My second US Chess on-line news column on forfeit wins is now available:
I believe this column is likely to confuse people. The rule for claiming time forfeits is not to wait for one hour. It is to wait one hour, or the expiration of the first or only time control period, whichever comes first. This last part is nowhere mentioned in this column. The column does advise that if each player gets less than one hour for the game the waiting player with no opponent should ask the director about when to claim a time forfeit win. Checking with the TD is always a good idea, but it would be better if the column made people aware of the default policy (Rule 13D) for claiming a win on time forfeit in a game with a first or only time control of less than one hour.
The article looks like it designed as a quick overview of the rule rather than an exhaustively detailed review. A longer article would have said things like 13D1 (equipment must be set up) being a variation rather than the main rule, but getting people to plan for 13D1 means that they will always be ready to make the forfeit claim at the earliest appropriate moment (and avoids the side discussion of splitting the elapsed time when a clock is finally placed on a game). Concentrating on one concept at a time helps maintain the focus of an article.
I’m guessing that there will be a future article on various clock adjustments.
Personally, I believe ALL games should be rated. If you are black white has made a move on the board; therefore if white is absent…you cannot treat black differently
This is a GREAT idea. When we pass this, I will be sure to pair you for every round of my next tournament.
Alex Relyea
Yep, the whole idea of the column is to make players aware of the intent (not the gory details) of many rules. It is much easier to remember that-a-way.
+1
I believe that upon entering a tourney you agree to play all games. You can withdraw at any time. If you do not your action should result in rated loss.
Note: Online you can be banned for this. Actions behave consequences. Allow me to be clear: I apply all rules as expressly stated or as set forth in TD TIPS.
Gaining or losing rating points for an unplayed game would make the ratings less reliable as predictors of future results (and current strength), because an opponent not showing up tells us NOTHING about the chess skills of either player in that game, so we have no objective information to raise or lower the rating of either player.
Most forfeit losses seem to result from two things: Players who decide to quit the tournament without informing the TD of the withdrawal, and players who miss a game due to unforeseen circumstances, like being caught in traffic.
I’d love to see harsher sanctions against the silent withdrawals, but not at the expense of compromising the accuracy of the ratings system.
TDs/organizer even have a sanctioning option in the rulebook for forfeited players, they can fine the player and refuse to accept an entry from that player in future events until the fine is paid. But how often is this done?
Rule 28P explicitly says that games where both players played at least one move get rated and that unplayed games do not get rated.
Deliberately rating an unplayed game can result in a sanction (of the TD if the TD submitted a known forfeit win as a rated game, or of a player if the player deliberately decided against marking a forfeit win as a forfeit win instead of as a rated win).
Mr. Nolan kindly overlooks what might be the most common cause of all, TD error. For example, a player has requested a bye, but the TD never transferred the request to the backroom.
Alex Relyea
It’s not done often enough. Most organizers are reticent to do this. They are afraid of antagonizing the player who left without informing the TD that he would be leaving, and thereby losing that player’s future business. What they fail to understand is that by not fining the offender they risk alienating the player who sits there until the time forfeit win can be scored and doesn’t get a game. When fines are issued the problem almost always gets solved. Almost nobody ever needs to get fined a second time.
Or the request was incorrectly transferred because the TD could not accurately tell which round the request was for (twos and threes look very similar when the writing is small and overlaps the next request).
Verbal-only requests can go astray easily.
I once had a player who forfeited the Saturday evening game and then came slightly before the first round Sunday to be paired. The pairings had already been posted but I did find a game for him (the emergency room bill showing he’d gone to the hospital for a heart attack was enough to be lenient about forfeiting without notice - a bit more significant than simply being caught in traffic).
AGAIN, I know the rule and would apply. I disagree with it and would apply it as written.
I appreciate the opinions, and how I learn from them.
Not to mention other players who see it happen repeatedly. It is the same argument for not enforcing certain rules against children/novices. The 95-98% of the players who consistently follow the rules expect the rules to be enforced and are less likely to return when they see people getting away with things.
Alex Relyea
BTW, there is one local player who gets upset by my failure to enforce rules. Please explain to your players that almost all the rules can only be enforced when the opponent complains under US Chess rules.
Many of the times when a player declines to complain about annoying behavior by his opponent the player is an adult, and the opponent is a child. The player doesn’t want to be seen as an adult bullying a child, so in effect he allows the child to bully him.
Or it is a situation similar to one a couple of tournaments ago where the adult complains about annoying behavior and the child didn’t even realize the behavior was annoying. Once the child realized it, the child stopped the behavior and the adult realized the child wasn’t intentionally trying to be annoying.
You want to use the ratings system as an enforcement tool. I don’t think it would work very well as one, and doing that would not only be contrary to the purpose of the ratings system but might become a tool for ratings manipulation.
Thankfully, I think that is never going to happen.
ALL GAMES are rated.
Honest question for Mr. Bell, do you think that in your first scenario the rules require the game to be rated?
Alex Relyea