Ok, I’ve never heard of a precedent in this case, and I can’t seem to find any specific rule in the USCF rulebook about this, so I’m hoping for some feedback/suggestions …
Two players are playing in a swiss tournament with a time control of 40/2, SD/1. They are in the first time control, and a little before move 30, both players are in time pressure. They use tick marks to check off the moves, but do not keep exact score. Both players make time control safely, and it’s White’s turn on the 41st move.
Black, who has just made time control, gets up from the board. White, whose clock is running, then gets up from the board and takes his jacket and bag with him. Black, returning to the board, notices his opponent has taken his stuff with him and thinks his opponent has resigned. He stops the clock and once again leaves the playing hall, thinking he has won the game. White returns to the board and sees that the clock is stopped, and that his opponent did not go to see a TD. He then resets the board position and claims a win. Black now returns to the playing hall and is wondering what is going on. The TD is called over, and both players are claiming a win. White, whose position was worse, refuses to continue, while Black wants to continue. Black has a good idea of what the position was, and the TD also has an idea of the position. White probably also knows the position, but does not want to continue and instead is adamant in claiming a win.
Neither player bothered to fill in his scoresheet after making time control, and so both players scoresheets are complete only until just before move 30, with check marks after that.
For what it’s worth, I was not at the tournament site when this was going on. After looking in the rulebook and coming up empty, the TD then called me to check whether I knew of any rule. Any ideas?
This is the part I need more information. Why would White needs to reset the position on the board? Both White and Black did make the first time control, then Black left the board for personal reasons. The only time I know you can reset the position, for the restart of the adjournment. There was no official adjournment only two time controls. If the clock was still there, would feel the ownership of the clock was Blacks.
If White did take away his pieces, as Black was not at the board would feel White did resign. It looks to me that White did resign as the pieces needed to be reset at the board. In fact if White did not resign, the fact of removal of the pieces would pervent Black from making a legal moved on his own time. As Black cannot make a legal move without the pieces on the board, then have Blacks clock running. The other, as they were both making marks on the scoresheet. As the displacement of the board, then the whole reset of the position has to go on memory. Black can object to the reset board, so why did White need to reset the position?
If that is the case, I do not care if White resigned or not. I would forfeit White.
I came up with the same call but some of the information is a bit fuzzy to me. I’m reading that black left the game for a moment while his clock was running. As a collective 4 hour time control was just been reached, there’s nothing wrong or suspect about that. When black returned to the game, the clock was stopped and the pieces weren’t as he left them. If white was responsible for stopping the clock and messing with the pieces, white gets the loss.
Hmmmm…this looks very much like a question we wrote for the ANTD/NTD exam. A few details are left out and changed but it is a close match. Life imitating art???
Or maybe someone’s taking the ANTD/NTD exam and looking for help?
(Note that TIm was careful not to answer the question!)
BTW, Tom, as I read the question it was black who stopped the clocks and white who reset the pieces, both apparently without notifying the TD. Both share part of the blame.
Nope, not looking for help on any exam for a TD level - this happened at our chess club last night.
For the others, White did reset the position, but after Black stopped the clock. I’ll have to go back to my original message, but I thought I made it clear that White’s clock was ticking on the 41st move when Black got up.
For reference (“Black, who has just made time control, gets up from the board. White, whose clock is running, then gets up from the board and takes his jacket and bag with him.”)
So White got up while his clock was running, Black came back and noticed White had disappeared on his [White’s] turn, and so Black stopped the clock. He [Black] could not make a legal move anyway, since it wasn’t his [Black’s] turn.
Doh… Too early in the morning!
Yes, I did have black & white backwards but I don’t agree with a forfeit draw. There was nothing wrong with white taking a break even though his clock was running. They just completed 4 hours of chess and taking a breather is common at that point. Taking his coat & bag aren’t relevant… maybe he has a can of Red Bull in his bag and doesn’t want to leave his expensive coat. If he comes back and find that his opponent has stopped the clock and messed with the piece placement, the game is over and he can claim the win. That he reset the pieces wouldn’t be relevant either. The game ended when black resigned by stopping the clock which was running on white’s time.
Lets get this right. Black gets up and walks away from the board, then White gets up and walks away from the board. Black comes back and does not see White, but the clock is on during Whites’ turn. Then Black stops the clock when White is away from the board. Then Black walks away from the board a second time. White comes back and sees the clock is stopped on his time. White feels that Black resigned the game, then bag up the set. Feel now a little lost.
If you are not stopping the clock to talk to the director, or stop the clock to resign the game. Then you should not stop the clock period. I would not bag my set up, until I know the game is over. So White and Black are in error. The first error was with Black, as you should never stop the clock till you know the game is over or going to the director. The second error was with White, even with the clock stopped on your time, should be asking if the other player is going to find the director.
The more I look at it, with more information. I would have to say a forfeit draw would be right. As both players are in error, there is no fair way to rewarding White or Black. Restarting the game, would be unfair to the players in the next round.
At first I read it is Black stopped the clock after White removed the pieces. I do not know all the information of this game, and will not know it to make a final judgement. As the statements made are not that clear.
I’m afraid that I still don’t see an error on the part of white. When he stepped away, his clock was running. Nothing wrong with that. When he returned, the clock had been shut off and the position he left on the board wasn’t there. White had a legitimate claim of the win at that point. That he was resetting the final position isn’t relevant. When black came back, the TD was called over. Where is blacks claim for the win… white left the table with his clock running?
Conversely, IF there is no error on the part of white, there is no fair way to punish him for taking a break with his clock running by giving him only half a point.
I guess my view boils down to 2 questions… Did white break any rule by leaving the table while his clock was running? Did white break any rule by attempting to reset the board position before claiming the win?
The way I read it, Black stopped the clock and left. White came back seeing the clock stopped, then started to bag the pieces. If I came back to my board seeing the clocked stopped, I’m just going to leave it as is. As I do not know if the person I play with went to see the director.
What I like to know, as it would help. Who is the owner of the clock and the set? If the ownership of the clock and pieces is White, then Black has a weaker case to claim a win. As the claim on Black, White did take his coat and his stuff. If White left his set and clock, you would feel White would come back to get the clock and set. If the ownership is Black for clock and set, why would White come back to bag the set and board?
OK. Here is something that I interpretted one way but is open to interpretation. I thought that white returned and found the board NOT in the same position he left it. He was resetting the board in that final position. However, I can see now that he may be resetting the board to the initial position for a new game.
This would definately be the right thing to do if the board were in the position it was in when you left… get the TD to see what the hecks going on.
Ok, well, I wasn’t at the site, so I can’t tell you what was in White’s bag (Red Bull, candy bar, or anything else). I’m just passing along whatever info I got.
Black stopped the clock before White removed the pieces. When Black stopped the clock (thinking that White’s apparent disappearnce was tantamount to resignation), he did not change the board position in any way. I’m sure if he had, White would have told the TD about it.
It would make sense to check with the TD why the clock was stopped before doing anything else, since my first reaction on seeing a stopped clock during a game that I felt was in-progress would be to think that the TD was called over about some dispute. Given the time scramble, my gut reaction would probably be that the TD and Black were reconstructing the game position in an adjoining room.
However, White reset the board to the starting game position (i.e., 8 pawns and 8 pieces per side, original squares), and then only went to check with the TD.
Neither the set, nor the clock, belong to either player. The set and clock belong to the chess club. We provide boards/sets to all players, and these players checked out a clock before the round.
Tom, if you came back to your board and the clock was stopped with no opponent present, would your first reaction be ‘Oh, the game is over.’, or
would it be “Who the *&^%^ stopped the clock and why?” I suspect it would be the latter.
Maybe Black stopped it to summon a TD (if a TD was not present in the room, stopping the clock is permissable). Maybe the TD told Black to stop the clock, find his opponent, and have both players fill in the scoresheet before continuing.
What does White know for sure at that point? Next to nothing! Isn’t it his DUTY to find out, by summoning a TD, rather than assume the best possible result for himself?
In summary, while stopping the clock was probably the wrong thing for Black to do, especially since it was White’s clock that was running, resetting the pieces was ABSOLUTELY the wrong thing for White to do.
Maybe I should give Black a forfeit draw and White a forfeit loss? If that decision makes them both unhappy, it’s probably the right one.
Note, I haven’t tried to research this in the rulebook, I leave that scut work for the rulebook lawyers.
I’m in agreement now. My initial interpretation was that white returned to find the board rearranged. My understanding now is that the position was the same as when white left and the only thing different was the clock having been stopped. Yes, don’t touch anything. Get the TD.
Since it was the clubs set and clock, can understand why Black and White would feel this way. When Black came to the board, seeing White did take everything he had with him, leaving the set and clock. Black should not have stopped the clock. When White came back, seeing the clock stopped started to place the pieces away. White should not place the pieces away. Since the position on the board, has no notation that can bring the position back to the current state. Both White and Black would never be sure what the position would be. Im not even sure the time left on the clock for White and Black can be corrected. Since it is a club tournament, not sure if the game can be finnished at its’ late state.
The game should end in a forfeit. Willing to double forfeit both players, or a forfeit draw for both players.
I have a couple more questions that might need to be answered before I could make a ruling:
How long was White away from the board before Black stopped the clock? (5 minutes? 15 minutes? 30 minutes?)
After Black had stopped the clock and left the hall, how much time elapsed before he returned (5?, 15?, 30?)
On what rule is White claiming that Black has resigned the game?
How much time before the next round begins? (Or how much longer do we have the playing site on this evening?)
The reason to ask the first 2 questions is to determine if a player has violated the rule about being away from the board for more than 15 minutes without notifying the opponent or the director. If either player was gone for 15 minutes or more, then either player could be forfeited.
Stopping the clock without a valid reason is grounds to penalize Black, but I don’t believe it warrants a result of a loss or even a forfeit draw. Stopping your opponents clock is not the same as a draw offer.
Clearing the board (and refusing to cooperate!) is also grounds to penalize White.
If White is refusing to cooperate, I would be inclined to forfeit White.
Another ruling might be to reset the board to the last position as noted on the combined scoresheets of the players, around move 30, and then set each clock to 1 hour (or some lessor value) and have them continue the game as though the first time control had been made.
Since both players were guilty of infractions I don’t think they can argue with hardly any ruling, although I don’t see any reason to forfeit Black or to “penalize” Black by giving a forfeit draw.
The way that I understand it, Black returned to the board and beleived that his opponent had abandoned the position in accordance with rule 20H1 “Quitting without resigning.” As with any claim, black stopped the clock. Whether or not he intended to get the director, there was no error in stopping the clock as he beleived he had a valid claim. Further, he was not on the move, so this action only hurt him.
Upon returning, white believed he also had a 20H1 claim. As the clock was already stopped, it was his responsibility to see the TD for that claim to be adjuticated. Instead, he took the action of clearing a lost position off the board. No reasonable person would do this without first seeing a TD.
Therefore, Black acted in accordance with the rules and White acted outside of the rules. Note, I do not attach importance to whether Black intended to seek a TD, only that the procedure he followed in claiming a 20H1 claim was correct. And, thus Black deserves a full point and White deserves the loss.
Black can claim all of his actions were within the scope and intent of the rules, White cannot Further, White had the most to gain, as he clearly felt his position worse. (I suspect this may be the real reason for the quick destruction of the position)
Clearly, there is not enough evidence to make a ruling in this case. What is needed is a statement from both players and the TD on site as to the sequence of events, reasons, and intentions.
Why did black think that white resigned?
Did black stop the clock in order to summon the director, or did he just report the win?
It appears that black has left the building?
Did black reset the pieces to the initial position (as is common at the end of a game)?
To what position was white resseting the position to? The position as it was at the time he left the board or to the initial position?
Did white summon the director upon his return, or did he just report the win?
When is the next round and when did black return?
Who summoned the director and when?
Was the director aware of what was going on at the time?
How long was each player away from the board?
These, and more…
The rulebook cannot cover every contingency. The director has to make rulings based on the facts at hand, and then, inform the players that they have the right to appeal the decision. Even if the director contacts (as in this case) an outside source, the decision is still his.
