"Proper" Ruling?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

A late game at our weekly swiss finished after the TD had gone home. Here are the facts, probably in order of descending relevance. Players were essentially left to resolve the situation.

  1. White called the time forfeit flag on Black in the second sudden death time control. White had 1 Pawn on the board at the time. Our standard club time control is 30/90, SD/60; d5. If all the TDs stop here and rule in favor of a win for White, I would understand.

  2. A bystander TD observed that Black was moving nearly instantly. After the flag call, Black questioned whether the clock, a DGT3000 owned by White had been set up with delay in the second time control. No one was able to verify what the settings had been. At the beginning of the game, Black had agreed to use White’s clock and both had discussed the clock’s use of the Bronstein version of delay. After both players had made 30 moves in the initial time control, Black’s clock halted as if the second time control had not been properly set. White picked up the clock, and fiddled with it until times showed on both sides of the display. Black, to his later detriment, did not take care at this time to check if delay was set.

  3. Because of the questions regarding delay, White, a USCF1503 junior with a less-than-optimal knowledge of the USCF rules, offered a draw to Black, which Black accepted. Hands were shook. This is the result that was recorded onto the pairing sheet. But Round 5 won’t start until July 21, so there’s still time for justice. Current rules state that an agreed result can take precedence before a time forfeit is noticed, but not after. Full disclosure now: Black was me, a USCF2110 Local TD and an adult with a somewhat working knowledge of the rulebook.

  4. The final position was zugzwang with White’s only legal moves dropping his last pawn. Black then had a theoretically won endgame: White Kb3, Pc4; Black Kd4, Pa5, Pc6, White to move. I expect TDs to say that given the clock situation, the board situation is completely irrelevant.

  5. Black brought his own DGT North America to the tournament, so one was available.

  6. The tournament may have a top cash prize of about $150.

  7. Back in the early days of TD forums, I came across Senior TD Bill Smythe’s Dirty Pool rules on digital clock settings, which basically dealt with “unsporting” conduct in the use of digital clocks. Alas, these seem no longer fetchable by Google. Again, except for the witness who observed fast moves, it was never confirmed nor denied that the delay was set on the clock.

My conscience is bugging me for probably taking advantage of a kid. I will brace for the judgment of the internet, which may lead me to accept defeat Thursday.

Thanks

2

Were you in fact moving nearly instantly? That will not help nearly as much with delay as with increment, of course. If you were down to a few seconds plus delay time at the end, all it would take is one think of less than 10 seconds to flag.

btw, I do not own one, but I am pretty sure the DGT 3000 supports U.S.-style ‘straight’ delay.

3

DGT 3000 supports both “US Delay” and regular (or Bronstien) Delay.

4

The old post http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=64822#p64822 includes the document you are looking for. However, it’s quite obsolete by now, and probably does not apply to your situation anyway.

I wrote it in the early days of digital clocks. One clock in common use then was the old-old Saitek model with a dark gray case – not exactly one of my favorite clocks ever.

Bill Smythe

5

And now for a “real” reply – or at least a real bunch of guesses. Questions, questions, questions.

I can think of at least two (very different) ways this could have happened.

One, perhaps black played his 30th move on the board, but then his time ran out before he pressed his clock. If so, then this looks like a legitimate time forfeit. Many DGT clocks, at least in some modes, will stop (“halt at end” or “halt at time control”) if it thinks a player has exceeded the time control.

Two, the secondary time control may not have been set properly. Perhaps, instead of 30/90, SD/60; d5, it might have been set for a single control, G/90; d5, and black ran out of time before he pressed his clock on move 30. Or, instead of 30/90, SD/60; d5, it might have been set (deliberately or accidentally) for 30/90, SD/00; d5 (or maybe even SD/00; d0). Forgetting the 6 in 60 might well have produced the observed result.

This sounds like a big no-no to me.

By this do you mean that white (on move) had only king and 1 pawn, and that black’s only legal move(s) after that would be to capture that pawn? If so, the position was a dead position (rule 14D) – or, at least dead for white, which would mean that white could not win on time, so could get at most a draw. (However, I suspect that black had other legal moves besides taking the pawn, in which case it might – legally, but unfortunately – be a time forfeit win for white.)

It seems at least as likely that he was taking advantage of you.

By the way, has that clock been used again since that game? If not, it may still be possible to determine what the settings were. At least on the DGT NA (and probably all DGT clocks), if you want to check the way the time controls were set, all you do is turn the clock on (via the bottom switch), then press the “check” button (probably the rightmost button on the front of the clock), then press the “start/pause” button (probably the middle button). Then go through the usual setting process, just pressing the “check” button without actually changing anything.

Bill Smythe

6

I’m still sorting through the TD leaving before play was completed…

7

There is a very easy way that moving nearly instantaneously can cause you to flag even with a delay (even a 10 second delay). I have watched this occur with blitz with a two second delay and a fast moving expert versus a slower C player.

Sequence of events
White moves
Black instantaneously moves
White presses clock
Black presses clock
(so far, so good)

White moves again
Black instantaneously moves
White reaches to press clock but quick moving Black gets there first and presses the clock (futile since White’s clock is still running)
White finishes pressing the clock (as White is entitled to do - otherwise White would not get the delay that should be received)
Black doesn’t realize the Black clock is now running and is waiting for White to move
(problem)

White moves and Black flags as White is reaching for the clock
White presses the clock and notices that Black flagged.
Black complains that there is either a problem with the clock (there isn’t) or White pressed the clock when White should not have (White didn’t). The real problem was that Black did not follow proper procedure and pressed the clock (futilely) before White had a chance to do so.

A flag was claimed but that claim was not resolved (it was being called into question).
With the claim remaining unresolved, a draw offer was made and accepted. Scholastic Nationals tournaments have a special rule that any result that is agreed upon is a result that stands (in tournaments with that rule the accepted draw would stand).
Rule 21F3b says that when the facts are not agreed upon and the director is unable to satisfactorily determine them then a ruling should be made that would allow the game to continue. Otherwise 21F3a says the director should make a ruling based on the facts that the director uses.

One caveat is that if all versions of usable facts would result in the same ruling then that ruling should be used.
If the setting of the clock can be determined and if delay was on then the ruling is a valid flag claim (ultra-fast moving can hurt you). If delay was not on then precedents from the Rules committee is that delay can be turned on and the game can continue with the clock settings at the time the delay problem was found (if the flag has fallen with delay off then that becomes a fallen flag with delay turned on).

A properly set clock can act as described The agreed upon evidence of a fallen flag is hard to ignore.

PS A TD that has to get to work the next day might leave the tournament site with a deputized other TD keeping an eye on the games still going (in a club environment such deputizing might be so expected that nothing officially stated is needed).

8

I completely agree with Mr. Wiewel, and wonder why the spectator TD in step 2 wasn’t named an official TD. It is situations like this which emphasize the need to have a TD on site at all times.

I’m curious as to what Mr. Hong would consider “justice” in step 3. I’m also unaware of any situation that can (only) be corrected until the following round is paired or begins play.

Alex Relyea

9

I looked at that old thread. I’m glad that deducting base time for clocks with delay isn’t done anymore for the most part.

That thread also mentioned two things that make me feel old:

  1. The 2007 National High School Championship in Kansas City which I played in. (By the way, I remember in round 1 my opponent had set his Chronos clock to 2:00:00 with a five second delay. I told him it was suppose to be 1:55:00 with a five second delay and he changed it before the game started.)

  2. Not much discussion of increment.

10

My take:

(1) As a TD, I would never leave an event that I’m directing until all games have finished, although I can see a possible exception if there is another certified TD present who can be “deputized,” as others have mentioned. But then this “deputization” must be done – you can’t just leave the players to their own devices.

(2) If there is a dispute about which clock to use, Black always wins (provided that his clock is a digital clock with delay/increment capability). Having said that, there’s nothing wrong with Black agreeing to use White’s clock.

(3) I have always held that an incorrectly set clock has to be detected and corrected while the game is in progress. It is part of the players’ responsibility to check this. If someone complains about this after the game has finished (by any normal method, including time forfeit, mate, resignation, or an agreed draw), my ruling is “Sorry – too late.” The result stands. I might soften this in extreme cases – for example, a clock being set for 5 seconds rather than 5 minutes in a blitz game (I have seen this happen). In that case, I would have them restart the game with the clock set correctly. But the case in question is not such a case.

(4) As for the position, I can’t imagine Black not capturing the White pawn on his next move, but he is not legally forced to, so the “dead position” argument doesn’t hold. It is possible to produce a legal (note that I don’t say “believable” – but that’s not required) series of moves whereby White wins.

ETA: This wouldn’t affect the TD’s decision as to the result, but I don’t agree that the position is zugzwang, because the fact that it’s White to move is irrelevant. With correct play, Black wins that position no matter whose move it is.

11

Your local chess club is not FIDE.

12

Indeed that’s true.
However as a TD I’m still struggling with leaving before games are finished and leaving no one in charge.

13

So? Under US Chess rules, the TD is suppose to be on-site during play, right?

14

I directed plenty of events where I was the only TD on site, I felt guilty even going to the bathroom if there were games in progress.

15

To clarify some questions using the same numbering system in my original post:

  1. Regarding the head TD going home. That night, we had 4 TDs on site, but the head TD had gone home and I think that a second one had left by the time the game finished around 11:30PM. Of the remaining 2, but 1 was playing as Black in this dispute and the other is a relatively new back room pairing TD who tried to call the head TD at 11:30PM to no answer. The onsite pairing TD was relieved we had agreed to a draw and was also of the opinion that if the clock investigation had proven that White (intentionally or unintentionally) set the clock without delay, then he would have forfeited White instead.

  2. It sounds like especially dennisk and to a lesser extent jwiewel consider White’s claim of a time forfeit win to take precedence, possible clock shenanigans notwithstanding. This is what I understand to be the rules and what I expected the majority of opinions to fall on.

  3. The clock halting after move 30 probably happened on move 31 or 32, when the remaining time from the first time control was used up. The move 30 time control was never in dispute. I added that as context for clock misbehavior (and the picking up of the clock by White, which was observed by the second TD who had left that night) prior to the end of the second (sudden death) time control. By two observations, the clock seemed to be misbehaving: halting on move 31/32, flagging despite “instant” moves. But ultimately Black only questioned it after flagging.

  4. Thinking back, White, the owner of the clock, had the opportunity to say, “I called your flag AND my clock was correctly set for delay, see? You were never injured by any clock settings.” Instead, White (and his father) retreated to “Delay is just an option, isn’t it?” I think the crux of my question is here on point 3: If you observe White having a legitimate time forfeit claim, but Black complaining about the clock enough that White offered a draw and Black accepted. Would you as TD allow the agreed draw to stand? Maybe White felt guilty about winning on time when his position was lost and his clock settings were questioned. The “justice” that Alex Relyea questions is that now Black(me) feels guilty that he “browbeat” (I think I was nice and respectful) a junior into agreeing to a draw. This is a one-game-a-week swiss lasting 6 weeks. The round that is the subject of discussions was Round 4. Before Round 5 pairings are made, White can still get the full point, Black can still get a loss.

  5. Regarding Bill Smythe and dennisk who commented on the position: The exact piece locations were given in the original post. Yes, Black wins with best play regardless of whose turn to move. I mention zugzwang because I was just 1 move away from removing White’s mating material when my flag was called. But yes, once Black lost on time, completely illogical sequences of moves could allow White to win.

New question: If you are a TD running a tournament and two players agree to a draw at the end of Round 4, but by the time you are pairing Round 5, one player says after review of the rules, he deserves a loss (possibly over the objections of the other player who had originally proposed the draw, possibly without you having deliberated/ruled in the original chaos). Should that be allowed? I think that I’m going to call the head TD up and ask him to record my last round as a loss.

16

The specific circumstances here notwithstanding, I’d be very hesitant to change a result just before pairing the next round at a player’s request, especially if it resulted in lowering the total score of that higher rated player.

Changing the result will affect the upcoming pairings, possibly for numerous players, and that effect can ripple into subsequent rounds.

17

Given the position, it’s hard to imagine a 2100 not being able to play move after move within five seconds so the (unbiased??) observation that Black was playing rapidly and shouldn’t have flagged seems plausible. It also seems clear that White didn’t properly set the clock for the two segment time control so the possibility that the adjusted clock didn’t have delay on is also plausible. Under the circumstances, a draw seems like a fair outcome. If I have to make a ruling on this, White wins; but I would have no problem with accepting the decision of the players to agree to split the point. If, OTOH, Black flags when there should be plenty of main time left (due to, e.g., not properly adding the SD/60 segment), then that calls for correcting the incorrect/defective clock and overruling the time forfeit.

18

I don’t think I get that reasoning, though I agree with the conclusion. The fact that it would impact pairings for many players in the next round and the rest of the tournament, taken by itself, doesn’t seem like a valid rationale for the decision. If, and only if, the TD believes based on the facts available that the change is the proper result, then the change should be made, because the impact on other pairings is the correct impact. If the change isn’t definitively appropriate, then I totally agree it shouldn’t be made just because the player whose tournament result is damaged is the one making the request.

19

I should have thought of a possibility like this, especially since I myself have written a few posts regarding similar situations, such as http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=323225#p323225.

In fact, the following scenario seems likely in the current situation:

  1. Initially, the clock is properly set for 30/90, SD/60; d5. The game begins.
  2. Black takes his time, and builds up a winning position, but runs low on time with just 2 seconds of main time remaining.
  3. Eventually, both players stop keeping score, and after a while nobody knows how many moves have been played.
  4. Most DGT clocks (or at least the DGT NA, I suppose the 3000 could be the same way) do not normally display the move numbers during the game, although the move number can be viewed manually using a magic button press that almost nobody knows about and most players would never dare attempt during an actual game, for fear of accidentally resetting the clock.
  5. To save time, black now begins to move quickly, playing each move even before white has had a chance to press his clock from the previous move.
  6. White is OK with this, so he makes no effort to press his own clock, and continues to let black jump the gun by moving and dummy-pressing quickly. Since black’s clock never runs during this dummy pressing, it remains at 2 seconds main time, move after move.
  7. Eventually, white plays a surprise move and, this time, presses his clock, putting black in an unexpected situation with 2 seconds main time and 5 seconds delay time remaining.
  8. This flusters black, who fumbles for a move and runs out of time after 7 seconds.
  9. DGT clocks usually stop running (“halt at end” or “halt at time control”) when they think a time forfeit has occurred.
  10. Both players assume that the stopping of the clock was caused by reaching the 30-move mark, combined with having forgotten to set the SD/60 secondary control, when in fact the clock had been set correctly all along, but only (say) 22 moves had actually been played.

The problem, of course, was black’s serious strategic error in trying to prevent white from pressing his clock. This might have worked in the olden days, before delay or increment, but nowadays this is a fatal error because both players are thereby deprived of their delay time, move after move. White didn’t care since he had plenty of time anyway, but it made a big difference for black.

Good strategy, white! You let black fall into the trap you set for him.

Bill Smythe

20

How does that even work?