I recently competed in a tournament and had a question on the USCF late arrival policies. In the fourth round (scheduled at 9AM) there was a half marathon outside of the hotel, (something I was unaware of prior) so the main artery that connected the road to the hotel was impassable. I of course was running a bit late anyway but this furthered my tardiness. Upon my arrival I noticed my opponent had also not arrived (he was playing white) and that our clock had not been started. I promptly started my opponents clock when a TD approached me and told me that the 14 minutes that I was late would be split between my opponent and I (instead of having him lose 14 minutes we both lost 7). I was told that this was in accordance with USCF rules but not FIDE rules (I wasn’t aware there was a difference on this point). I thought this was a strange rule and I’d like to hear some clarification as to why it is in place and is not in accordance with the FIDE rule (where it is white who loses the time for not arriving on time).
Part of the problem I see with this “time splitting” is that it could subsequently affect the forfeiting procedures (ie if someone shows up too late they are forfeited for not arriving on time; which I’ve seen happen a lot). I am not arguing that we should be going to the harsh FIDE rules of forfeit if someone shows up 15 seconds late, but the time splitting seems a bit arbitrary to me.
I guess I’m curious why, and what you think a fair solution would be. Surely you accept that the round has to start on time for the benefit of future rounds, so that if you both walk in 59 minutes late, you can’t get the full allotted time. I don’t see any reason you should benefit if you show up 30 seconds before your opponent by charging him with the full time elapsed.
The reason that FIDE rules are different is that FIDE assumes that there is adequate supervision, and that the arbiter starts the clocks at the appointed time. FIDE also assumes that the organizer supplies the equipment, so there is no chance that White will arrive with his board not set up ready to make his first move.
How is this so? Please kindly find a copy of the rule book and read rule 13D carefully. The division of elapsed time equally does not affect the application of rule 13D.
I prefer the FIDE rule, TD’s are responsible for getting the round started for players that have yet to arrive. It makes it cleaner and to me it seems less arbitrary. Granted as you mentioned in FIDE clocks and set’s are provided…
I’ll bite, was he not gone for the full elapsed time? Why split then? Why not deduct the full elapsed time from both opponents? Surely that will ensure the next round starts on time right?
What about instances when the organizer provides the equipment? Is there any rule that anyone is aware of that precludes the organizer from starting whites clock if neither player has arrived and the round has started?
So the question I have is, who get’s forfeited first? Player A arrives 31 minutes late to a 60 minute game, and player 2 arrives 32 minutes late to the same 60 minute game, is that qualifications for a double forfeit? Or do the clocks start at 29 minutes and 28 minutes respectively?
Does the first player to arrive have precedence over the second player?
I think a rule starting White’s clock if both players are absent is arbitrary and thus unfair, because it will be randomly enforced against some players arriving late.
Suppose this happens in round 1. There’s essentially a 50-50 chance that any given player has White in that round, so that means that if both players in a game arrive at the board equally late, only one player winds up with a time penalty and it is totally random as to which one it is. This is one case where the USCF rule is fairer.
I agree somewhat, but allow me to propose a hypothetical:
You are playing black and your opponent shows up on time while you do not. Your opponent playing white dutifully starts his own clock and then ponders for 15 minutes about his first move. You arrive 15 minutes late, do you as the player playing black still lost the 15 minutes? Does it matter where you are while your opponent is thinking? I would argue that it does not.
just food for thought, I’m not convinced one way is better than another I’m just interested in hearing others opinions.
USCF - neither player is forfeited. When player A arrives, 15.5 minutes are removed from both sides of the clock and white’s clock is started. When player B arrives the clock will (probably - assuming player A was black or moved immediately as white) show 15.5 minutes off of A’s clock and 16.5 minutes off of B’s clock.
If it is G/75 with player A arriving 59 minutes late and player B arriving 61 minutes late you get the following. When player A arrives the clocks are set with 29.5 minutes removed from both sides, then when player B arrives the clocks will show A with 45.5 minutes remaining, B with 43.5 minutes remaining, and B subject to being forfeited unless using 13D1 (the hour is elapsed time from the clock instead of from the start of the round). If both A and B were 61 minutes late then the TD could declare it a double-forfeit (barring use of 13D1). If both A and B were 80 minutes late then, per 13F, the TD could declare it a double forfeit even if 13D1 is used.
I have seen tournaments using 13D1 with 40/120, G/60 time controls where player A arrived after 80 minutes and player B never showed up (clock set with 40 minutes off each side). Player A received a forfeit win (claimable 20 more minutes into the round when an hour was off the clock, but it would have only been claimable the full two hours into the round if Player A had not had a clock).
If white pondered the move for 15 minutes then no time is taken off of black’s clock when black arrives. If white pondered the first move for 59.5 minutes (of a G/60 time control) and black arrived one minute later then black could still be forfeited (with 59.5 minutes still showing on the clock) unless 13D1 was in use. That said, a TD would likely be very hesitant to simply accept the claim unless the board had been closely monitored and it really did happen that way instead of white being the one 59.5 minutes late and black happening to be elsewhere in the tournament hall when white slipped in, made the move, and stepped away hoping that black would not notice for the 30 seconds needed for white to attempt the forfeit claim (any player of white trying this risks ejection from the event depending on how the TD opts to handle it).
In your hypothetical, White has made a conscious choice to use his time on his first move. (I know a Master who often does just that!)
As a result, what happens to Black’s time is completely within White’s control, so the situation is quite different.
Any player who arrives late should expect some kind of time penalty for his tardiness. The FIDE rule forfeiting any player who is late for the start of the game makes sense in the context of a professional chess event (like an Olympiad), but that rule makes far less sense for amateur chess players.
I doubt any current clocks can do it, but it would seem fair to me if BOTH clocks could be started when both opponents are absent at the start of the round.
Perhaps this thread belongs under ‘running chess tournaments’.
Both clocks running would be particularly useful for ASAP scheduling where most players generally don’t use anywhere near their full alloted time. Having a G/30 K-3 section with most games taking 20 minutes per player could result in two opponents arriving 20 minutes late playing 20 minutes past the end of the next to last game that round. But if 20 minutes are taken off each side (instead of 10) that late starting game will finish the same time as the others.
The Smythe Dream Clock will have this option, as well as an option to run both sides at half speed until one player arrives and presses the clock, at which time normal full-speed operation will ensue.
I believe FIDE rules say organizer has the option to state (in advance) whether late arrivals are forfeited or just lose time on the clock, at least up to some point in time, like 1 hour.