Boylston Chess Club
Since it was him that was so set on the rules at the start of the game and since it was him who stopped the clock with little seconds left (which is not done in my oppinion) i also wouldn't have hesitated to claim the win.
If he is so rule driven and not doing anything for fair play or sportivity he has to sit on the blisters of his own behaviour.
In the circumstances given you were 100 percent right to claim a win, and I would have done the same.
It looks to me that the TD is wrong at several places. When your opponent stops the clock for a nonsensical reason i.e. to ask the arbiter what the rules are, he should be punished by either a warning or you should get some extra time (when it happens for the second time). Secondly, you are not obliged to annotate the last 5 minutes for the time control, so you can claim the win right away when his flag falls. The TD should have taken care that he or an assistant annotes the game in mutual time trouble. You could have asked him that.
About fairplay or etiquette, that is what you have the right for to grant when you think your opponent is worth it. But you are not obliged to it. Besides that, you hadn't even the time to think about your claim, you did it by impulse. So I shouldn't worry. To grin about the stupity of your opponent afterwards is another matter
I like that-- blisters of his own behavior. Thanks!
Tempo,
Since this was the first of two time controls, it is true that we did not need to annotate the moves with only 5 minutes left, but by doing so, we forfeit the right to claim a win on time. Otherwise, I agree with you on the right to claim a win when the flag falls (in a single time control game).
As for the TD taking care to observe the game and note the number of moves, this is very impractical at most tournaments for most TDs... I hardly ever see it done, except in special circumstances when one side is trying to claim a 50-move draw in a time trouble game.
Jason,
by doing so, we forfeit the right to claim a win on time
I assume that is a rule specific made by the USCF?
When you ask the TD to take care of annotations, the TD is obliged to do so. He can ask anyone from the public to be his assistant and to write down the moves. That's not specific impractical and is done all the time in the Netherlands.
I would have asked for some more time, due to the interruption. But I don't think you're in the wrong anywhere.
It sounds like your opponent wasn't playing chess; he was playing the USCF rulebook.
His strategy may have been sound except for the fact that he overlooked your defense. You could use your time to fill in your scoresheet. I'll note that this is also legal according to the USCF rulebook.
Is his claim that it's unfair of you to fill in the missing moves actually a serious claim? If not, what specific conduct by you or the TD is unfair?
jason-
absolutely you were right to take the win. he had no problem taking his time back at the start of the game (btw, why would you NOT move with White, just in case?), and how was the guy allowed to STOP THE CLOCK in time pressure? he probably should have been forfeited right there. you should at least have had 2 minutes added to your clock or something.
this whole thing reminds me of something that happened to me at BCC one night. the round was at 7, and I arrived at 7:05. the games had not strated yet, so at 7:09 I ran to the restroom. my opponent apparently did not realize that I was there, because when I came down he had started my clock with 10 minutes off of my time for "being late". nice try, but I don't think so...
No, he thought it was unfair because he interpreted the TDs answer to his question incorrectly. He said repeatedly, I quote, "You said the time doesn't matter." I take this to mean he thought the TD told him that, from this point on, the clock doesn't count because we don't have complete scores. He misintrepreted what the TD said to be a blanket statement that the time control was now irrelevant. During the break, I repeatedly asked if he was making a claim of reaching time control or something. He said, no, just a rule clarification. I never said anything about the state of my score sheet, since there was no kind of claim being made. He just assumed I wasn't keeping track of the moves, and he let time elapse. I've seen other players do that when they are confident their opponent doesn't have a complete score, but, as we see, this is a risky assumption.
If he were a new chessplayer, then I probably would have played nice and allowed the game to continue. However, this guy has been playing chess for years, and surely knows the rules about the clock.
I don't see how your opponent could have any issue with you, then.
If he misunderstood the TD, then that could be a legit issue. However, it's a dangerous gambit to intentionally flag yourself and rely on a ruling. Especially so, if you don't know the rules exactly as appears to be the case here.
I am a bit perplexed by your starting the clock but not making the move. You have to make the move to complete it or else you were thinking on his time. Don't worry too much about how you got your win. The TD approved it and it was sweet that the stickler to the rules got the short end of it.
Ted,
When black shows up late, white can start his opponent's clock. In the old rules, you could either start the clock or make the move and start the clock. The updated rules says that white must move first.
Of course, if my opponent is sitting across from me, I have to make the move. But he wasn't there.
Seems like you were within your rights (wonder what how his version of the story goes though!)
Anyway the bottom line is, once the rulebook hits the table, the fun disappears in a hurry.
I claimed a win on time versus David Harris at the GBO, and the next day he pointed out (correctly, I later verified) that my scoresheet actually wasn't complete - but shrugged and said he was about to resign anyway. I'd have no criticism if he'd lodged a protest but I have great respect for the good-natured sportsmanship on his part. (Maybe the fact that he usually crushes me made him more inclined to be generous.)
I agree that stoping the clock during time scramble to get some kind of clarification about the rules is ridiculous. If it were my game, i would have never allowed it, I would restart his clock immidietly, because he has no right to stop in the first place. It looks like this guy's first tournament, but Jason says he's been around the block, so its all the more puzzling.
1) I don't have a rule book handy (and it isn't available online -- don't get me started), but I don't think your opponent can stop his clock in time pressure to ask for a rule clarification. I'll have to look it up, but I think you get 2 minutes added to your time if he does.
2) I certainly would not have waited for him to re-start his clock to fill in moves since he stopped it for a rule clarification, not you.
3) It is sometimes hard to not try to take advantadge of the rules when in the heat of battle. I always aspire to win because of my play, not the rules. About the only time I will be a rulemeister is when my opponent is behaving like a wanker -- as yours clearly was.
Do not trouble yourself further with feeling of guilt, Jason! His chickens just came home to roost.
I agree with Ilya and others who have said that the stoppage of the clock was outrageous. There are a handful of legitimate reasons to stop the clock, but this was clearly not one of them. The guy might as well have stopped the clock to find out what the time control was, to run to the bathroom, or to go pick up his dry cleaning.
Jason's account made me recall a somewhat different, but no less bizarre, story. This involves a well-known BCC member so I will keep names out of it (though it's a pretty famous - and perhaps apocryphal? --story so many of you may know the principals). The game began 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5. So far, so normal. At this point however, Black played 3...d6 and then immediately grabbed White's knight on e5 and placed it on f3!
I'm not sure how White reacted to this, though if I were in his shoes, I think I probably would have returned the knight to e5 and then played 4. Nxf7.
J'Doube is gay
You can't restart his clock, you can only ask the arbiter to add two minutes to your clock (or whatever uscf rules say), if opponent's claim was ungrounded. If someone stops the clock, you have to wait for arbiter's decision on how (if) to continue.
Tempo explained it well.
OK, I'm a TD, so take all this with a grain of salt
Firstly, the game shouldn't have been restarted. Rule 16J suggests the "standard penalty" of adding two minutes to the violatoee, in this case Black. So the game should have started with White at 0 minutes used and Black with 8.
BTW, the proper way for white to start a game if Black isn't there is to start your own clock, make the first move, then start Black's clock. That way, any move counters on a digital clock will be accurate. (I don't recommend using the move counter feature. It's too easy for it to get messed up).
As for stopping the clock in a time scramble, Rule 5I says a player may stop the clock to make a claim, or for any legitimate reason." I would consider his questioning the procedure for claiming a win on time, when that possibility was high, to be legitimate. I tell everyone to stop the clock for any rules questions at any time. He may have used it to take a break, but Jason got one too. So I don't have a problem with it.
Jason's filling in the scoresheet, and claiming a win on time was perfectly appropriate and correct, in my opinion.
BTW, this is the kind of situation where it might be advantageous to CALL YOUR OWN FLAG! If you are in a scramble, in a NON sudden death time control, and your opponent doesn't have a complete scoresheet (three or more missing move pairs, check marks don't count!) you can let your time run out and call YOUR flag. He or she can't fill in moves after a called flag, so the game just continues into the next control period. See rules 13C2, 13C3.
Of course in Sudden Death, once EITHER player is below five minutes, neither player is required to keep score(Rule 15C).
So there.
-Matt
I should point out to the International readers, that the USCF rules are different, and much more highly complicated than FIDE rules.
-Matt
You want I should come up to Boston and kick his arse for you? I'm always glad to take care of your lightwork. . .
Don Q stops by! Dude, what happened to your early moment of decision?
Matt,
OK, I thought something was strange from the get-go for such a small violation (which used to be legal!). So, he should have been rewarded 2 minutes, but still have the rest of his time docked for being late. That makes much more sense to me.
Second, I did think it a little weird that he could stop his clock to ask for a rule clarification. Sure, I also get a "break", but sometimes in time pressure, you are counting on the stress of the situation to allow tricks or to force errors. In that situation, I deemed the break to be more in his favor (tricky position but safe in a slow time control) than in my favor (clear desperation idea already in mind). In fact, my play of the previous 5 moves took the mutual time pressure into account. He may have had more time on the clock (about 20 seconds more), but I was in high risk mode and playing with great focused energy. By stopping the clock, not only was my thought process completely derailed, he was given a breather that his body language suggested he needed.
Then again, it did give me the presence of mind to fill in my scoresheet, so I guess it worked out for me. But I don't want my opponent to regularly stop the clock just because they don't know the rules. I think asking about the rules should be subject to penalty, as if they were making a claim. For example, couldn't we construe Black's question about incomplete scoresheets as making some kind of claim about reaching time control?
Matt,
Can you clarify the missing " 3 move-pairs" rule for complete score? I was missing two Black moves. Does that count as 2 incomplete move pairs? If they were, say, White and Black's 37th move, would that be one move pair?
Finally, what happens if, for example, I wrote Rc7, but both rooks could move to c7, and I should have written Rac7? Is that considered a missing move? If not, then I was only missing one move.
I agree that stopping the clock in that situation is a bit dodgy; but I can think of dozens of reasons to stop the clock in a time scramble and summon a director. If the TD thought the reason wasn't legitimate he could have awarded you two minutes. It's a judgement call. Personally, I would have allowed the stoppage, and not penalized anyone.
Rule 13C7 states "A move pair is considered incomplete if either side's move is omitted or incomplete." and later, "Minor ambiguities in scorekeeping or errors involving no more than one symbol are of no consequence." They go on to give an example of writing "Nf3" instead of "Nf6" as a minor ambiguity.
So to answer your specifics, if you were missing two black moves, that would be missing two move pairs. If you were missing white and black's
37th move that is one move pair. "Rc7" instead of the correct "Rac7" is a minor ambiguity, so it's not a missing move. If you wrote "Rc2" instead of "Rac7," that involves more than one symbol error (a "major ambiguity" I guess), so it would count as missing.
Got it
-Matt
Matt,
thx for clarifying the rules for the international readers, since I had never heard of the rule that you forfeit the right to claim the win when you has won by flag.
I agree with Matt that stopping the clock was legitimate. Here's a little bit more of the wording of Rule 5I that Matt mentioned: "A player who wishes to make a claim of any sort or see a director for any legitimate reason may stop both sides of the clock before claiming and/or finding a director." The wording of this rule implies pretty clearly that there are situations, besides making a claim, in which one can legitimately stop the clock. So what are those situations? Rule 21D lists the cases in which a director can intervene in a game. In particular, Rule 21D1 says that the director can answer "rules and procedural questions." Like Matt, I routinely instruct players to stop the clock and seek a TD if they have a question about a rule or procedure.
stopping the clock to ask questions is total bs. if you don't know the rules, find out before what they are before you are in time pressure.
Hey guys, one thing to do this in a club atmosphere such as the BCC or MCC, especially in lower sections where inexperienced/young players may not be clear on some rules/procedures. But i am completely against encouraging such behavoir in the wide spectrum of tournament chess. If playes are allowed to stop the clock for reasons as to broad as to get a rule clarification it will become a nightmare and will be surely used to gain strategic advantage. I am completely against allowing such stoppage of clocks as in the incident mentioned by jason.
Ilya,
Along those lines, let me point out this player has played in more than 250 tournaments since 1991, according to the US Chess website. That is many more events than even some of the most seasoned club players have logged in that time, (for example you, me, Chris Chase have only played in about 150 tournaments each). How can we believe that he didn't know the rules and needed to ask?
Ilya,
I take your point. My TD experience is limited to club events and a couple of other events with inexperienced players. The rule book does seem to leave it up to the TD to decide whether a player has stopped the clock for a legitimate reason. With a player that has such extensive tournament experience, perhaps it is reasonable for the TD to rule that the stoppage was not legitimate and award the other player two extra minutes on the clock. I might ask this question in the USCF TD forum if I can ever get past the cranky registration mechanism there.
True, Like Steve, my experience is completely in a "friendly" club atmosphere, with mostly amateurs. If it was the Open section, and the player was highly eperienced, I would be inclined then to add two minutes to the player's opponent.
-Matt
Matt and Steve,
Well, this was a club atmosphere event, and it clearly degenerated anyway. If this were a new player, I would have felt differently about the clock stoppage.
Jason told me about this fiasco at Harvard Square, and at first I wasn't quite sure if I would have claimed the win.
Having thought about this now, and now understanding the situation a little better, I totally think Jason handled this correctly-- I definitely would have claimed the win on time.
His opponent was being manipulative from the beginning, and probably guessed that he could manipulate Jason into letting him have extra time to think. The opponent was clearly trying to cheat.
The moment you enter a tournament every player must assume his opponent knows the rules by which you are playing under. You are expected to do the same.
Claiming the forfeit was correct and expected. Your opponent failed himself and has no basis for claim.
I guess, what i was trying to say, or more to the point, ask... Can a player be assesed a greater penalty than the normal 2 min given to an illegitimate claim. Example, i am playing mr Smith, I am dead lost, my only hope is time, with seconds left Mr Smith stops the clock to ask the TD something, in reality it is clear he just wants to buy time to think. Can he be forfeited for such a breach of rules? Or is the 2 min a maximum " sentence" ?
I posed the question about stopping the clocks on the USCF Tournament Direction Forum. National Tournament Director John Hillery (116 events directed since 1991) replied with the opinion "stopping the clock for any reason other than making a claim of some kind is an abuse, and should be penalized. (Example: A player very short on time stops the clock to ask some trivial rules question to which he knows the answer. This gives him time to catch his breath and look at the position.) The 'standard penalty' of two minutes added to the opponent's clock seems appropriate, though if it's a first offense and the player seems to be acting in good faith a warning might be sufficient."
In John's view, the language about stopping the clocks for other "legitimate reasons" should be interpreted as a catch-all for exceptional circumstances.
Steve,
Thank you for the clarification. "Legitimate reasons" would include: a flood, a spectator just punched you in the face, a monkey knocked over all the pieces, or a UFO just abducted the players on Board 3.
Lol Jason. I was trying to say in my previous post, 2 min is insufficient in this case, and i guess the answer is nothing more harsh than a 2 min penalty exists in the books.
Jason,
I think unless you are playing on the adjacent board, a UFO abduction excuse probably doesn't cut it.
Seriously, though, there may be some legitimate non-catastrophe reasons for stopping the clocks. For example, I believe that in sudden death, when a player has stopped keeping score because of the five-minute rule, the player is allowed to request TD assistance for counting moves in a potential 50-move-rule situation. I would be inclined to accept this as a legitimate reason to stop the clocks in order to go get a TD.
Ilya, the USCF rule book does give the TD fairly wide discretion to assess harsher penalties in order to avoid a manifestly unfair result. I have the impression, though, that such penalties are generally reserved for repeated abuse, after warnings and two-minute penalties have failed to address the situation.
I can think of (and have seen) at least one other legitimate reason to stop the clock: A player seeks to promote a pawn but the desired piece is not readily accessible.
You were right. He was being ridiculous!
Commenting by HaloScan
