Rule determination

All Things Chess
1

I’m hoping to get some help from a more experienced tournament director regarding what to do in the following situation:

  • Round 1a of 4 round double Swiss
  • Game 45 w/ 5 second delay
  • Player A brought the clock and set it but forgot to set the delay; they played the full game without it. Both players said they didn’t realize it wasn’t set properly.
  • Toward the end Player A called time on Player B when Player B still had 35 seconds remaining; neither stopped the clock or summoned a TD
  • Player A also made 3 illegal moves trying to keep up the time pressure. Player B adjusted them on their time. A tournament director was not at the table while this was going on and was not summoned but several regular players corroborated it.
  • Player A correctly called time as Player B was completing the mating move. Player A had only his king.
  • Player B claimed to have not realized the clock didn’t have a delay which is why they said they didn’t summon a TD because they believed there was ample time to mate their opponent.
  • Player A took exception to the fact that Player B was upset about the missing delay and promptly left, deciding to forfeit round 1b.

My instinct is that this is technically a draw but it doesn’t feel like a good outcome given the way the events transpired. Player A left before it could be discussed further. Is there room for TD discretion to mark the game as U or a double forfeit?

1 Like
2

So Player B failed to checkmate Player A before a valid time forfeit claim was made against them, and Player A did not have checkmating material or a forced win. This should result in a draw.

While as a TD you do have discretion to do a lot of things, my question is are you ready for an appeal by Player A who can argue that by rule, this game ended in a legitimate draw?

With US Chess rules, the onus is on the players to know them and where they don’t, they need to get a TD involved. A failure to do that does not usually entitle them to a do-over. Player B had ample time to bring to the TDs attention the lack of a delay, and also had multiple opportunities to get a time addition for the illegal moves.

Such issues could possibly have been prevented by having a TD check clocks at the start of the games, and being nearer to a game that is clearly in time trouble. It also sounds like the players were possibly talking to each other during their issues and there was maybe a crowd around the game, which are good indicators of a game that potentially needs more TD attention than usual.

Lessons learned all around it seems.

2 Likes
3

Makes sense. There was no crowd around but some players seated nearby were watching and reported their account afterward. This was just a normal weekly club night and not a big tournament.

On the checking clocks, out of curiosity, is that something that TDs usually do? I’ve never done it and usually assume it is on the players to get that part right.

Also, had a TD been standing there, should they intervene in this situation? Or would you just suggest that they were more available to make it easier to bring them in (still leaving it to the players to do so)

4

By checking clocks I don’t mean physically checking each one. It’s usually good to walk up and down the aisles both before the rounds begins, and once the round is underway, to quickly eyeball the clocks and see if you can spot something that is obviously wrong. When walking up and down the aisles prior to the games, I usually combine this with some verbal reminders about the time control and will ask players if I just see G/45 on a clock (per your time control) if they remembered to put the delay on.

As for the TDs presence, I usually find players are more likely to turn to a TD for help if there is one present near their board. Remember, the default US Chess rule is for a TD to correct illegal moves outside of time pressure (11H), unless you’re specifically using the variation 11H1.

1 Like
5

There’s a lot in here, and there are a lot of rules that directly apply. Regarding the improperly set clock:

16O. Defective clocks.
Every indication given by a clock is considered to be conclusive in the absence of evident defects. A player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as aware of it. A clock with an obvious defect should be replaced, and the time used by each player up to that time should be indicated on the new clock as accurately as possible.

The director should use judgment in determining what times shall be shown on the new clock.
…
16P. Erroneously set clocks.
An erroneously set clock should be handled in the same fashion as a defective clock. As in 16O, the director should use judgment in deciding whether to make time adjustments.

So, for your first three bullets, related to the clock problem: you can totally ignore the clock being improperly set since neither player noticed it.

13C5. How to claim.
To claim a win by time forfeit, a player should stop both clocks (5I) and state the claim. If the opponent accepts the claim, the game is over. If the opponent does not accept the claim, the claimant must present the claim to a director.

For your fourth bullet, for the flag call with 35 seconds: it was an improper (and inaccurate) claim to claim flag fall while Player B still had 35 seconds and without stopping the clock, but the escalation to a director step wasn’t taken so it’s a moot point.

11D1. Illegal move in time pressure.
Time pressure is defined as a situation where either player has less than five minutes left in a time control and the time control does not include an increment or delay of 30 seconds or more. A director should not call attention to illegal moves in time pressure, only the players may make that claim.

For your fifth bullet, the illegal moves: only Player B could handle this.

9E. Checkmate or stalemate.
In the case of a legal move which produces checkmate (13A, 4A) or stalemate (14A), the move is determined with no possibility of change upon release as described in 9A, 9B, 9C, or 9D, whichever applies. The move is completed simultaneously with its determination.

13A3. Unclear if checkmate or flag fall came first.
After considering all available evidence, including testimony by the players and any witnesses, a director who is still unable to decide whether the claim of the flag fall occurred first shall deny the time claim and rule the checkmate valid.

For your sixth bullet, about the checkmate: you need to be clearer here. Either the mating move was completed or it was not completed, and that determines whether the result is a win for Player B or a draw. If it’s not clear, the checkmate wins.

The seventh bullet, about the delay, is answered as with the first three bullets: it’s the players’ responsibility to call that.

The eighth bullet, about Player A forfeiting, looks like a personal problem.

It’s not technically a draw. It’s a draw per the rules if the flag claim was made before the mating move was completed, and it’s a win per the rules if it wasn’t, with a tie being resolved in favor of a win.

14J. Draw declared by director.
On rare occasions the director may encounter a situation in which a ruling is required and a decision in favor of either player would be unfair to the opponent (for examples see 20E2d and 20E2h). In such situations the director may rule a draw on the grounds that this is more equitable (i.e., less inequitable) than any other ruling.

Regarding your question of TD discretion - technically it exists to declare the game a draw, but this does not seem to be that rare occasion in my opinion.

6

You’re making an assumption about the mating move not being completed, which I’m not sure is 100% justified based on the “was completing” language; I’d want to know exactly where in the process things were, as by rule the clock would not need to be hit to perform the checkmate.

There are also rules on these specific points, and the answers are “no” and “no”.

5F7. Players responsible for knowing how to set the clock.
Players, not tournament directors, are responsible for knowing how to properly set their digital clocks.

(but see, from 16P)

TD TIP: Directors are encouraged to intervene in the game to correct an incorrectly set clock without requiring a player to make a claim first.

21D. Intervening in games.
The director’s intervention in a chess game shall generally be limited to the following:
21D1. Answering rules questions.
Answering rules and procedural questions.
21D2. Correcting illegal moves observed.
Correcting any illegal moves observed, unless time pressure exists (11D1) or Variation 11H1 is used (the director does not correct illegal moves unless asked by a player).
21D3. Warning players.
Warning players about or penalizing players for disruptive, unethical, or unsportsmanlike behavior. See also 1C2, Director discretion; 13I, Refusal to obey rules; 21F, Player requests for rulings; and 21K, Use of director’s power.
21D4. Settling disputes.
Settling disputes, including those regarding time forfeits and claims of draws.
21D5. Informing players.
Informing players about opponents’ late arrivals or about opponents’ leaving the room for an extended period.
21D6. Fees.
Collecting fees.

In particular, note that the “correcting any illegal moves observed” doesn’t happen in time pressure. So no, the TD should not have intervened, with the possible exception of the mis-set clock (if noticed).

7

Thanks for all the help on this! I will definitely start instituting a walk around at the start of a round to eyeball the clocks. This would have gone a long way if caught earlier in this situation

8

Yes, the OP said “Player A correctly called time as Player B was completing the mating move. Player A had only his king.” I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of them knowing a clock press is not needed to ‘complete’ a checkmating or stalemating move.

9

One other point, you mentioned you didn’t feel like this was “a good outcome.” I’d agree, and I’ve certainly had situations where the correct ruling left a sour taste.

If a TD had been watching this game, when Player A made an illegal move and pressed their clock, by Player B pointing out that illegal move they are in fact making an illegal move claim, at which time the TD could have intervened and ensured the correct position was reinstated, Player B got his +2 minutes, etc.

Developing that sixth-sense of where you feel a problem may occur and being proactive to potential problems rather than being reactive when the problem occurs just comes with experience, but TDs can also do a lot to help themselves avoid these sour taste rulings by just following some simple best practices, like watching such games where possible.

1 Like
10

Good point on the claim. It’s also difficult because during club meetings the TD is often playing to prevent an odd player. But it was clear that the game was in time pressure so in the future I’ll make sure the playing TD (me in this case) pauses their game in such circumstances.

The sour taste wouldn’t have been so bad had their ratings been closer to parity but this was actually a sizable upset as player B was substantial higher rated. I don’t like to see bad sportsmanship rewarded with a nice chunk of rating points but lessons learned I guess

11

I know all of the “heavy hitters” already weighed in, and their advice is really solid, but I did have a couple of quick thoughts, though I’ve only been a TD for a little over a year, so take it with a grain of salt.

In any event where I am TD, at the start of the round, I specifically walk the hall looking at each clock to make sure they all started. It’s actually really common for a clock to not get started or not be correct.

I’m sure you’ve notice this, as you probably do this too, but if I’m not playing, I find that just walking along, casually looking at the games in play typically yields more interaction with players seeking TD assistance than when I am not strolling about the boards.

When there is an odd number of players, one way I have helped as a ‘playing TD’ in the past was to not put myself in, and award the bye, as usual, and then ask the player with the bye if they would like to play me an extra rated game for the round, so they still keep their full point bye, but also get that rated game in, which is very needed here in Alaska.

Typically, the bye goes to the lower rated player in the lower score group, so there is usually a large disparity between their rating and mine, but if they lose to me, they often lose no points, and I often gain no points, so it doesn’t hurt their score. If they win (which happened once while I was TD and not paying attention to my game) they get a boat load of points! When I do this, usually with about 500 to 1000 rating points difference, I will make my move, then walk the other boards, come back and make my next move, etc., usually there is little problem with that, but it does depend on your time controls and your crowd. Often, though, the lower rated player will be worried and not play me. So in a 5 round event, I may only get two games in.

But, your mileage may vary. And it sounds like you are doing pretty good work there. It is tough to play serious chess and direct a tournament, too. Also, a lot of the ownership of this goes to the players. I always encourage players that if I am playing (like at a small club meet) that they are welcome to interrupt my game anytime that they need my assistance as the TD.

1 Like
12

There are many clocks where it is not possible to figure out at a glance if the clock has the right increment/delay settings, and no easy way to make sure a secondary time control is properly set, too.

1 Like
13

I didn’t mention it but that actually happened in this game too. To player A’s advantage. I’ll definitely adopt this practice going forward. Thanks for the tips!

1 Like
14

Thanks for reminding me about another reason I don’t like multiple time controls.

1 Like