From: albert@HPLWK.HPL.HP.COM (Joseph Albert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Time forfeits in SD games
Date: 1 Sep 92 05:30:56 GMT


As I read the previous account of the fiasco surrounding the outcome of
the game in round 1 of the Penn. State Championship, where the A player
outplayed a master, only ot lose on time, I had several reactions:

1. I'm really glad this didn't happen in a tournament that I went to 
   alot of trouble to arrange time in my life for.

2. the discussion about how the A-player `deserved' to win, on account
   of having outplayed the master, having B + 4P vs. B with a 4:2 time edge
   is irrelevant.  The outcome of the game must be decided statically
   by the position at the time the flag fell, and the rules governing the
   position.  Chess is cold blooded.  Getting a deer-in-the-headlights
   daze under tournament pressure is part of the game.

3. I believe that the USCF should have a clear rule for governing
   controversy-- no matter how well or poorly written the rules may
   be, there is always the possibility of mis-interpretations,
   multiple inconsistent interpretations and controversy. (if you don't
   believe this, read below). Of course, the rules should be as clear
   as possible, to avoid this as much as possible, but the USCF should
   have clear rules on how to handle controversies, to keep the impact
   on the tournament to a minimum.
   
4. In the above situation, I believe that the controversy rules should
   require the game to be handled like an adjournment.  Each player is
   asked if they are claiming a win/draw, and the pairings done accordingly.
   If both were requesting a draw, then the game is declared drawn.
   Otherwise, when the rule interpretation is resolved, the score of
   each opponent is updated.  As soon as possible after the pairings,
   ie while round 2 was underway, the TD(s) should, in a separate room,
   make a careful determination, and announce the result.  In particular,
   this shoudl be done before the conclusion of round 2, so that the
   situation didn't repeat.

5. The rules should give the TD latitude to make judgment calls if the
   rules are inadequate, and the TDs judgment is taken as the final authority
   for the tournament.

6. I agree the rules governing sudden-death should be very simple,
   something that the players easily understand so that such a situation
   would generally be resolved without a need for a TD (unusual situations
   excepted).

7. Ideally, the rule should be the same as when someone's flag falls
   under non-sudden death situations and the person has made too few
   moves to make time control.  I realize that there may be compelling
   reasons why this is undesirable. 

I can relate to how a controversy can spoil a tournament.  Many years ago,
I was playing in a tournament in Berkeley that was a 1 game/wk. swiss,
with a game played every wed. night. In the 1st round, there was a big
controversy before the round could start, causing the round to start
an hour late.  As fate would have it, I had a 70+ move game in that round,
and had to play an ending (that was probably equal) with a nagging concern
over missing the last bus of the evening at 1:15am back home to San Francisco.
The distraction led to my blundering, but my opponent returned the favor
several moves later, and I then was able to draw (not an easy draw).
I made it to the bus stop at 1:10.

So, what was the controversy? Apparently, if there is a dispute over which
chess set/clock to use, the player of the black pieces can choose as
long as the equipment meets USCF standards.  One of the players paired
as black wanted to use his set, and was adamant about it.  The set was
one of the standard, solid plastic `Club Specials' sold by the USCF
among other retailers, except the pieces of this set were red and green.
The player paired as white refused, and a controversy ensued.  The
player with the red/green set was shouting about how he had gone to alot
of trouble to get this set, and wasn't going to be denied using it.

The TD got out the rule book to see what governed the allowable sets.
I don't remember all of the conditions, but the critical rule was
that it must be possible to distinguish easily between the white and
black pieces.  The white player said that he didn't know which should
be white or dark-- indeed, neither the red nor green of this set
looked `lighter' or `darker' than the other.  Thus the set was invalid.
The owner of the set said that the rule meant that one needed to
distinguish between the two colors adequately, not that they had to
be close to white and black.  After a big argument, the TD ruled that
the set was valid.  

Then, the two players could not agree on which color was white and which
should be black.  Eventually, I think this was resolved by the TD, and
the game was played, with the round starting about 3/4 of 
an hour late for one of those 1 game in the evening tournaments.
The arguement and controversy was much too loud for others to find
it desirable to begin games.

Personally, if I had been the white player, it would have been worth the
rating points to sit down, play a first move, then get up and quietly leave.

The person couldn't claim a forfeit, since a move was played, so he
would have gotten his way, to play a `complete' game after waiting for
2 hours for his opponents flag to fall on move 2.

Anyway, I felt that the TD should have just made a quick decision, and
had it be final.  If I had been the TD, I would have wanted to insist
that the set not be used in the 1st round, and make a decision before the 2nd
round.  Do the USCF rules give TDs that sort of authority?

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com