Timing

There are some rules in which when you say it matters as much as what.

Touch-move: A claim that your opponent touched one piece but moved another must be made before you make another move (10J). In fact, it must be made “before deliberately touching a pieces” (i.e., touching a piece with the evident intention of moving it). Claiming after the game that your opponent violated the touch-move rule is a waste of time. The most you’re going to get, even if the TD believes you, is a warning to your opponent on the order of “You didn’t do anything wrong and I’ll be watching to make sure you don’t do it again.” Which won’t do you much good.

Winning on time: A surprising number of players do not understand this, perhaps because of the cancer growth of sudden death. In order to claim a win on time in a non-sudden death time control, a player must have a “reasonably complete” scoresheet, defined as one that has “no more than three missing or incomplete move pairs,” at the time the flag is called (13C7). Moves filled in after the flag fall do not count (13C3). It’s worth noting that you can’t get around this by waiting to call the flag until after you’ve filled in your scoresheet, since the opponent may “call his own flag” by pointing out to a TD (or spectator) that his flag is down and your scoresheet is incomplete.

Possibly a clearer way to explain the “reasonably complete” rule is this: the TD must be able to play through the game – without you standing there telling him what you scribble means – and reach a position that’s within three moves of what’s on the board, without any illegible or impossible moves earlier in the game.

The "FIDE time forfeit procedure" is another matter. If this is announced, a TD will watch all games in time pressure, count the moves, and forfeit a player who exceeds the time limit. This is used in many round-robin events, but USCF rules require that if it is used for any games, it must be used for all games without exception. For obvious reasons, very few people try to use it in large Swisses.

Draw? The “correct” way to offer a draw is to make your move, offer the draw, and press your clock. What happens if you don’t do it that way?

1) If you offer a draw while your opponent is thinking, he may accept the draw, decline the draw, make a move (which amounts to declining), or complain to the TD that you are distracting him. This is just bad manners.

2) If you offer a draw before making your move, your opponent may a) accept, b) decline, or c) ask to see your move before deciding. The offer cannot be withdrawn, period (14B3). Making an offer this way is unlikely to annoy the opponent, but it’s, well, dumb. If only because he could also say nothing and wait for you to either make a move or lose on time.

Rating Pollution

How many unknown 2500 players are there floating around? One would be inclined to say none. One would be wrong.

Raymond Duque of Texas, currently rated 2559, has seen his rating creep up steadily since 2002. During this period, he faced exactly two opponents rated over 2200. Of course, he faced them multiple times. In four-player round-robins. Directed by Duque. One of them has played in exactly four tournaments, all directed by Duque. His current rating: 2504. He’s not on the FIDE list, and there is no evidence he has ever played before in the U.S. In some other tournaments, Duque out-rated his opponents by well over 1000 points.

Does all this prove that any of the tournaments were fixed? No. Suspicion is not proof. Do the results prove that Duque deserves a 2500 rating? Emphatically no. Do his actions prove that Duque should be relieved of his Senior TD status? In my opinion as an NTD, yes. Even if his honesty is assumed, his judgment is appalling.

The USCF has some safeguards in place against artificially lowering ratings – heavy-handed, but reasonably effective. Little attention has been given to the artificial inflation of ratings, perhaps because the benefits to the scofflaw are less obvious. It may be time for that to change. The only recent example was former EB member Robert Tanner (who, despite being forced to resign from the Board, got off far too easily in my opinion). Once is chance. Twice … is something the USCF should begin taking seriously.

Adding and Subtracting

One of the intellectual movements in chess over the last fifteen years has been the attempt to transform sudden-death into an amazingly lifelike imitation of "real" chess, with repeated time controls. This has mostly involved the use of high-tech digital clocks. There are essentially three flavors.

1) "Time-delay," standard in the U.S. When the opponent stops his clock and starts yours, your clock does not begin ticking down for a specified number of seconds (typically five).

2) "Bronstein," named for the late GM who suggested it back in the early 1970s. (Also known as "non-cumulative addback.") When the opponent stops his clock and starts yours, a specified number of seconds is added to your time, to a maximum of the time you had when you started your last move. Example: You have 20 seconds left. You think for six seconds and make your move, leaving you with 14. When your opponent moves, your clock immediately jumps back to 19. Example 2: Same as before, except that you use only three seconds, leaving you with 17. When your opponent moves, your clock jumps back to 20 (not 22). Mathematically this is more or less identical to time delay, but it is less used, probably because it's harder to explain.

3) "Fischer," also known as "increment" or "cumulative addback." The standard adopted by FIDE, most often in the form of game in 90 with an extra 30 seconds for each move. It operates in the same manner as Bronstein, except that there is no limit to the amount of time you can accumulate. Make a lot of moves quickly, and you can easily go from one second to five minutes.

The "Fischer" mode has been fairly rare in the U.S., though it has been used for the U.S. Championship and for some title-norm round-robins. These operated quite well by simply using the FIDE rules. Recently, however, the USCF Rules Committee decided that we really, really needed new rules of our own. (The committee chairman is apparently a big fan of Fischer increment, and wants to encourage its adoption.) Most of the "new" rules voted on at the recent Delegates' Meeting were taken straight from the FIDE Handbook.

However, there is one oddity. What happens if both flags are down? Under FIDE procedure, this is very unlikely to arise, since the arbiter is supposed to watch the game and call the flag. That is probably not going to happen in American Swiss tournaments, so the Rules Committee chairman came up with a novel interpretation: Fischer increment is "not really" sudden death. Instead, once your original time is used up, it's "really" unlimited repeating time controls of 30 seconds/move. Thus, under the new USCF rule, if both flags are down, the game is not drawn (as it would be in sudden-death). Rather, the clocks must be reset with zero time plus 30 second addback for each player and the game continued. If you think resetting the clocks that way is going to be a pain, you're right.

A simple solution, until the next time the USCF tinkers with the rules: If you must use Fischer increment, announce in advace that you are using FIDE rules. If you don't have enough TDs to watch all the games, well, you probably shouldn't be using increment to begin with.

Q&A

On the USCF Forums, a player named James Schuyler asked,

In the USCF rules, there are examples of players getting portions of different prizes for which they are eligible, e.g. 1/4 each of 4 different prizes for which they tied.

In the National Open this year, I got 1/4 of the U2400 prize, but I was told that I was not entitled to (up to) 3/4 of the place prize for which I tied.

A) Is this really correct?
B) If so, how is this logical or fair?

To answer A), please know what you're talking about.

Answer: This is a common error. (Oddly, players rarely complain when they think they're receiving more prize money than they deserve.) There were 14 players tied for 9th-17th and top U2400, and top U2300, four of whom were U2400 and one U2300. In this case, you perform two calculations: a) add up all the prizes and divide them equally, and b) add up the class prizes only and divide them among the eligible class players. The class players get the larger of the two, which here meant a four-way split of the U2400 prize. (And the U2300 took his class prize clear.) They don't get that and a slice of the place prizes as well.

Penalty Shot

I recently ran across this at the blog of the Boylston Chess Club:

"At this point my opponent had 90 seconds left to finish the game, and I had 4 minutes. I claimed a draw before I made my next move, because no pieces or pawns had been exchanged for 50 moves. Dummy that I was, this claim had no validity because pawns had been moved. My opponent, an attorney, tried to counterclaim that I should be forfeited (I’m a chessplayer, not a legalist, and apparently people can be forfeited under USCF rules for making incorrect threefold repetition claims). The TD instead invoked the Continental Chess Association rules, and added two minutes to my opponent’s clock."

Well, the opponent was wrong. I can't say whether the TD was also misinformed, or just chose the simplest way to deal with an argumentative player. The standard penalty for an incorrect claim (and for nearly everything else) is to have two minutes added to your opponent's clock. The TD does have the right to impose harsher "non-standard penalties" in special cases, but this should be reserved for when a player is abusing the system. (One example might be a player making repeated baseless claims just to delay things. If the opponent has plenty of time, the added two minutes doesn't mean much.)

Click here for the rest of the story (and an interesting analysis of a Knight ending).

How much is enough?

A moderately obscure rule which has come up a few times recently is that of insufficient material. This is really two different questions – insufficient material to continue the game, and insufficient material to win on time.

Insufficient material to continue the game is fairly straightforward. If the position is such that neither player can checkmate by any possible sequence of legal moves, the game is immediately drawn. The obvious example of this is King versus King, but it also covers things like a King and pawn ending with a locked pawn chain preventing either side from penetrating. The FIDE rule says just that (“… neither player can checkmate the opponent’s King with any series of legal moves”). The USCF rule also says this in 14D4, but for reasons which escape me it specifies King versus King (14D1), King and minor piece versus King (14D2), and King and Bishop versus King and Bishop of the same color (14D3). These are obviously redundant, unless perhaps the author feared that some of his readers would not realize that they couldn’t checkmate with a Knight.

Insufficient material to win on time is a bit more complicated. Here the FIDE and USCF rules differ significantly. The FIDE rule says that the game is drawn if the player whose flag falls “cannot checkmate (the opponent’s) King by any by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.” This is simple and easy to understand, but has the drawback that a player might be worse off for having more material. Consider, for example, King and Queen versus King and Knight. If White’s flag falls, the game is drawn, since there is no possible way to construct a checkmate for Black. But give White an extra Rook and two pawns, and he could lose on time under the FIDE rule.

The USCF rule is longer. Whether it’s better is a good question. It specifies three cases in which a player may not win on time: 1) lone King, 2) King and minor piece and the player “does not have a forced win,” and 3) King and two Knights, opponent has no pawns, and – again – the player “does not have a forced win.” Now, this wording was clearly intended to disallow “helpmates,” and it does accomplish that – but it creates other difficulties. In the first place, it’s not entirely logical, since it’s hard to argue that it would take worse play to lose with Queen, Rook and two pawns versus lone Knight than with Queen versus a blocked pawn on the second rank. The other problem is the “forced win” clause. It’s necessary in order to deal with positions like the one in the diagram, as otherwise Black could make a draw by refusing to move. But it brings back the nasty specter of TD adjudication, which should have no place in serious chess.

Advice to organizers

Sevan Muradian of Chicago has started a new blog aimed at organizers and directors. I don't agree with all of his opinions (e.g., his preference for one-day tournaments), but his practical advice is pretty good.

Lingering death

Debate has recently arisen again on the “USCF Forums” about Rule 14H. This is the rule concerning “insufficient losing chances” in sudden-death. The current wording is that, given less than two minutes remaining and a position in which “a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both players having ample time,” a player may request TD intervention. This has gone through a number of iterations since the appearance of sudden-death twenty years ago, but in essence it is an attempt to turn SD into an amazing lifelike simulation of “real” chess.

How should such claims be dealt with? Logically, there are four, and only four, possibilities:

1) Require all games to use time-delay clocks. (If you are already s=using time delay, noc claim may be made.)

2) Let the TD adjudicate the position.

3) Put in a time-delay clock and let them play it out.

4) Abolish the claim. If your flag falls in sudden-death, you lose.

Now, “1” is obviously silly, except perhaps in small invitation events where the organizers supply clocks. “2” is essentially the FIDE rule. It was given in the 4th edition of the USCF rulebook (written before time delay clocks were widely available), but the problems with it are pretty obvious. (Do you really want a Class C TD telling Yermolinsky that his game is a draw?)

“3” is the currently preferred USCF option. It requires that the TD keep a clock handy, but that’s not really the problem. What happens when a player “demands” a time-delay clock in a position where he really doesn’t deserve it? “I have the advantage! I’m sure I could draw it against a Master!” If the TD is a weak player and the claimant is loud and pushy, he may get it. If the TD is a strong player and doesn’t feel like being pushed around, he tells the claimant he has a pawn for the initiative in an unclear position, so shut up and play. But the result of the game should never depend on the playing strength of the TD.

“4” has the virtue of simplicity, and has recently been endorsed by Tim Just, who wrote the 5th edition of the rulebook. Twenty years ago I might have been more sympathetic to this idea, on the grounds that it might convince the players that sudden-death was a bad plan. But sudden-death is here to stay, and adopting such a policy now would merely further the debasement of tournament chess into something resembling blitz.

Solution? Absent a time machine, I don’t have one. Those who sought to “improve” tournament chess with such innovations as SD and time-delay created a new set of problems for which there are no good solutions. Now we have to live with it.

Deducting, Choosing, Switching

Deducting

A question I am frequently asked at the start of tournaments is, “Should I deduct time for time-delay?” My answer is always “no.”

The purpose of “deducting” time is to compensate for the extra five seconds per move. One rationale is to make sure all players have the same amount of time (which, of course they won’t – those five-second increments never add up exactly). Another is to get the games over more quickly so you can pair the next round.

However, the current (5th edition) Rulebook advises against deducting (though it is still permissible). The reason is a practical one. They are probably a dozen different delay clocks on the market. If a TD announces that players should deduct five minutes for time-delay, the players will form a line asking him how to set their clocks. Then they’ll form another line a couple of hours later complaining that they didn’t do it right and asking the TD to fix it.

In my opinion, deducting time should be used only if the time between rounds is so tight that there is no way to get the pairings made otherwise. And, if that’s the problem, you should change your format.

Choosing

Who decides what equipment to use? Some older players are still under the impression that Black always gets the choice, but that’s no longer the case. The USCF, wisely or not, has changed the equipment rule as follows:

1) Black gets the choice of standard equipment.

2) Time-delay clocks (with the delay in effect) are “more standard” (I know it makes no sense, but that’s what it says) than “analog” clocks (you know, the ones with hands).

3) So, if either player has a delay and wants to use it, he can. If both players have delay clocks, or both have “analog” clocks, Black gets to choose.

4) Exception: If one player is present at the start of the round and the other is not, the player who is present gets to set up and start. By not being there at the round time, the other player forfeits any right to object, period.

Switching

I’ve been seeing a few requests lately from players to insert a time-delay clock at some point in the game, typically when the player starts to worry about losing on time. Short answer: No. There is no rule allowing a player to “request” or “demand” a time delay clock after the game has started, except for the special case of an “insufficient losing chances” claim.

This claim can only be made only if the player has less than two minutes remaining in a sudden-death time control. It amounts to a draw offer, which your opponent can accept if he wants. The TD may uphold the claim (if it’s something obvious like Bishop and wrong Rook pawn versus King in the right corner) or reject it and give your opponent an extra two minutes as a penalty (if the claim is obviously frivolous or made to gain time), but usually he will put in a time-delay clock and let you play it out. If you can’t hold the game with five seconds a move, you had sufficient losing chances to lose.

Punishment fit the crime

"January 20 2008 - Corus Chess Press

"At the start of round 8 of the Corus Chess Tournament, Ivan Cheparinov, top seed in Grandmaster Group B, lost his game against Nigel Short for refusing to shake the Brit’s hand. According to an article on the FIDE website:

"'Any player who does not shake hands with the opponent (or greets the opponent in a normal social manner in accordance with the conventional rules of their society) before the game starts in a FIDE tournament or during a FIDE match (and does not do it after being asked to do so by the arbiter) or deliberately insults his/her opponent or the officials of the event, will immediately and finally lose the relevant game.'

"Chief Arbiter Thomas van Beekum was a witness when Cheparinov refused Short’s offer to shake hands twice and the Bulgarian’s game was declared a loss as a result.

"The Tournament Organization has received an official protest by Mr. Ivan Cheparinov regarding his loss against Mr. Nigel Short. The matter will be put forward to the Appeals Committee."
http://www.coruschess.nl/article.php?s=n155

The appeals committee (Kramnik, Polgar and Krasenkow) ordered the game replayed after an apology by Cheparinov. One correspondent expressed sympathy for Short, who came to the board expecting to play, was insulted by his opponent, and now must replay the game on what was supposed to be his free day. That's fair enough, but I'd like to know exactly what happened during the original incident. If the arbiter intervened on his own and forfeited a player for a triviality like this, he was abusing his authority. If Short asked him to intervene -- the arbiter was still out of line, but so was Short. And did Short object to the forfeit? (Of course, there is that famous Denker-Reshesky game for a precedent, but Reshevsky is not the best role model.)

I think the decision of the appeals committee was correct. Cheparinov will be subjected to widespread derision for his boorish behavior, and the game will be played.


Later: I watched the video of the start of the game, (http://www.chessdom.com/corus-chess-2008/short-cheparinov-live), and it certainly looks like Short complained to the arbiter about the handshake. And, according to Ian Rogers at Chess Life On Line, Short actually asked for the forfeit because his "concentration had been disturbed." This doesn't make Cheparinov any less of a boor, but it pretty much eliminates any sympathy I might have had for Short having to lose his rest day.

Later still: After some posturing and threats to withdraw on the part of Short, the game was played on Monday. Short won convincingly. Probably a just result. But do we really want this sort of behavior back? We saw enough of it in Baguio.

Short,N (2645) - Cheparinov,I (2713) [B92]
Corus B Wijk aan Zee NED (8), 21.01.2008

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 Be6 10.Nd5 Nbd7 11.Qd3 Bxd5 12.exd5 Rc8 13.c4 a5 14.Kh1 Re8 15.Rad1 Bf8 16.Nd2 g6 17.b3 Bg7 18.a3 h5 19.f3 b6 20.b4 axb4 21.axb4 e4 22.fxe4 Ne5 23.Qb3 Neg4 24.Bg5 Qd7 25.Qb1 Ra8 26.h3 Nh7 27.Bf4 Ne5 28.c5 bxc5 29.bxc5 Reb8 30.Qc2 dxc5 31.Qxc5 Rc8 32.Qe3 Nf8 33.Qg3 Qe8 34.Bb5 Qe7 35.Nf3 Nxf3 36.Qxf3 Rc3 37.Rd3 Raa3 38.e5 Rxd3 39.Bxd3 Nd7 40.e6 fxe6 41.Qe2 Nf8 42.Bc4 Rc3 43.dxe6 Rxc4 44.Qxc4 Qxe6 45.Qxe6+ Nxe6 46.Be3 Nd4 47.Kg1 Nf5 48.Bc5 Be5 49.Re1 Bc3 50.Re4 Kf7 51.Kf2 Bf6 52.Ra4 Ke6 53.Ke2 Kf7 54.Bf2 Ke6 55.Kd3 Kf7 56.Ra7+ Ke6 57.Ra6+ Kf7 58.Ke4 Bb2 59.Rc6 Bg7 60.Be1 Bf6 61.Bc3 Bh4 62.Be5 Bg5 63.Ra6 Bh4 64.Bf4 Bf6 65.g4 hxg4 66.hxg4 Ng7 67.Be5 Be7 68.Kd5 Ne8 69.Ra7 Nf6+ 70.Bxf6 Kxf6 71.g5+ Kf7 72.Rxe7 1-0

Mutatis Mutandis

A source of contention over the last year has been the change made at the 2006 Delegates’ Meeting to USCF rule 15A. This change required players to make their move on the board before writing the move on the scoresheet.

The background of the change is a little complicated. There has always been a (minority) school of thought holding that writing a move down and then changing it, or even writing the move before playing it, amounted to “use of written notes.” Fischer made this argument back in the 60s, though he didn’t have much success.

In 2006 an electronic scorekeeping device called the “MonRoi” came on the market. Exactly why one would prefer a $400 PDA to a $.01 scoresheet is a good question, but some did. (The device was originally intended for invitational tournaments where the organizers would supply them, but that’s another story.) On the MonRoi, “writing” a move meant moving the piece on a small digital board, so “changing” one’s move really did amount to analyzing on another board.

The obvious solution would have been to make a special rule for electronic scorekeeping devices, but that’s not what the USCF did. Instead, the Rules Committee recommended (and the Delegates adopted) a sledgehammer approach, requiring all players to move before writing. The effect was somewhat vitiated by the fact that the recommended penalty was a warning.

Over the following year, there were a number of complaints about this, from players who didn’t want to change their habits and from TDs who didn’t want their time wasted with frivolous disputes. At the 2007 Delegates Meeting, the rule was changed yet again. The “basic” rule remains that one must move before writing, but a “variation” was added, which I suspect most TDs will use:

15.A. (Variation 1) Paper
scoresheet variation. The player
using a paper scoresheet may
first make the move, and then
write it on the scoresheet, or vice
versa. This variation does not
need to be advertised in advance.
TD Tip: TD’s may penalize
a player that is in violation
of 20C. “Use of notes prohibited”
if the player is first writing the
move and repeatedly altering that
move on their scoresheet before
completing a move on the board.

So, we’re right back where we started.