This situation comes up often in our scholastic tournaments. I’m sure this has been discussed in the past, but I can’t find this using a search on this Forum.
There are times when one or both players stop recording moves with over 5 minutes remaining on both players’ clocks. Often, this is in an endgame with very few pieces left and mostly this occurs in the novice or intermediate player’s sections. I’ve always wondered if it’s appropriate to remind the players to record the moves until less than 5 minutes remain on a player’s clock, and I’ll do it intermittently. Rule 15A states that each player is required to record the game.
However, in the top High School section in our State Championships last month, one player asked about this when he stopped recording when his opponent had under 5 minutes on the clock (time control 90 minutes / 30 sec increment). We have been introducing games with 30 second increments for the top scholastic sections this past year, so this player may have forgotten (we did announce this prior to Round 1) that with 30-second increment games, all moves need to be recorded (as opposed to games with 5-second delay). His opponent was still recording moves.
Now my question is what is the procedure when a player stops recording moves in this case as observed by a floor TD? In this case, the floor TD reminded the player that he had to keep recording moves. After the game, the player had commented to me as the Chief TD that the floor TD warning was inappropriate, stating that only the opponent was allowed to point out non-recording of moves.
The Rulebook is not very clear on this. Section 21D (Tournament Director Intervening in Games) does not list this infraction as a reason to intervene. 21D3. Warning players refers to disruptive, unethical, or unsportsmanlike behavior, which does not seem to be the case here. Essentially, I invoked 1C2 - Directors discretion to enforce rules strictly in stronger events (winner of sections would be State representative to the Denker tournament) - and told this player that it was appropriate for the floor TD to intervene - penalty here was just a warning. Was this appropriate or correct?
Finally as a side note, 15D1 - a player can only borrow an opponent’s scoresheet to consult when both players have over 5 minutes on clock. Does this also apply when there is a 30-second increment?
The solution becomes for the non-recording palayer to catch up on their own time - even in increment.
The issue when both stop usuallly doesn’t come up because there is no one complaining. But if there is no score sheeet from which to update then both just start from where they are.
“Required” reads like it needs to be done whether the TD re-states or not. So a warning, then 2min to the opponent, then additional minutes to the opponent, and then game forfeit sounds like the standard escalation.
Quite the contrary. In spite of the wording of most of the rules in the USCF Official Rules of Chess, Rule 21D is clear about TD intervention. Most rules (with the notable exception of rule 11 [illegal move]) require a player to first make a claim.
Jeff Wiewel is also correct. In the FIDE Laws of Chess, the arbiter’s role is far more interventionist, and the arbiter enforces the Laws of Chess without the need for a player to first make a claim. It is a difference of philosophy.
If we take 21D as strictly and as literally as Ken says we should, it would seem that the players can agree a lot of things, and unless a dispute arises, the director is powerless to intervene. For example, the players can:
(1) agree that touch/move won’t be in effect.
(2) agree to change the time control
(3) agree to play dice chess (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_chess)
(4) agree that pieces have a subset of their legal moves (such as pawns only being allowed to capture to the right);
(5) if 11H1 is in effect so that the director has nothing to say about illegal moves, the players can agree to redefine the moves of the pieces, or maybe even to play checkers or gin rummy instead.
…etc
Thank you for the responses so far on short notice. I’d like to see others’ opinions as well.
I have two other items to add to the discussion:
My interpretation of Rule 21D [(Intervening in games): The director’s intervention in a chess game shall generally be limited to the following:…]
is keyed on the word “generally”. To me, it means that Rules 21D1-21D6 are not all-inclusive. Otherwise, this word would have been “specifically”.
Also, after 21D3 Warning players and 15A Manner of Keeping Score, there is a reference to see Rule 13I - Refusal to obey rules.
It seems that with Rule 13I (and the TD tip that follows) that the TD can declare a game lost if a player refuses to obey the rules. [The TD Tip gives a series of steps to take prior to enforcing Rule 13I]. Perhaps, Rule 13I and the TD tip with it can be invoked if a player is not obeying Rule 15A and allow the TD to “interfere”.
I had not thought of Rule 13I at the time. However, does Rule 13I require an opponent claim in order to be invoked?
Thank you again for your time and your feedback, and I hope there is more since this appears to be a grey area within the Rulebook.
I think the TD, as a representative of the sponsoring organization, can intervene and require that the player keep the scoresheet up-to-date “move-by-move, as clearly and legibly as possible.”
Many of the rules are written to provide directors latitude in their application, because the rulebook can’t really cover all possible “corner cases”. Hence, the proliferation of words like “generally” and “usually”, and the further proliferation of TD Tips.
Further agreed.
As a general principle, if a player refuses repeated warnings/sanctions to conform with a rule, the director has options available up to and including removal from the tournament. Before I impose such a severe sanction, I would usually need to show that the player has engaged in obvious, repeated and/or flagrant refusal to follow a rule, even after I’ve clearly explained the situation to him. YMMV.
No. In fact, invocation of Rule 13I should probably happen without an opponent claim, because the offender is presumably under fairly close director observation at this point, due to repeated noncompliance.
It seems pretty clear that the “philosophy” of the USCF rules (in contrast to FIDE) is non-intervention by TD’s, except where a player asks for intervention. The USCF rules have “generally” closed the door on TD intervention, except for specific cases which are enumerated in the rule book. I don’t completely agree with the non-interventionist approach. In fact, it seems incoherent to me, as in this case, where a player is violating the rules about recording moves. In principle, under the USCF rules, a TD can’t do anything about it unless the opponent complains.
But I don’t think Rule 13I reopens the door to intervention, licensing the TD to intervene in games to enforce the rules without a request from a player. That would nullify all the sections of the rules which say that TD cannot “generally” intervene. It seems pretty clear that Rule 13I covers the situation where a TD has already intervened – either by a player referring a dispute to the TD, or because it is one of the few cases where a TD is allowed to intervene – and a player defies the instructions of the TD and continues with the illegal conduct. It does not seem to me that Rule 13I is intended to be a handy-dandy intervention card which the TD can keep in his back pocket in order to intervene when the players, annoyingly, do not ask for intervention.
USCF rules are written to cover common situations. The reason variants and less restrictive language are included is to allow for director discretion in situations where the common rule application may not be the way to go. In all cases, the idea is to get players to comply with the rules, preferably without using sanctions if possible.
In the case given by Mr. Kim, if the rules regarding notation were announced in advance or otherwise previously covered by USCF rule, players are required to comply with those rules. In this situation, I would envision warning the player twice. The third and fourth times, I would apply either a time deduction for the player, or add time to the opponent’s clock. Either on the fourth or fifth offense, I would warn the player that the next offense would result in forfeiture. This way, I give the player multiple chances to correct the behavior, even before applying any penalty. For more serious violations, of course, the “intervention curve” is steeper.
In non-increment time controls, a director can threaten a player who refuses to keep notation with reduction of his base reflection time to five minutes, at which point the player is no longer obligated to keep notation. (Obviously, this requirement continues to exist in an increment time control.) The threat, in such cases, is almost always strong enough that the execution is not required.
Rule 13I simply does not require an opponent claim to be invoked. Of course, as previously stated, you wouldn’t normally reach for that rule unless the opponent was already in repeated violation of some other rule or instruction. That said, the rules on director abuse of power are sufficient to proscribe excessive use of 13I, among others.
IF you are talking about 21K2, that is a “non-rule”, and it is laughable. It proscribes nothing and enjoins nothing not already proscribed or enjoined by other rules. It is like having a do-not-break-the-law law. What does it add? It is hard to think of anything.
Obviously, if it is bad for a director to overstep his authority once, it is worse for him to do it twice, and even worse to do it multiple times, regularly. We don’t need 21K2 to tell us that. So, is it trying to set up a quota on how often a director can make decisions before he is no longer using his “power” sparingly?
Each decision needs to be made on its own merits, and it is irrelevant how much time has lapsed since the last time a director made a decision. If anybody needed an example of how poorly written the “USCF Official Rules of Chess” are, he wouldn’t have to look any further than 21K2.
Directors who are found to have overstepped their authority are subject to penalty, at the discretion of USCF, which would probably start with a recommendation from the TDCC or perhaps Ethics.
Any director who is found to be guilty of violating the rules on director abuse of power is a very strong candidate to have his directing certification suspended or revoked. I know a number of former directors who have had adverse action taken against their directing privileges.
The short answer to this question is “no”.
On this, I will agree to disagree. I happen to believe USCF rules are superior to others (for example, FIDE’s) in some areas, and inferior in others. However, even for USCF rules that I believe need to be changed (for example, the discord between 13C and 14F), USCF rules do have a large degree of practical situational experience that underlies their current wording.
Are you trying to tell me that if the rulebook did not contain 21K2, which tells directors that they shouldn’t abuse their power, that it would be OK for directors to abuse their power, and that the TDCC would not have been able to discipline directors who did abuse their power, or wouldn’t have done so?
The rule is there to make it clear that such excesses are not allowed. Specific penalties are not spelled out for specific excesses, so that the USCF has maximum flexibility in dealing with such cases.
A few months ago a my opponent stopped recording moves after I won his queen. (He was surprised enough by my combination that he questioned whether my last move was legal and then spent ten seconds looking back and forth between the board and his scoresheet, so maybe he was already sore that maybe I put one over on him or something.) I wanted to tell him that he needed to keep keeping score, but I felt like it would be rubbing it in. In retrospect I should have done so anyway, just to avoid any problems.
