I must note the following, which summarizes my understanding of the relevant parts of Chapter 10.
There is a rule that says games that are not OTB are permitted, provided that a TD signs off on the results.
There is a guideline that says a TD should be available at each site.
Perhaps that guideline was intended to be a rule. I would be perfectly fine with codifying that guideline as a rule (note that this would not impact the ICC events, which are not OTB rated). As my first post in this thread should indicate, I would only support including an online game as part of an OTB event if there were extenuating circumstances and a TD available at each site throughout the game.
As of this writing, however, I fail to see why a TD could not submit an online game for OTB rating, based solely on his signature. Of course, the certifying TD takes full responsibility for the propriety of the game’s conduct.
If someone signs up to play in an online rated tournament, they know exactly what conditions they’ll be playing under.
If someone signs up to play in a tournament not advertised as being conducted on line, the entirely valid assumption is that all games will be played OTB. Playing an online game as part of an OTB event strikes me as a significant change of conditions, and would require advance announcement of the possibility, as it could influence an player’s decision whether to enter the event or not.
If I recall correctly, back when computers started entering tournaments as players, their acceptance in an event was required to be announced in advance publicity so “real people” could decide whether they wanted to enter with the possibility of facing a silicon opponent. The possibility of online play in an otherwise OTB tournament doesn’t seem significantly different to me in principle. Personally I think advance notice is already required under existing rules by implication for the reason I gave above, but since it could easily start becoming more commonplace, perhaps an explicit requirement is now in order, similar to the earlier “computers as players” requirement.
If they both agree and the requisite conditions are met, fine. There are lots of things you can do without prior announcement if everyone involved agrees. But I wouldn’t want a player to be forced into an online game when he/she signed up for an OTB event and doesn’t want to do that.
.
Suppose there is a tournament with 5 rounds of USCF Rated games, and a 6th round for which the games are UNrated. For the UNrated games, even with tournament prize $ at stack, anything goes in a private tournament (I presume).
But for Rated games, no player should ever be allowed to play alone unsupervised, over-the-web or way down the hallway or whatever.
I would argue against rules that allowed an unsupervised rated player “IF both players agree” because it puts social pressure on a USCF member to allow his opponent to play the rated game unsupervised, despite the obvious risk of temptation to cheat in little ways (such as shuffling pieces around to test variations, having nothing to do with gross cheating by use of Fritz).
However, if players A+B play a rated game over-the-web at the same time that C+D play each other, both games could be over-the-web if say A&C sit together in one city while B&D sit together in another city. A&C can see and watch each other. The USCF rules should allow players to consent to that.
.
Pretty fascinating discussion. To be honest I don’t think the rules need any change – the rule gives organizers and TDs latitude and the guideline is strong. In a negative example there is always the possibility of a player and onsite TD colluding for some reason.
The game happened. White (high Expert outrated by 40 Elo points) was at the tournament site. Black was in Australia for work with no direct oversight. Both players are well known to the club and longtime residents of the Denver metro. The TD reviewed the rules with both players and both players agreed to the various conditions. So the TD signed off on the game within the rules.
Against guideline? Certainly.
Within the current USCF rules? Yes.
Would I personally ever Plan to do something like this? No.
Do I understand why the organizers and TD approved of the presumably one-time situation? Yes.
Was I present and did I help the TD understand the trade offs and choices he was making? Yes.
Did the TD factor in that Black is good enough to identify the one critical position that he could use an engine on, and that we’d never really know about it? Yes.
Was White aware of the above and accept that possibility? Yes.
Does it set a precedent for Denver Chess Club or any other club? No.
As a summary…White really wanted a shot at Black. He’s been chomping at the possibility for a long time. Both players accepted the conditions laid out by the TD. The standings and potential prizes of other competitors are not a factor in this situation.
To be honest I think the entire situation was a sideshow. The tournament should’ve been halted in December 2015 due to weather and concluded without the final round, and I said that much to the club leadership. But they did what they thought was best in a strange situation. Stuff happens. It’s a friggin board game.
Anyway…
Yeah I was there and checked in on the game multiple times. The higher rated Black player won. Before any suspicion is cast (OMG, the unsupervised player in Australia won?!?), White went in for a dubious pieces vs. Q ending with pawn formations that didn’t help White’s mobility. White tried to make a fortress and hold out but pawn tangle was just too much.