Mentorship question about two decisions I made as TD during Saturday's tournament

Running Chess Tournaments
1

As I am still a brand new TD, I wanted to discuss two of my decisions from our Saturday blitz tournament to make sure I made the right call. I am interested in learning how to be a better TD, and I have no mentor here, so any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

If this is not an appropriate use of this forum, is there a TD who would be willing to discuss these with me in a message or chat?

Situation 1:

A player pre-registered with me before the tournament, but did not show up for round 1 (or any round, for that matter).

My ruling: Per rule 13D, as the board was already set up, and the round started, the clock was started. Since the player never showed up, per rule 22A, Game forfeited due to nonappearance, I marked it as a forfeiture for the loser and a win by forfeit for the player who was there. I then withdrew the player from the remainder of tournament.

The player who won by forfeit also went on to win the entire tournament and the cash prize, by a 1 point lead, otherwise they potentially would have tied for first with the now second place player. I concluded this was okay because I (a.) could not have known that in the beginning, and (b.) the pairing was done by the computer software, appeared to be done appropriately, and was not a favoritism on my part. I did not know either player before the tournament.

My question: This person registered for the tournament, so I should assume they will come and play, since round times were posted before hand. But when I saw they were not there for round 1, should I have unregistered them and repaired the round? It was a blitz tournament, so they couldn’t exactly show up late and still have time to play? And from previous discussion here, if they failed to show up for the round, I should withdraw them from further round pairing, correct?

Does it matter that the winner of the tournament won this first round by the forfeiture of the non-appearing opponent? Because if I had un-registered the player and repaired, then a different player would have received a bye, and the player who ultimately won the tournament would have had to play to earn that point.

Situation 2:

In round 2, I was called to board 4 to resolve an issue between the two players.

White checkmated Black. White had no time on the clock. Black still had time on the clock. Black was contesting White’s win, and said that white could not be the winner, because white had no time left on the clock.

My inquiry to Black was: Did you call the time flag before he said checkmate? Black answered that he did not, and was not watching the clocks.

White claimed to have started the move with time on the clock, and the clock ran out but was unsure if it was before claiming checkmate or just before pressing the clock.

My ruling: Since Black did not call a flag of time on White before White said checkmate (Chapter 11, 7c), and since White is not required to press the clock after saying checkmate (Chapter 1, 13A1), and if the TD is in doubt, (chapter 1, 13A3) I should rule in favor of the checkmate.

Black was not happy. He did not agree with my decision. In the kindest words possible, I showed him the book rules, he was still not happy. He did not know it was his responsibility to watch his opponent’s clock. This was his first USCF rated event.

The appeals process was posted at the tournament, if any one wanted to use it, since there are no other TDs in Alaska, I wanted to make sure it was available.

My question: Is this the proper response? Should I have suggested that he follow the appeals process, even though it seems clear?

Thanks for taking the time to look this over. I am completely okay if you point out where I am in error, my goal is simply to grow as a TD, and sometimes that is through correction.

2

The usual procedure in US Chess events is that players just show up for round 1, they are not required to check in prior to the start of the round, and that’s what you did.

Nobody likes sitting around waiting for an opponent who is a no-show.

There are some organizers who announce in advance that players MUST check in prior to pairing the first round or they will not be paired. Sometimes if players show up without checking in, they will be paired against the odd player (if one) or paired against each other. But you should think through all the possible things that can happen to complicate matters before deciding to use this policy.

I knew a TD who had a check-in board, and he’d look at it just before pairing the first round. But sometimes player A would ask player B to check them in and then not show up anyway.

1 Like
3

You really shouldn’t be concerned about someone getting a 1F in round one. The expectation is that early round “mis-scores” (such as byes, forfeit wins by low rated players, forfeit losses by high rated players) will get corrected in subsequent rounds as players will have harder or easier pairings until they are back “on schedule”. And even if you have a 1F in the final round, there really isn’t much you can do about it except make sure that you didn’t miss any withdrawal notice before pairing the round.

Note that experienced TD’s will often limit the number of rounds where they will even correct (at least for tournament purposes) actual documented scoring errors. Someone who comes in after R4 showing a scoresheet where they won R1 when they were recorded as a loss might be told that it will stand and will be corrected for rating purposes only since they would have been paired as one point lower than they should have for R2, R3 and R4. (Some players have been known to misreport a result on purpose hoping to pull this maneuver, others may just not have paid attention until late in the tournament).

1 Like
4

There was a recent tournament where the two players in a game didn’t notice until after the rating report came out that the game result was wrong (it showed black had won but in reality white had won). The TD wouldn’t correct it for rating purposes, saying they had reported it that way and it’s the players responsibility to report the results correctly. What do you think of this decision?

1 Like
5

I would defer to the far more knowledgeable and experienced TDs, but for me, being honest and accurate is the right thing to do, at least for the rating portion, if it is too late for the tournament standings. I would try to get it corrected, personally.

6

Thanks for the feedback! :+1:

7

In such cases during the tournament but too late to justify changing the current standings or after the tournament, the post-tournament rating report can reflect a forfeit win by the wrong player, instead of a rated win, and a second entry for each of the two players can be done so that the rated win is placed into the correct round under those second entries. That also allows the bonus point calculation to be done using all of the actual results in the game in the section.
The rating report should reflect the actual results of the game. It helps maintain the integrity of the rating system.

2 Likes
8

No one has commented on situation 2 yet. My understanding is that checkmate ends the game, and since no flagfall claim had been made when the mate was delivered, it stands. So our TD was correct. Now I’m not a TD, so real TDs should chime in, but I believe that even if white acknowledged the flag HAD fallen before he delivered mate, the mate would still stand. True?

1 Like
9

I was hoping someone would get around to that. :grin:

10

Depends on whether you are using US Chess or FIDE rules. FIDE considers the game to be over when the flag falls. US Chess when the fall is claimed (if not otherwise ended prior to that).

1 Like
11

The below assumes you’re using US Chess rules (as Jeff Wiewel points out and I hadn’t thought about since I don’t run FIDE anything…)

On both situations… I think you did fine. Nolan pointed out some events require positive check in. Usually smaller tournaments in my experience. More than once on smaller events I’ve included a house rule (and publicized that house rules will be used, see www. some website name .com for the list) that any player who hasn’t checked in, called me, or requested an advance bye will be forfeited for round one at pairing time. I’ve been a TD in larger tournaments where it’s strongly requested to get drops in but invariably there are empty boards… then if there are multiple such (the larger the event, the greater the likelihood) you see if you can make reasonable floor pairings of the players who did show.

Same on situation 2… Given the situation as you’ve described it, you’ve applied Rule 13A3 pretty much correctly. You may have pressed White a little more strongly - “beginning” the move isn’t sufficient. Determining the move is what is required to achieve checkmate before a flag fall, which means the player has released the piece on the checkmating square. That’s why rule 13A2 is there and it says, “determined.” See rule 9A for the definitions on determination and completion, and 9E for checkmate/stalemate occurring on determination is actually completed on determination - not requiring a clock press as other completed moves (especially the TD Tip on 9E).

So no, Black is not right to claim that because there is no time left there is a time forfeit with checkmate on the board. But your inquiry could have been sharpened slightly - checkmate is what it is and does not have to be declared. It does have to be determined before the flag falls, and if the player was watching the clock I’d expect that player to know if they positively released the piece before the flag fell. Rule 13A3 is a little sloppy by using the word “claim” since checkmate does not, in my opinion and interpretation of rules 13 / 4A / 9A / 9E need to be “claimed” in this sense. Still, you did nothing wrong - just best practice could be better… and it took your question for me to think about that positively, so thanks for sharing!

1 Like
12

Good point! Thanks for the feedback!

13

Yes, we were using USCF rules, not FIDE. Not sure I will ever be able to, or want to, run a FIDE event, but this is a good point and great feedback, thanks!

14

Why would she 'press White more strongly"? From what Mr. Wiewel said, the flagfall claim has to be made first. If they played three moves after his flag fell and it wasn’t claimed until the checkmate was delivered, doesn’t the checkmate still stand? One could argue that it wasn’t correct to question White at all!

2 Likes
15

Under US Chess rules the checkmate would stand. 13C1 says the flag is considered to have fallen only when either player points it out. So until then the opponent can try for checkmate or offer a draw.
The “fun” part comes when checkmate and the flag claim happen near simultaneously. If the checkmate came before the flag claim (even if it was already flagged for minutes) then the checkmate stands. If the flag claim came before the checkmate (even if the flag had only been down for a split second) then the flag claim stands. If it is uncertain which came first then the checkmate stands.

2 Likes
16

When I first started taking a team to scholastic tournaments, the standard procedure was to have positive check-in. With 300-400 players, that ended up with tournaments starting a good 30 minutes late, and there were still players who were missing. (Coach checks everyone in that they’ve been told were coming, even if they weren’t physically present). Eventually they switched to pairing on time, processing whatever withdrawals were available at the time and re-pairing on the floor after the round started.

1 Like
17

Yup, that’s the flaw in the check-in process.

1 Like
18

I sympathize, but the FIDE rule about players needing to be at their boards at the start of the round has its virtues, even if it was somewhat Draconian. (I think FIDE has backed off on extreme enforcement somewhat.)

1 Like
19

I think Mr. Erickson is a bit confused. “Claim” in 13A3 refers to flag fall. Checkmate exists as soon as the mating piece/pawn is released.

2 Likes
20

  1. Your actions were completely appropriate. Not to be redundant, but this is a reason to charge entry fees, however nominal. That way there are real, financial consequences for silent withdrawals. If you have a player who has received a bye, it might make sense to re-pair the round to give both players a game rather than effectively having two full point byes.

  2. Checkmate ends the game. The flag has fallen only when one of the players points that out. It is useful to stop the clock, but not necessary for a claim. You were completely correct, and I hope you were extremely direct about instructing Black how to appeal. I’m curious as to what your appeals process entailed. Best practice, especially in Fairbanks where there can be as much as a four hour time difference, would involve consulting with a Special Referee (in a tournament that has people who play outside your local club two is better in case one of the parties has a conflict with your Special Referee of choice) ahead of time so that he’s aware that you’ll be calling him with any appeals.

Another word. I’m glad you were willing to not play. It would be good to deputize another TD so that you could trade off and avoid burnout. Finally, I’m curious about your choice to give Vazquez a full-point bye (B) rather than a forfeit win (X). I also note that he played everyone who scored three points except Layman. As Mr. Doan (I think) said, these things have a way of straightening themselves out.

3 Likes