I had another interesting situation come up today at a tournament I’m playing.
I looked up the pairings and sat down at my assigned board a few minutes before the start of the round. When the TD announced the start of the round, I started the clock and waited for my opponent to show up. After 2-3 minutes my opponent shows up, mildly annoyed that I started the clock and asking me twice pointedly whether the TD had said the clocks could be started. Anyway, the opponent sits down, calms down a little and we start the game. After about 6-8 moves and 12 minutes since the start of the game, my opponent starts looking puzzled and looks back and forth between my scoresheet and his. He realizes he was sitting at the wrong board, wrong section. At the same time (within 30 seconds) the TD comes by with my real opponent, who was indeed late, not just confused in a similar manner. The TD says that this actually happened to him once as a player, and that the NTD handling it ruled that the game with the correct opponent needed to start with the time elapsed since the beginning of the round split evenly. According to the TD, the reasoning is that it’s partly my fault for not verifying that I was playing the right person… ?!?
Since it was only six minutes out of 40/120 SD/60, I didn’t make a big deal about it, but let the TD know I did not agree with the ruling.
It seems to me that if I’m at the right board at the right time, I shouldn’t have to ask my opponent are you in fact so and so.
What do you think? Is this decision backed by the rules? If the case were more severe, and my real opponent had shown up 50 minutes late, and the confused player had stayed at the wrong board for the same amount of time, would an appeal to one of the phone-reachable special TDs likely confirm the TD’s even split decision or overturn it?
The TD’s ruling was correct, because fewer than ten moves had been played. If ten moves had elapsed the game would have had to continue. As a practical matter, any ruling which does not end up with the clocks showing the amount of time elapsed since the start of the round is absurd. You can’t delay the next round for everyone because one or two players did something dumb. And yes, you should verify your opponent’s identity. The TD isn’t going to hold your hand or that of your opponent.
John, I know that multiple times (especially scholastic tournaments) I’ve had games where kids in a section sit down incorrectly (usually resulting in two games with incorrect opponents). I was trying to locate the specific rule in the rulebook to doublecheck exactly what it said, and it’s getting late enough that I can’t readily find it (I found 11F on the incorrect initial position, but that one assumed that at least the opponents were correct). Could you let me know which rule it is?
In Luis’ case, the opponent was in an entirely different section and thus would never have had a chance to be paired with him. In the event that 11 or more moves had been played I still would not want to force two cross-sectional games (Luis and his erroneous opponent in one and their two originally designated opponents in the other) as that could easily result in the four players ending up with a total of four points (the players in the higher section win their games while the players in the lower section are given byes).
I couldn’t find the exact wording either, though I’m sure I’ve seen it. I think you can justify by reasoning from 11A, 11F and 11G. (If you’re playing the wrong opponent, the position is incorrect by definition.) However, the main thing is that a contrary rule would lead to absurd consequences. Some bum walks in off the street, sits down and plays a couple of moves, and the game must stand?
Note that I wasn’t requesting that the time be reset. The time would still reflect the time since the start of the round. My real opponent was in fact late by that amount of time. I was only requesting that since he was late by that amount, that that amount should be deducted from his clock, not mine. As it was, I subsidized his being late.
I agree with you. Since your opponent was late, and you were at the correct board at the start of the round, you should not have been docked time on your clock. Your opponent’s clock should show the entire elapsed time.
Actually I was looking at it a different way. Even if that guy off the street had played 30 moves then the game would still be annulled since it was never supposed to happen and the player should play the original opponent when that opponent shows up. For that matter, if a B-player at the (single-section) US Open is 5.5-2.5 going into the final round, starts playing a 3-5 C-player (regardless of which one sat at the wrong board), and the error isn’t found until move 15, then letting that game continue could end up distorting the awarding of the class prizes.
In the scholastic tournaments I mentioned, you generally don’t find out about an erroneous opponent until after the game is over (possibly after the players are gone from the tournament hall in tournaments like the Nationals where results slips are used) and it is often more reasonable to simply let things stand then.
Assume the true opponent was 25 minutes late and, if you were at the board with his clock running, those 25 minutes would have already been deducted from his time. In this situation, assuming it takes five minutes for the late player to see someone was sitting in his seat and, after verifying that, brings the TD to the board; another 5 minutes have elapsed. I would be inclined to take 27.5 minutes off the clock of the late player and 2.5 off the player who was there, evenly splitting the time it took to correct the situation.
Are we still dealing with the original poster’s question, or the hijacked one?
Please keep comments in this thread related to the original post. If you want to discuss “a similar situation”, please do so in a seperate thread. I am splitting this thread now.
For the record, my equipment was set up and I was sitting at my assigned board five minutes before the start of the round. I started when the TD announced the start and instructed to start the clocks.
I don’t know why the thread was split the way it was. I think the example of the similar situation was exactly what my post was looking for. If it’s possible to join them again, please do so.
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?
When two different situations are discussed, it’s confusing. It was not exactly what your post was. In the other, we have two different games being played, it seems.
A game against the wrong opponent shouldn’t, and in most cases can’t, be allowed to stand.
You cannot delay the next round, and inconvenience all the players, because one or two players screwed up. This means that, unless the time between rounds is exceptionally long, the clocks must be adjusted to show the amount of time elapsed since the start of the round.
Exactly how you divide that time really falls under the TD’s discretion. A flat rule that the player must eat any elapsed time doesn’t work well (what if both players are on the wrong boards and have used different amounts of time?), but it’s a good place to start, and a player who began play on the wrong board or against the wrong opponent has no right to demand any time back.
The TD should always use common sense. If, e.g., ten minutes have elapsed, and there’s an hour between rounds, it’s going to be quicker and easier to tell the players to reset the clocks and start from zero. The TD’s first priority should be to get the games started in a manner that doesn’t disturb or disadvantage any of the other players.