know which situation will be the one in which it would have been better to intervene immediately until after that opportunity is past.
One habit I have is to check clocks early in the round to see if the primary time control has been set properly by looking at the clocks but not bothering the players. When I notice an improperly set clock I inform the players even though my intervention was not requested. Failure to do so can lead to one game causing the next round to start late. If set for too short a period of time, a claim of win on time may have to be disallowed but done after one side unnecessarily rushed his moves.
Back in the days of 100% analog clocks I used 30 minute second time controls until I figured out that is was better to have controls that didn’t require adjustments.
Good one! It was four separate games (you probably guessed that though).
.