move dispute question

Running Chess Tournaments
1

This problem occurred at a recent tournament. I was called to the board where a dispute over what move had been played. When I arrived, there was a pawn on c5. The player making the move had moved and immediately gone to the bathroom. When he returned, he said that the rook he had played to c6 was off the board. The other player said he had played the rook to c5 and he captured it with a pawn that had been on b6. Each player had a score sheet that showed his claimed move, Rc6 on one and Rc5 on the other. I asked both players if it were possible that the rook had not been centered on the square. Both denied this. I asked close by players, but no one had seen the move. There were no pieces on the board which would have prevented either move.

What would you rule and why?

Regards, Ernie

2

Ernie, sometimes we have to play the role of wizard. After reviewing the board, I would
“go with” the move that does the least positive for either player. Kind of like the medical
oath of “first do no harm”. I was called to a board and asked to resolve two questions:
A. On which square did two pawns reside, and B. Whose move was it?? Now interestingly
enough, both players were rated over 1000, far too high for such novice nonsense. To
top it off, neither was obeying USCF and tournament instructions and notating. Some have
informed me I could have forfeited both, but that is not the best policy for future business
relationships. I thought, and came up with the best solution in which a draw was likely.
To my relief, that was the result. As tournament directors we do have the right of minimal
expectations, at least, from players. And making rulings based on about 100% guesswork
is not my cup of tea.

Rob Jones

3

Here is a thought, Ernie, if one of the players had a prior history of “mischief” of piece
rearrangement, (cheating), would that affect a decision of your in a situation such as this??

Rob Jones

4

How about taking a quantum mechanics approach? Get another board and clock. Set it up to match what the first player claims is the current position. Set the original board up to match what the second player claims is the current position.

Inform them that their game is now in a superposition of the two game states, and you’ll be back to take an observation when either of the game reaches a result. That collapses the wave function to the state of the game that achieved a result.

5

This is a tough one. I once made a careless move where I was going to do an automatic recapture of a queen but when I looked in my hand, I was holding a king that could not make this recapture. I simply laid the king on its side and shook my opponent’s hand.

I could not determine whether scoresheets were changed after the fact or when the moves were recorded in this example. I would not take ratings into account here. If a rook moved to where a pawn could take it, well stuff like this happens and it could be a learning experience. The intention was certainly Rc6, but intentions are not always reality. My first inclination would be to declare the game a draw. I would rather have the two play a rematch and not count this game at all but I couldn’t see letting bc5 stand in light of the other scoresheet indicating Rc6.

6

Ernie,

If there is no reason to credit one claim over the other, and your fact pattern indicates no such reason, my remedy is to revert to the last agreed position (White to move with White’s R on the square of origin on the c-file), correct the move counters, if used, and not give back the time. I am more than 4,000 miles away from my rulebook, but I believe there is support for this approach if the position cannot be reconstructed.

Of course, White will play Rc6 from this point. Is it fair? Yes if White really played Rc6, and no if White really played Rc5. But it’s the best one can do without further support, and it has rulebook support (I think–again, my rulebook is in North America, and I am in Europe).

Both players get on my “watch discreetly but closely” list. At best, one of the players has grossly misperceived the on-the-board reality. At worst, and in my view, more likely, one of the players is lying. In the absence of ubiquitous directors, our game relies on the honor and obligation of players to own up to their moves and respond to the moves their opponents make, not the moves they would like for them to have made. If a player is involved in a second such claim, and I catch them, a denied claim and an Ethics referral is my minimum response.

7

This would fall into the category, “What was white’s intent”?, since Rc6 appeared to have been white’s intent, rather than play Rc5, which is a blunder. It is sort of
akin to where a player reaches for a piece only to have his/her arm knock over the king inadvertently, and the latter player claiming that the player that moved, had
resigned the game for accidentally knocking over his/her king. During my time as a tournament director many years ago, when I summarize a ruling, I always state
that it was the player’s intent to not knock over their own king, and this sort of falls into that category.

Since you had mentioned that the player moving his rook then had to use the facilities, and perhaps, “Nature was Calling”, I could sort of see where the rook could have
moved to the wrong square, but the underlying question is “What was the Intent of the Player”? I did not want to be too grotequese here, and am just trying to get
into the minds of the players involved here.

Respectfully Submitted,

David A. Cole, USCF Life Member, Franklin, NJ

8

Happily, I’ve never had to rule on a situation like this.

I can see two ways this could have happened without either player deliberately cheating:

Scenario #1:
White saw that Rc5 would be a blunder but that Rc6 would be a reasonable move, chose Rc6, but incorrectly executed the move, placing his rook on c5 instead of c6 (though he correctly recorded the move he intended to make). This scenario seems extremely unlikely, since we must presume not only that White misexecuted his intended move, but also that he failed to realize that he had placed the rook on the wrong square, pressing his clock button and recording his intended move without realizing it wasn’t the move he had actually made. Since players don’t need to visit the bathroom all that frequently during games, we would therefore have to presume that three unusual things - misexecuting a move, failing to realize the error as soon as it was made, and needing to visit the bathroom - all occurred at the same time, which is very unlikely. In any case, the rulebook is quite clear on what should happen: Rule 10G states quite clearly that white must leave his piece on the c5 square.

Scenario #2:
White failed to see that Rc5 would be a blunder and deliberately chose to move his rook there, but mistakenly thought that the square was c6 instead of c5. He was shocked when he returned from the bathroom and saw that his rook had been captured (since he hadn’t noticed the threat) and, noticing that he had recorded his move as Rc6 while black’s pawn was on c5, chose to believe that he had made the move he had recorded rather than the move he had actually made. This scenario is easier to imagine, since most of us have at one time or another misrecorded a move. But the rulebook would (of course) still dictate that the move White actually made (Rc5) must stand, regardless of what he recorded.

The other possible scenarios I can see would both involve deliberate cheating by one player:

Scenario #3:
White moved Rc6, but Black chose to take advantage of his bathroom break and to record White’s move as Rc5 and then move bxc5 in order to gain a winning advantage.

Scenario #4:
White mistakenly moved Rc5, failing to see the threat, but then realized his mistake after he had released the rook on the c5 square but before he had recorded his move on his scoresheet. Realizing that his mistaken move had already been determined at that point, he concocted a plan for avoiding a loss, recording his move as Rc6 rather than Rc5 and then excusing himself for a bathroom break, with the idea that he could protest after his return that Black had taken advantage of his absence to cheat.

My first inclination was to back the game up as Brennan suggested. But this would effectively mean ruling in White’s favor, since White would end up getting to make the move he recorded.

Another option would be to have them replay the move but prohibit White from moving Rc6, though the equity of this solution would depend on whether White had any other safe alternatives. And it would raise the question of whether White should be required to move the rook somewhere or permitted to make any other move he chose.

The most equitable solution might be to simply declare the game a draw, or to forfeit both players (so that it would not affect their ratings). Rob says that double forfeits are “not the best policy for future business relationships” but it’s not clear to me that a possibly unjust ruling would be better policy.

Another possibility might be to void the game and have them play a new game, limited by the time remaining for the round.

Bob

9

If Rc5 was made on the board and was, in fact a gross blunder, I would be surprised that bxc5 wasn’t played before White even had a chance to get up to go to the bathroom. If it were unclear what square the Rook were on, it would have been appropriate for Black to stop the clock and summon a TD/wait for White to return. So Black’s claim apparently is that White (clearly) moved to c5 despite recording Rc6, and Black needed enough time to analyze it that bxc5 was made in White’s absence (and as pointed out that White chose this particular moment to heed nature’s call). That seems like too many coincidences. Occam’s Razor would seem to indicate that a better bet is that either Black blatantly cheated or at least took a rather favorable (for him) interpretation of White’s move.

10

Well, that would depend on just how immediately White got up to go to the bathroom.

Personally, when I see one of my opponents make what appears to be a gross blunder, my instinct is to examine the position carefully before moving, since many traps are disguised as “blunders”. I know that if the move really is as big a blunder as it appears to be, the extra analysis time won’t hurt, since the game is likely to be smooth sailing from then on. And if the “blunder” is really a trap, I’ll be very glad I took the extra time.

Bob

11

I know I get very suspicious when a strong player makes an obvious blunder, and I’ve sometimes been very happy that I didn’t immediately respond. I’ve also seen weaker players make an obvious blunder and I’ll still spend some time analyzing (sometimes finding that if I “take advantage” of the blunder there is a refutation that the opponent never even knew existed until the post-game analysis session - and even then there is no guarantee the opponent would not have found it if I did try to “take advantage”).