Two players, around 1800, were playing at G/45. On white’s 11th move, White plays Qd3. But the queen was on e1. The king was on d1. Obviously the pieces were set mistakenly.
Black makes the claim that it is too late to change anything. The king stays in d1; the queen stays on e1. Well, that is correct by the rulebook, and I agreed.
White then asks Black why didn’t you mention it earlier. Black responded that wasn’t Black’s responsibility. Black went on and on…and gave me the clear impression that Black knew the position was incorrect.
I took half of Black’s time away for unsportmanlike behavior.
White started to talk to another player sitting at the same table in a foreign language. Black happened to be able to speak that language. White was cursing Black out.
I took half of White’s time away for unsportsmanlike behavior.
Rule 11F in part states: “If before the completion of Black’s 10th move, it is found that the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, or that the game began with colors reversed, then the game shall be annulled and a new game played.”
I think the key words that apply in your case are “it is found”. The rule assumes that it will be corrected as soon as it is “found”, but that was not the case here. Based on your statements, Black “found” it before move 10 even though it was not brought to your attention until move 11. I don’t like the idea of having a player knowingly play an incorrect starting position. Based on your actions, you seem to agree.
I would have handled it differently. I would have had them start over from move 1 with no adjustment to the clock. If Black argued that it was too late, I would have pointed out that the rule states that it has to be “found” in the first 10 moves and that his answer indicates that he knew it all along.
If he continues to protest, I’d point out that rule 11J prohibits deliberate illegal moves and I would consider knowingly playing a move from an incorrect starting position as included. It might not be a bad idea to add specific wording to 11J to cover this situation.
If Black protests that there is no proof that he knew the K&Q were reversed, I’d point out that his claim that it’s not Black’s responsibility is proof. I’d also debunk that claim by pointing out that as they are playing the same position, that they have equal responsibility. Black should not benefit from his own deliberate silence on the illegal position.
I might also be inclined to point out to Black, that if he wants to continue to argue that it’s too late, that 11J also allow the director to “impose penalties” beyond what has already been ruled.
Black is free to file an appeal to the USCF rules committee, but I’m not so sure Black would want to embarrass himself by claiming he has no responsibility to point out an illegal position.
The exact wording, “found”, in the rulebook is a good trick. Did you know that, Harold, or is that from just looking it up?
In the field, you have to prepare to shoot from the hip. No tournament director could be expected to know the exact wording of every rule, or expected to look up every rule before a ruling.
Make sure that, by analogy, you are not requiring a player to call his own flag if he knows he is down (so as not to mislead the opponent.) Or point out triple repetitions even if one doesn’t want a draw. I guess they are not the same but want to be sure.
I think this was a fair approach. I might have given both the option of choosing this alternative, or beginning a “new” game with pieces in the correct positions.
Then( as a fact of business) I might also need to take into consideration the time restrictions on the playing area. Perhaps the playing hall or space has been rented for a specific time period, which would hinder a new/fresh game being started. Just a dumb ol-cowboy’s take on it ( That I might add has never run a rated tournament )
I looked it up because it didn’t seem right to me that a player could benefit from behavior I consider to be unethical.
I often look it up when I have a dispute. I do it for 2 reasons.
First, if I have any doubts, I read it myself just to make sure that the player’s recollection is not the correct one.
Second, I show the player what the rule is, when he seems certain that I got it wrong.
It has been my experience that disagreeable players (and parents) find it much more difficult to argue that they are correct when I can show them in black and white that I’m following the rules. This works most of the time. When it doesn’t, I hand them the rulebook and say “if you can show me that I got it wrong, I’ll reverse my ruling”. They rarely even try after that.
11F continues: “However, the players shall begin the new game with their clocks still reflecting the elapsed time each player used in the annulled game”.
I mentioned the clock in my first post on this topic
I am not impressed by using legal trickery by the tournament director, to make a ruling involving legal trickery on the part of the player.
We are bound by the FIDE rules, except where USCF clearly takes exception for American tournament styles and structures. You couldn’t change the rules on how to move the knight, for example.
If I remember correctly, the first rule, Rule 1A, by FIDE, is that the tournament director has discretion, especially on unsportsmanlike behavior. (I doubt this has changed much over the years.)
A player makes an unethical action, call him on it directly.
I’m not sure why you would consider my proposed solution to be “legal trickery”. What would you interpret the word “found” to mean as used in rule 11F? Is it your impression that under 11F, pointing out the illegal position is optional?
You gave the impression in your initial post, that Black “found” the illegal position before move 11, but was looking for an advantage by not pointing it out. It was his own words that sunk him.
First question: I would interpret “found” the same way.
Second question: No
You are ducking the issue that Black’s action was unethical. You would just start all over with the expired time. You do not suggest anything to penalize Black for Black’s action, or inaction in this case. You are effectively playing Black’s game of trickery, and not setting a standard of behavior for the tournament.
Maybe I should have started the game over, but I wouldn’t reverse reducing Black’s time.
The result of the game has nothing to do with the discussion.
Accompanying Joe off topic … does this prevent the opponent from completing his scoresheet (and demanding to use yours to help him), then making the claim? What is the advantage of calling one’s own flag vs. staying quiet?
Yes, it does prevent him from completing his scoresheet to make a claim. It is the player’s obligation to maintain the scoresheet during the game. You are allowed to be missing two move-pairs to make a claim. Missing more than that during the game indicates that the player has not maintained his scoresheet.
For example: A player could not move quickly and miss, let’s say, twenty moves from his scoresheet, see his opponent’s flag fall, and then fill in the twenty move-pairs. He would not have been maintaining his scoresheet as required by the rules. The scoresheet is invalid. The rulebook sets the standard that is allowed.
I don’t think it’s necessary to adopt what I consider to be your tortured interpretation of “found” in order to rule that Black has demonstrated unsportsmanlike behavior.
If you want to punish him for being unsportsmanlike, then just do it. Almost by definition, “unsportsmanlike behavior” means doing something that is not contemplated in the rulebook. It is “beyond the pale”. To write these things down in the rulebook is to recognize them as possibilities - and the whole point of “unsportsmanlike behavior” is that “we just don’t do such things”.
I note that the rulebook uses “found” as opposed to “claimed”. I think the different choice of words by the authors was intentional. I, therefore, would not describe it as “tortured”.
Joe Lux wrote:
I wouldn’t say that what Joe did was wrong. When it comes to the “director’s discretion” rule, it is often entering new territory with deciding what, if any, punishment is appropriate.
I am not aware of anyone intentionally having played an illegal starting position in one of my tournaments. It happens a lot (unintentionally) in my scholastic events, but I also walk down the aisles checking to see that the pieces were set up correctly.
I don’t know what punishment is proper. Restarting the game will at least remove the advantage of White’s misplaced pieces.
In at least one way it does. White was playing the rest of the game with the K&Q on the wrong starting squares and I’m curious if White was allowed to castle. If not, this could have placed White at a great disadvantage.
)
