Whoa, back up some there, Bill. Parental (no TD staff) intervention in a game is ALWAYS a disaster, whether or not the intentions are pure, as they would be in this case. The problem is is that it can set a nasty precedent at an organizer’s event. It can also lead to unaware parties tying the TD up to explanations as to what that parent was doing. I agree with your premise, but I don’t believe we should be telling parents that it may be okay sometimes, in some situations, to intervene. Parents and coaches should always be told to get a floor TD to rectify any problems.
Got to take issue here, too. If the opponent agrees to a result (in this case, a checkmate), the agreement is valid - it constitutes a resignation, which immediately ends the game.
Now, I’ve always had a problem with the issue of scholastic players asking TDs to verify a checkmate, or any result for that matter. When asked this question, I have always asked the opponent if he agrees. If he doesn’t, then I will explain the three methods of getting out of check, and then leave it to the players to decide. Rarely have I had to verify the mate in this case, though there have been some instances where the parties could not agree, and I would then have to say yes or no.
How do you handle these situations? Since checkmate immediately ends the game, does the TD have the right to intervene with or without a player request? I’ve had cases where players would happily continue moving pieces despite a checkmate having been delivered. But I couldn’t bring myself to interfere in the game, especially since the schedule wasn’t an issue (other games were ongoing as well).
Given the language of the rule that checkmate immediately ends the game, does the TD have the right to stop these games? Does he have an obligation to intervene? I’ve always thought of this rule as giving renewed meaning to a checkmate taking precedence over a flag fall, if the mating move is determined before the flag fall.
In the cases of a lack of claim by one of the players (most notably in scholastic events) I’d like to blow up the idea of “sufficient material to checkmate” or whatever the turn of phrase is with regards to the post-flag situations.
I remember at the 1995 National Elems in Little Rock a situation in which both kings were captured, off the board, and the two cuties kept on playing their hearts out, oblivious of me. I don’t remember if I made a ruling (I suspect I didn’t out of a feeling of sheer helplessness) or not (although saying nothing is, in a sense, a ruling). The thing that impressed me (and it was drilled into me by several NTD mentors) was that the result was whatever the players agreed to.
I’m not arguing their position, I just had understood that the prevailing NTD winds said anything goes in the game, the TD is “blind” with regard to witnessing illegal moves (excepting as a claim), and that the result can in no way be influenced by the TD during or after the game. The idea was to leave the coaching to the coaches for “legal” as well as practical reasons.
In Terry’s original post, if all of this is true, then I think upholding the time forfeit claim, as Terry did and suggested was correct. After all, can’t the white player illegally move his king (innocently or not, in one move or many) to behind the enemy pawns, and if the kid playing Black says nothing for 10 moves, the situation stands, Black loses all his pawns and eventually the game? The TD who steps in blatanly rejects the “game is between two players” principal.
Most of us have probably even see this: Scholastic Player A resigns to Scholastic Player B in lone king vs. lone king position (probably because he/she doesn’t know what to do). Do you stay hands-off (“macro-manage,” one cure-all rule)? Or do you invoke one of the 100,000 situational rules, more incoming every day (“micro-manage”)?
My questions now become:
Does the summative question “Are we going to micro-manage or macro-manage the rulebook” become the first question to answer?
Was the 1995 consensus correct?
Has this philosophy changed in general since 1995?
Is the this question different if any of the variables are different (non-nationals, non-scholastics, different board situation, different clock situation, different rounds, last game in round, etc.)?
If macro-manage is best, what about when a rules-monger “bullies” (legally) or simply “appears to bully” his interpretation of the rules to an uninformed scholastic opponent?
There’s a can of worms for you sharks out there
Happy debating!
Ben Bentrup
Bruce Draney of Nebraska once compared the playing room of a scholastic tournament to the sausage factory – “you really don’t want to know what’s going on down there.”
Yes the issue of TD intervention in events (especially scholastic) is always a problem. I’ve experienced one and directly witness another. I don’t have the official USCF rules with me, so I want to know what should be done in there two situations.
In a high school scholastic event two players reached a certain endgame position, when one of their teammates whispered “oh thats a stalemate!” Of course spectators are not allowed to speak but the kid said this anyway. In my opinion, all three of the people involved were beginners, which is why there was so much confusion. The position was not a stalemate (as a matter of fact, there was a mate in one!) but these players didn’t know any better. The TD declined to comment and black kept on telling white that it was a stalemate because white’s king can’t move. (neither saw white’s mate in one). The game was incorrectly concluded as a draw by stalemate. Later, when white’s coach protested, the TD told him that “black had offered white a draw and white accepted.” This definitely was not true! There never was a draw offer. Black just told white that since his king couldn’t move it was stalemate. They never shook hands, white just got out of his seat. Then the result was recorded as 1/2-1/2 and kept that way. Was this the correct evaluation of the situation? Shouldn’t the TD had done something? Black had invented a ridiculus rule (stalemate if king can’t move). I think that the TD should have at least explained what a stalemate is rather than declining to comment.
In the same tournament, I reached a bishops of opposite color ending a pawn down. I set up a blockade and the position was a theoretical draw. I could just shuttle my bishop back and forth along the diagonal and my opponent could make no progress. I offered the opponent a draw and he refused, believing that he could still win with the extra pawn. Meanwhile, I was very short on time, and stopped taking notation, knowing that the position was drawn anyway. My opponent got up and told the TD that I was not taking notation. The TD came to our board and told me that I had to continue taking notation no matter what my time situation. I countered that the position was a forced draw and asked him to adjudicate, but he said that he couldn’t do that. I eventually drew claiming a 3-fold repetition with seconds left on my clock, but was very upset with the way that the TD had handled things. He later even said that if I had run out of time, I would lose because the opponent still had 3 pawns, all of them which could promote if I continued incorrectly (relieving the blockade). What should the TD have done in this situation? And if I did run out of time, should it have been a draw or a loss for me?
The TD was wrong. If either player has less than five minutes remaining, neither player is required tio keep score. (15B, 15C.) However, if your flag had fallen, you would have lost on time. (14E.) The mating material rule has nothing to do with “theoretical draw” or “forced draw.” You may have had a valid claim of “insufficient losing chances” (14D), but I’m not going to express an opinion on that without seeing the position. The TD should have looked at the rulebook.
Thanks John, but I have no idea what “insufficient losing chances” is supposed to mean. Can you clarify that rule for me? Anyhow, here is the endgame position. I had the black pieces.
white: pawns on a3, f6, h4. bishop on c3. king on b4.
black: pawns on a4, h5. bishop on b3. king on f7.
White to move.
As you can see, all of black’s pieces are on light squares, so black’s dark square bishop is irrelevent. Black’s king cannot be dislodged, so the f6 pawn isn’t going anywhere. That means that white has to attack either of black’s pawns with his king. The black bishop can just shuttle back and forth along the d1-a4 digonal to defend his queenside pawn, and he can use the d1-h5 diagonal if white tries to attack black’s kingside pawn. Therefore, black cannot lose here. He just moves his bishop back and forth indefinitely.
Does this qualify for “insufficient losing chances”? I still have no idea what this means. Thanks for any help I can get.
That section of the rules (I should have cited 14H rather than 14D) is three pages long, and I don’t really want to retype it. Perhaps Tim Just could upload it from his original? The short version is that a player with under two minutes remaining in sudden-death may claim that he has “insufficient losing chances,” defined as “… a class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both players having ample time.” The director can a) uphold the claim and declare the game a draw, b) reject the claim and subtract up to one minute from the claimant’s time, c) tell them to keep playing and watch for progress, or d) put in a time delay clock – the claimant loses half his remaining time, both players get a five-second delay (recommended).
Of course the position should be a draw, but that doesn’t justify adjudication – you can’t ask for a half-point based on the playing strength of the TD. I would have put in a time-delay clock and told someone to count moves.
I think the TD acted correctly here. The spectator behaved inappropriately, of course, but if white allowed himself to be talked into believing that the position was a stalemate, he has only himself to blame. He should know the rules before coming to the tournament. The TD should not intervene. If white got out of his seat and reported the result as a draw (or knowingly allowed his opponent to do so), he was in effect agreeing to (or even proposing) a draw.
Perhaps the TD could have performed a useful service by explaining, several minutes AFTER the draw was recorded, that the position was not a stalemate, but the result (an agreed draw) should stay the same anyway.
With less than 5 minutes left in sudden death, you are not required to take notation, so the TD was wrong about that part.
As far as being in time-trouble in a dead-drawn position, that’s what the 5-second delay is for. Get with the program!! In any sudden-death tournament, you have the right to a 5-second delay, provided that you furnish a delay-capable clock and insist on the delay from the beginning of the game. (This is for regular-rated tournaments. For quick-rated, the standard delay is 3 seconds. I assume this event was regular-rated, since you talked about taking notation.) Get a delay-capable clock, learn how to set it, and BRING IT to every tournament you play in!
The position you cited is easily drawn, but you can’t always expect a TD to be a strong enough player to recognize this, or to have the stomach to declare a position drawn in a scholastic tournament where some players barely know how to move the pieces. With a 5-second delay on each move and 1 iota of playing strength, you could have staved off defeat indefinitely, long enough to convince your opponent to take the draw, or to eventually claim a 50-move draw. (You could also ask the TD to begin a 50-move count, if you are not taking notation.)
I think most TDs, in that position, would have either declared the game drawn on the grounds of insufficient losing chances, or watched the game for several moves and THEN declared a draw, or put a delay clock on the game and let you prove the draw yourself. But TDs differ, which is why you should always play your tournament games with a 5-second delay from the beginning of the game.
If you had waited until your time expired before you made a claim, you would have lost. The only draw claims that can be sustained after your time has expired are “insufficient material to continue” (14D) and “insufficient material to win on time” (14E), neither of which applies to the position you were in.
You also cannot claim a draw based on a “theoretical draw”. The position has to be VERY drawn (or winning for the claimant) before it can be immediately declared a draw on the grounds of insufficient losing chances. While your position probably would qualify according to most TDs, the safe course is (to hammer home the point yet again) the use of a delay clock throughout the game.
14H. Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death.
14H1. Explanation.
This procedure is not available for games in which a clock is being used with time delay, whether the game begins with such a clock or one is added during the game (14H2a). If such a clock is not being used, or such a clock is being used without the time delay feature in operation, the following procedure is available.
In a sudden death time control, a player on the move with two minutes or less of remaining time may stop the clock and ask the director to declare the game a draw on the grounds that the player has insufficient losing chances. See also 15H, Reporting of results.
14H2. Resolution of 14H claim.
When ruling, the director should not consider the ratings of those playing. A low-rated player who claims a draw vs. a Master should obtain the same ruling as a Master with the same position who claims a draw vs. a low-rated player. The director should also not consider the times on the clocks. See also 14H3, Conferring with players.
The director has four possible ways to resolve the claim.
TD TIP: Remember a 14H draw claim is first a draw offer (Rule 14, The Drawn Game).
14H2a. The claim is unclear and a delay clock is available for the game.
A director who believes the claim is neither clearly correct (14H2c) nor clearly incorrect (14H2d), but is instead uncertain as to the correctness of the claim, may place a delay clock on the game, setting it as follows: The claimant gets half of the claimant’s remaining time (rounded to the nearest second); the opponent’s time is unadjusted; the time delay is set for the standard delay announced at the start of the tournament. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game.
14H2b. The claim is unclear and a delay clock is not available for the game.
A director who believes the claim is neither clearly correct (14H2c) nor clearly incorrect (14H2d), but is uncertain as to the correctness of the claim, and does not have a delay clock available, may:
Deny the claim while inviting a later re-claim. There is no adjustment of either player’s time. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game.
Watch the game while reserving judgment on the claim. The director should make every effort to resolve the claim before the flag of either player falls (5G). There is no adjustment of either player’s time. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant also becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game.
14H2c. The claim is clearly correct.
A director who believes the claim is clearly correct should declare the game drawn. The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both players having ample time. The exact losing chances of any position cannot be calculated, but a director wishing a more precise standard may consider little to mean less than 10 percent. A director unsure whether a position meets the above standard should use option 14H2a or 14H2b. See also 14I, Advice on claims of insufficient losing chances in sudden death under rule 14H.
14H2d. The claim is clearly incorrect.
A director who believes the claim is clearly incorrect should deny the claim and may subtract up to one minute from the claimant’s remaining time. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant also becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game. See also 14I, Advice on claims of insufficient losing chances in sudden death under rule 14H.
TD TIP: There is no rule allowing players, after the game has started, to ask for a properly set delay clock to be placed on their game, which would replace an analog clock or delay clock not set properly. Only the TD can initiate placing a clock with time delay capabilities on a game after a 14H claim has been made and the steps of 14H2 have been applied. As a result, the player wishing to place a time delay clock on the game must first make a 14H claim. The player then faces the possibility that the game may be drawn or may continue without a time delay clock when the TD applies the procedures outlined in 14H2.
TD TIP: If a director chooses to resolve the claim by enforcing 14H2a, The claim is unclear, a delay clock is available for the game, or 14H2b, The claim is unclear, a delay clock is not available for the game, then the director should inform the claimant and opponent that when the claimant’s clock is started that rule 14B3, Draw offer before moving, is in effect. The opponent has the right to ask the claimant to make a move before the draw offer is rejected or accepted by the opponent; however, if the claimant makes a checkmating (13A) or stalemating (14A) move, the game is over.
TD TIP: Applying rule 14H2a, The claim is unclear, a delay clock is available for the game, is the preferred method of resolving a 14H claim for directors who wish to ensure the result of the game is determined by the players, rather than any outside influence.
14H3. Conferring with players.
A director who is unsure how to rule may confer privately with either player or with both players separately regarding the player’s plans. The director should be careful not to say anything that might assist the player if the game is resumed.
14H4. Player with fallen flag may not claim.
A player whose flag is down (5G) may not claim insufficient losing chances.
14H5. Delay Clock, a clock with time delay capabilities.
If a Delay Clock (5F) is used and set for the required time delay on each move, 14H and 14I are not in effect; i.e., no claim of insufficient losing chances may be made. The reaction time provided for each move is likely to be sufficient for a player with insufficient losing chances to hold the position.
