Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:12:43 -0400 
From: Ron_Kownacki@transarc.com
Subject: Fuzzy Rules/PA State Championship Controversy

The Pennsylvania State Championship this weekend was marred by a major
controversy that arose from the sudden-death format.  The facts illustrate
a desperate need for competently-written, simple and stable USCF rules
covering such events.

By posting this note to rec-games-chess, I hope to increase the general
awareness of the problem.  I'm also hoping that relevant net traffic
eventually makes its way to New Windsor.  Given the increasing popularity
of sudden-death time controls, the USCF simply must exercise some
leadership on this issue.  It is a major problem affecting our sport.

* The facts:

Late into a long and well-played round 1 game, an A-player had achieved an
elementary winning endgame against a master: B + 4 P's vs. B.  Although the
bishops were opposite-colored, the win was really quite simple, and the
A-player also held a 4 to 2 minute edge in the sudden death time control
(it was a game/2 event).

In a casual blitz game, any A-player would be expected to beat anybody on
earth under these circumstances.  The procedure was truly that
straightforward.

But this game was being played under tournament pressure, and the A-player
suddenly shifted into deer-in-the-headlights mode.  He proceeded to play a
sequence of about 10-15 moves, blundering on nearly every one of them,
using more and more time.  When the A-player's flag eventually fell (!), he
was in the act of capturing the master's B, leaving a technically won
position (reduced now to K+B+P vs. K, however).  However, the B capture did
not count due to the time claim, and the position left on the board was
K+B+P vs. K+B.

When the flag was claimed, both players looked a bit confused.  Then the
master claimed a win, because a mating position could be constructed.  The
A-player thought it was a draw.  After all, the master didn't have mating
material, right?.

* The "resolution":

I really can't do justice in describing the continuous debate that
dominated the entire weekend.  At the time, the TD immediately ruled a
win for the master.  A bit later, he changed it to a draw (after lots of
argument all around).  Eventually, someone (not the TD) found a new,
obscure USCF rule, listed in a recent rating supplement, that said that
the game was a win only if a mate-in-1 situation could be constructed
starting from that position.  Not a mate, but a mate-in-1.

The mate-in-1 construction was not all that difficult, and several people
were walking around generating these mate-in-1's, and even creating new
mate-in-1 problems reachable from ridiculously lost positions, e.g., how
many queens can the stronger player have....  All the while, everyone was
laughing at the idiotic rule, of course.  You get the idea.

An IM in attendance later argued that it should be a draw (probably based
on his knowledge of FIDE rules).  The tournament director, who is quite
well-known and very experienced, somehow misinterpreted this statement as
an assertion that no mate-in-1 could be constructed.  (I personally
corrected his misunderstanding on this point.)  Finally on Sunday evening,
he changed it to a win for the master.  Everybody was arguing throughout
the weekend.

* The effect on the tournament:

Horrible, just horrible.  Some of the rounds were paired with the game as a
draw, some were paired as a win, and some were paired as a win for the
master and a draw for the A-player (!!).  Even worse, the master kept
winning, and became a prime challenger for the championship title.  Worse
still, he finished with a draw in the last round, and became co-champion
with 4.5 out of 5, with the round 1 result counting as a win.  This looks
like the final result.  The money changed hands, anyway.  I sure wouldn't
give it back if I were him.

* My opinions (you can stop reading here if you like):

When these sudden-death time controls first started becoming popular, I
figured that I'd better learn the termination criteria cold.
Unfortunately, I found that the USCF rule book is simply incomprehensible
gibberish.  Very poorly written; it's just incredible.  On the next
revision, the USCF should offer a free copy to everyone who turns in the
old one.

As I've wandered around the tournament scene, I've made it a point to
always question local TD's about the rules.  I've found that they are
exceedingly complex, that they vary quite a bit, that they are constantly
under debate, that tournament players are largely ignorant of them, and
that they change more or less continuously without publication in Chess
Life.  (At least on this last point, they're consistent with the rating
system).

The USCF must get its act together.  It's ludicrous that we all show up
on weekends to play an ancient game and we don't even know the rules for
winning, losing or drawing in time scrambles.  I must have heard in the
range of 5-10 different theories and interpretations floating around this
weekend, all from participating tournament players.  When even
experienced, well-known and presumably competent TD's don't know how to
rule, we have a real problem.

I would suggest that the USCF must define a simple set of rules.
Simplicity is very, very important.  Only simple rules can be understood
widely and applied uniformly.  Unfortunately, I've heard rumors that a new,
even more complex set is coming down the pike.

Here's an example simple rule: (a) that there be a set of positions
defined where a draw could be claimed (this already is true but
fuzzy), and (b) if your flag falls and you're not in such a situation,
then you lose.  Period.  It's true that this rule conflicts with the
aesthetics of the game.  For example, it would have given the A-player
in question an undeserved off-the-board loss.  But the essence of a
tournament is supposed to be organized competition, and such rules
enable that.  Right now all we have is disorganized competition.

* My request to you:

Please don't all reply with arguments as to the correct USCF rule.  It
won't be productive, because it is questionable as to whether such a
thing exists.  The rules are unclear, in flux, unpublished or
semipublished, widely misunderstood, widely misapplied and often ignored.
You should have seen the scene this weekend!  Hopefully it won't be
repeated here.

Ron Kownacki


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess