Challenging a scoresheet

All Things Chess
1

I just played in a tournament with two time controls, 40/2, SD-1. My opponent hadn’t played in a rated game for eight years and appears to have only played in scholastic events, so I assume they were all single time events. Once things started getting critical in the mid-game, he started using up his time in big chunks on the order of 8-10 minutes per move. I had the positional advantage and a huge time advantage. I evaluated myself to be winning the game, but he was coming up with excellent moves because of how much time he was taking. Once he got down to about two minutes to go and was only on move 32, I felt it would have been sporting of me to remind him of the time control, except that I believe that would have been against the rules. I also thought he could have taken offense, so I said nothing. We were using his clock and just as he made his 34th move and went to hit the clock, it hit zero.

To really muck things up, my prior move put him in check. I never say check in any game, rated or otherwise. His response to my move was an illegal move checking me. Besides putting him in check, my move would have forced his king back from his advanced pawn chain and allowed me to clean them all up with my king, essentially turning a winning position into a won game. Because we had a clock showing zero time and an illegal move, I called over the tournment director to review the situation. After explaining what was going on, he asked if I was claiming the win on time. After I said yes, he began speaking with my opponent. We were still at the board, so we were whispering. As a result, I could not hear what he was saying to my opponent. The next thing I knew, I was apparently having my scoresheet challenged. I had never heard of this before and was a bit distressed thinking I might have lost the game because of a scoresheet.

The director explained that if there were at least two errors on my sheet, the challenge would be upheld. We set up my board next to game board and he went through the game using my sheet. My penmenship is terrible and I did make a few inaccurate notations. I have complete records of all my games, so having an accurate scoresheet is important to me. I always review my games as soon as possible and have always been able to figure out each move, but I almost always have a goof or two on the original scoresheet.

The TD was able to get to the exact position on the game board and ruled that my opponent had lost on time. In fairness, I would have to say the TD cut me a few breaks. I had about four inaccuracies where he had to make some judgement calls, which he appeared to do by consulting my opponent’s scoresheet (which matched mine for move numbers) or just using some common sense. During the entire process I began fearing he would rule that I had lost the game. I asked afterwards and learned that if he had ruled in favor of my opponent, we would have had to keep playing.

I later learned that my opponent did not understand how two time controls work and thought he had the extra hour no matter what. Although I won the game and feel that the TD was exercising great latitude in my favor, the entire situation left a sour taste in my mouth. If we had to keep playing, I have no doubt that I would have won the game on the board. However, it made me wonder about the fairness of the rule. What if I had a losing game based on my opponent using much more time on his moves? It seems to me that a successful strategy could be that if you are at a disadvantage, or outright losing, and you notice that your opponent’s scoresheet is a train wreck (I see that all the time), why not slow down and take whatever time is necessary to find the very best move possible? In other words, ignore the clock? I would never do this myself, but it seems like a fine strategy for someone of questionable character.

2

I’ve always assumed that the director would lead a reasonable effort to reconstruct the game and correct good-faith errors on the score-sheet. The challenge would be successful if the reconstruction revealed time control had been made. I suppose it depends a bit on what is meant by “train wreck”, however.

3

This must have been a rule particular to the tournament you were playing. The standard USCF rule is three move pairs, and they have to be incomplete or missing, not just slight errors. Please see rules 13C7 and 13C8. Please note that this applies in only non-sudden death time controls. If your claim had not been proven, the only thing that would have happened would be that no further claims (by either side, of course) would be allowed in that time control, and that your claim would be denied. No harm, no foul. In sudden death, there is no scoresheet requirement, as a fallen flag is evidence all by itself that you didn’t make all the moves in time.

So, to answer your question, yes, a player could certainly take all the time in the world (up til the next time control) trying to find a good move if the opponent’s scoresheet doesn’t clearly show that he hasn’t yet made the primary time control. Of course the opponent can take that time trying to figure out a correct scoresheet. That’s why a player is allowed to call his own flag, so that the opponent can’t fix the scoresheet and get a win on time.

Alex Relyea

4

I suppose it could be, yes.

I’m glad you figured out that, had the TD ruled against you, you would not have lost the game. He simply would have required that the game continue.

To claim a time-forfeit win, a reasonably complete scoresheet is required only in the first (finite) time control(s). In the final, sudden death, control, you can win even if the condition of your scoresheet is far less than perfect, or even if it is wildly incomplete.

So, in this case, had the TD ruled that the game had to continue, you almost certainly would have eventually won anyway – either by time forfeit (after the extra hour) or by checkmate or something.

Depending on the circumstances, the TD might have been able to invoke rule 13C10:

Perhaps, in this case, the TD wasn’t quite sure your scoresheet was “sufficiently complete”, or didn’t want to give your opponent any wiggle room in case of an appeal, so he went through the full detailed procedure. In any case, it was ridiculous of your opponent to contest your claim, if it was obvious that he would eventually lose anyway.

Gradually, tournaments with two time controls are giving way to single controls with increments, e.g. an event formerly played at 40/90 SD/60 might nowadays be G/90 inc/30 or something. Once this transition is complete (if it ever is), situations like yours will arise a lot less often.

Bill Smythe

5

Of 19,540 sections held in 2011 with parseable time controls, 18,158 had Game/ time controls.

Another 632 sections had time control information that was not parseable. (Quite a few of those had time controls that varied by round and there was no standardized format for entering that information in 2011.)

TDs did not have to report increment/delay information for 2011 events, so it is not possible to determine how many of them used an increment setting and how many used a delay setting. That should be possible for 2012 events.

6

You can’t totally ignore the clock if the opponent’s scoresheet is sufficiently inaccurate, but you can safely flag in a non-SD time control while the opponent’s scoresheet is inadequate to support a win on time claim.

I won a game a few years back when my opponent and I were both in severe time pressure during the first time control (45/90, 30/60), my opponent completely stopped keeping score, and I continued. That meant that after a few moves had gone by only my opponent could lose on a pre-move-46 flag (since I was the only one with an accurate score). As it turned out I flagged and the game continued with the next time control going to move 75 (my opponent then borrowed my scoresheet to get his caught up) and I won over the board.

Something to consider: If a player in a 45/90, 30/60 time control thinks he can use forever once his opponent makes mistakes from move 30 through move 40, the player is overlooking that the opponent can borrow his scoresheet (on the opponent’s own time as long both players have at least five minutes and it is returned before the scoresheet owner’s clock is started) and make corrections. So once a player flags in the move 45 time control and the game is ruled to continue (due to the scoresheet problem) the player who had not yet flagged can borrow the opponent’s scoresheet to get everything corrected before a move 75 flag claim (which could be a problem to a player who just used 140 minutes to get to move 43). If both scoresheets cannot support the board’s position and also cannot be reconstructed to do so then the position is noted on both scoresheets and they are automatically considered complete up to that point (which again is a problem to a player who just used 140 minutes to get to a position that will be considered to be move 45 and has only 10 minutes to reach move 75).

7

Since I’m a recovering(I Think?) Time Trouble addict, I would suggest always using a clock setting with a move counter. The move counter is not always accurate due to consecutive moves being made without hitting the clock after each move. It will put you and your opponent in the ball park as to when you reach the first time control in a dual time control.

I remember recently showing up late for a game and my opponent had an analog clock running(I love the new rule of subbing a digital clock even when late).
It had been a long time since I used one of them. The time control was 40/80, G/30. Because I was so accustomed to a move counter, I totally forgot that this was dual control and that the clock would need to be reset after the first time control.
As the clock approached 6 O’Clock, I was playing as if it were sudden death!
My opponent had at least 25 min more than me. He was still recording moves when I
went below 5 minutes. And it was amazing that he began playing as fast as me.
Just as my flag fell, I was ready to resign and pointed to the clock.
I thought I was totally lost after making several blunders from a winning position.
My opponent then told me that I still had chances and that we had a second time control so I did not lose on time. I played on but still lost. So I had played on 19 moves beyond the first time control to be awoken by a falling flag!!

8

As a TD I have had far more disputes due to the move counter than solved by it. The 2011 USATE winner may have been decided by a player mistakenly trusting its accuracy.

9

The CCA rule is two move pairs. I don’t know whether any other organizers also have this rule.

10

I think I was the TD involved in this time forfeit claim. My apologies for not explaining better what was going on. I told your opponent that he had apparently lost on time, but that if he wanted to challenge the claim I would play through the game. (The late Robert Feldstein had a reputation for challenging every time forfeit claim, and he avoided losing on time at least a couple of times that way.)

As you say, you did record some moves incorrectly but since they were minor errors involving no more than one symbol I didn’t count them against you, and I upheld your claim.

11

An interesting angle to this thread is that I think it ties to the thread on the online rulebook, where there is the suggestion that there needs to be a “Player’s Handbook”.

(Please pardon if anything following comes off in a condescending tone - it isn’t meant to and sometimes tone can be lost when trying to pragmatically discuss an issue, especially in text.)

I see the tie to the other thread because I was caught off-guard that a fairly experienced tournament player was unfamiliar with what I think many of us would consider a very standard, traditional, tournament rule. (Perhaps this is because the event wasn’t SD and most of his play has been SD?) As a coach I’ve always taught players the importance of knowing and understanding the rules (“YOU are the FIRST referee in USCF chess” is a line I’ve often used with kids familiar with soccer but not chess. [Along with - you must know how to set YOUR clock!]) We have to continue to work to better communicate and simplify our game if we wish to attract new players. This example shows how we can be so wrapped up in our “insider knowledge” that we don’t do a good job of communicating the basics.

12

See my reply in Online Rulebook.

Bill Smythe

13

That’s a good idea. I will note, though, that the CCA tournament rules were posted on every wall board at the tournament (Continental Amateur in Boston) where this time forfeit claim took place. The CCA rules are also online at http://www.chesstour.com/rules.htm.

14

I don’t disagree. I think my point is just that we need to make one of our messages: Chessplayer - know thy rules!

Kevin