Rules Question: Unclear Actions

Running Chess Tournaments
1

The following interesting dispute arose at a nearby tournament and I’d like to hear how TDs would have handled it. I was not the TD, but have seen testimony on it from several witnesses:

At a small Midwestern swiss tournament, White (a player from Mongolia with a 2150 rating who has been in the U.S. for one year but was playing in his 10th U.S. tournament) was playing against Black (an experienced Life Master) in the last round. White was winning, up a full queen, but played an inaccurate move in mild mutual time trouble which allowed Black to get the perpetual check he had been aiming for. Black played the first move of the perpetual and offered a draw. White kept playing, but after a couple more moves he looked angry. Then, “He swatted his King over (It took 2 tries), rose from the board, said nothing, and stormed out of the building. No stopping the clocks, no handshake, no ‘Draw’.” He also did not report the result on the pairings sheet, or write "draw’ on his scoresheet or anything like that. There were several spectators as witnesses that confirm these actions. The T.D. came over and Black “asked him if that was a resignation”. The TD said, It could interpreted as such, but that Black would have to report the result. Feeling that his opponent’s actions were very disrespectful, Black reported it as a resignation, although he could just as easily have sat there for a few minutes and let White’s clock run out.

Much later (when prizes were to be handed out) when White found out he had lost the game he was very angry, protested, and stated that he had not intended to resign. Apparently he thought he was acceding to the draw, although I haven’t heard explained why he thought that tipping over his king signaled that (especially since there was at that time no three-position repetition yet, and no draw offer or draw claim was on the table). We speculate that the king tip idea may not have been familiar to him and when he learned about it in the U.S. he misunderstood what it meant, although even then his actions don’t fit with the rules since two moves had elapsed since Black had offered a draw.

My question is this: in theory, should a T.D. having witnessed these actions have done anything to intervene quickly before the player left the premises and could no longer be found? Consider that (1) White’s actions were unclear, (2) White was a foreign player fairly new to the U.S. Should the T.D. have “gone after him” and asked him what he was doing, or would that be considered beyond the scope of Rule 21D which normally limits intervention in the game? Bear in mind that in the actual case Black did ask the T.D. (after he arrived) whether his opponent had resigned, which seems to be asking him to make a ‘settlement of dispute’ under rule 21D4, and would presumably allow him to run after the player and ask him that question. Doing so would surely alert White to all the errors he had made, and he could return to the game to finish it correctly and secure the draw… so the T.D.'s actions here will literally change a loss into a draw result, just by his intervention.

In the actual circumstance the T.D. was not present at the table and may not have had the chance to chase after the player even if he wanted to. But what should he have done if he was present? I’m curious how other T.D.s would act here.

2

As you point out, Black’s draw offer was no longer valid since White had deliberately touched a piece (and in fact two moves had been made).

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Even if White were playing in his first tournament in the United States (and therefore governed by the USCF Official Rules of Chess), the FIDE Laws of Chess are clear that the draw offer was no longer valid once White had made a move.

USCF Rule 13 specifically states that tipping over the king is an indication of resignation. I would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever declaring that White had resigned and that Black had won the game.

Furthermore, both players are responsible for reporting the result of the game. The fact that White has left the premises (presumably in quite a huff) does nothing to make me consider White’s argument more favorably.

Being a foreign player does not excuse poor sportsmanship or rudeness.

3

Unsporting behavior that can reasonably be construed as a resignation will be construed as such by this director, later protestations notwithstanding. Black wins, and if White wants to explain his actions on appeal, fine.

4

I will further note that the Article 12.2 of the FIDE Laws of Chess governs players leaving the playing area:

I am assuming that a player with a 2150 rating who has only played in ten tournaments in the United States and been in the United States for one year has played tournament chess before. (That may be an unwarranted assumption.) I do not know whether the Mongolian Chess Federation (if there is one) has their own national rule book or whether their tournaments would use the FIDE Laws of Chess. Although the USCF Official Rules of Chess are not as strict as Article 12.2 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, they do prohibit a player from leaving the playing area for an extended time (more than 15 minutes) without notifying a director.

This also makes me think White’s protest stands on very shaky grounds.

5

Based purely on the information given, it would be treated as a resignation.

If there is additional information that would change how it should be treated then there is still the issue of prizes at the end of the event.
If this happened in, let’s say, round three of a six round event, then that game should be treated for ratings as a draw in an extra games section and as a forfeit loss in the regular section. That means that the player doesn’t get to be paired down an extra half-point for the last three rounds and still get the same prizes as those who played with correct pairings.

I remember many years ago and before that rule (currently 15I and expanded upon on the TD tip) there was a player in scholastic events that would often mis-report the result of the first round as a loss, and then have it corrected to a win after the final round was about to start (or had started), often ending up with a half-point or full point more than the player would have scored against the opponents that would have been faced with a correctly reported first round (and thus getting a better trophy both individually and as part of a team).

6

Having played three different opponents from Mongolia, two with limited English skills, I can safely say that they understood the basic laws of chess, e.g. regarding draw offers. The Mongolian federation does run FIDE rated tournaments.

7

Knocking over one’s king, or sweeping the pieces off the board, is either a clear statement of resignation, or a demonstration of pure anger or disgust, or a combination of the two.

Clearly, a player who does this and storms off, should be deemed to have resigned, unless the position on the board was such that the game had already ended (e.g., stalemate, or a clear agreement to a draw offer or claim).

It seems quite proper, though, for any TD within viewing range to seek to address the behavior by calming the player and advising him that no matter how upset he may have been, he is still expected to act properly toward his opponent and toward all in attendance.

Now and then, a player forgets everything he or she knows about the norms of decent and proper behavior when something goes badly wrong at a critical moment in a tense game. Some competitors focus so narrowly on seeking victory as to become completely selfish and completely oblivious to the existence of the world at such a moment.

If you can get such a person to take a deep breath, he or she may remember that they actually do know how to behave, and may return to some semblance of human form.

As a TD, it will always benefit your tournaments - present and future - if you can perform this intervention successfully. But you don’t have to gift a player who has tipped his king with a draw in the process, in any case.

Hal Bogner
International Arbiter

8

Clearly this is not a draw by agreement as a move was played even though he appears that Black was willing to agree a move later. It’s also not a 3-fold or 50 move rule. What is White’s argument that the game ended in a draw when his actions indicate otherwise?

In 36+ years of directing I’ve never seen a draw claimed in the way described but seen many behave as White did when resigning. White could have been told that now he knows better for next time. Ignorance is no excuse.

9

The standard USCF philosophy “the TD should not intervene” works well about 97% of the time. This case might be in the other 3%. Certainly, I would have had no problem with a TD trying to chase this player down, even if it could “change” the outcome.

Let’s look at the human side. Of course, white’s sportsmanship was horrible, but it was born of anguish at the sudden discovery that his easily won game had all at once turned into a forced draw.

Now, what about black’s sportsmanship? He had been desperately trying for a forced draw in a dead lost position, and had just now achieved his long-shot objective. Should he go even further, and try to wangle a win out of it, by taking advantage of his opponent’s sportsmanship / anger / ignorance / actions? YMMV. Personally, if I were black, I think I would have simply posted the result as a draw. (I’m not absolutely sure, though. Put me in that situation in the real world and we’ll all find out one way or the other.)

Black, of course, acted correctly, calmly, and cleverly. Rather than claiming a win outright, he tried to shift this burden to the TD by asking how the opponent’s actions could be construed.

But the TD was clever, too. He shifted the burden right back, by telling the player he was within his rights but would have to do it himself. All in all, the TD made a masterful ruling, with which I completely agree.

Bill Smythe

10

I don’t think it’s a valid complaint against Black. On what grounds should Black feel that a draw is proper? How was the game drawn? White already declined the draw, knocked down pieces including his king, and abandon the game.

Let’s look at the ways games can be drawn (not all inclusive). There was no draw by agreement. There was no claim of 3-fold. There was no double flag. There was no 50-move rule. There was no lack of mating material. There was no stalemate. There was no 14H claim (I assume a clock with delay was used).

Why would a game which was not a draw be posted as one? Does Black even have the right to claim it was a draw? If so, which rule would apply that would override everything else in rule 14? Would Black be fair to himself if he deprived himself of the full point? Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Should White’s poor sportsmanship, anger, ignorance, and actions be rewarded with a draw that never occurred?

Perhaps to avoid a claim that White never resigned (he did knock down his king), Black could have let the time expire. As they were in mild time pressure, it probably wouldn’t have taken very long. If I were TD and asked about it by Black, that might have been my suggestion although as this would have been an unprecedented situation and I’ve now had time to think about it, I can’t say 100% that I would have ruled so without the time to think about it.

11

I guess I just don’t see how White’s actions were unclear. It’s pretty clear what (deliberately) knocking your king over means, even if you regret it later. I’ve done that, too, but I never argued that the result of the game should be changed.

Alex Relyea

12

I guess my question is about what responsibility the T.D. has to clarify a confused situation for a game that is technically still going but one player has left thinking it is over.

Suppose it happened slightly differently. As T.D. you are observing the game and can see it is headed for a forced draw. You see white’s growing disgust, the shocking apparent resignation and his storming off with his clock still running. His opponent then asks you if that was a resignation. Now, instead of saying, “It could be interpreted that way,” perhaps instead you decide you have been asked to make a ruling on the matter, and chase after him to ask White his intention.

If you did all this and White returned in the nick of time to save the game, wouldn’t Black have a legitimate complaint, especially if a lot of money was riding on the game and if Black had no sympathy for White because he felt insulted by White’s actions? Your quick and timely intervention literally changed the apparent result of the game. And yet one could argue all you did was restore its logical course. My opinion is that chasing him down would be wrong. White did more than just “unintentionally” resign. He compounded the error by abandoning a game in progress (and failing to report his result, etc.). It seems bizarre to me that a T.D. would be expected to go running after a player who has left the building in a huff and left behind a mess.

Suppose another variation: White tipped his king and left, but this time did two other things: 1) stopped the clocks, and 2) on the way out of the building wrote “draw” on the pairing results sheet. What would you rule then?

13

My answer is unchanged. My handling of this situation is in no way affected by my evaluation of the position. My evaluation is both meaningless and useless.

Now we have a much different question, since White has reported a result. This does not change the fact that Black’s draw offer is no longer valid. It also does not change the fact that the players do not agree on the result of the game. Since I have not given this particular scenario much thought (well, almost none at all), I’m going to decline to rule on it. :slight_smile: However, I will bemoan the death of the convention that both players sign the scoresheet to indicate agreement on the final result.

14

I wouldn’t go running after a player, at least if it’s a rated tournament. I might make an exception if it’s an unrated scholastic as it’s a learning situation and I’m not violating any USCF rules. For a 2150 player foreign or otherwise, I just don’t know of any rules (FIDE included) that would allow White to force a draw that his opponent never agreed to.

If the same situation occurred and those 2 additional events also occurred, then it complicates things somewhat. I first of all would expect Black to question the stopping of the clock if his opponent says nothing before walking away. If there is no agreement or other event that caused the game to be drawn, then I don’t see how I could uphold White’s claim of a draw even though Black allowed him to stop the clock with the final result unresolved.

15

Absolutely Ken–I have seen this same type of question on several forums. Player B gets ticked off about whatever and
leaves and forwhatever reason assumes a draw. then when the next round pairings and wall chart is up is ticked off
that a 0 instead of 1/2 appears. The point is not necessarily one of "fairness’ for that is often perception, but the
rule of the game. TDs who go down the murky road of fair, can very well make decisions not often seen.

Rob jones

16

13B says that tipping over the king is a “relatively clear” method of indicating a resignation. It is not very plain what purpose the word “relatively” is supposed to serve here. A strong indication of a resignation but not absolute, definitive, or dispositive, one gathers. Otherwise the rule would have said just “clear” not “relatively clear”. It is interesting that 13B also states that saying “I resign” is only a “relatively clear” method of resigning. Someone’s dry sense of humor seems to have been at work in the wording of 13B. A rulebook is not the best place for sarcastic understatement, I reckon. Relative to what? If saying “I resign” is only relatively clear, it is hard to imagine what would be an absolutely clear method of indicating resignation. Pulling out one’s pen-knife and cutting one’s wrists open, perhaps. So the humorous understatement of 13B makes it not totally satisfactory as a guide in this case. Let me just say that tipping over one’s king in a bit of fit of pique at having drawn a won game does not seem to be quite the resolute concession of loss that I would like to see.

Being absent from the board for a few minutes is also not a resignation. There can be reasons for it, such as the need for fresh air, etc, or even just to calm one’s nerves and clear one’s mind. Nature may call. A quick drive around the block may seem advisable. Rule 20H states that a player “should not” leave the playing room for more than 15 minutes without permission from the director. Even after 15 minutes, a first offense, the rule says, does not usually warrant a forfeit, unless there is evidence of further rules violations (like, I suppose, consulting someone about the game). Rule 20H1 further states that an absence from the board in a lost position exceeding 15 minutes “risks” having the game adjudicated by the TD.

However, White did not have a lost position, and it doesn’t sound as though he was absent for 15 minutes before the TD became involved. So while there was some justification for the decision of the TD, the situation was not as absolutely clear as might be desired. Given that there was not that much time left on White’s clock, the clearest ruling would have been that the tipping of the king in a drawn position in a fit of pique was not definitively a resignation, and that White had 15 minutes to return to finish the game, or until his flag fell, whichever came first, at which point Black should make the claim either that White had forfeited on time, or that he had abandoned the game, with the TD being asked to adjudicate or, even, forfeit the game.

17

The player who tipped over his K resigned according to universally standard practice. According to all the rules, both international and USCF, once a player resigns or is checkmated the game is over. Intention or not, board position or not, it’s over. Dishonesty notwithstanding, there is no recourse.

He has no basis for complaining or protesting. In this situation the TD should not interfere, should not ask him what he intended, should not go running after him. He resigned.

Experientia docet – Perhaps he’s learned something.

18

It doesn’t matter what he wrote on his scoresheet. “I am Garry Kasparov” doesn’t make him a world champion. Once you tip your king over the game is over, and you lose because tipping your king over is resignation. What is so difficult to understand about that?

19

Please read the hypothetical more carefully. In the hypothetical, White did not write “draw” on his scoresheet; he reported a draw on the pairing results sheet (which is the typical means of reporting a result).

20

Including the comment “I resign” in a convertion to somebody else (such as: friend says “will you be able to join us for lunch”, player says to the spectator “I’m resigning myself to having to play a long game”) would be one time it would not necessarily be clear (kind of tortuous to find counter-examples, and I figure that it would have to be a very unusual case where I wouldn’t rule the phrase “I resign” to be a resignation).

Accidentally tipping the king while reaching for another piece is NOT a resignation, and the 13B wording for relatively clear gives TDs a little more ammunition for denying such claims when a “rules lawyer” tries to claim that the accidental tip is a resignation.