I had something similar happen at the Foxwoods tournament last April. 2 consecutive boards were missing a player. The third of the 4 players arrived and sat down at the wrong vacant seat 10 minutes late. By coincidence, he had the same first name as the other missing player. The waiting player only asked the first name and when it matched, they started play. Several minutes later, the last player arrived and complained that there was someone sitting at his board. I stopped the clock to figure things out.
Here is what I ruled. The player who had been waiting patiently for his opponent to arrive would have no change to his clock as he did nothing wrong. I cancelled the game at the neighboring board and told the player in the wrong seat that he would have to move to the correct seat and lose all of the time that had run of that clock as he was not at the correct board.
At the board where the game had started, I felt that since the first 10 minutes had expired before the first late player arrived, that I would take 10 minutes off of the latest player and split the difference for the time that the invalidated game was being played.
My logic was as follows. While I could sympathize with the player who asked the first late player his name and got the answer he was expecting, it was still the wrong player. The rules are clear that in order to penalize a late opponent, you must have equipment set up and a clock running (13D1). For the first 10 minutes, this was true. After that, the pieces were not in the correct starting position. I felt that if the very late player had complained that he shouldn’t be penalized 100% of the time he was late because the board wasn’t set up properly, I’d have to agree.
As for those that think the game should continue if more than 10 moves are played, I’d say that would be clearly wrong. If such were allowed, there would probably be some unethical player who would be opportunistic and look for empty seats on the lowest boards and try to blitz 11 moves against an easier opponent before he gets caught. Intentional or unintentional, this should never be allowed. Posters before me have already given other valid reasons.
I think there is also a certain amount of responsibility for the punctual player to make sure he’s facing the correct opponent. My advice is: ask your opponent what his full name is.
Time elapsed off of a players clock is not a penalty. While I can see “stopping” the clock on the game that should have happened to sort out the issues, the player who showed up on time with equipment should not have time deducted. Suppose the late player shows up 59 minutes late for a G/30, when the incorrect game started on time. Do we start the new game with 30 seconds for each player?
I don’t find it reasonable to have a player with equipment not set up properly (playing a game), to get the exact same benefit as if he did (13D1). Lets also consider the clock in that incorrect game. By the method you suggest, you would put back time on the side of the player playing the wrong opponent. You would also take additional time off of the side where the incorrect player was sitting. I have yet to see the rule that allows a TD to remove time from only one side of a clock when that side wasn’t running for reasons other than a defect. It would be helpful to know which rule(s) you’re applying in your example which I quoted above.
By allowing this, you could also have a situation in which the player at the correct board wins a game against the wrong player, posts his result and leaves before time would have expired on the late player. If the late player arrives to the pairing sheet and sees that he’s already been given a loss, and then complains to the TD, what is the TD to do?
Does the player who won a game against the wrong player (who may not even be in his section) deserve to get a win? Does the player who was late, deserve to get a loss because his opponent finished off the wrong person before he arrived and before the hour or his time would have run out? I don’t think the player who won against the wrong opponent deserves the win and I don’t think the late player deserves the loss. Although it might sometimes be difficult to do, I think the correct solution would be to find the winner of the completed game and have him play the correct opponent with the missing time split, but also some agreed upon minimum, if most of the time has elapsed.
If a player arrives more than 30 minutes after the start of a 30 minute game, he should be given a forfeit loss (13D). As for the 2 players in the 59th minute of the incorrect game, I would offer the following. To the player who was at the correct board I would give a forfeit win. To the player who was at the incorrect board, a forfeit loss to his correct opponent at the board where he should have been. For the game that’s 59 minutes old, the option of having it rated separately if both players agree.
If you have a better solution, I’d like to know what it is.
A player who shows up 59 minutes late to a G/30 loses. This can be determined using only the actual starting time of the round and a wall clock - a running chess clock is not required.
The argument for splitting the time is that (for whatever reason) the board was not set up with a clock running. That is explicitly required by the rules - otherwise there might be wiggle room for a creative ruling. It is unfortunate that the on-time player was somehow convinced to play a skittles game against a random person - but the fact is that he did not have his equipment set up with the clock running (and, if he was White, with his first move already made on the board). When the actual, paired game began, there was no board set up correctly, and no clock running. The only fair ruling is to set up the board correctly, split the time, and begin.
I’m not sure how Harold determined (in his game) that 10 minutes had run on the clock when the skittles game started. I suppose he simply took the player’s word for it.
If the skittles game happened to be against a player IN THE SAME SECTION, then I might be convinced that 11 moves would require that game to be completed. The really bad thing about that ruling is that I would be forced to give the LATE player a full point bye! That’s really unfortunate. If the two players were in different sections, I would consider what they had been doing as a skittles game and abort it. Even if they completed this game and tried to report it (discovering only then that they had not been paired against each other, I would be inclined to simply file that game result in the circular file. It would require a protest by BOTH players to convince me to put it in an “Extra Rated Games” section. But, that’s just me, and I expect many will disagree with me on this.
Here’s a tester for you: in the most recent National Open, White at board 153 and Black at board 154 were both waiting for an opponent (the early morning round on Sunday, which started an hour earlier than the morning round on Saturday). After 20 minutes of this, they called a Floor TD and asked if they could just play each other. The Floor TD went off to consult with the Section Chief. It appeared that the revised pairing was OK for the two players present (note that even the colors were correct!), but the two missing players had already played each other. How do you rule? Consider all possible future worlds and how you would handle each of them. What ruling maximizes “goodness”?
The punctual player told me there was about 10 minutes off the clock when the other player showed up at his wrong board, and the other player confirmed it. This was never in dispute.
Not according to “Variation 13D1. Equipment must be set up. To win under 13D, a player must set up a board, a set, and a clock, start the opponent’s clock, and run the clock until the opponent has one hour of elapsed time or the first or only time control period has expired, whichever comes first.” I believe this rule is standard in CCA events.
Please provide an example of a creative ruling that could occur under my interpretation.
Which is one of the difficulties I see with such an interpretation of the rules. What if the player didn’t know when the wrong opponent showed up for the game? Then I suppose we are back to splitting the entire time, even though a clock, set, and board were properly set at the start of the round.
Since I once showed up 24 minutes late for a G/30 at the Marshall, I would rule that 20 minutes is not long enough to repair any games, let alone one that would result in an illegal pairing. As you point out, the round was an hour earlier than the day before so it is very likely that both missing players are under the assumption that the round is later. If both players are insistent on playing a game, then I might allow them to play a game on another board, set, and clock while their original clocks continue to run. The issue then becomes what to do with the replacement game if either late opponent shows up before the hour has elapsed.
The players have to wait an hour (or until you have convincing evidence that neither opponent is coming) . If neither opponent shows up, and they are willing to play with a faster time control, pair them. Otherwise, too bad. Aside from the business of the opponents having played each other, this is not that unusual a situation.
I like the option of having both of the waiting players continue to wait until a full hour elapsed. Should both still be waiting, sure go ahead and re-pair the two and let them play with 30 minutes off of each clock. The 2 ‘late’ players should both be loss via forfeit. This would make the fact that they were paired earlier in the event a non issue.
If the players that were present agreed to this of course…