I have observed the following situation at the yesterday’s scholastic state tournament.
In K-6 section, in the last round, on the second board (result of this game was crucial to the final standing of the tournament) players used
Saitek blue clock with 5-seconds delay enabled. At the time when one player had 14 minutes and the other player had 12, assistant of the tournament director intervened and replaced Saitek blue clock with his Chronos - giving both players 5 minutes and no delay.
As he explained after the game, “we always do that in our tournaments to speed the things up…”
However, as someone can imagine the things did not go that well.
The game reached drawish pawn endgame and with 2minutes 35 seconds on his clock vs. 2 minutes 10 seconds on the clock of his opponent, player A, who was 400 points higher rated decided to use the situation to his advantage. He started moving his King back and forth and position repeated maybe 30 times, his opponent kept his cool and hold the opposition. Then at some point, Assistant TD intervene again, stopped the clock and told Player that “it is a draw”. Player A argued that he can trade a pair of pawns. Assistant TD allowed the game to continue, pawns were traded and another round of 20-30 repetitions occured in this new position. Assistant TD again stopped the clock and called a game a draw.
It is important to note that Player B (possibly due to his inexperience) has not made ANY claims.
Since the game affected Championship title, it led to a heated argument between Player A and his parents and main TD.
I am interested to have experienced TDs to provide their opinion on this situation, especially practice of replacing valid digital clock with delay for the one with no delay to speed tournament up, this looked like very questionable practice to me to say the least.
Assuming this was a USCF rated event, the practice is illegal if the tournament has been conducted the entire time with delay in use. The argument about “speeding the game up” is ridiculous.
As for the repetition, directors generally speaking can accept claims for things like threefold repetition if they observe it in full.
(Note: my comments assume that the OP’s recollection is 100% accurate.)
What exactly is illegal? To replace one digital clock with another and give players less time? Or to replace a clock with delay with a clock with no delay? Is that documented anywhere or is it just your interpretation?
Can one or both players refuse to accept another clock?
As for repetition, my understanding is that TD has absolutely NO RIGHT to stop the game and announce the result, unless he acts on the claim of one of the opponents.
This is the practice to which I referred. You can’t do anything with the clock unless it’s either clearly set incorrectly or defective. Review the entirety of Rule 16.
Directors are not officers of the law. A player can never be forced to do anything. The consequences of refusal are outlined in Rule 13I.
A director can accept a claim without documentation (such as threefold repetition in time pressure), IF he observes the situation. If the director saw the repetition you referenced, a A director cannot act on an undocumented claim unless he either observes the entire situation, or can get unbiased witness testimony about the situation.
In the case of no claim, the TD can do nothing. I just a few minutes ago had a case of K + R vs. K + R. I couldn’t even count moves because neither player asked me to. If they had tried to keep playing after the rooks came off, then I would have intervened and declared a draw by 14D1.
This is one of the most ludicrous and blatantly disrespectful (to the players and to the game itself) actions I have heard of. My 6th grade son carefully manages his time and would have been very upset and incensed if this happened to him.
The TD and organizer (if s/he had knowledge of this practice) should experience some severe consequences for such an action.
This is one of the most ludicrous and blatantly disrespectful (to the players and to the game itself) actions I have heard of. My 6th grade son carefully manages his time and would have been very upset and incensed if this happened to him.
The TD and organizer (if s/he had knowledge of this practice) should experience some severe consequences for such an action.
Boyd, Did you mistype something? Your answer is a bit confusing. I think I know what you are saying, but I don’t think I ought to add to it without knowing for sure.
(If the OP is accurate)No , you don’t do that to “speed things up”.
I have been in the situation where there was a problem that delayed the event and we were going to run out of time at the venue at the stated time control. But I knew that way in advance, called a quick meeting and explained we were either going to have to play one fewer round than planned or would have to play at a faster time control, let them vote, and offered refunds to any that did not like the result.
But it was not a state championship event.
So there can be special circumstances that require a change, but one applies that change to all of the players.
I had a situation where there was a building issue which delayed our state scholastic team reional qualifier - fire alarm kept going off. I just announced to the players we were going to run late and suggested they call parents, etc and plan for dinner. Kept the table rental people waiting on their pickup and paid a penalty as a result. But it was important to play all the rounds and at the stated time control sicne the results determined entry into another tournament.
If the original post is anywhere near accurate, that TD is asking to have his certification suspended, or better yet, revoked. Outrageous.
I would think that, in that situation, it would be OK for the TD to start counting moves, silently and without letting the players know. Then, if one of the players later made a draw claim after the TD’s move count was past 50, the TD could grant the claim.
That is common practice and supportable under 1A, but 14F.a talks about starting the count based on the scoresheet (covering the more general case where the TD would not necessarily have known the count).
Mr. Reed, I have seen tournament directors do such silly actions, and even more
ridiculous in tournaments, including even those high enough that they should know
better. It is important for coaches to instruct their players about the proper appeals
process, for it is a fact that TD training is a vital part of our jobs as chief tds of events,
and that mistakes will sometimes be made by these less experienced directors.
I iz a kollej gradgitate. I wrote this just before packing up from the PA state scholastics. (Of course, I just arrived home from the same event, so I do not guarantee this post will parse especially well either.) What I meant to say was…
If a complaint is necessary, one of the players need to file it.
Here is the short version of the routine for filing a complaint:
$25 good faith deposit (refundable if the complaint is not frivolous–like complaints about legal, but not best pairings).
Include all facts, statements, what you want as compensation, etc. The USCF can not do investigative work. Send it all to Judy Misner (jmisner@uschess.org)
The TD will get a chance to respond (this might take awhile or a short time).
The appeal and response will be sent to a committee(s).
The committee(s) may take a short or long time to create a report on their deliberations.
You and the TD will get a copy of those reports.
Either of you may appeal to the Board or Delegates.
The idea of replacing a fully functional properly set clock with another one is all wrong. I see no justification for the side that had 2 minutes more than his opponent losing those minutes. TDs are supposed to be fair. This TD penalized the faster moving player. Further, players may use their time as they feel appropriate. I would hate to see that the time I had saved for the end game be cut to less than half even if the same was imposed on my opponent. If the directors wanted to “speed the things up” then they should have advertised and used a faster time control.
I have imposed clocks with 5 minutes each (no delay) in games but not under these circumstances. For example, if the game starts without a clock and they are 50 minutes into what should be an hour long game, it would be appropriate.
Imposing a result on a game in which neither player had made a claim is also incorrect unless it was a double flag fall or a no mating material ending. The director’s playing ability should not decide how the game ends. The major purposes of the delay clock are to avoid 14H situations where a TD may have to assess the position for insufficient losing chances or one player trying to flag his opponent. This is the first case I’ve ever heard of a TD replacing a delay clock with a non-delay clock during a game. What would the director have done if one of the players had properly made a claim under 14H after the clocks had been switched?
Either player here would have valid grounds to submit a complaint following the procedures Tim Just has already outlined.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed ot this discussion.
Now, full disclosure. I am not related to either of the players. My son was playing in the same section, but he won his last game very quickly and as such was not in situation where his clock could have been replaced.
I was following the game on the board 2 very closely, as the outcome affected my son’s standing.
The way assistant TD acted striked me as being totally wrong, and in the aftermath this opinion was shared by another parent with chess background, but since I have no TD experience or in any way an expert in USCF rules, I decided to bring this situation up for a discussion.
From player’s only prospective I find the way Player A tried to use this situation to his advantage simply disgusting. I observed this young fellow in a few tournaments before and had some respect for him. This respect is now lost. And again as player, I do not want him to benefit from Assistant TD incompetance, so I will not be tipping him/his parents on complain procedure.
I think people are focusing on the wrong aspect of what reportedly occurred.
The key issue is that the TD reportedly UNILATERALLY removed time from the clocks of both players. There is no support for that action in the rulebook. Period.
That it was done by substituting a different clock with different settings (eg, delay turned off) and that time was not equally subtracted from both players are compounding factors that might enter into the determination of any sanctions against the TD, should a complaint be filed.
Are there possible mitigating factors? Not in the version of the incident that we have at this point.
Have replaced clocks that have gone tilt during a game. This can involve the clock being put on the wrong setting by the players before the game; some clocks freeze or display zeroes when the battery runs low; clocks resetting when hit too hard; clocks adding time at wrong point in game. But at no time is it acceptable to replace a fully functioning clock with another, especially for the convenience of the TD.
At a recent tournament with only a few games remaining in a large hall, a player noted that the blue Saitek clock did not seem to be working right. They had tried to add 2 minutes after an illegal move and could not figure out how to do it. We tried every setting. By we, I mean other TDs and kids used to using this type of clock. The only setting that allowed the adding of time did not have time delay. The players were agreeable to playing with less time or no delay, but I pointed out that that would not be fair to either of them. We scrounged around looking for another clock. Naturally, the only one available at first was another blue Saitek. Finally we found a DGT NA. The difficulty in setting some clocks when there is a problem of any kind makes it hard for both the players and the TDs. Still, it provides no justification for making a completely unfair ruling to the players’ interests. Lesson learned. At future tournaments, along with my Rulebook and updates will be a clock or two that set easily when there are problems. More stuff to lug around.
I wrote this just before packing up from the PA state scholastics. (Of course, I just arrived home from the same event, so I do not guarantee this post will parse especially well either.) What I meant to say was…