Pressing the clock before restoring displaced pieces

[Harold_S]

This is what is really happening. This is not a made up scenario. And, as a result, the higher rated player has decided that playing under these conditions is both unfair and unsportsmanlike, so he is boycotting all these tournaments so as to avoid any future confrontations with said player. Once again he gets rewarded by eliminating his strongest competitor.

I mentioned this possibility earlier on this subject. The rules should never reward bad behavior and this kind of behavior should be dealt with appropriately. The hardest part is determining when it is just being clumsy and when it is intentional. This is sometimes a judgement call by the TD. I assume the TD received a complaint from the victimized player. Rule 20G gives a TD some power to do something about this annoying behavior but 20G1 goes into “inadvertent annoying behavior”.

In the case you cite one player is unhappy while if the director did something contrary to the letter of the rules on resetting pieces the other player would be unhappy. There is no reason why a club/organizer/director can’t make a variation of the rules as long as it is announced in advance. I once played in quick tournaments at a club in which it was announced that the first illegal move in each game would give the opponent 2 extra minutes but additional ones by the same player would subtract 2 minutes from the player committing the infraction.

My feeling is that if the behavior described occurs too many times and only when the situation on the clock is as you describe then the director has enough evidence and needs to go beyond what was done previously. Many directors have a style in which they avoid controversies like this. In the short run it may be no problem but over the long run the problems only get worse. If the situation is as you describe I might warn the player that continued behavior of this nature would result in penalties permitted under 20G and let him know what they would be. If the behavior didn’t stop then I’d start to impose them. As someone who runs a chess club, I would much sooner lose the member that is causing the problem than the victims of it.

[relyea]

@FearNoEvil

You play an opponent eight times (G/30). In four of the games, you win convincingly because you are almost 250 points higher rated. The lower rated realizes he cannot beat you, so he resorts to cheating. How? Well, one of the reasons he loses to you is because he gets into serious time pressure and has meltdowns. So, he decides that from now on he will cheat by knocking over pieces whenever he needs some extra time to analyze the position. He knows from discussions related to this behavior that the TD only plans on awarding his opponent with an extra two minutes, great! While the TD is resetting the clock, I should be able to get several extra minutes to think. The TD has also told the player he has the option to simply press the clock without moving, but even then, I will be rewarded with an extra 5 seconds (the delay time) to accomplish this, and if I need more, I can just illegally press the clock again without penalty. I know that the TD has no intention of forfeiting me, as the TD says that would be too harsh and extreme.

Another two more losses, but this game plan is working. My opponent is getting really #### off at both me and the TD, and it is seriously affecting the quality of his play. So, now, not only will I knock over pieces, but I will start leaving captured pieces on the board. This should really put him over the edge and really irritate him. Man, that TD is useless and my opponent knows it. I have an 0-7 record against the player so what the hell? Worse case is I just lose again.

This is what is really happening. This is not a made up scenario. And, as a result, the higher rated player has decided that playing under these conditions is both unfair and unsportsmanlike, so he is boycotting all these tournaments so as to avoid any future confrontations with said player. Once again he gets rewarded by eliminating his strongest competitor.

As it happens, I’ve played in a tournament directed by Mr. Johnson, and I can’t agree with him about what is happening above. I think that it is extremely far-fetched that any competent TD would let things get this far out of hand. I’ve already said that I would penalize a player for deliberately knocking over pieces to gain time on his clock, and it amazes me that anyone who melts down in time pressure would get relief in five seconds while he was scrambling to reset the pieces. In any event, I would have forfeited the opponent long before he began to leave captured pieces on the board, and, if he continued to behave that way, to ban him from future events.

Alex Relyea

[relyea]

@EricHammond

Thanks for the reply, Alex. Applying this ruling unexpectedly would be extreme. However, as a standard rule of which players are aware I see it as a potential improvement. Below I present some arguments for this suggested harsh rule being consistent with the rules of chess.

I solicit feedback from others as well. I can expect situations like the hypothetical in this thread to occur in my club, and I am undecided on how to proceed. Rulings given on the hypothetical rewarded the player who made rules infractions or required that the TD determine intent. I am not enthusiastic about these options.

Argument #1: Chess has harsh rules; this creates order
Losing on time is harsh. A player whose flag falls when he has achieved a forced mate in two (or is up two queens, etc.) still loses. It could be argued that this is extreme: the rule has already achieved its purpose as this game will finish in the time allotted for the round and the player whose time has expired clearly won on the board – but the rule creates order.

The “touch move” rule is harsh – especially when “clock move” is a viable alternative. A player who intends to make an obvious recapture accidentally picks up the wrong bishop, and this likely costs him the game. However, because this rule is so harsh there are few issues with gamesmanship such as starting to make a move to watch the opponent’s reaction, and then saying that it was an accident so you can move another piece.

Deducting sixty seconds for an illegal move is no more harsh than the above rules, but a player often stands to gain more by getting away with an illegal move than by violating the touch-move rule.

Argument #2: The advent of delay/increment has created a need for the rule change
Before delay clocks a player with three seconds remaining would run out of time. With a delay clock a player can win with a small advantage, but they may need a minute to find the right plan. Currently they can violate a rule that will merely add two minutes to their opponent’s time. They may even get a warning but neither penalty affects their chance of winning. In exchange, they get a good look at the position with the clocks stopped while the TD is summoned. If they find a winning plan then the unethical behavior is rewarded. The same goes for saving a draw. If they are lost anyway then they risked nothing. Deducting sixty seconds for the above-mentioned infraction requires the player to complete the game using their remaining time as unethical antics like those discussed here will lose the game. Unintentional blunders in time pressure such as dropping a piece or an accidental illegal move will also lose the game.

Argument #3: The rule removes the need for a TD to determine intent
Under current rules a TD may address similar situations by applying 13I (refusal to follow rules of chess) or other rules which require a judgment of intent. This is not good for a chess club. When a TD makes a call based on intent at least one player will consider it extreme. Players take offense and the club is hurt. Good rules render intent moot.

…and just to be clear
There would be no penalty for displacing pieces when the pieces are restored before the clock is pressed.

First, the touch-move rule requires the TD to determine intent. Would you change that rule, too?

Second, I’m sorry, but I just can’t see forfeiting a player with 30 seconds remaining on his clock because he accidentally brushed a piece that fell over on his way to hitting the clock after his move.

Alex Relyea

[EricHammond]

@relyea

First, the touch-move rule requires the TD to determine intent.

You are correct, some cases require the TD to determine intent. In the example that I gave (picking up the wrong piece) intent does not matter, nor does it matter with 10G (Accidental release of a piece). Intent does matter in scenarios such as 10E (brushing a piece with the back of your hand) and 10F (appearance of adjustment).

@relyea

Would you change that rule, too?

No.

@relyea

Second, I’m sorry, but I just can’t see forfeiting a player with 30 seconds remaining on his clock because he accidentally brushed a piece that fell over on his way to hitting the clock after his move.

Alex Relyea

Good point. The same standard that you highlighted in the touch-move rule should be applied here as well.

Several posters noted that the book penalty (with or without a warning) may be insufficient for a player who avoids certain loss on time by pressing the clock out of turn. Perhaps there is a better solution than the current rule, but the fact that there have been no comments supporting my above suggestion is not lost on me.

[EricHammond]

@Harold S.

This is what is really happening. This is not a made up scenario. And, as a result, the higher rated player has decided that playing under these conditions is both unfair and unsportsmanlike, so he is boycotting all these tournaments so as to avoid any future confrontations with said player. Once again he gets rewarded by eliminating his strongest competitor.

I mentioned this possibility earlier on this subject. The rules should never reward bad behavior and this kind of behavior should be dealt with appropriately. The hardest part is determining when it is just being clumsy and when it is intentional. This is sometimes a judgement call by the TD. I assume the TD received a complaint from the victimized player. Rule 20G gives a TD some power to do something about this annoying behavior but 20G1 goes into “inadvertent annoying behavior”.

In the case you cite one player is unhappy while if the director did something contrary to the letter of the rules on resetting pieces the other player would be unhappy. There is no reason why a club/organizer/director can’t make a variation of the rules as long as it is announced in advance. I once played in quick tournaments at a club in which it was announced that the first illegal move in each game would give the opponent 2 extra minutes but additional ones by the same player would subtract 2 minutes from the player committing the infraction.

My feeling is that if the behavior described occurs too many times and only when the situation on the clock is as you describe then the director has enough evidence and needs to go beyond what was done previously. Many directors have a style in which they avoid controversies like this. In the short run it may be no problem but over the long run the problems only get worse. If the situation is as you describe I might warn the player that continued behavior of this nature would result in penalties permitted under 20G and let him know what they would be. If the behavior didn’t stop then I’d start to impose them. As someone who runs a chess club, I would much sooner lose the member that is causing the problem than the victims of it.

Both players are frequent participants in the small weekly tournament that I direct, and are likely to be paired when they are present. A couple of weeks ago the victimized player mentioned his frustration with this annoying behavior which had occurred in an event outside of my tournaments. Then earlier this week I received a request to address the situation as it had occurred again - also outside of my tournaments - and two additional occurrences were mentioned at this time (confirmed by an independent source). If I avoid the issue with “not my tournament / not my problem,” then I still lose a valued player as he will no longer tolerate the potential of the issue being repeated.

Tonight was our club night. Before pairing the player with the 20G1 history I pulled him aside to discuss the issue. I explained some of the feedback given to me in this thread and stated that for repeated behavior I am willing to go as far as forfeiting the game. I gave him a general warning to always restore displaced pieces and/or remove captured pieces before pressing his clock – especially in a time scramble. We started and ended our conversation on good terms. The player later had a time scramble in an unclear rook-and-pawn ending and had no issues with 20G. The other player was not at the club – and may not return unless more drastic action is taken.

So now it’s time to critique the novice. Did I go too far by warning a player who had not violated the rules in my weekly tournaments? Did I not do enough as I may lose a valued player by only issuing a warning? Thanks in advance.

[BobMessenger]

@EricHammond

Tonight was our club night. Before pairing the player with the 20G1 history I pulled him aside to discuss the issue. I explained some of the feedback given to me in this thread and stated that for repeated behavior I am willing to go as far as forfeiting the game. I gave him a general warning to always restore displaced pieces and/or remove captured pieces before pressing his clock – especially in a time scramble. We started and ended our conversation on good terms. The player later had a time scramble in an unclear rook-and-pawn ending and had no issues with 20G. The other player was not at the club – and may not return unless more drastic action is taken.

So now it’s time to critique the novice. Did I go too far by warning a player who had not violated the rules in my weekly tournaments? Did I not do enough as I may lose a valued player by only issuing a warning? Thanks in advance.

I think you did the right thing. You warned the player who was violating the rules by pressing the clock before resetting the pieces, and he corrected his behavior. So far, so good. Since you’ve issued a warning, if there is a relapse in future games you should impose penalties.

Did I not do enough as I may lose a valued player by only issuing a warning?

This part I don’t understand. Why wouldn’t what you did be enough? What did the other player want you to do? If he wants you to impose penalties for incidents which happened at other tournaments your answer should be no, and if that means you lose a “valued player” then so be it.

[Harold_S]

Both players are frequent participants in the small weekly tournament that I direct, and are likely to be paired when they are present. A couple of weeks ago the victimized player mentioned his frustration with this annoying behavior which had occurred in an event outside of my tournaments. Then earlier this week I received a request to address the situation as it had occurred again - also outside of my tournaments - and two additional occurrences were mentioned at this time (confirmed by an independent source). If I avoid the issue with “not my tournament / not my problem,” then I still lose a valued player as he will no longer tolerate the potential of the issue being repeated.

Tonight was our club night. Before pairing the player with the 20G1 history I pulled him aside to discuss the issue. I explained some of the feedback given to me in this thread and stated that for repeated behavior I am willing to go as far as forfeiting the game. I gave him a general warning to always restore displaced pieces and/or remove captured pieces before pressing his clock – especially in a time scramble. We started and ended our conversation on good terms. The player later had a time scramble in an unclear rook-and-pawn ending and had no issues with 20G. The other player was not at the club – and may not return unless more drastic action is taken.

So now it’s time to critique the novice. Did I go too far by warning a player who had not violated the rules in my weekly tournaments? Did I not do enough as I may lose a valued player by only issuing a warning? Thanks in advance.

For many players just knowing that the directors are on to their behavior and being warned is enough. Based on the quote above it would appear that the warning was sufficient. As a director I would rather see the bad behavior stop than deal in penalties.