Strange tournament dispute (both players claiming a win)

Running Chess Tournaments
21

Only the director has the right to award a 20H1 claim; Black has no right to award the claim onto himself. If as a player, if I was going to ask a director on a rule 20H1, with the other players clock running. I would let the clock run, as the director can reject my claim.

If as a director, if someone makes a claim on rule 20H1, would tell the player to let the clock run, then go look for this missing person. Would check the bathrooms, the outside of the building to see if the player is smoking, if I know the persons car would check the parking lot. Not going to spend all the time looking for this person. If the event is huge, I could find myself not able to look for the player. If the player cannot be found, will look at the board and the time left to make the final call. As a rule 20H1 could expell the player from the event.

The other problem for Black with the 20H1 rule. Black came back and did not see White, then stopped the clock. White could have been away from the board only a minute. If Black was at the board without White for 15 minutes, then Black has a better claim for a rule 20H1. If Black came back and did not see White, then stopped the clock to see the director, would reject the claim. As Black cannot prove White was away from the board for 15 minutes. The claim on the clock would not prove nothing, as a clock cannot prove how long it has been running on each move. Even if it did, White could have been at the board during that time.

If Black did make the claim, would have told Black to restart Whites clock and stay at the board. Would have gone to find White, and we know White did come back to the board. If Black did make a claim of rule 20H1, Black would have been at the board when the claim was being reviewed.

Black was in error, as he stopped the clock and left the board.

22

The only problem I have with this is that it mentioned they did not have a complete scoresheet prior to making the time control.

We are missing some useful here. I like that better than a draw but white was losing anyway. Who would come back to their board with a losing position, see the clock stopped and just decide for yourself that you won. Again, we may be missing some key questions mentioned in other posts.

23

We are missing some useful info here

24

Thats true, why come back to a losing position and then make a claim of a win?

I know someone is going to say something about this statement. Club tournaments are much different then open tournaments to the public. Club players know each other, and they play with each other week after week. Each club tournament, they do take a life of there own with one club to the next. It looks like both players are very novice, as a skilled player would not make up their mind they won the game with a stopped clock and a player gone from the board. Forfeiting the players, is a good learning curve for both White and Black. Forfeit draw or a forfeit lose should be one or the other.

25

Gentlemen,

The details given are not all that good. It does not matter whose set it is and if someone took their jacket or not. . . If someone leaves their board (tournament area) without notice, they may be considered abondoning their game if they are gone for 20 minutes. I do not believe this to be the case since the TD was not notified of this claim.

Of course, it is needed inforation to know why each player claims a win. That was not given. If one player assumes his opponent has given up, stops the clock, and changes the board position, then he puts his own chances in the TDs as to who wins.

As stated in the rules, both players must keep score. If it comes down to recreating the game which would be impossible from 2 sets of incomplete score sheets, then the TD could forfeit both players.

26

Hi folks,

Vinay told me that he had posted a query about the dispute at our tournament this weekend. However, since he heard the facts second-hand, I’d like to clarify the situation.

The players stopped keeping score at about move 35 or 36. Upon reaching time control, black asked me if he was required to reconstruct his scoresheet; I told him that it was not required, as they were now in a sudden-death control.

White, who lost a rook while trying to flag his opponent, packed up his stuff and left the board on his move, WHILE black was at the board. Black, perplexed, decided after only a couple of minutes that his opponent must have been intending to resign and stopped the clock (his own), put it in its box, and marked the result in his favor on the wall-chart without calling over a TD.

White then returned to the playing hall, saw that black was leaving, and claimed that since black had stopped the clock and not called a TD that black had resigned. The pieces, which had been left in the final position, were now set up by white to the starting squares. Only at this point did the players see fit to call a TD over to resolve their dispute.

White’s claim was that he had merely been going out to get some fresh air, as he was angry that he had ruined his position, and that he didn’t feel comfortable leaving his possessions in the tournament room. He claimed that since black’s stoppage of the clock indicated a resignation, since the USCF rulebook gives only one exception for a clock stoppage that doesn’t indicate a resignation: when the player is trying to get a TD to make a claim. (13B) Since black had not gotten a TD, white claimed that he must have been resigning.

Black, on the other hand, felt that he had been maliciously duped by white, and was willing to continue the game. Both players (who were of expert/master strength) agreed that the position could be easily reconstructed; I had seen the game only a few moves before the incident and felt confident that I could vouch for the position, since the only moves I hadn’t seen had been recorded since the end of time pressure. White, however, refused to continue the game.

My judgement was as follows: black had not intended to resign, as evidenced by the fact that he had marked the score in his favor and that white was unwilling to state definitively that the position was one where a reasonable player with the black pieces would resign. (Black was up a clear rook at this point!) Just as how one is not obligated to move a piece that one has mistakenly brushed with an elbow, I felt that black should not be forced to mistakenly resign, as he had not resigned and then wanted to take it back.

Therefore, in light of white’s unwillingness to play on, I forfeited white, took statements from each player, which I have summarized above, and asked for scoresheets from each. Black gave me his reconstructed score, but white refused, even when told that he was breaking the rules and could be penalized. I told each other the players that I would look into their claims further, giving white his entry fee back and not rating the game if his claim was accurate, and rating the game if it was shown that white was in the wrong. As it is now, I have the game as an unrated forfeit by white.

Now that it’s been clarified a little, any further opinions?

And thanks for the help,

Andy Lee
East Bay Chess Club Director.

27

Andy Lee
East Bay Chess Club Director.

Thank you for tell us what happened. Can understand why Black stopped the clock. White was down a whole Rook, was upset at himself and the whole game. When Black was watching, did see White pack up his stuff and left the building. Black should have asked White what he was doing. Then again when someone is upset, people would feel its’ best to say nothing. If Black did ask, he could feel that White would be doing some venting on him.

Even without a verbal statement of resigning, Black should have come to you first. If Black told me what you have posted, would have told Black give me 15 minutes before making my final judgement. During that time would try to track down White. If White is still upset, would have forfeited him. As its’ not good for him, or for the club to play when he is upset. Since Black seeing White upset and walk out the building, would still give a warning to Black but not forfeit.

I’m having a great deal of a problem with White. Since White was upset, he still should not have been upset at you or Black. If I was in your place, I would have done the same.

28

I don’t think this is too tough to answer from my experience.

Black should not have assumed anything about white. If he thought white had resigned he should have been looking for a TD to ask what the next step is, and the TD should say that black should wait longer (maybe 15 minutes) for white to return.

In the meantime, the TD could go looking for white to determine what his intentions were. This is in keeping with reporting the final score properly. Finding out that white still thought he was playing, the tell white he needs to get back to the board and continue play.

I think the way it all played out, however, should have resulted in a double forfeit. White loses because he gave no indication he was coming back. Black loses because he assumed white wasn’t coming back.

Radishes

29

If White was not upset, would say that would be right. The way the director talked about the conflict, White was upset with himself and the whole game. Sure, Black was in error to feel that White resigned the game. There are a number of people seeing someone upset, and doing anything would make the person become more out of control. If Black asked White if he was resigning, could have made a bad problem become worse.

I do not know the state of mind White had during the last few minutes of the time control. As White was upset with the director, do feel that Black without asking did pervent White from venting his anger out onto Black, and everyone in the tournament hall.

30

I’m not completely sure how upset white was when he left the playing hall. However, if I found myself in the same situation as a player, I would simply inform the TD after a few minutes had passed, since players sometimes do leave the board rather unexpectedly.

As a TD, I understand that the initial wrongdoing was committed by black, who prematurely ended the game and tried to officiate his own game without the help of the TD. However, it’s my belief that if at all possible the players should play chess and that should direct the result; in this case I had to assume that the mistakes and errors in communication were honest and that neither player was acting maliciously, despite how it appeared to the players. That’s why I first tried to get them to continue the game and was loathe to just hand out a double-forfeit.

31

I really don’t see how you can forfeit Black for putting away the clock during the game. It’s a very strange thing to do, but it shouldn’t be punishable by loss of game, unless there is time pressure. Clearly White shouldn’t be allowed to set up the pieces in the middle of the game, either, so what I would have done is to warn both players and set up the position again as correctly as possible and then started White’s clock. This seems a lot more fair than enforcing any kind of forfeit. Perhaps Black should be assessed some minor time penalty.

Alex Relyea

32

That solution would be reasonable, but when asked, white told me repeatedly that he would not, under any circumstances, resume the game. So setting it up and starting his clock seemed like it would just be a waste of time.

33

Can see the error that Black did make, then the error that White made with the position. Forfeiting both Black and White, would be a total break down. Its’ not ideal what White and Black did during the event. Since it is a club tournament then a standard event, it does place a higher level onto the director: just to forfeit even one of the players. Since the position could be the way it was before White re-set the board, the game should have restarted. If the record of what the time was on the clock could not be corrected, would have set the clock to the start of the last time control.

Sine White was not going to play out the game, would have forfeited White. Director Lee did everything he could to get the game restarted, even when he had the right to forfeit both players. White was given a second chance, he just turned it down.

34

Now that Andy Lee has posted his clarification, it’s pretty clear what the ruling should be. (As far as I’m concerned, it was pretty clear anyway.)

In some situations, if you assume the best motivations by both players, you come up with one ruling, whereas if you assume the more likely (and more cynical) motivations, you come up with another.

Fortunately, this is not one of those cases. Either set of assumptions eventually leads to the same result.

If you assume the best, then each player mistakenly thought the other had resigned. In other words, none of the gestures that could have indicated resignation resulted in a meeting of the minds. So the ruling is simple: the game continues.

If, after this ruling is issued, one player refuses to continue, then of course he has thereby resigned. (And it’s a RATED game, not a forfeit.)

If you assume reality, then you have to notice that (1) white had just dropped a rook in time pressure, and (2) white left the board when his own clock was running, and (3) white took his jacket and equipment with him and left the room, and (4) white nevertheless returned a few minutes later, and (5) white then obfuscated the evidence by resetting the pieces. While none of these actions is illegal, the combination of them all is so convincing as to make any director WANT to declare black the winner.

Fortunately, either of these rulings will result in a win (eventually) for black.

So, simply rule that the game must continue, and you’ll get the right result. If you want to punish black a little for posting the result without notifying the TD, simply make black wait 15 minutes with white’s clock running before declaring the game over.

Bill Smythe

35

I was assuming that this tournament has finshed. If that’s not correct, and the game can be continued, then you should rule that the game continue, forfeiting either player who refuses to continue. This is justified by the rule which states “players must abide by the laws of chess”. The TD, being the Arbiter, determines the interpretation of the laws, so if white continues to refuse to abide by your ruling, you must forfeit him for “refusal to abide…”.

Now, if this tournament is completed, with no possibility of the game resuming, you must, in some way, punish both players for not complying with correct tournament procedures.

Black should not have assumed the game was over, as White had not indicated that he resigned: he did not stop the clocks, shake hands, say “I resign”, mark the result, etc. Therefore, Black should learn the lesson that he had acted improperly by:

  1. stopping the clock while his opponent’s clock was running,
  2. putting the clock away, and
  3. not notifying the TD of the situation.

Let this be a lesson to all: Do not assume! Call the TD and allow him to make a ruling.

White, too, acted improperly by resetting the board. He, too, should have called the TD over to make a ruling. He exasperated matters by refusing to comply with the TD’s ruling to continue the game. Acting in this manner, he should probably be given an even harsher penalty than Black, based on unsportsmanship behavior.

Having said all that, Black has to be penalized for stopping the clocks without notifying the TD. Forfeit him

White has to be penalized for resetting the board, not complying with the TD’s rulins, and showing unsportsmanship conduct. Forfeit him + exact a fine, up to the amount of the EF.

Double Forfeit Loss.

I’m not sure, though, if a Double Forfeit effects ratings. Pieces were moved, and the game ends up adjudicated by the TD. Would there be a rating change here? Clearly, there should be (they should both lose points). Anyway, the game has to be submitted as a rated game. If a double loss doesn’t affect the ratings, then I would forfeit draw Black, and forfeit loss white. Maybe I can modify my thinking here based on more input from Bill, Mike, Tim and Dave.

Terry Winchester

36

What ???

If your opponent dropped a rook in time pressure, then, after the time control, grabbed his jacket and bag and left the room, while it was still his move, wouldn’t YOU assume he was abandoning the game? That’s apparently what black assumed, and it was a reasonable assumption. Black’s error in not calling over the TD was more of a technical error than anything else. Forfeiting black is WAY too harsh.

This is more like it, although even for white this seems unnecessarily harsh. Simply making sure he loses the rating points is good enough for me.

It doesn’t – unless the TD reports it is a (played) loss for both players, and USCF lets him get away with it. If the rating report is submitted on-line, such a result might show up as a serious-level warning, requiring an explanation from the TD, and office intervention.

Turning in a result where both players lose points would deflate the rating system. If it seldom happens, then of course the effect is negligible. Nevertheless, I think it’s important not to try to use the rating system as a means of punishment for bad behavior.

Ratings are supposed to be an indication of a person’s playing strength. If points are deducted for reasons like this, both players simply become under-rated by the amount of their deductions. Ultimately, the players will get back their rating points, at the expense of others in the rating pool. The only players really being punished are the eventual future opponents of the two combatants. Let’s not do this!

Bill Smythe

37

I think anything other that a rated loss for white would be a reward. Perhaps white is even throwing this tantrum to avoid that result.

I agree that black’s mistake is technical and does not warrant harsh reaction.

If the tournament is still on, force White to play on or lose. TD’s discretion and disregard for rules more than empower the TD to do this. Otherwise, give the win to black, who deserves it for playing a better game and not refusing to follow direction when instructed. White effectively resigned when refusing to follow directions.

Good luck! :slight_smile:

38

Every situation will not be in the rulebook. We have to make consistent, commonsense calls. Clearly black did not follow the rules (how unusual) but did it warrant him losing a game? These were expert/master strength players. White knew the game was over and I can understand why black thought it was over as well. The TD gave white the option to continue the game and I feel that was the right call. White did not want to continue. I would not have used a forfeit; I would have used it as a resignation.

39

You made a ruling.
That ruling was based on the facts you had on hand.
It appears to be a reasonable ruling.
Stick with it!
Inform white of his opportunity for an appeal.
When white refused “under any circumstances” to continue the game, you declared the game won by black.
Again, that is your ruling.
Stick with it!

Although you have the right (under your discretionary powers) to penalize both players up to the loss of the game, I does not sound like black was intentionally trying to decieve. Continuing the game is a reasonable thing to do.
You may impose any penalty you feel justified in doing, that IS your discretionary power.
For example:
Penalize black on the clock for his action. 1/2 the remaining time of the sudden death time control seems reasonable. His offense was serious, even if unintentional.

40

If White and Black need some type of punnishment, they should be sent to a Bill Smythe tournament. :smiling_imp: