In the last scholastic tournament I directed, I encountered not less than 3 games settled by time in which the “winner” did not have winning material but the “loser” had overwhelming winning material. None of the losers made a 14E claim, so I painfully let the time results stand.
I’ve since researched and I am strongly considering invoking 14J, Draw declared by director, in the future even without a player’s claim. 14J doesn’t say it can be used for 14E, but it doesn’t exclude it, either.
I though having ‘winning material’ was a requirement to claim a victory via a time forfeit by your opponent. The person claiming the win, must have ‘winning material’ to claim the win.
Or maybe the term is ‘sufficient material’, not sure.
Would like to see what some TDs have to say about this one.
If a player with, say, a bishop and 3 pawns exceeds the time control when his opponent has, for example, a lone knight, then the game is drawn, period. It doesn’t have to be claimed.
Thus, the TD could step in and declare the draw, even if both players thought the time “forfeit” meant a loss. This can be done within the narrow confines of 14E. No need to use 14J.
I agree the rule needs work, but it should stay, in some form.
One problem is that it seems to require that, if player A has a lone minor piece, then player B must wait until his own time expires before he can claim the draw.
Yes, I know there are exceptional positions. One of the best known involves simply an advanced h-pawn with the king in front of it, vs a knight. I was talking about typical positions where one player is down to a lone minor piece. It would be absurd to allow such a player to win on time.
I don’t believe your ruling was correct. 14E does not require a claim (though in practice it usually arises from one). “The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit when one of the following conditions exists …” It doesn’t say “a player may claim a draw,” just that “the game is drawn.”
And then when two parents come up screaming because their kids also had a 14E-claimable position but the players walked away before the TD saw it? And then two more do it after prizes are awarded? That’s hyperbole - but not much, for a middlin-large scholastic as I’ve experienced it. I guess what I’m really asking is: Is there any requirement for consistency - if one is observed and settled do not all have to be observed and settled?
No. That’s like saying that, since the TD cannot observe every illegal move, no illegal moves should be corrected. The TDs rulings should be consistent, but he can’t act on information he doesn’t have. If the players agree on the result and post it, and the TD doesn’t intervene first, that’s usually the end of the story. (Please don’t take us on a snark hunt by looking for hypotheticals in which this might not be the case. I said “usually.”)
A nice summarizing of the guidelines for national scholastics where TDs are NOT supposed to point out any illegal moves they happen to see. Also, if two players agree on a result (with both erroneously thinking it is mate) that agreed result is allowed to stand (in such a situation I ask “who won?” and then get a confirmation from the other player - thus having a restatement of the result without using the word checkmate).
Scholastic tournaments are a different breed of animal from other tournaments.
OK. No snark hunt. But I do think that in this case the snark really is a boojum, you see. And I agree with Jeff Wiewel - scholastics are a different sort of animal, directing-wise. And what’s “usual” may be different for them.
I agree that there are practical differences, such as the need to deal with obnoxious parents or coaches. I cannot accept that the rules are (or should be) any different. If the players in a scholastic tournament are incapable of following the same rules as adults, they shouldn’t be playing in tournaments yet.
I thought the discussion was NOT on the rules the players followed, but rather on the actions of the TDs. When doing scholastics I make the same rulings as in an adult tournament, though the manner of presentation is different when dealing with two kindergarteners as opposed to two adult masters. The trigger for actually having a need to make a ruling may be different as 11H1 is generally in play at large scholastic events.
Well, being ‘not correct’ for the very first time in my life didn’t turn out too bad. ;^)
'Cause I know I had the right instinct; it didn’t feel right at the time. Although . . . you didn’t continue quoting the TD TIP: “. . . a 14E draw claim [emphasis added] is first a draw offer . . .”
Though, I’m guessing you mean they may claim the draw, they just don’t have to claim it to get it. Yes?