Is there anything in the rules to indicate that players who enter an OTB event can expect all games to be played OTB and not 1 game on board 2 in the final round played online possibly with no director supervision on one or both sides?
This may be happening in a tournament I and my two children are playing in today. I think it must be in violation of the rules, but I’m not sure exactly which one.
My son is winning after 5 rounds and expected to face a life master tonight. It’s actually better for his chances of a prize if I look the other way and accept this organizer’s plan, but my moral fiber has a hard time with giving this one player special privilege. This player, who can’t make it tonight because he’s out of town, voted to postpone this round to today from Dec 15 because of a low turnout in a two month event because of snow. Then he says he didn’t understand the vote and thought the vote was to postpone until last Tuesday of March.
I was going to go along with it. But the President of this club is so obnoxious about not having to follow any rules because of who he is, I’m thinking about protesting. But I need to be sure they’re doing something illegal not just a “should not.”
What do you think? Illegal to let one game occur online?
You might find what you are looking for in Chapter 10 Internet Chess. But the bottom line would be that you be willing to file an official complaint with US Chess.
Chapter 10 of the US Chess rulebook permits regular rated online play, and as far as I can surmise, even as part of an OTB event. A guideline of having a certified TD at each online playing location is given, but that is not a requirement.
My preference: unless I had specifically advertised in advance for the possibility of games being played online, I would not allow any games of an OTB event where I am the chief TD or organizer to be played online, unless I could have a certified TD at each playing site for the duration of the game. I would also list those TDs on the rating report as assistants.
As Mr. Just observed, if Ms. Herman objects to the proposal, she’ll need to file a complaint with the national office.
Thank you, gentlemen. As of now it looks like they don’t plan to have the online game. But I’m glad to know it possibly would have been allowable. I’ll have to re-read Chapter 10. The sticking point in my head is following the publicity which gives a location for the games. If you’re playing remotely, you’re not playing at the location. They had given the opponent a choice to do it or object. They said they’re not doing it because not in publicity and no TD on the remote side. I’m not sure if that’s the organizer’s decision or the opponent’s.
I’m pretty sure I just blew the club president’s theory that I was only complaining to protect my son. This in no way protected my son. In fact it theoretically makes it more difficult for him to place 1st or 2nd (the only small prizes he’s eligible for after the enormous unjustified club cut) because board 2 will now be expert v class b instead of expert v expert where a draw that would lock in tie for second for my son would be more likely. Board 2 will play for a win now and my son must draw or beat the active life master he is good buddies with on bd/1 to place.
There is one real example of this. The winning teams of each of the four US Amateur Team events meet in an online contest for the playoffs and finals. However, there must be a TD onsite at each of the four locations. It’s a lot easier doing it this way than making at least 3 of the teams travel.
There are other examples of regular rated games being played online (the Chesskid.com championship tournaments come to mind). And, as Mr. Nolan can likely attest, I rather suspect there are some additional examples.
The US Chess League could certainly rate its games, and actually meets the Chapter 10 guidelines at its matches. League officials have decided against this, for reasons that have been enumerated elsewhere on the Forums.
In addition, as TD, I’m not sure I would allow it unless the on site player consented (again, assuming no advance publicity of the possibility of online play).
As the player, I wouldn’t consent, but that’s just my personal reaction… if I signed up for an on-site OTB tournament, those are the conditions I expect to play under. I’m not as adept at online play (not that I’m terribly adept at OTB to begin with )
I also thought the playoff was rated, but the only instance I could find was from 2007 (look for “USAT Playoff”). The associated affiliate was ICC. I do not know whether those games were played online.
The 2007 USAT playoff was indeed conducted online, and subsequently rated.
(I think) I remember seeing a press release from Joan DuBois (?) about it. Perhaps it is somewhere in the vast Joomla! driven recesses of our site. Unfortunately, I am composing this on my cell phone, so I can’t corroborate.
So … it all comes down to we (as TDs/Arbiters) are supposed to do everything within our power to assure no player … at a tournament … is using a cell phone, computer, books(!), etc., etc., etc. … … but, it is perfectly fine to allow a player to sit at home and play his (OTB) tournament match at home with access to any means necessary to assist in his move-makin’ decision process … … … is that what I am to understand?
– Greg Maness
USCF Senior TD
FIDE National Arbiter
What is being said is that games could be allowed to be played remotely provided there is a certified tournament director at each site to supervise play.
)