Here is an example of a problem that occurred at the recent National Junior High Championships (Individual and Team event). I’m just going to provide the problem and not state how it was ruled at the event, but I’ve usually found that by discussing what people think and how they would have ruled, other TD’s (and players) will learn a lot, especially considering the different levels of experience and qualifications that exist here on the forum!
Players A and B are playing. Suddenly, Player A notices that there is a pawn missing on f7 that stops a back rank mate. Player A complains that Player B must have removed the pawn from the board, whereas Player B insists that the pawn was moved previously.
My question exactly! All sections are required to keep score in that tournament. Though a reasonably complete scoresheet is not a given even in junior high. (Having spent the entire weekend trying to go over my players’ games, it wasn’t always so easy.)
Obviously the best answer. Player A did indeed have one of the most wonderful scoresheets you could indeed ask for, and so were all of the games that player had notated! It was indeed looked at and found that there should have been a pawn on f7. Now what?
Well, in the “actual” version of events, I do not know any information about Player B’s scoresheet! There is a good reason for this (which I may give later), but mainly because I wasn’t the TD involved. However, as a group we all regularly met to discuss the types of situations that had occurred so we could learn from the rulings made by the senior members of staff.
I think for now, and just in terms of this being a learning experience, I will state that Player B’s scoresheet was not up to date, or not the most accurate, which I think is the majority for the players that were playing in this particular section.
So the pawn goes back on the board, and player A mates player B. However that still doesn’t deal with the implication of cheating. Seems unlikely that the pawn “accidently” got pushed off the board.
There appears to be one more thing to consider before imposing a cheating penalty. Was there an opportunity for anyone other than player B to remove the pawn from the board. It would be a pity to very severely penalize a player for something done by a 3rd party without consent.
Both players would first be asked if anyone else had touched any pieces on the board. Then I would ask if the board was ever left unattended by both players. Player A has no motive to remove their pawn. If it’s obvious (from only “no” answers to the above two questions) that nobody else had opportunity to remove the pawn, then only player B had motive and opportunity to do so. In that case, I think that player B should be withdrawn from the tournament for the very serious offense of cheating.
If there had been an independent witness that saw the piece removed by Player B, a USCF suspension could even be initiated. If the same player had been known to have been withdrawn by the TD in prior similar situations, I would encourage this.
If there was any reasonable opportunity for a 3rd party to remove the pawn (with possible unknown motive), then I would give player B a 0-point bye in the next round and a very stern warning. The reason for this is that Player B is still the most likely suspect and, even if a 3rd party actually committed the offense, it was very likely done to benefit Player B. The possibility remains of Player B being a victim, albeit very small, so the penalty should be reduced from withdrawal in consideration of this, as I see it.
This is most likely correct, but a cynical person would say that player A’s motive (for removing the pawn at an earlier point in the game) could be to have player B think the mate threat did not exist and then, once player A had the rest of the mating net ready, player A could have the pawn restored to the board for the final nail in player B’s coffin.
It is highly likely that the pawn was removed accidentally, e.g. brushed against while moving another piece. So all this talk of cheating and severe penalties seems premature, perhaps even hot-headed.
In any case, I have problems with the suggestion that the pawn should be replaced and A allowed to checkmate B. In the case of an illegal move (which this essentially is), if the illegality occurred within the last ten moves, the game should revert to the point where the illegality occurred, and continue from there.
Of course, in this case it may be impossible to determine when the illegality occurred, so good luck, TDs! It may be time to invoke rule 1A.
I’ve had claims at scholastic events of a piece being removed from the board, placed on the board or simply moved. Lacking an independent witness or valid scoresheet, I always advise the players to keep score from now on so that they might successfully be able to make such a claim. Now we have a situation where they actually have scoresheets. Should we dismiss the scoresheet in favor of unlikely cynical “what ifs”? Is anyone aware of white ever trying to temporarily remove a pawn from the 7th rank to perpetrate a deception? This seems extremely unlikely.
The suggestion of possibly brushing a pawn off the board is interesting. As I see it, this could be a consideration for one missing from either rook file. This pawn was missing from the f-file, well inside the edge of the board.
It seems unlikely that a missing pawn advanced so far forward would go unnoticed for 10 moves. Also, removal from the board of a player’s uncaptured piece seems like quite a bit more than just an illegal move. Therefore, returning the board to the position supported by the valid scoresheet appears quite reasonable.
How mature were the players in question? I ask because:
Players younger than Jr. High-age DO play in the national, and
I’ve seen young players, perhaps without even being aware of what they were doing, pick up and “play with” one of the pieces from the board.
I agree with the previous posters that have stated that there are many possible explanations besides “cheating” that would explain why the piece was removed from the board. Without a witness to the removal, I don’t think we should jump to conclusions.
The stronger and more mature Player B is, the worse it looks – especially with the definite statement from Player B that the pawn had been moved.
I was not trying to be hot headed when I brought up the cheating implications. I was more curious to know if this was taken into consideration.
I guess lacking an independant witness, I’m just curious as to where the missing pawn was found? Was it sitting an an adjoining square it it may look like it was brushed over and addjusted back to the wrong square? Was it tucked away with the other captured pieces sitting on player A’s side of the board? As someone noted since it was an f pawn there would be less of a likelihood that it got knocked completely off the board. If it did, I’m sure it would have been noticed at the time it happened.
I’m not sure how one applies the illegal move rule. According to player A’s scoresheet there was no move of the f pawn so how can one say an illegal move was made? Chris said player A’s scoresheet was “one of the most wonderful scoresheets you could indeed ask for.”
A move like …Ng8-f6 could easily displace the f-pawn accidentally. Where it then rolled, nobody knows – maybe in the direction of e8, where it was then assumed to be a previously captured pawn which rolled onto the board.
