I had an unusual situation happen last night and I’m looking for some second and third opinions.
Background:
The tournament is G/30;d5. I’m checking games and this one had White with a lead but was in time trouble. White had under two minutes and Black had 15. White’s moving quickly and makes several blunders in a row, and still has a lead but it’s closer. He makes an illegal move at one point by leaving his king in check and has to correct it. But Black is moving just as fast and also makes an illegal move while his king is in check. That’s when I see that the clocks are set incorrectly and have no delay. I stop the game, fix the clocks, and I add five minutes to each side (partly for the illegal move and also to compensate for the missing delay). So you can tell me what you think of that. But I go off to check on other games.
I check back on the game and I can tell it’s going to be a draw. Black has a black bishop and a pawn on the 4th rank. White’s king is blocking the bishop and he has a white bishop and a distant pawn on h2. Everything’s under control, and I go check other games.
Then there’s a commotion and here’s what I can piece together.
• I see the position. Black has a king and a bishop. White has a king and the distant pawn. White claimed a draw from insufficient material.
• At the time, I was told that Black had accepted it and then others there (maybe the father) said that it’s not right because there’s still another pawn on the board. (But now there’s a new story today that perhaps it was the other player who said it wasn’t a draw because White still has a pawn on the board.)
• White didn’t realize that the remaining pawn was his and said that then he has to resign.
• Then White realizes that the remaining pawn is a White pawn and not a Black pawn and returns to his original claim that Black has insufficient material for a win.
• Now the other player never talked to me but the father kept insisting that it would be possible for White to still blunder into a checkmate — and I rejected that argument because there’s no forced win.
• After he finally gave up that argument, the father claimed that because White resigned, that his son won and that White can’t change his resignation into a draw and that his son never accepted the draw.
• I ruled that it was a draw because (1) well, it really was a draw (there was no forced win for Black); and, (2) White’s original claim was that it was a draw from insufficient material and it doesn’t matter whether or not Black agrees and accepts it. Ideally, at that point, White should have called the director because of the dispute, but we don’t have the ideal case. But it seemed to me the game is over at that point. No one ever disputed to me that White originally said it was a draw from insufficient material. And since the father’s initial argument was that the insufficient material claim was invalid, that further convinced me that White did originally make that claim.
• Since then, another director has told White that a resignation is final and can’t be rescinded and I should have ruled in favor of Black. (But that director didn’t have this full set of information.) And I’m interested in other opinions.
Black’s father has written to me today and formally requested that I change the result from a draw to a win. So now I’m especially keen to hear how others would rule and whether it’s correct to have the results changed and to award the win to Black.
My other director on site was playing White, so I couldn’t call on his assistance last night.
In the future please contact a special referee in such situations.
Minor points first.
The Rules committee has already said the delay can be turned on in a clock that doesn’t have it, but the clock times themselves do not need to be changed (i.e. turn on the delay and add only the two minute adjustments for the illegal moves, not the five minutes that were added so be prepared to cite rule 1A when defending the additional three minutes given to each player).
If White had flagged then he could claim 14E2 where the opponent has insufficient material to win on time (drawing unless Black has a forced mate or unless it is being played under FIDE rules). Since White has a pawn the game is not in the insufficient material to continue status because the pawn could promote to both a queen that White could win with or a knight with White getting eventually helpmated (that helpmate is why white could lose on time if FIDE rules were being used).
14H is another way of claiming insufficient material but it can only be cited if there is no delay on the clock. If you decide an invalid 14H claim was made then the penalty is 1/2 the claimant’s time (one minute max). If you decide an invalid 14E claim was made then you can either simply let the game continue or use the penalty from invalid 14F claims (two minutes added to the opponent).
Now for the major point. Note rule 20E2 (unsolicited advice) when dealing with spectator comments that have a direct effect on the result of the game.
You have a spectator comment that had a direct impact on the game. If the spectator is closely associated with one of the players (teammate, coach, close friend or family member) then that player can be cited for a loss per 20E2i. If the spectator is not associated then make your best judgement on what would have happened without the comment. If the spectator that made the initial comment was a close friend then it gets treated as a 20E1 issue (solicited advice) where a loss is often (not always) issued.
Find out what relationship the spectator had to the player. Let the father know that your ruling can be appealed after the tournament to the US Chess Rules committee. You may want to even be kind enough to let the father know that if the spectator was a close associate of his son then the Rules committee might even end up changing it to a White win.
Thank you for your assistance.
It’s unclear who originally pointed out that White still had a pawn. The father says he arrived after the argument was going on and says Black noted that there was another pawn so there couldn’t be insufficient material. White doesn’t remember who first pointed it out and that it might have been Black. So there’s not enough information to determine if there was unsolicited advice or not.
In trading some notes with the father this afternoon, we seem to agree on the facts, and that leaves my interpretation to be assessed whether or not it’s correct.
• If White had just run out of time, then he agrees it would be a draw due to insufficient material (14E2).
• If White had just resigned and then said, no there’s insufficient material, this is a draw, I agree that he’s already resigned and the game is over.
• Therefore, the key question is whether you have to wait for your time to expire before you claim insufficient material.
• I said no. My interpretation is that it violates the intent of the rule to make you sit there for X minutes waiting for your time to expire before you can claim the draw. (Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought I’ve read cases/rulings that a player even in a winning position can claim a draw by insufficient material if he’s about to run out of time and that the TD accepts that the opponent doesn’t have a forced win). If this is the correct interpretation, then the resignation is pointless because he has already claimed the draw.
• His claim is that you have to wait for time to expire because that’s how it’s written in rule 14. If that interpretation is correct then White’s claim of insufficient material is invalid, and he resigned in a game that was still unfinished.
Assuming everything happened in chronological order as you discussed, under rule 14, the game is a draw. White claimed a draw and black accepted that claim. The game is over and should be a draw.
What the father said or didn’t say is immaterial. The father is a spectator and spectators have no rights, nor can they make claims on anyone’s behalf (20M5).
The Drawn Game
All draw claims are also draw offers (14B). The player by making any draw claim (for example: triple occurrence of
position (14C), insufficient material to continue (14D), insufficient material to win on time (14E), the 50-move rule
(14F), both flags down in sudden death (14G), insufficient losing chances (Variation 14H), …) is also making an
implied offer of a draw to the opponent. If the opponent accepts the implied draw offer, the game is over."
“20M5. Spectators cannot make claims.
Spectators, including parents and coaches, may point out irregularities to the director in a manner neither heard nor
noticed by the players, but have no right to make claims of any kind on behalf of players…”
Black disputed the draw because although he only has a King & a Bishop, White still a pawn on the board
While they’re waiting for me to come and decide, Black says there’s still a pawn on the board.
White says “I guess I should resign” or “Then I should resign”
Then sees that the additional pawn is his and it really is a draw for insufficient material.
Then I come and agree that the game is a draw. But since I haven’t come and agreed with White’s claim yet that the game is a draw, then the game is still active. And during that time is when White said he should resign. (One TD has added that this itself is an ambiguous statement and shouldn’t be accepted as a clear resignation).
Therefore, White has resigned.
And to me, the game was still waiting for my decision, and I came and accepted the draw offer, which preceded the [possible] resignation.
I assumed that to mean White claimed and Black accepted. But now in #2 you’re saying black DISPUTED it. Probably I didn’t read that correctly initially.
So as I understand it now White has: K+P and Black has K+B
Technically, it’s not insufficient material to continue (14D), but it is insufficient material to win on time (14E). So even if White flags, it’s still a draw.
“I guess I should resign” or “Then I should resign” is not a clear resignation in my judgement. I still think the draw should stand.
Tell Black if they want to appeal to the Rules Committee, there’s a procedure to do that under 21L.But in my opinion it’s unlikely they would overturn that.
Here’s the explanation I gave him about why I applied 14E to support the draw claim even though it’s not one of the cases mentioned in 14D (of which you’d have to cite every permutation, which is unrealistic). But note in 14E2 the word even. That tells me that 14E is describing an exceptional case, not the standard case. Please tell me if I’m wrong, but I see this as a protection for the side with more material, not as a hoop to jump through before claiming the draw. In other words, I interpret it as “even if the side with more material runs out of time, it’s still a draw because the other side doesn’t have enough material to win.” We’re not saying that the side with more material has to sit patiently for 5 minutes or 10 minutes … or even 90 minutes … waiting for his clock to finally expire before he can claim the draw.
Yea, I think that’s acceptable interpretation. Overall, I think I would’ve done the same things in this situation. People may not like our decisions sometimes but that’s their problem
