Actually, not true, but the first one that required any work.
In my tournament yesterday White had a Rook and two Pawns against a Queen and Pawn. White thought that he had a blockaded position, and early in the game (somewhere around move 60) he asked if there were no captures in 50 moves, was the game a draw. I responded that the rule was no captures or pawn moves in 50 moves then he could claim a draw. Fast forward to move 123 or so, after requests for TD intervention from both players. White says that Black played …f6 on move 73, so therefore it had been 50 moves since the last capture or pawn move. At this time Black had about three minutes and White had 1:11 on a digital clock without delay. I offered a draw to Black, since a draw claim is first a draw offer. Black declined, being both up material and on the clock, so I got out a second board and began to play over the game.
It is at this point I should mention that White is a ten year old boy, so his scoresheet was obviously riddled with errors. Black claimed that, since White was claiming a draw, he didn’t have to show me his scoresheet, and that White had to use solely White’s scoresheet to reconstruct the game. We were able to do this, not without disagreement from Black since he said that we had to go by what was written on the scoresheet, not what we could recreate (games are relatively easy to recreate with even a partial scoresheet, especially if you have the players standing there.) Anyway, there were more than ten errors on White’s scoresheet, but Black never intervened to say that the move we made was incorrect. It was difficult at times because White and Black’s scoresheets didn’t match according to move number, but we eventually got to a point where there had unambiguously been fifty moves since …f6, and I declared the game drawn. Black argued about the lack of correctness of White’s scoresheet, although the final position on my board matched the final position on the game board, and I offered to go over it again so that he could point out any inaccuracies in our reconstruction. He declined, and I offered him the chance to appeal. He asked how long he had to do that. I gave him until the handshake, although I suppose I should have said that he had the amount of time remaining on his clock.
Black is (obviously) very upset by this decision, but I stand by it. Opinions on how I handled it? What should I have done differently?
(From the Manchester airport - ain’t technolgy wonderful?)
It sounds like you did everything right. The rule does state that the claiming player must support the claim, which implies the use only of his scoresheet. However, unlike the time forfeit rule no specific standard (like three incomplete move pairs) is given. So it was up to you to use your best judgement - and that’s what you did.
Over in the USCF Issues forum, there’s an ongoing discussion which is peripherally about the relative merits of FIDE vs. USCF rules. I’m one of those who believes that in many cases, USCF rules are superior. But the situation you encountered (and even more so in time forfeit situations) is not one of them. FIDE rules put a much greater emphasis on discovering the truth, without placing limits on the evidence that can be used or on the discretion of the TD. I think that’s a better way to go.
In the 4th edition of the rulebook, there was a variation given for time forfeit procedure that I always used to employ. Under this variation, the “three incomplete move pair” standard would not be in effect. Instead, it would be up to the discretion of the the TD, using BOTH scoresheets, to determine whether the claimant’s scoresheet was sufficiently accurate and whether the claim was valid. Of course this variation had to be announced before Rd. 1 but I found there were many instances when this procedure was a big time saver. You could just glance at the two scoresheets and be pretty sure what the truth was, without laboriously playing through the game on another board.
There is no explicit requirement that the claimant have a reasonably complete scoresheet as defined in rule 13C7. Normally, the scoresheet would be the means of demonstrating the requirements of 14F1 have been met. I think the relevant question here is how much the claimant can “help” the reconstruction process by interpreting the scoresheet errors. If the opponent wishes to challenge the reconstruction, I believe he needs to hand over his scoresheet to the TD at that point.
I’m torn in this case, but I think if I were on the spot, I would have upheld the draw claim. I don’t envy you having to handle this situation or the resulting bad feelings on Black’s part.
I strongly agree with Hal that the FIDE rules are superior in this case.
Probably the most important lesson from this is that White should have used rule 14F4 and asked a director to count moves. Unfortunately, players all too often do not know the rules and shoot themselves in the foot as a result.
In the CCA Rules which are posted ubiqitously (sometimes, depending on the actual TD) at the CCA tournaments, under “Draw By Triple Occurence of Position,” it says that “in Sudden Death, the TD may also use observation.”
A good suggestion in theory, but often difficult or impossible in practice. A player is likely not to realize, at move 63, that a 50-move possibility is coming up. (Maybe it would dawn on him around move 73, though.)
I was the black player of this game. I do respect the TD’s decision but I do disagree with it. Without significant assistance from the TD this game could not have been reconstructed due to my opponents lackluster scoresheet, he claimed the draw, its on him to “demonstrate” this claim in an accurate manner. He certainly could not do this…Lastly I do believe due to my opponents young age he was given major assistance, I totally believe had this been a 25year old, the game would have then continued once it was clear his scoresheet was unreliable. This was the last game of the evening (finished around 930pm), everyone had left the hall. I disputed throughout but could see the evidence of the TDs preferential treatment, I asked how long I had to appeal? I was told " til you both shake hands"…I did not shake hands to show my protest of the decision, his scoresheet clearly had more than the three errors therefore should not have counted. I believe the game should have continued.
Jason Havener
The rules don’t require a complete or accurate scoresheet for a 50-move claim. There is nothing in the rules about how many errors there may be on the scoresheet for a 50-move claim to be valid. There is a rule like that related to making a claim to have won by time forfeit – but nothing like that related to 50-move claims.
The scoresheet only has to be good enough to indicate that the number of moves since the last pawn move or capture was 50 or greater. It is unnecessary to be able to reconstruct the moves exactly. It is only necessary to know that there have been at least 50 moves. Tick marks for the moves on the scoresheet from the last pawn move or capture would suffice for a 50 move claim. In the actual situation, the player had a scoresheet showing no pawn moves or captures for 50 moves. The burden then shifted to you to demonstrate that there were pawn moves or captures after the move claimed by the opponent. For example, you might use your own scoresheet, or you might argue that the position of the pawns or the amount of material actually on the board is different than at the point claimed by the player, from which it can be inferred that there was a pawn move or capture subsequent to the one claimed by the player.
50-move rule claims are rare because generally players agree to draws in positions where progress cannot be made by either player long before 50 moves are made. The TD can also generally see that the position is such. If your game had gone on, it would still have been a drawn game in which progress could not be made. It seems you were planning to win on time, despite this, on the basis of the kid not having an accurate scoresheet and not being able to make, according to you, a proper 50 move rule claim. Your interpretation of the rule would allow a player who was ahead on the clock to win in a drawn position when the opponent has an inaccurate scoresheet just by running out the clock. The penalty for more than three inaccuracies on a scoresheet would be that the opponent ahead on time would have draw odds, if we adopted your version of the rules.
Not very sporting of you. Would you have treated an adult player that way? How many draw offers did you refuse in this drawn position, hoping to win on time because the opponent had an “inadequate” score sheet? Shame on you.
Unfortunately for your plan, the rules and Alex didn’t cooperate. Alex made the right decision according to the rules, and the outcome was satisfactory from a sporting point of view. It was a draw, and that was the outcome. The rules worked. You wasted everybody’s time, including your own. Hopefully, you won’t do it again. The kid learned that people, adults especially, cannot be relied upon to show sportsmanship, but that you can sometimes rely on the rules and the officials. Good lesson to learn.
My friend Ali Morshedi has a good way to deal with draw offers: after the second one, say “I refuse this and all subsequent draw offers in this game”
Brian, how do you know the position is drawn? The material imbalance sounds tricky to me.
While I agree with TD Alex’s handling of the claim, the player of the Black pieces has the right of due process (appeal). I don’t understand why Brian is trying to “shame” him out of it.
I had a somewhat similar case at US Open in Indianapolis, when GM Jesse Kraai claimed a 50-move draw in a game against me with a K+R vs. my K+R+N. Robert Tanner was the floor chief TD who was handling the claim and he accepted it outright. I earned scorn from everyone around by insisting that TD verified that 50 moves were indeed made. According to my (electronic) scoresheet, we might have been a move or two short. Jesse was really upset, since he claimed I couldn’t have won the game even if I had not one or two, but even 10 extra moves! I don’t know what Jesse’s paper scoresheet showed since it was not used by TD to determine the validity of the claim. Instead, TD Tanner relegated the checking to GM Ben Finegold, who confirmed that 50 moves have indeed been made by the game record on Monroi server (I had the input device). I accepted the ruling, but for the life of me I don’t understand why it was wrong to insist on verifying the claim.
Another time, I refused a draw offer from NM Nick Schoonmaker after we traded into my K+R+B vs. his K+R. I proceeded to win the game easily (in about 20 moves). Later, I had to field questions from TD Rob Jones, who (not being aware of the game result) was incredulous why I didn’t agree to a draw.
The point here is that even if the position is theoretically drawn, a player has a right to try to win it in accordance to the rules of the game.
I disagree with Brian Mottershead, here. This fellow was up in both material and time so did feel he could win the game. There’s nothing wrong with that.
It certainly is a problem when children or anyone has a scoresheet with errors as this child did.
Brian also has no real way to know what Jason’s motivations were or are. There certainly is no good reason to dress down Jason in this manner, Brian.
Jason did not waste anyone’s time either. If the child would have utilized the rules properly, by asking the TD to count the moves, the claim would have been correct.
It also is apparent from the testimony of the TD and Jason that the scoresheet needed to be recreated with the TD talking the player through the game memory. If the kid would have used the “tick” method of notating moves, then the wasted time and effort of recreating the scoresheet would not have been needed. This recreation was the real waste of time and energy.
Also, to my knowledge and experience, 50 move rule claims are not that rare at all. I see them regularly at weekend tournaments. In fact I distinctly recall seeing a player ask the TD to count the moves, which this child should have done.
I would just like to state on the record that I do accept the ruling. I give credit to my opponent for the position he was able to achieve, many would have resigned( I actually thought he was gonna hence the sloppy play in the beginning).
I was offered a draw one time and refused…Q,p vs. R,2 p… I dont believe there was anything wrong with playing it out…It was the second round and I needed the win and I thought I played well enough to win. Looking back I have no regrets challenging the young mans validity of his scoreheet claim, they were major errors throughout and atleast 1 during the 50 move claim…perhaps it would have been a draw, but I was seriously contemplating trading my queen for his pawn and rook while still having the tempo if I could get his king in the right spot away from the other pawn. All of this is a lesson learned for many…
And I thank the people for reading and being understanding…
Jason Havener
K+R vs K+R+N is generally a draw. Jesse was upset probably because you hadn’t made any progress for 50 moves and the position was not one where there was a forcing line of a few moves. Even if his scoresheet was wrong, it wasn’t going to be wrong by more than a move or two, and a move or two would make no difference in the end. You were merely delaying the inevitable. There is no rule that states that there is only one 50-move rule claim per customer. If his claim was invalid at that point, it was going to be valid in a couple more moves. So your insistence on “verification” probably seemed pointless, unsporting, and disrespectful.
In my opinion, a player should be within 13C7 (scoresheet completeness) to be granted the draw. That the TD had to reconstruct the game score means the claimant couldn’t “demonstrate” the validity of the claim on his own. This is the same idea that a three-repetition claim is invalid if the claimant makes a procedural error (e.g. makes the move, hits the clock, then claims the draw). Yeah, the fact on the board is that the position happened three times, but the claim is invalid due to procedure. Well…I think the 50 move claim is invalid without a reasonably correct scoresheet, and the only definition of reasonably correct is 13C7.
Does this make Alex’s ruling invalid? No…b/c the rules police correctly point out that 13C7 is not explicitly applied to 14F1. From my point of view I question this, but until there’s a critical mass of Senior and National TDs who weigh in on the matter, it’s a matter of interpretation.
Other Points
Age is irrelevant.
Why was this game played on a digital clock without delay??? Time control was 40/100, G/60 and the tournament flyer says nothing about delay not being used. White shouldn’t be bailed out for poor time management, and neither player should be bailed out for not checking if delay is on at the beginning of the game.
I’m surprised such a sloppy reply came from such an exacting person.
Every player has the right to be absolutely sure the claim is verified. TDs and pundits on these forums state this all the time, “That players are responsible and shouldn’t accept the result until they’re sure.” Insisting on the verification is fully within the rules and should be expected from everyone, Class F or GM alike.
If in 50 moves he hadn’t been able to force a position where the pawns could be moved or it was possible to capture, then it would seem the opponent had built a fortress and the game was drawn. I stick with the view that the player was hoping that the opponent would lose on time, 50-move rule claims supposedly being blocked by White’s “incorrect” scoresheet. This is supported by the fact that Black was so quick to make an issue of the scoresheet and refused to let his own scoresheet be used.
The one thing that I would have done differently from Alex (with the benefit of Monday-morning perspective) would have been not to reconstruct the game at all. White’s scoresheet showed a pawn move at move 73 and no pawn moves or captures up to move 123. Prime facie case for 50 move claim. “Demonstrated:”, barring evidence to the contrary from the other side. The burden was then on Black to argue that there had been a pawn move or capture after move 73, and that White’s scoresheet was incorrect, using his own scoresheet or logical argument to support the point. There was no need for reconstruction unless Black was claiming that there had not been 50 moves. There was only a need for reconstruction if one player was asserting that there had been 50 moves, the other was asserting the contrary, with the scoresheets not being clear.
In the actual case, Black never argued that there hadn’t been 50 moves, only that White did not have the right to claim it without a better scoresheet.
Of course, they do. But sometimes insisting on your rights is merely dilatory – with no possibility of changing the final outcome. In that situation, while everybody is still obliged to go through the “verification” process, they will be, at least, miffed by the person who required it.
Please remember that 13C7 (complete scoresheet) is needed by the claimant for a three-fold repetition (rule 14C9) but the 13C7 requirement for the 50-move claim does not exist and is only mentioned as a requirement on the opponent to show that the claimant’s scoresheet, starting move number of a director count, or the director count (after it was started) is incorrect (rule 14F4d). That is a very different 13C7 requirement.
A bunch of check marks by a claimant would not seem to be enough to indicate that the moves had actually been played but a scoresheet with even a couple dozen errors would be enough if the starting position after the last capture/pawn move could be reconstructed and the later moves kept track of.
P.S. 14F4c is a rule that many overlook when the director has been requested to count (the director does not tell players what the count is and the director simply declares the game drawn once 50 is reached).
I reject this argument for the chess games that are allowed to continue. The game is played by humans and humans make mistakes. Final outcome of a chess game is always in doubt. In the original case mentioned, the player of the Black pieces had every reason to believe he can win the game if it’s allowed to continue.
K+R vs. K+R+N is tricky to defend, though GM’s should be able to hold the draw with relative ease. K+R vs. K+R+B is tough to defend even for GM’s. Not knowing the position in the original claim, I would still suspect it’s by no means a gimme draw based on the material.
By this argument, you should never resign, but force every opponent to checkmate you. Your opponent might blunder, and you might win even a hopelessly lost position. Of course, nobody would say you don’t have the right to do this. But I think most experienced chess-players would consider that somewhat impolite and disrespectful of an opponent’s time in many situations.
In the specific situation you have described, Jesse’s scoresheet was in agreement with your scoresheet as regards the number of moves towards a 50-move draw, to within a couple of moves. Unless there was a forced line of a couple of moves which would have led to checkmate or a capture advantageous to you, and the GM had overlooked this, your standing on your right to “verification” was pointless, even if you were right about the number of moves. Two moves later he would just make the same claim again. As it turned out, his scoresheet was correct, anyway, which can’t have made the verification exercise seem any less pointless.
In a position where I feel I have winning chances, I would like to use the full 50 moves allowed to me by the rules to exercise those chances, thank you.
In K+R+N v K+R, when you have (at most) two moves left to the 50 move limit, and no forced checkmate or advantageous capture in prospect within those two moves, you don’t have any winning chances. That is a draw. Your only “chance” is that your opponent will make an outrageous blunder.
Somebody playing against a GM should have been able to see this quite a bit before, and Jesse was probably just waiting politely for you to offer a draw. When he finally got to the 50-move limit, and you demanded “verification”, adding insult to injury, it is easy to see why he might feel a little peeved with you.
