Ruling Q and General Q about Forum Use

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Greetings all,

I am a relatively new OTB TD, but an old internet user (have run hundreds of tournaments online - occasionally by hand). This forum seems representative of the internet forums of old - that is to say flamings and other conflicts seem to be the norm… Even just looking at the PHPBB forum software gives me nostalgia. But… before I go into a few different scenarios I’ve been meaning to ask about, I wanted to ask if it would be appropriate to use this forum for general newbish questions.

I’ll go ahead with my first scenario, so flame away.

scenario:
very large rating differential game (round 1 of an open section), but relatively a much lower skill level differential.

Player 1800 (“Black”) vs Player 1100 (“White”)
Time Control: 40/120,SD30; d10
Chronos Clock owned by neither player that is not set to show the move count (this ends up being slightly relevant).

Black summons me over and begins to ask me about his clock it reads 0:01:30 and is running down. Points to his sheet which has valid moves to about 32 and then dashs /markings up to move 43 or so. His clock is running, so I reach over and pause it (Q1: Was this proper? Rule 5I states players can stop the clock and should do so on their time. Am I overstepping what I should do by stopping the clock?).

Black states that as they have crossed move 40, he should get 30 minutes more. I look at the opponent’s score sheet which has moves up to 43 or 44. I assume wrongly that the whole reason behind this claim was that the clock was set incorrectly. They have passed 40 and it did not give the time. I pick up the clock and ask both participants if they know how to add 30 to this time control. it is not their clock they have no clue. The owner of the clock (in an adjacent game) reminds me - it will just roll over to 0:30:00 when the time runs out. It is likely set correctly. This is where I thought it would end.

Before I restart the clock, White, who is down a pawn (K,B,4P vs K,N,5P), insists that as Black has not recorded moves, Black cannot prove that the time control is made, that he should not get the extra time. I quickly state that as I can clearly see White’s scoresheet has more than 40 moves, that the time will be granted to both sides. I also tell White that Black has the right to request White’s sheet to fill in these moves once the time control is made. White states that it isnt right somehow that his sheet provides the evidence Black needs. I say that my ruling is that the time control is made he gets the time. He asks me what’s keeping him from erasing those extra moves and I say I’ve already seen the sheet - so that wouldnt help :slight_smile: I then restart the clock.

So I did all that without the rulebook in my hand and to be honest I dont know the rules extremely well - as a CLUB TD I have 3 years before I have to, right? :slight_smile: So I go to get a rule book and start reading up on the situation. (Q2: I think this was a mistake - because it promoted the idea that I was uncertain (which i was, but… ) AND took my attention off the game at hand. Thoughts?).

While I read and confirm that my ruling was correct (I believe!) under rules 15B and 15C and that my suggestion Black could borrow whites scoresheet was correct 15D (Q3: Should I have even mentioned that Black could do this?), White spoils his chance of drawing - if he even had one. When I finish confirming and approach the game again - he is looking at me like I need to do something to prevent this loss. So I motion him to talk to me on the side (Q4: appropriate or no?) and tell him that I believed my ruling to be correct in all aspects. He goes back to the game and resigns.

I take the players out of the area to discuss - there was only 1 other game left at the time - and indicate based on my reading of the rules - the only situation I could rule that the time control had not been made was if there was no evidence of it. For example, if White had stopped recording as well - as was his right since his opponent was under 5 minutes. But I think I was incorrect here - I’d still be able to rule on the time control. If White had stopped recording on move 39 for example - I could use his scoresheet to reconstruct the game up to move 39 - observe that more than 1 move had to have been made - and rule that time control was satisfied. If White had stopped at move 32, this would be much harder to do - but I would be obligated to try, correct? If white is being uncooperative in reconstructing from that point and Black was in such time trouble that he may not remember it clearly - I would still try to make a determintion as to number of moves made since the last recorded move, right? (Q5: confirm that would be the correct procedure?) Also if they had stopped right on move 40, rather than 44, it would have been tougher to do this.

Also in this post-mortem - it came out that Black had not resumed recording his moves after my ruling that the time control had been made. He also did not take the time to fill out his score sheet from White’s as I suggested was his right. Unfortunately, I did not notice this was happening - I believe I should have warned Black for refusal to obey rules under 13I and told him that he must resume score keeping. I would not force him to copy all of White’s moves on his time as the last time control was sudden death and I could deem that unnecessary under rule 15F4. Q6: Correct on both counts?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this!
-Jere

2

Hello, Jere, and welcome to the forums.

Despite appearances we actually do have rules for acceptable use of the forums, which are posted here.

Yes, it’s entirely appropriate for inexperienced TDs to ask questions here. It’s a good way to learn how to be a better TD.

Although rules 5I and 21F say that a player has the right to stop both clocks when asking the director for a ruling, it’s common practice for the director to stop/pause the clocks if they haven’t already been stopped. You acted correctly.

If and when Black runs out of time, it’s up to White to make a time forfeit claim, which will be denied under the circumstances as you’ve described them. The burden of proof would be on White to show that Black hadn’t made the time control (which he had).

Ideally you should know the rules without having to look them up, but while you’re still learning I think it’s best to look up a rule if you’re not sure that you’re making the right ruling. Better safe than sorry.

The key rules here are 15F, 15F1 and 15F4:

According to rule 15F4, it’s up to you whether to require Black to fill in the missing moves on his scoresheet. If he does fill in the missing moves he can borrow the opponent’s scoresheet under rule 15D but he has to fill in the moves with his clock running. Yes, given that Black invited you to intervene in the game by asking you a question, it was appropriate for you to mention that he could borrow his opponent’s scoresheet to fill in missing moves. It wasn’t necessary, though, since the next time control was sudden death.

In a different situation where it wasn’t obvious that Black had made the time control, I would tell the players to continue the game. After Black ran out of time and the clock added 30 minutes, White could make a time forfeit claim, and if the claim was denied or White didn’t make the claim, Black could (or must if the TD requires it) fill in missing moves on his scoresheet.

Yes, as stated in rule 21F, “Extended discussions between director and player(s) are inappropriate in the tournament room; a hallway or headquarters room is more desirable.”

There is no need for you to determine whether the players have made the time control unless one of them makes a time forfeit claim, or it’s clear that they’ve made the time control and you want them to reconstruct their scoresheets under rule 15F4. Otherwise tell them to continue the game until someone’s flag falls.

Right, once it’s clear that the players are past the time control and therefore Black is no longer in time pressure he has to start recording his moves again under rule 15A. It’s up to you as the director to decide whether he has to fill in his moves first or not under rule 15F4.

I’ll point out, though, that it was up to White to complain to you that Black wasn’t recording his moves. It’s not one of the situations where a director would normally intervene in a game under rule 21D. It would have been a good idea for you to tell Black that he had to start recording his moves again at the time that you intervened to answer Black’s question about the clock.

3

I largely agree with Mr. Messenger with the exception that I believe no TD both knows all the rules and knows their exact wording and should therefore be able to, in all situations, act without referring to the rulebook. It is good to find the black-letter law at any time you’re unsure.

Alex Relyea

4

Agreed, but in a situation like the one described in this topic an experienced TD wouldn’t need to consult the rulebook.

5

To further expand on Mr. Cassidy’s Q5, note that White has to have a reasonably complete scoresheet to make a claim of time forfeit. If his scoresheet only showed 32 moves completed, all Black would have to demonstrate would be that three additional moves had been made. If, for example, three of Black’s pieces were on different squares than in the last provable position, that would be enough proof for me. Also, in no way would I consider a time forfeit claim when the player being claimed against still had 90 seconds on his clock.

Also, right after all the games have made time control is an excellent time to read the rulebook. Most urgent problems occur during time pressure, so you’re relatively free on that account. It is much worse to look confident and have a player prove you wrong then to not look confident by checking your work. Players will appreciate your demonstrated effort to “get it right”.

Alex Relyea

6

I will also consult the rulebook at times, not really to look up the rule, but to think about how I want to present my ruling.

7

Even if a TD knows the rule, some players need to see it in print before they are convinced regarding the ruling.

8

And sometimes you hand the player the book, when they insist a rule is in there that is not in there, and tell them to find the rule that they think exists.

9

Amen!

10

Bob Messenger’s excellent reply says it all, but let me amplify a few points.

Regarding the forum: This is a moderated forum, so flame wars are kept under control much better than they were in, for example, the old RGCP forum.

Regarding the appropriateness of the topic: Absolutely, newbie questions are appropriate here. Such questions, and their answers, are extremely helpful to all forum readers. Even experienced TDs can benefit. Indeed, occasionally an “experienced” TD seems to be experienced mainly in doing things wrong.

Regarding a time forfeit: In the event of a potential time-forfeit claim in a non-sudden-death situation (e.g. the first time control when there are two time controls), the burden of proof lies with the claimant. The claimant in this situation must:

  • be able to demonstrate, via his scoresheet, that the opponent has failed to meet the time control, AND
  • have a reasonably complete scoresheet – no more than three (in some events, two) incomplete move pairs.

Therefore, if the TD can find four (in some events, three) white pieces, or four (three) black pieces, whose present positions are not documented by the moves the claimant has already recorded, then the claim can be immediately denied on grounds 2.

Or, if it is clear that 40 moves have been made, then the claim can be immediately denied on grounds 1.

Regarding the clock setting: In the event that the clock has not added 30 minutes after move 40, it may be unwise for the TD (or the players) to add 30 minutes manually. The clock may already have been set for two controls, with the extra time to be added when the initial time expires. In this case, if 30 minutes are added manually, the clock might eventually add still another 30 minutes, creating confusion at the end of the second (sudden death) control.

Only if it is known for sure that the clock was set for only one control, should time be added manually before the initial time has run out. Otherwise (the time forfeit claim having already been denied, as above) the manual adjustment, if any, should likely be made only after one player’s initial time expires.

Regarding a player’s request to see the rulebook: It can be extremely difficult for the TD to quickly locate the appropriate rule. Some material seems to be in a dozen different places. If a player wants to see the rule, just hand him the rulebook and let him search for it.

And you don’t need to allow the player to keep the clock paused while he paws through the rulebook. Let him find the rule on his own time. Hand him the rulebook, restart the clock, walk away.

Summary: You did great, in what may have been your first sort-of-difficult TD situation. Keep up the good work.

Bill Smythe

11

Chess is the only sport I’m aware of where players argue with officials about what the rules are, let alone how they should apply.

12

Oh, trust me, it happens elsewhere.

I agree with what Bob, Alex, Bill, Tim et al. have said above.

13

How about football and what constitutes a catch?

14

Pre-question comments - There is a lot of experience among the forum participants that you can learn from. Note that even very experienced TDs can disagree on some of the details involved with a ruling, but there is generally broad agreement on the most common rulings.

Q1 - as others have already said, you actions are quite acceptable.

between Q1 & Q2 - there are a number of threads pointing out that a clock’s clock-punch counter is not always a move counter, so many TDs prefer a setting that adds the second time control immediately after the first is used up. When such a setting is used then adding time manually to a clock after the move number (before either side has used up the first time control) will end up with the clock thinking it is still the first time control and then adding the second time control once the (adjusted) first is used up. That add has caused issues at even national tournaments when a player who used up all the time he should have then complains that since there is still time showing on his clock that means he hasn’t flagged (he has, but I’ve seen 30+ minute arguments where he tries to say he hasn’t). Adding time based on the clock-punch counter has caused people to erroneously think they are in the second time control (an illegal move can make the clock-punch counter no long match the number of moves) and thus end up flagging during the first time control that they are actually in.

Q2 - As others have said, there is nothing wrong with double-checking the rules (don’t forget the rules updates at uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf )

Q3 - As others have said, you are fine mentioning the borrowing of a scoresheet (on the borrower’s time)

Q4 - As others have said, you are fine to motion him off to one side.

Q5 - As others have said, the claimant needs to use his scoresheet and the position on the board to prove that the time control was not reached. The other player is not obligated to prove that the time control had been reached. Note that if White had run out of time on move 39 then Black would not have had a scoresheet that could prove so and a time forfeit claim against White would have been denied for that reason even though White’s scoresheet could prove that only 39 moves were made. Note - FIDE rules are different for this.

Q6 - White did not complain that Black was not keeping score, so you would not have been obligated to require that he start doing so after the time control was reached (note that FIDE rules are different for this). Personally, if I am playing against an opponent who is not keeping score that does not bother me since the opponent has thus given up the rights to readily claim a 50-move draw, a three-fold repetition, or a flag in a non-SD time control period (one inter-club match game was decided when my mutual time pressure game was approaching the end of the first time control, I was continuing to keep score while my opponent wasn’t, and I thus forced my opponent to make some quick moves while I was in no danger of having a successful flag-fall call made against me - the lack of pressure against me, even though I did use up the first time control before playing the number of moves allotted to it, meant that my relative position had improved while the game continued after the flag “fall”). The remainder of your thoughts are correct.

15

The rules change frequently enough that it is not always easy for the average player to know all of the rules and how they are interpreted. They rely on the knowledge, experience, and the judgment of the TD. Many older players only understand the rules up through the 4th edition of the Rulebook based on my experience of answering questions. They have not looked at updates or gone out of their way to find either the 5th or the 6th editions. Local bookstores rarely have a copy of the Rulebook in stock.

When dealing with an issue or problem at a tournament, the last thing to do is hand the player a Rulebook and say, “Go look it up yourself,” if he disagrees with your ruling. It is not difficult for the TD to find the correct section. Of course, that means that the TD should be fully up to date with the rules and conversant with the Rulebook’s structure and indexing. The TD’s roles include more than being a mere rules arbiter. He has to make sure the tournament functions properly, that the players are satisfied with the tournament experience, and that all questions are answered efficiently. Part of his job is public relations. If the TD displays an imperious or worse, a dismissive attitude toward the players, he can be assured that fewer players will attend his future events. An example of that is when players ask when is the next round. Rolling eyes or pointing at a sign is an inadequate response. Poor TD attitude does nothing to help things along. Just answer the question and move on. The players are under stress and forget things. The stress puts them more on edge and confused when dealing with any chess related issue. When they are relaxed, they behave differently. As a TD, you should try to make the atmosphere as relaxed as possible by anticipating problems before they arise. That is why it is important to be in the playing room and observing as much as possible rather than being in the TD inner sanctum reading the paper or drinking coffee.

In large events, the TD should always keep a Rulebook handy. Some even walk around with one. I have often seen experienced Senior and National TDs have several copies of the Rulebook, and even several different editions of the Rulebook in order to have more tips and helpful information available just in case. In bigger events, there is always a just in case matter that has to be dealt with. Copies of the latest updates are also on hand, either stuffed in the Rulebook or in a special binder. Sometimes that binder has instructions for how to set various types of clocks. At the very least, the TD’s well worn copy of the Rulebook has little tags, notes, language changes, and recisions. It is often a good practice for a TD to take some of the Forum postings and copy them to have examples of good decisions and best practices. These, too, can go into the TD’s own information binder.

16

Of course not, but if the player insists that there is a rule somewhere that supports his position, it is reasonable to ask him to point it out.

Alex Relyea

17

This is one thing I don’t do. The more times a TD touches a clock, the more times something could go wrong. But that doesn’t mean I just let a players clock run either.

I simply make it a habit when I arrive at a board, I simply ask the players if the clock is paused. If they already have paused it, they say yes, and no problem. If it is not paused, inevitably one of the will pause it for me.

tom

18

I pause the clock myself if it isn’t already paused, but one thing I’ve learned through bitter experience is to make a mental note of the times showing on the clock before pausing it, and write the times down, minutes and seconds if possible, before making an adjustment. One way to feel really stupid as a TD is to pause the clock or try to adjust it and have the clock reset to the base time. This can happen on the Z-mart clock and in some modes of the Chronos when you press the middle button twice instead of once.

19

NOTE: Some of what I write here will doubtlessly repeat information given elsewhere in the thread.

IMO, even the worst of this forum is better than the old Usenet newsgroups (which still exist, incidentally…a search for either rec.games.chess.misc or rec.games.chess.politics should get you access).

Certainly.

Stopping the clock as soon as you arrive at the board is the right thing to do.

I have also recommended, elsewhere on the Forums, taking a picture of the clock and board with a smartphone/tablet immediately upon arrival. This has become a standard practice of mine, and has saved my bacon more than once in the last 18 months or so.

(italics mine)

I admire your optimism. :smiling_imp:

The primary job of a TD is to get the ruling right, the first time. So, if you need to look up a rule, go ahead. As you become more familiar with a wider cross-section of US Chess rules, you’ll need to do that less. (OTOH, that is a good indicator you’ve probably been directing too much. :laughing:)

Another tech-based recommendation: buy the electronic copy of the sixth edition rulebook and keep it on your smartphone/tablet. For me, it’s better than carrying around a paper rulebook. Even if I don’t know exactly where a rule is, the ebook is searchable, and I’ll always have it on me. As a bonus, if I’m running FIDE events, I can just access the LoC online, right at the scene of the dispute.)

Answer to Q3: Unless an organizer or the chief TD above me in a US Chess event has announced otherwise, I tend to use a very strict reading of Rule 21D, and not volunteer rules advice. My reasoning is that it avoids any possible charge of favoritism. There are other points of view that are very reasonable. My ultimate advice: do what you feel you’re comfortable with doing - but be 100% consistent, regardless of venue.

Answer to Q4: I would absolutely take any involved players out of the playing hall. You did well there, IMO. (This is actually another great reason to take a picture of the board - and, in this particular case, the scoresheets. Now, you have indisputable photographic evidence without disturbing the board, and can discuss it at length outside, if needed.

If I’m reading this correctly, I think all of these scenarios can be handled by US Chess Rules 13C7 and 13C8. You’re free to use both score sheets to resolve the claim to the best of your ability. Just remember that you could not rule that Black lost on time based solely upon Black’s notation - White’s notation still has to satisfy the conditions of Rule 13C7.

Regarding Rule 13I: I tend to employ a “three-strikes” approach to such situations. I’ll give a specific instruction to comply with a certain rule (strike 1), a repeat instruction with a specific penalty for non-compliance (strike 2), and assessment of penalty for continued non-compliance (strike 3). It becomes much harder for a player to reasonably complain about unfairness or lack of notice if you give him multiple chances to correct rule-breaking behavior.

Regarding Rule 15F4: You do, of course, have the option of not requiring reconstruction up to that point. However, if you’d previously instructed Black to resume notating, and he had not, I would certainly consider an immediate time penalty of some kind. I would also start the three-strikes procedure, and instruct him that he is now required to take notation from this point forward, as required by US Chess rules.

20

Thanks all very much for your help! I appreciate all the great advice and the input – and validation that I didn’t act outside of what would be expected.