It seems to me that based on the information given, that A decided not to enforce the touch move rule and played on to regret it. If A had stated “I’m calling touch move on you but if you want to resign this game we can play it out and see what would have happened” and they both agreed then I would side with A winning. If this was the case, they also should have played the “what if” game in the skittles room.
Why did player B wait until after the tournament was over to complain? Both players’ pairings were affected by the result. It seems that B wants the best of both world in getting a win but also getting easier pairing that the loss gave him.
I agree. There was no clear resignation, no clear checkmate, nothing to actually end the “first” game. Nor does it sound like the initial move made was illegal - so no reason to reinstate the game.
The initial move made, then retracted, by player B was not illegal. But was the second (alternate) move he made illegal? The rulebook says that once a move is determined it cannot be changed (determined = piece legally moved and hand releases piece).
I agree that it was not clear (to Player B) that the game was decided at this point. Isn’t it also true that it was not clear to Player A that the game was decided “in the second half?”
The second move made by B is illegal if it is determined to be so “during the game”. Player A made no claim regarding the move. Hence it stands.
The issue isn’t whether it was clear to B (or to A) that the game was decided. The issue is whether the game was ACTUALLY decided. A did not execute mate at the first “end of game” point (“first point”). B also did not resign at the first point. Hence, thegame never actually ended. Thus the continuation was real. Therefore B won, even though A was under the impression that he had won earlier.
A had “deduced” that he won based on the board position, and assumed that his opponent had resigned. My victory total would be much higher if I could count as wins all the games where my opponents should have resigned before I blundered and lost. Player A just found a truly unique way to blunder and lose.
The issue of what to do about it when it isn’t reported until after the tournament ends is also interesting. Player B may have received easier pairings than he would have had his win been posted properly.
Suppose that adding back the 1 point from that win (posted as a loss) affects the prize standings?
Whenever events are corrected, I wonder if we’re going to get questions asking why certain players in that event received such favorable pairings.
It was a 6 person swiss. I’m not sure if the player would actually have had a different opponent had the result been scored with him earning a victory. He won his thrid round, to get two points, tying two-ways for second place and prize money.
Seems ridiculous to me. Nolan is right here. Signed score sheets solve
one of the problems. The other regarding player common sense, takes
more effort.
One argument against the legalization of mercy medical assisted suicide is that a new “right” to die inherently includes at least a vague new unpleasant “social duty” to die (rather than continue to waste society’s resources on a long expense futile extension of life).
This same type of consideration prompts me to say that — It should be illegal to “not enforce” or “forgive” the touch move rule when you or your opponent lets go of a piece in a blunder or howler move.
We do not want any victorious player to risk being spoken of negatively by a disgruntled losing opponent who tells others that…
“He could have let the interesting game continue and he knew I had a winnable position. What a miser that selfish guy is. He certainly does not act with the best sportsmanship by taking advantage of my obvious blunder in that situation.”
Indeed, it might already be illegal to forgive the touch move rule on a blunder, due to the following rule citation, except that final bit about ‘sportsmanship’ muddles the applicability:
One reason TDs do not themselves call touch move in player’s games is that there are times (I’ve seen them) when a player starts to make a decent move and then puts the piece back and makes a poor move with a different piece. Forcing a player to make a good move is not much of a “punishment” for the touch move violation. If I was a player and my opponent changed to a poor move, I wouldn’t call touch move either since that poor move is its own penalty for the violation (I have and will call touch move if the new move is better than the original one).
(Off the top of my head…) The result on the pairing sheet and subsequent lack of protest control, right? Player B, who won the game, forfeited his win by not exercising his responsibility to ensure an accurately reported result. Player A can be investigated for an ethics complaint, but that doesn’t change the tournament result. As far as the rating result goes, if the game is allowed to be adjudicated under so late a protest (big if), player B should get the victory and rating points since player A did not press his rights when his opponent made an illegal move. This would be typically entered in a separate section, the real game as a forfeit win for player A.
But what if your evaluation is incorrect? Suppose the position is (objectively) drawish and your cunning opponent changes to an apparently losing move that sets a trap.
Would you then take five minutes to analyze the trap before calling touch-move?
The facts are not that dissimilar from the famous Azmaiparashvilli-Malakhov incident at the European Championships. Azmai was analyzing swapping rooks, then playing X. He absentmindedly played X first, said something like, “Of course, I meant to take rooks first,” and retracted his move. Had I been Malakhov, I never would have allowed Azmai to retract the move.
I recall another incident (20+ years ago?) when Player A (who?) had a winning adjournment against Ljubojevic (?) and dyslexically sealed a nonsensical losing move. As it was clear to all that Player A had intended the winning Qf6 instead of the silly Qc3, Ljubo resigned. This seems proper to me. And yet it’s hard for me to logically distinguish the two cases.
What was the result marked on the pairing sheet?
Did both players check that the result was marked correctly?
Was the protest made in a timely fashion?
These are all factors that should be considered. Player B did not check the result. Both players are guilty of miscommunication. It would be difficult normally for a TD to establish what occurred. Most witnesses have a vested interest in the result or a conflict of interest as they know the combatants. Their view can be biased. I have known witnesses who lied about an incident because a friend was involved. What we have as hard evidence is the mark “1-0” on the pairing sheet. Since B did not check and waited to complain, he is stuck with the result and consider it a lesson learned. Next time he will make sure that the result is marked correctly. Both players should be told that in the future if there is a touch move rule violation they should get a TD and not resolve rules violations on their own. The custom of signed scoresheets resolves a lot of problems over results. BTW, how do you sign a Monroi?