Something should probably be done to clean up the ambiguity in rule 14B6, otherwise more heated arguments are sure to happen.
Here’s one possibility:
14B6. Prearranged draws. Players may not agree to a draw before a game has begun.
Variation 14B6a. Premature draws. Players may not agree to a draw before both players have completed X moves. This variation, including the required number of moves, must be announced in all advance publicity.
Another, slightly longer version:
14B6. Prearranged draws. It is illegal for players to prearrange a draw. If players are found to have prearranged a draw, the result is a double-forfeit.
TD Tip: Trying to enforce this rule is difficult. Often last-round games are not prearranged; however, due to prize fund distribution considerations the result can be easily predicted. In cases involving prearranged draws it is wise to have clear and irrefutable evidence before imposing any penalties.
14B7. Premature draws. Players may not agree to a draw before both players have completed X moves. The required number of moves must be announced in all advance publicity. If no specific number of moves is announced in advance, then either player may offer a draw after move 1.
How about removing the TD tip after 14B6 that was added to the 5th edition of the Rulebook and remains in the 6th edition? This tip has been used to justify poor behavior, ultra short draws, and even just marking the result without playing a game. Players who play such games as “1.d4 Draw”, for example, should not have such games rated. They also should be forfeited and not receive a prize from the organizer. This is under the discretion of the TD to apply the “moral principles” clause that is part of the rule. As the governing body of chess in the US, the USCF should expect its TDs to uphold the highest standards to protect the game rather than allow cynical practices to occur and be sanctioned.
Rule 14B6 in its current form is so vague that TDs have drastically different interpretations, and as a result there is no consistency in its enforcement. Does anyone else find it a problem when short draws are freely allowed at some tournaments, but harshly penalized at others? Or when a Floor TD and Chief TD at the same tournament cannot agree? How are TDs supposed to effectively communicate rules to players if TDs cannot agree among themselves?
Based on the commentary in the “Short draws and the ambiguous rule 14B6” forum, there seems to be two factions. One consists of those who believe that, since 14B6 lacks any specifics about when “a serious contest has begun”, it begins when the game starts. Thus, absent any specific rule or announcement to the contrary (such as a mandate to complete X moves), any draw agreement after 1 or more moves must be permitted. Then there are those who believe that “a serious contest” requires more than just beginning the game, with opinions varying as to just how long it takes for a “serious contest” to begin. The rulebook offers absolutely no guidelines on this.
Everyone on both sides of this issue seems strongly convinced that their interpretation is the only correct one. It seems inevitable that under the current ambiguous wording, more ugly incidents such as recent one at Pennsylvania’s Lancaster Open/Scholastic championship are bound to happen. That is why I believe the wording should be changed. After all, several other ADMs have been proposed in these forums with the intent of clarifying existing rules, and preventing future arguments. Why shouldn’t we do the same with 14B6?
I proposed an ADM that I thought would allow for TDs on either side of this issue to have it their way. Basically, all they would have to do is announce in advance what interpretation of 14B6 will be used, so that the players will know clearly what is expected of them. Ken Ballou suggested that there was little chance the Delegates would approve this change, but he did not say why. Since Mr. Ballou is both a Delegate and a member of the Rules Committee, I am interested in hearing his thoughts on the following:
Why would the Delegates likely oppose this change?
Does the Rules Committee hold any official position on what is necessary to satisfy the vague “a serious contest has begun” requirement? Specifically: Does it begin when the game starts, or is more required?
Would the Delegates likely approve some other rewording of 14B6 that provides clarity to whatever the Rules Committee’s official position is?
Would such a hypothetical case go to the Rules Committee or the Ethics Committee?
Even if it would be the Rules Committee, which I rather doubt, I don’t see a conflict in them giving guidance now, in the absence of an actual case before them.
To Allen’s question, I think it depends on what “this” means (please, no political references here). If we mean a draw, no. But if we mean a draw that meets the letter of a concrete rule so that no one can complain that a rule was broken, yes, it’s possible such a rule could be devised. But as long as a rule is based on terms like “serious contest”, then we will always have the types of ambiguity discussed in this thread.
Leave it as it is, and allow the TDs to exercise their discretion. I do believe that most TDs have the competence to determine whether or not to penalize a premature draw.
As it stands now, the TD does have an obligation to uphold the moral guidelines of the game, and the discretion to penalize violations.
I disagree. What Rule 14B6 does, at the very least, is compel players who are determined to prearrange game results is not to do it openly. And it gives TDs who determine that a draw has been prearranged a basis for imposing penalties on the players.
My general inclination in such a situation is to make the rules as flexible as possible, so as to give TDs as much latitude as possible. That said, I also believe TDs should generally remain out of the business of determining results. A game of chess, after all, is between two players, and the players ultimately own their results. I do believe any TD who tries to forfeit two players for a quick draw, absent proof of prearrangement or any event-specific rule being violated, is seriously overstepping his authority.
My experience tells me that if two players are inclined to draw a game, they will do so, irrespective of any minimum number of moves they are compelled to make.
I don’t think there’s much value in attaching a minimum number of moves to Rule 14B6 beyond the threshold for ratability, but if it makes people happy to see 5-10 moves before a handshake (I don’t think I’d make it more than 10, in any event), I don’t see the harm in it. (I just don’t see the utility in it, either…which is why I suspect Mr. Ballou thinks it will be challenging to even get such an ADM on the agenda, much less past the Delegates.)
“Draws will not be scored. Players will replay game at G15d5 with the same colors, unless the first game was at rapid time control, in which case this game is skipped. If the rapid game is drawn, players will play an Armageddon blitz game. White will have five minutes, Black will have four minutes. Both will have a five-second delay. A draw is scored as a win for Black.”
Boyd,
There are problems with allowing short draws that border on prearrangement. Those problems involve others in contention for prizes. As a player, I would be very unhappy to lose a prize due to a short draw. In my opinion, sportsmanship requires players to try to win their games, not just the event, and indirectly telling the other players to “go screw themselves, it’s my tournament, I will have a draw” is unsporting.
Different philosophies, I guess, but apparently I ain’t alone, as the provision is already in the rule book, and has been since I began playing.
No, I just believe that the TDs need to grow some, and stop accepting these ridiculously, cowardly draws. Current rules do provide for penalties, at the TD’s discretion, and how anyone could lose on appeal is beyond me.
If you can’t figure out why trying to force a player to take your desired approach to a game won’t work, then I suspect we should just agree to disagree on this topic. In the meantime, I’d suggest re-reading the threads on this (and the rulebook) to understand why you would lose on appeal if you reject a short, but ratable, draw.
The related question of why adding a minimum move number to Rule 14B6 will likely not produce your desired effect when dealing with two players who are inclined to draw their game (generally for the purposes of securing a prize, a norm, or some other incentive in the last round) is left as an exercise for the reader.
