Well the ten-move rule came up again this weekend…
Two nine-year old boys, rated about 1000, were playing in an “adult” tournament. They come up to me and told me this story:
Black says to White, “Aren’t I missing a bishop?” They look at the board and the table. There is only one black bishop. They look under the table: no black bishop. They take it upon themselves to go to an open board, and play over their scoresheets. Indeed, they both agree there should be a black bishop on c8.
Now they ask me, “What do we do now? Put a black bishop on c8?” I look at their scoresheets. They are on move thirteen.
I calmly and carefully explained that according to the rules, after ten moves, an illegal position cannot be changed. The game continues. Black starts to cry. White also seems bothered and surprised.
Here we have two young boys, who knew something was wrong. They approached the situation together, and rather intelligently. I have an obligation as TD to enforce the rules. It seems rather obvious, at least to me, that my interpretation should be accurate. Is it just? Am I wrong?
Both boys were ready to put the bishop on the board and continue. If they didn’t hesitate and ask, they would. They did learn a lesson about the rules; that is important. It still hurts to see a child cry.
Hang on a second. You say “after 10 moves,” but who’s to say when the bishop was last sighted? It might have been fewer than 10 moves beforehand. Was it conclusively proved that the board had been set up without the bishop in question?
There wasn’t a second black bishop anywhere to be found around the board. I believe I made that clear as the boys explained it to me. I went to their board and saw the situation. They were accurate.
I find it hard to believe they actually started without a Black bishop and didn’t notice it. Even kids don’t miss that sort of thing. I would have put the Black bishop on c8 and let them continue from there, or if bishop reappearing on c8 causes something bad to happen such as white’s queen had moved to g4 and putting bishop back on black’s move allows him to take the queen that’s now en prise. Then go back to White’s hanging queen move and play a different queen move.
It seems to me you punished them for doing the right thing by pointing out the irregularity. They could have just put the bishop on and continued from there.
I’m going to join the crowd here and say that you could have found a way to bend your assumptions about the situation to fit the desired outcome. As you say, the other outcome was a win-win-win. The benefit that the kids learned something about the rules seems unimportant not only here, but also in just about every other case where people say it. This is not really a rule that players have to know.
Joe, in this case, maybe you were thinking too hard.
If you put the bishop on c8 immediately, is a queen hanging the only condition that someone would call bad? How does the TD judge if a position is bad? Does the possibility of removing the guard, or a three move checkmate qualify? You should not make a ruling based on playing strength of the players, and the potential of whether they will see a strong continuation.
If you find it hard to believe, that is prejudice before evidence.
You have failed to establish exactly when the Bishop went missing. You state that 13 moves had been made in the game, you state that there is no sign of a second Black Bishop anywhere near the board in question, this means that it is even possible that the Bishop just [last move] went missing! You are correct in pointing out the rules to these young players so that they learn the rules properly. Also, you maybe should have stressed that they should bring any irregularities IMMEDIATELY to the attention of the TD. Having stated that let me say that if the Bishop did disappear withing the last 1 and 1/2 moves, then the Rules do allow for it to be replaced. It may not be a question of the 10 move rule, but rather of a different rule entirely. It is always important when dealing with youngsters to clearly establish what did or has happened and to make clear what and why of a rule for their understanding.
Although you are not to interfer if possible in a game, maybe after enforcing the rule as you did the suggestion of “good sportsmanship” draw offer may have been in order[i.e. If one player feels he has been given an unfair advantage that he shouldn’t, then in the spirit of fair play he can then offer a draw]. After all there are some players out there who will take any little advantage [even start the clock early] they can get. That is not the attitude to instill in youngsters.
To establish when it disappeared, you have to establish that it existed. I could not establish that it existed at all. I have to conclude it wasn’t there.
Any director that bends assumptions to fit a desired outcome is also prejudiced.
They are kids. They are playing, as I said, in an adult tournament. Should I make the same decision between adults in the same tournament? As small as the cash prize is, ($50), I have to treat all players equally, hopefully without prejudice.
“This is not really a rule that players have to know” is almost saying that the rulebook doesn’t matter. The rulebook is too detailed. I campaigned against the rulebook in 2007 when I ran for the Executive Board. Yet I am still bound by the rules, and must enforce them. If TDs have to enforce, players better be prepared.
Joe, your ruling was certainly a correct one. It’s a good point that it was an adult tournament, and between adults it’s more likely that one of them would have played lawyer and demanded you prove that the bishop was there on move 4, or something like that. I can see the problem.
I was clearly stating that I was proposing a slightly less righteous but more expedient solution. Rather than put nice words around it I said it plainly.
It’s ridiculous for players to learn 400 pages of rules. You learn the basic rules, probably about five pages worth, you play in the tournament, and when a problem comes up you call the TD and it’s his job to know the other 395 pages worth. You can even be like a GM (from what I’ve observed of such cases) and invent creative new rules and interpretations to support your position on the spot, not knowing nor particularly caring if they’re in the rulebook, and leave it to the TD to straighten the mess out.
That is so right! I don’t know how often rules have cost USCF members directly. I do know that the rulebook scares potential director/organizers.
This rulebook has been developed over decades. I can’t say that any of the conditions presented are wrong, but are they necessary? What are directors or potential directors more afraid of? Making the wrong decision, or being reported to USCF? I don’t know of any harsh rulings by Rules Committee or TDCC against a TD, when the TD can demonstrate impartiality in an action.
If people didn’t make mistakes, no one would win a chess game!
I used to know all the rules. I thought that was expected. I gave up being a weekend TD around the time the USCF started publishing rules in the magazine. Imagine, a rulebook that doesn’t even contain all the rules! Of course by that time I no longer knew all the rules, but this tactic made it impossible even to try.
The FIDE rules that I learned first were a model of clarity. It is no accident that FIDE was founded in France, the same country that gave us the Napoleonic code. By contrast, the USCF rulebook strongly shows our own common law heritage. But is it necessary to have such complexity in chess? It almost seems that every protest to the rules committee results in a new rule.
In the case of the missing bishop, I think the older rules would have given the TD much wider discretion to decide what to do, including the option selected. Other remedies were to replace the bishop as if it had just happened, or to start the game over as if the initial position had been incorrect. The modern 10-move rule (now modified to 2 moves for time pressure, as I learn here) seems to me a convenience for the TDs and not any help to the players or indeed of any benefit to chess.
TDs want certainty in the rulebook, but it can’t work. More words means more to know, more to forget, more to misinterpret.
I would expect an NTD to shoot from the hip and be right.
I would expect a Club TD to physically drag the rulebook with, along with the revisions document. And if a ruling comes up outside the TD’s knowledge and experience, to look it up then and there.
Well, that’s what I expect of myself at any rate. But I study the rulebook very regularly. And I look up rules afterwards (and/or ask a more experienced TD, to confirm my judgment.) Then on the gripping hand, I’m shooting for a first pass closed-book 100% on my Local exam sometime late this year (then use open book to actually take the exam.) Forget where I first read that here.
And it is far from impossible for a person to study 400+ pages, memorize key passages and assimilate most of the content. Especially to familiarize oneself to a degree that when it comes time to rule, one doesn’t have to look it up but also knows exactly where to look in the Book.
I cannot argue with any of the points made above. I can say that at the local club, you are asking a lot from the guy who gets corralled into directing, and is only required by USCF to sign a statement that he has read the rulebook.
In the two rulings I descibe in this thread, more important than the actual rules interpreted, is the approach taken to come up with a ruling. The methodology to arrive at a ruling, the attitude of the TD towards both the players and the rules, and above all impartiality, the lack of prejudice, takes a TD a lot farther to make a sound ruling. Unfortunately that is only tested by USCF in ANTD/NTD exams.
I was using the hanging queen as an example. I just think it’s unfortunate that Black got “penalized” when they both agreed that they don’t know when the bishop went missing. I assume this adult tournament was the Westfield Quads where the lower quads tend to be a “scholastic section” within a quad. (4 kids of low rating.) I know the 10 move rule, and maybe I’m too much of a softee, but perhaps restarting would have been more equitable, and time split if a lot of time had elapsed.
Although I am sympathetic to your situation on having to make a ruling of this nature, there is no way that I can feel sorry for either of the players in this instance.
When I am playing in a tournament it is my responsibility to make sure I know: where I am playing, who I am playing, on what board, and what color. When I find the board, or set it up if needed, I make sure that it is set up correctly. I ask to make sure that I am playing the right opponent. I play my game. If a piece comes up missing in the opening stage of the game, I am going to notice. If one of my opponents pieces goes missing in the opening, I am going to notice. I cant think of material going AWOL and not noticing. If a piece disappears and I don’t notice, how much attention was I really paying to the game? If I have to get a tournament director involved, they are going to have to make a ruling and i am going to have to live with it.
No matter what the feelings are about the outcome as a director you did your job. Thank you.
About half of the rulebook (200 pages or so) does not contain rules but reference material (ratings, RR tables, …). Chapter one, “USCF Section-Rules Of Play” only takes up the first 100 pages. Chapter two is nothing more than an administrative guide for TDs.
Or they could have put a $10 bill on the square, called it a bishop, and given it to Joe Lux at the end of the game.
I’m kidding, of course. But looking at the rules again, it’s not at all clear to me that the 10-move rule even applies, given that:
Neither player made an illegal move.
The board was not set up incorrectly after an adjournment.
If the test of a good rule – or a good decision in the absence of a rule – is whether it’s fair and appropriate, I think Joe Lux’s decision fails the test. In the classroom management philosophy that a number of teachers I know employ, “fair” is defined for kids as everyone getting what he or she needs. Do people think these two young men needed a lesson in the 10-move rule more than they needed a simple and mutually satisfactory solution to a problem and a challenging, balanced and enjoyable game?
This situation should have been one they’d look back on and laugh about, not one they’d look back on and grumble about.