Recently I was the floor director of a tournament in which a player made a vague claim of a draw in which the position was K+R vs. K+R. It was the last game going in the round so I was positioned next to it to observe in case there were any claims. The game was played with a delay clock with the feature turned on. While I knew that the position was theoretically clearly drawn, there is no rule that allows a player to claim a draw on those grounds. I asked the claiming player on what grounds he was making his claim. His only claim was that the position was drawn so I told him that I couldn’t rule it a draw and to keep playing. He played a few more moves and when I still wouldn’t rule it a draw, he stopped the clock and went to get the chief TD who is also an NTD.
The other TD came in looked at the position and told the player that if he wanted to claim a draw that he would have to make a claim of either 3-fold repetition or 50 move rule. He also told him to keep playing. The game ended shortly thereafter as a draw by agreement.
Rule 21D. Intervening in games. The director’s intervention in a chess game shall be limited to the following: 21D1. Answering rules questions. Answering rules and procedural questions. There are 5 others listed but do not apply here.
I know this may seem like splitting hairs to some but I discussed this with the other TD about a month later and we disagreed about how much information can be given to a player when he doesn’t specifically ask.
I am of the opinion that telling a player about the 3-fold or 50-move rules when he doesn’t specifically ask is not permitted because it could be considered to be giving unsolicited advice. The other NTD felt that in asking about having the position ruled a draw he was in effect asking for information on how to have his game declared a draw even though he never asked what he could do to get a draw.
I will add that the opponent didn’t complain that the TD was helping the complainant.
As long as it is done in the context of what constitutes a draw by three-fold repetition or 50 moves and when or how such a claim can be made and not related to the specific position, it sounds like ‘explaining the rules’ to me.
If a player asks to have the 50-move rule explained, telling the player seems the proper action.
If a player asks to have K+R vs. K+R ruled a draw, telling the player about the 50-move rule when the player didn’t ask seems to cross the line. Under 21D1 I wouldn’t be answering the question he asked. During the game I limited my answer to informing the player that there was no rule to call his game a draw based his position.
I don’t know what the player knew about the rules but I thought it would be inappropriate to tell him about 3-fold or 50-moves unless he asked a follow-up question something like “Is there another rule I can use to get a draw?” which he didn’t ask.
I’m trying to establish where the line is on what, if anything, the TD can volunteer beyond the answer to the question.
I’m not sure if the question came up either at the board or when the player went to get a TD but if the opponent asked “how can I claim a draw” then I can easily accept a TD mentioning 3-fold and 50-move as ways. In a K+R vs K+R, a trade down to K vs K could have also been mentioned.
I really think this is a matter of the style of the TD. You can justify explaining rules, or not explaining them.
A TD like Jeff W would likely explain the different options for trying to claim a draw (perhaps ad-nauseum) and make sure that players understand what is going on. A more “hands-off” TD, that feels it is the players responsibility to play their own game, may just say “no” and walk away without explanation.
Either style is ok, as well as styles in between those extremes.
I tend toward a full explanation the applicable rules. Vague claims are difficult. More than one time, I’ve seen players in a drawn position where a player moves, says something like “this is a draw” and punches the clock. Often repeated for several moves in a row. Sometimes, they even look at the observing TD as they say this. I tend to treat this as a comment, not a claim, especially when the clock is immediately punched or they make the comment after punching the clock. If they leave their own clock running and look at me, I would more likely take that as a request for ruling.
Now getting to Harold’s specific point. My philosophy is to explain the applicable rules. I might discuss the types of draws, how to claim including how to do so without a score sheet and so on. Another similar claim is the illegal move. When called to the board for an illegal move, I also make sure that they are aware of the touch move portion of the situation.
There was a question awhile ago about someone whose flag had fallen calling the TD to add time for an illegal move. My philosophy - admittedly a minority opinion - is that once called to the board by either player - I will enforce all rules, not just the specific claim or complaint. In this case, I will tell him he can’t make the claim as his flag is fallen. You may disagree with me but you don’t have much chance to change my mind.
I will also intervene in a game where one players behavior is likely to disturb games around them. I will get the offending player away from the board and ask them to be less of a problem.
That was a situation in which I was the TD. While I was consulting the rulebook and a Senior director the players agreed to a draw, and I took no action.
Interestingly enough, the rulebook does touch on this lightly, and the result would be a loss to the player with flag down.
And when you flip to 19G3 you get…
Even though 19G is in reference to adjourned games, the interpretation of the rulebook authors is that these situations are analogous (else why reference 19G) and so fits within 1A (Scope …“…applying…principles analogously.”).
I know that all claims within the rules are considered draw offers and the rule book mentions 7 of them. In this case the player was trying to make a claim based on a non-existent rule.
I guess we could discuss what is meant by “all”. I take it to mean “all” 7 that are covered in the rule book. As the claim made here was not valid, I don’t follow that an invalid claim means a valid draw offer.
In addition, the opponent knew that the claimant wanted a draw because he had already turned one down and he also heard his opponent’s erroneous claim. I did not inform the opponent that he was making a draw offer.
Illegal moves are covered in rule 11A which also mentions applying the touch move rule (rule 10) so you’re not doing anything beyond what the rule requires.
In the case of explaining types of draws to a player who asks about K+R vs. K+R being a draw, and doing it during the game when he can benefit from the unsolicited advice I think that goes too far. Isn’t that somewhat similar to telling a player he can call a flag when he asks what the time control is?
Would a TD find it acceptable for a spectator to give unsolicited information on the 50-move rule during a game? I think not. I believe the TD’s job during a game is to explain only that which he is asked. Isn’t that limitation spelled out in 21D1?
I prefer “thorough” to “ad-nauseum”. I rarely get requests for further explanation from the players (or from the parents/coaches of scholastic players after I’ve given them an explanation). The biggest exception is with the entire philosophy of using tie-breaks for any of the trophies.
I remember one time a master and an expert were playing a K+R vs K+R ending and the master made an ILC claim (the expert had lots of time). I first asked if the clock had a 5-second delay set, and when the answer was yes, I explained that ILC claims could only be made when there was no delay. That kind of disgusted the master since the ending was an easy draw. A few moves later he asked if there was any way to claim a draw, and that is when I treated it as a request for an explanation of the rules and mentioned the 50-move, 3-fold and K vs K draws. He started the 50-move countdown and the opponent shortly thereafter allowed a rook trade.
With two scholastic players in the K-3 section of a local tournament I wouldn’t bother waiting for a second request.
Jeff, the two terms aren’t mutually exclusive. One of the things that make you such a good floor TD is your patience in explaining these details. I just get a kick out of watching the unexpecting parents eyes glaze over when you start explaining how each different tiebreak is calculated, and the reason why one tiebreaker is better than another.
I don’t think this is the same as what happened to me. In his case he was specifically asked if there was any way to claim a draw while I was asked to declare a draw based on a non-existent rule and not about other drawing methods. He correctly answered what he was asked while I was not asked about other ways to claim a draw.
Am I the only one who sees this (telling about the 50-move rule when not asked) as giving unsolicited advice? I don’t see where 21D1 gives the TD that authority. The rule states “Answering rules and procedural questions”. If it also said “and any other related advice that could be helpful” then I would also inform the player of the 50-move rule.
By giving this additional unsolicited information, I must question how far those that do so feel a TD can go before it is considered giving too much information under 21D1.
Sometimes players do not know what question to ask of the TD. I don’t assume that players are fully familiar with the rules. There have been a number of changes to the rulebook that the players find lack clarity. For example, the ILC rules have been debated frequently on this forum. Every year there are new ADM’s about this rule to be debated by the delegates. While many TD’s keep up with the changes and download them, the players do not. Those players that do have a rulebook often find their perception of the rules at odds with the TD. We have not had a complete rulebook revision and publication in a long time.
On the scholastic level, the kids knowledge of the rules is often based on the well meaning but often fragmentary information of adults. I have been asked about the 25 move rule. What is that? The player has to mate within 25 move after taking the last pawn or piece. Then there is the bare king rule where whoever gets their king to the other side first wins. You laugh, but kids’ misperceptions of what constitutes the rules is striking. We have all had to deal with similar situations where players have a weird notion of what the rules are.
In the given situation of this thread, I would have asked the player what rule he wishes me to rule on, what claim, if any, is he making. I would tell him that I may not be able to make a specific position assessment or ruling. That is not the TD role. But I would ask if he wants a clarification of a rule. Then I might have to identify and explain the different ways to draw. Don’t assume even GM’s to know the rules. With a smile to calm the obviously stressed player, I would tell him that if he asks the right questions he will get a correct answer according to the rules. I would certainly not abruptly say “no” to a question and walk away. The TD, whether he likes it or not, has a public relations role to play. Players expect to be answered and treated fairly and won’t play in events where they are not. As far as players who wish to use gamesmanship…well that is another story to be discussed in other threads.
At scholastics I’ve had the following erroneously cited rules that I can think of off the top of my head.
The 15-move rule (a mis-heard 50-move rule).
The 50-move rule being 50 total moves (25 by each player).
The 50-move count not restarting after a capture or pawn move, resulting in a draw being claimed if the game isn’t over after 50 moves.
The 60-move rule draw (if the game isn’t over by the time all 60 spaces on the scoresheet are used up).
The stalemate rule if the king has no legal move even if there are other pieces to move (simply pointing to the starting position and asking if that is stalemate because the king can’t move is usually enough to eliminate this one).
You must call check, and if you don’t then it can be ignored (alternatively, if you don’t call check then the checking piece can be removed).
You must call queen-check when the queen is attacked.
You can only castle with your king’s rook.
The rook moves two squares whether castling kingside or queenside.
The distracting an opponent rule (if your opponent allows himself to be distracted by other things in the playing hall and doesn’t notice that you’ve moved then he is penalized - came across this one at a national scholastic).
The no-copying rule (your opponent can’t copy or mirror your moves, eliminating things like the Petroff).
Three fold repetition (if you move a piece back and forth three times then you can claim a draw regardless of what the opponent is doing, so Nf3 d5, Ng1 e5, Nf3 e4, Ng1 c5, Nf3 is a draw).
Capturing en passant when done by a piece other than a pawn or to a piece other than a pawn (such as BxQ e.p.).
In many of these cases I’ve spent time explaining the applicable rules, which may not be precisely what the kids asked. Strangely enough very few of the kindergarteners have assimilated the rulebook in a way that allows them to word their requests precisely.
Some very strong players have to treated like kindergarten kids. They tend to run with scissors and do not get along well with others.
All too many players continue to argue about a rule even when they know they are wrong. Facts, TD tips, citation of specific rules, and logical explanation of the TD’s interpretation are irrelevant to this type of player. I find that the best practice is to stay very calm, let them rant a little (but only a little), and then tell them I have heard and considered all of their points but now I am making a final ruling. Occasionally all they wanted is to know they have been heard. (Works with kindergarten kids. ) If they persist, I tell them there is an appeal process. Once they hear they have to file a fee which they are unlikely to get back, they grumble a little and subside. Then they join the Tea Party movement, where everyone is entiltled to their own facts and interpretations and can rant endlessly .
I tend to come down on the side of not telling the claimant about the rules. I do agree with those who have stated that it’s a matter of style, and I certainly don’t fault those TDs who would disagree with my solution.
My preference is always to intervene as little as possible, and I firmly believe players are responsible for knowing the rules.
If an incorrect claim is made, I will explain why it is incorrect. But I will not tell a claimant about a rule during a game unless the claimant specifically asks about the rule in question. (The exception I make to this policy is in a non-championship section of a scholastic tournament.)
This is an interesting way of handling it. Getting the player to ask the right question instead of giving unsolicited information seems to be closer to rule 21D.
By telling a player that if he asks the right questions he will get the correct answer, you are informing him that there is a way. Although this does not specifically fall into the category of giving unsolicited advice, I do believe that asking the player to ask the right question does go beyond the scope of “21D1 … Answering rules and procedural questions”.
I was trying to walk what I consider is a fine line between answering his claim and not giving unsolicited advice. That is why I asked under what grounds he was seeking a draw. If he had said “50-move rule”, I would have responded that it’s not 50 yet.
I feel I have an obligation to both players. While giving unsolicited advice on how to draw to one player, I would also be doing a disservice to the opponent. Although it didn’t happen here, what if after the other director gave unsolicited advice on how to draw the opponent claimed that the TD was helping his opponent? I can see a debate between the 2 brewing. The player says “you’re helping my opponent” and the TD responds with “I was just telling him the rules”. The player then says “but he didn’t ask you about what ways he could make a claim”. What does the TD respond with to claim he was within the limitations of 21D?
I sometimes wait until after a game is over to educate a player about rules on which it is clear he is not familiar. I believe it is the director’s obligation to refrain from doing it during the game. By waiting, I feel I’m following the rules and doing public relations.
.