I came across this story by George Koltanowsky while doing some research in old chess magazines from the '50s. It is funny, but I also have a question about it that might interest you:
“Kolty Comments: How a Car Was Lost and Won: During the 1955 U.S. Open at Long Beach, California, “X” beat one opponent and was naturally credited on the result sheet with a win. Later “X” learned from other players that his opponent, during the game and when “X” was absent from the board, had retracted a move he had made, and made another move instead. “X” went to the tournament director and demanded that his opponent should be penalized.
‘But you have a win marked up on the board and on your card, what more do you want?’ sputtered the T.D.
‘Not enough,’ said “X”, angrily. ‘This man deserves to be punished. Circle the point, I prefer people believe I received the point by forfeit than that I played this man.” The T.D. complied. NOW COME THE COMPLICATIONS!!!
The first prize was a new $3000 car. If two players tied, the Median points would decide the winner of the car, the other players would get a thousand dollars. (Median points are the accumulated points of players you have played. For a forfeit a half point is deductd from the total points of the person you played with.) So two players, Nicholas Rossolimo and Sammy Reshevsky, did tie. Rossolimo got the car because the Median points gave him a slight edge.
BUT later on it was discovered that Reshevsky had received only 5.5 Median points for playing “X”, though “X” had scored a total of 6 points.
“X”’s insistence that the one game be considered ‘forfeited’ resulted in costing Sammy half-a-point… enough to have tied at least! That is how a car was lost and won!!”
Poor Reshevsky never got a break!
Questions:
what should the TD have done in this case?
I think the TD should have recorded the game as a regular win, and confronted “X”'s opponents with an accusation of cheating, possibly penalizing the player in some other way (how?).
Generally speaking, in a tournament in which tiebreaks will be used to determine some important prizes (including a state championship title perhaps), how should a TD handle a situation in which a TD decision would affect players tiebreaks differently?
Once the result in a game has been determined that is it. The game should not have been changed to a forfeit win by X rather than an actual win. I once as a TD was called upon to rule on a 3-move repetition. I determined that it actually was a 3-move repetition making the game a draw. The player that disputed the initial repetition claim resigned after I ruled it was a 3 move repetition. It was put through as a draw, since a draw was determined & that ended the game. Once a game is over (draw, stalemate, checkmate, or resignation) that is it and the result should not be changed.
Larry S. Cohen
PS: I read that story as well in Kolti’s book “Chessnecdotes”. Wish I could find a copy of “Chessnecdotes II”, but no luck [even on e-bay or amazon] so far.
The game was played so it should be rated. Changing it to a forfeit result marks it as unplayed win and it won’t get rated. If you forfeit someone for cheating, you still mark it as a regular win.
The tiebreaks should have counted it as a normal win.
Yes. The TD actually did the miscreant a favor by changing it to an unplayed forfeit. By doing so the guy doesn’t lose any rating points for losing the game. The way to forfeit someone for cheating and still get it rated is to penalize him by adding enough on to his elapsed time so that he oversteps the time limit. I know Player X wanted the result changed to a forfeit win, but it isn’t always wise to give a player something just because he requests it.
In general, if a TD’s decision is going to have a major bearing on determining a big prize the TD should make extra sure that he is making a decision that accords with the rules, and then let the chips fall where they may. The TD can’t get concerned with who is going to win what prize. A TD must retain impartiality at all times, and must be seen to be doing so as well.
With a game played in 1955, USCF starting ELO ratings in 1960 and FIDE starting ELO ratings in 1971, we end up looking at the logic behind the Harkness rating system in effect in 1955. It looks like Harkness was based entirely on your last tournament and thus any error would have been eliminated by the very next tournament each player played (note that this analysis is dependent upon the questionable accuracy of wikipedia and I readily invite anybody more knowledgeable to correct it).
The gentleman-like decorum of the day may have implied it was a point of honor to treat it as a forfeit win rather than being “tainted” by having played a regular game versus the supposed “scoundrel”.
That said, counting it as a regular win would be standard today regardless of how the players felt.
For prize purposes, that’s not necessarily the case. Results against a player who withdraws in the first half of an RR are taken out of the table and moved to extra rated games. They’re still rated, but win, lose or draw, they don’t count for the tournament.
Ah, the myth that players of an earlier era were “gentlemen.” How quaint and untrue. There are enough stories that show that many of our heroes were scoundrels over the board. I know of one prominent player who had a number of people attend his funeral. The chess players in the crowd were there to make sure the old swindler was dead.
“Once the result in a game has been determined that is it. …”
Okay, but suppose that “X” had LOST that game by resignation, only to find out soon afterward, from multiple witnesses, that his opponent had cheated. The result would not be changed even then? And if you do change the result, would it be recorded as a forfeit win or as an actual win?
As to the 50’s I have no idea as to the rules of the time.
But, in the current time, a game played is a game played. Perhaps for tournament standings for various reasons, the standings can be adjusted. but games should stand as played.
This is a different situation. Instead of the winner asking the game result be changed to a forfeit win, and thus not be rated, we have a situation where the loser finds out after the fact that the winner cheated. There aren’t many situations where I will change a posted result, but verified player cheating or TD error are two where I will. Here I would change it from a played loss to a played win.
I once had a situation in a team match, where my teammate had checked to make sure that his opponent had 1 legal move on his last 6 turns, and on the 7th turn, my teammate thought, he had 1 legal move, which he didn’t, and the result was a stalemate and a draw. Both players came up to me and said that he wanted to give my teammate the win, and to post this game as a win, and this would have won our team the match. I basically stated, that the result of the game has to be ruled a draw, since the stalemate had occurred, but if you wanted me to appeal this ruling, I would be more than happy to do that. Since it is within their rights to file an appeal, the league upheld my decision, and applauded me for being ethical, as the result of this team match was drawn as well. Fortunately, we did not lose the league championship over this match, we would lose it a few months later. (LOL)
Here’s a side note on terminology. The way TDs and players use the word “forfeit” can be confusing. To me, “forfeit” means “unplayed and unrated.” If someone cheats, I wouldn’t “forfeit” them, I would “rule the game a loss” for the cheater. It’s more specific language.
Semantics can cause problems. “Time Forfeit” is the title of rule 13C, and all the subrules under 13C deal with a played and rated game in which a player may (or may not) overstep a time limit.
I’ve heard more than one child say “forfeit” when they meant “resign” (I guess since it almost any other sport, failing to finish the game to the end is considered a forfeit).