You may be assuming evidence that is not necessarily correct. I’ve seen players make a move, try and fail to correctly hit the clock, later see that their clock is running and (thinking it is again their move) move a second time.
If that happened here then technically the only illegality would be on the part of black (and white may not want to call attention to that).
There was a thread recently about a park/square blitz player who, in situations like this, would regularly play Kg1-g1 and hit the clock to generate a necessary pass. If something like that happened then the TD might be inclined to go a little further (rated loss and/or tournament ejection?).
I’m guessing that the TD’s questioning while trying to determine the ruling to make would have attempted to unravel the situation further (though the success of that attempt still may not have been enough to determine what really happened).
One interesting scholastic no-score-keeping time-scramble had a player advance a pawn to the other side and release his hand (to get a queen), his opponent moved, and then the player replaced the pawn with the queen and hit the clock, after which the opponent moved again.
I happened to have been watching that time-scramble, so the position was corrected (with the queening player eventually winning) but I couldn’t say that the double-moving player was actually trying to cheat as opposed to simply being caught up in the moment and making a move after each move/release of the opponent (missing that two of them were really two parts of the same move).
Are you saying that Black can’t call himself for an illegal move? I once had an opponent castle through check into a mate in 2. He saw the mistake after I moved and made an illegal move claim. His claim was upheld base on 11A and he was allowed to make a different move with the king. 11A “If, during a game, it is found that one of either player’s last ten moves was illegal, the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the illegal move.”
The OP had black saying that white hit the clock between black’s double-moves, white saying he didn’t touch the clock at that time, and the witness not having said anything about that. Based solely on the OP, both sides do not agree on the facts.
A big part of solving this dispute centers around whether white pressed the clock without moving. Given the position on the board, white at least had a motive to be sneaky (to gain a move and get the opposition).
Let’s hope so!
The TD should have asked questions with an open mind, but fully aware that it is a common coffeehouse tactic to cheat in these kinds of positions. I hope the TD asked white why black’s clock apparently kept running after his first move. [Maybe black pressed the Chronos with a piece and not bare hand.] He could also ask black if he noticed that white didn’t move before pressing the clock, and if so, why he didn’t make a claim right away. [I don’t buy the part about “I calculated a win so it doesn’t matter if my opponent moved.”]
The experienced kids (this was a board 5 game) tend to be pretty alert about whose clock is running.
I once witnessed a tournament game where both players moved simultaneously. Apparently, each player thought it was his own move, and that his opponent was simply replying immediately. So on the next move, again both players moved simultaneously, again each thinking the opponent was replying immediately. This went on for about 5 moves before the players realized that one or the other was confused.
At this point, they decided they’d better figure out what had happened and whose move it was. But then (it was a middlegame, with no zugzwang possibilities to worry about) one of the players said, “Oh, never mind, I’ll just give you the extra move, you’re busted anyway.” So the game continued amicably, and the player who thought he was missing a move did in fact win, and the result was posted. The post-mortem revealed that the winner was indeed missing a move, and that he had a winning position no matter whose move it was, so neither player saw a need to back up, or to protest the result.
That’s why it is important to look at the full context of the game. Black doesn’t trade into the K+P endgame unless he had calculated it to a win. This clue partially corroborates his story.
Yes, in this case it really helps for a TD to be a reasonably strong chess player. Thanks to the OP for being alert and providing us with those little details.
Equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.
In time pressure, two moves passed since the illegal … g3. No claim was made within this time. The claim is therefore barred before the stalemate ends the game.
Is white scum? Perhaps. But equity only aids the vigilant. A player who makes two moves in a row and fails to initiate corrective action within the limits prescribed in the rules is, per se, not vigilant.
Unless, of course, Black miscalculated. It’s called making a mistake. So I have been told, it is relatively common among weak players. I have never encountered making a mistake in my play, but I’m told the results can be rather devastating.
I still fail to see, direct and verifiable cheating aside, why the 11D rules concerning both players accepting the board position despite an illegal move should not apply here and move on. But I will re-read the thread from the beginning when I get home tonight. Still must have missed something.
It’s helpful for the TD to be strong enough to know what the player probably knew and didn’t know. “He would certainly know that in that sort of K+P ending you keep the pawn behind the king unless you’re quite sure of the tempos.”
But we’ve heard from several NTDs that they try not to make rulings that depend on their playing ability, if at all possible. I guess that if one makes the ruling that depends on the actual ending on the board and a known possible coffeehouse tactic by White, one can feel good as a player and expert on chess tournaments that justice was most likely served, but one increases the chances of an appeal. It seems that we’re dealing with a question of “what sort of a TD do I want to be?”
Back in the old days when the rulebook wasn’t 400 pages we used to think it was important for the TD to be able to understand the games. It seemed to come up every so often that this understanding was relevant. But maybe that’s why we now have 400 pages or whatever it is. I’ll confess that I don’t own a rulebook. I’m pretty sure how the horsie moves (although Sawmiller recently expressed some possibly justified skepticism on that front) and that’s enough for me.
In principle, I agree that TDs should try to resolve a problem without looking at the position. Once the players disagree about actually happened in the game, it becomes necessary to understand the position. Retrograde analysis is a worthwhile skill for a TD.
Here we have two contradictory versions of what happened and the TD has to look for evidence to corroborate one side or the other. That’s why asking questions is important; if nothing else to see if both players can keep their own stories straight. There’s no guarantee of a Perry Mason moment, but with kids the odds are pretty good. One or two questions for each side should be sufficient.
The fact that black immediately said he calculated a forced K+P endgame win (and verifying that is indeed true) is a key bit of evidence to me. It tells me that black did not deliberately move twice in a row (else he loses the opposition). Said another way, I know that black’s clock was running for both of black’s moves. My questions would focus on whether black improperly pressed the clock after moving, or whether white secretly pressed the clock while black was looking around the room (here’s where the impartial spectator could again be useful).
I had a young scholastic player make a claim once that his opponent moved the horsie incorrectly. He said it could only go up2 and over 1, not over 1 and up 2.
Why? What claim did either player make that justified a TD investigation?
The OP says that the initial claim was that “something must have gone wrong”.
I don’t find any rule X.yy : SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG which tells me what I, as a TD, am supposed to do about this.
This is where it is necessary to separate the roles of TD and Coach/Teacher. In small local events, the TDs can be expected to turn each little bump in the road as a “teaching moment”. At National events, this is exactly the wrong thing to do.
In this specific case, the TD was called to the board with stalemate on the board, and a player who says “I was sure I was winning. I didn’t win. Something must have gone wrong. Please investigate and find out how I get my point”.
In this situation, the proper thing for a TD to do is to say: “This game is drawn. if you want to analyze it and find out where you made your mistake, the skittles room is down the hall and to the right.”
It is NOT the TD’s job to analyze games. They are there to resolve disputes between the players. In this case, there was no dispute. One player was merely puzzled because his analysis did not correctly predict play over the board.
These things happen in time scrambles. You cannot blitz out your moves and then later (if you don’t win) come back and try to win the analysis. It’s annoying enough when players do that in the analysis room. It’s worse when the player tries to enlist the help of the TD.
And finally - any ruling based on the principle that “he’s such a strong player that he would NEVER do that” is immediately suspect. It smacks of “ratings entitlement”. Players (even World Championship-caliber players) make mistakes. That’s why we play the games.
The bottom line here is the point that TD’s need to actively rein in their chess-playing skill (and their affinity for solving difficult problems). It’s much too easy to say “if I go over and intervene, the game will end correctly”. Games end “incorrectly” all the time, usually because (at least) one player makes a mistake. It is NOT the TD’s job to protect a player from his mistakes. it’s a bit like conflict-of-interest issues. It’s oh-so-tempting to straighten things out and demonstrate how clever you are when you are a TD and understand the game well. But…it must be actively suppressed. TD’s are not spectators and they should not have a rooting interest (even for “the correct result”). Their interest is in making sure that the rules are followed.
Again - in this specific case, according to what was originally posted, the players made NO CLAIM that required the TD to take any notice of the game whatsoever. As a chess player the TD was perhaps interested in what had gone on. As a TD, he should have been completely disinterested.
