I have seen more than a few situations in which a director, upon advising a player of the rules, even when asked a specific question, was then accused of favoring that player by his opponent.
It sounds like the only acceptable response in all situations is, “I’ll make rulings on any claim made, but will not explain options or rules outside a stated claim while your game is in progress.”
And if the claim is invalid, you just rule it invalid and deny the claim. Seems pretty straightforward, but likely more difficult for the everyday flesh and blood human being.
It comes down to how ‘mechanistic’ your TD style is, and what is appropriate for the event and specific situation.
As long as both players get the same info (be fair to both players), just pick a style and consistently apply it (well…at least for that event). I have tried all of the methods outlined in this thread and have found that each has its charm.
nolan wrote:
This is a good reason why I limit myself to answering only that which is asked. If challenged by the opponent, I can point to the rule book as my grounds for answering. If I go beyond the limitations of 21D how do I properly defend myself against such accusations?
I do give the reason why I turn down a claim. For example, I would point out that a 3-fold claim was denied because the player started his opponent’s clock. I believe that by doing so, I am answering their claim. If it inspires the player to ask about the proper way to make the claim, then I’m on firm ground in answering their request on to claim a draw.
I am curious how anyone has defended their actions when accused of having gone beyond the limitations of 21D. I would be uncomfortable defending myself when I knew I went beyond those limitations. Of those directors who do give more information than requested, do any of you think that the list of exceptions in 21D should be expanded to include the unsolicited advice you currently give?
Tim Just wrote:
I am curious as to if you believe that all of the styles are in compliance with the rules as currently written. I don’t. Perhaps it’s just my “style”, but I feel strongly that if a rule is not written as intended, that it should be modified. I don’t think a TD should be picking and choosing the rules he’s going to apply without giving advance notice of the ones that differ from the rule book. That said, I think the limitations of 21D are correct.
jwiewel wrote:
Either your students are learning from mine or the other way around. Apparently these misconceptions are not exclusive to one area of the country. Even though I cover the rules correctly before they play, some make the above assumptions. I wish I knew an effective way to get them to understand.
Never underestimate the creativity of kids who are about to lose. A kid comes up with something to save his skin for a game and it gets passed on because he is “older and smarter”. It’s easy for someone to come into organized chess with a lot of misconceptions about the rules as excess baggage. “What do you mean that rule isn’t in there?!?!?”
I would be very surprised if you got any takers to your particular question, as that would imply that the TD has in fact given unsolicited advice. Very similar to, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” In other words, if you asked the right question you would get a correct answer. 
It’s hard to speculate, but I would guess that the “helpful TD” would not view what he or she has done as rendering unsolicited advice but rather broadly in the context of answering an implied procedural question with specifics of the rules. “I want to make a draw claim,” without specifics, may be seen as implying the question, “How can I make a draw claim? By what manner is that done?” Or rather, you are educating the player that proper tournament procedure for requesting a draw ruling includes specifying which rule applies to that claim. Whether that rule applies or not.
I’d fall more into the category of first asking the question, “What type of draw are you attempting to claim?” Thus putting it back into the player’s court to literally ask, “What types are there?” The reply, “Any one that I can!” can be answered with, “Well, I have to know specifically what type of draw ruling you’re requesting.”
Even so, I’m not entirely convinced that the story as given would fall into “unsolicited advice.” The clear violation there would be, “Well, if you move your Rook to h3 you will have repeated the position a third time…” Simply pointing out what rules are there under the category of draws doesn’t tell the player which one(s) may be applicable - if any. Likewise for the, “If you ask me right questions you get correct answers” line. That there is a right question to be asked is an assumption.
But probably the best defense answer for a TD facing a, “You helped him!” charge would be that this is the TD’s process for ALL claims delivered in this manner. Which, then, had better be true. (Including that 2200 player whom you know does know the rules but asks the question with deliberate vagueness.) Even that may not be enough - and may in fact be incorrect.
Where I think the real error may lie in your story is: The Chief TD came over to rule on a situation without having first consulted you with what ruling was already made. (Assuming you were present at the board the whole time as your recounting implies.) I don’t think players should be able to, “ask the other parent,” to get a different answer without the decision clearly being appealed - which would imply consultation with the TD with oversight for that game.
Should there not be one TD responsible for making board rulings at a particular board? I’ve worked scholastics where certain sections have a lot more questions than others - and twenty of them pop up at the same time, and TDs can help each other in larger tournaments. But in the general run of things, would it not be better to have had a single TD responsible for that game?
That said, is it possible that the other player had asked a different question when he went to get the Chief TD? Something like, “I think I have a draw on my board, but the other TD won’t give me a draw. How can I have this game ruled as a draw?” Or something else that may open up the situation for a different reply.
.
Chess has some duboius terminology. The ambiguous term ‘move’ is one instance.
Doubtless the term ‘move’ is usually understood correctly as intended. Yet based on the evidence in this thread and other anecdotal experiences, the chess rule books could be improved and be clearer (easier to understand) with some improvements to terminology.
Improve the terminology?
I use the terms (a) ‘move-pair’ and (b) ‘move’.
The 2003 “5th” edition of the USCF rule book has no glossary. However, for some terms it lists “definition” in the index, such as for ‘move’, which refers to page 12:
“a move is the transfer of a piece from one square to another”
I understand the students’ confusions about the 50 “move” rule.
.
Even the term move-pair has been debated. One NTD was adamant that a move-pair was white-black only and missing white’s and black’s 15th move on a score-sheet was one missing move-pair while missing black’s 15th and white’s 16th was two move-pairs (significant for things like ruling whether or not a scoresheet is complete enough to support a non-SD time forfeit claim). It took intervention from rulebook writer Tim Just to get the NTD to accept the explanation that the second case was also one move pair. This is even though page 32 (rule 13C7) explicitly describes a move pair as either white-black or black-white.
In any case, the fifty-move rule has been referred to as the fifty-move rule for so long that changing it to the fifty-move-pair rule has a very uphill battle to fight for general acceptance.
I have denied a 50-move claim when the player had completed 50 but the opponent had only completed 49 (in that case a new claim after the opponent’s next move was granted).
.
Poor use of terminology in 13C7. Too many problems in 13C7 to detail them all here.
.
May not be worth it to update it with Sudden Death taking the lion’s share of games. Updating 8F2 (Pawn’s first move) to explicitly allow capturing on the pawn’s first move would impact more games