A very good point (and one that, IMO, favors plus-score prizes).
Thanks for the clarity and the amazing chess problems!
Recently, I was a director at a tournament where the following “game” was played on first board in the last round between an IM and a master: 1. d4 Draw. This resulted in a tie for 1st-2nd prize money. My ruling was that this violated the letter and spirit of Rule 14B6 in the 6th edition of the Rulebook and that they be required to play a game. I brought this to the attention of the Chief TD of the tournament. Another TD was present and witnessed the game. The players had difficulty producing a scoresheet. My ruling was overturned by the Chief TD of the event and the players were paid.
How would you have ruled?
How did this result affect others in prize awards? If anyone would have benefited from one of the players winning, then there is cause, in my opinion, to reject the result. If, on the other hand, it made no difference, then I’d have overruled you as well.
It is my opinion, however stupid it may be, that players are obliged to perform their best. If my game depends on my winning in order to help another player get in the money, then I feel obliged to do my best to win.
It is difficult to tell how a “half move” game will affect overall prizes. If a real game had been played to a decisive result, several players could have tied for second and third place money. Several players were not surprised by the result, but were a little dismayed at the abruptness of the game. They felt it looked bad. This game will be marked as a rated game.
I’d like to offer a few specifics about this situation.
(1) There was no third place overall prize. There was first overall, second overall, then U2200 and U2000.
(2) The standings going into the fifth and last round:
4-0: A (2400), B (2350)
3.5-0.5: C (2110)
3-1: D (2510), E (2250), F (2150)
(3) The pairings on the top three boards were A-B, C-D, E-F.
(4) A and B did set up their board and clock, and started their game at the prescribed time. The moves were 1. d4, draw.
(5) I witnessed their game. I was also player C.
These facts will, I hope, give some background to my comments.
I do not believe that A and B fixed their result in advance. I’ve known both players for a while, and they have never caused a problem in any event I’ve run. I consider them both honorable.
The chief TD asked me about the last round game of A and B. My response was that they were always going to draw that game. They have no real incentive to fight. With a drawn result, the only player who could intrude on their prizes was me, and to do that, I’d have to beat a player who had about 400 rating points on me. If A or B loses, though, they run the risk of getting nothing if I win.
In the absence of a specific rule proscription, and given that the players did set up a board and clock, I would have ruled that the game stands as well.
That last round game impacted all three of the top boards. With the board one game lasting but a few seconds, the next two games became all but meaningless for prize purposes. If the board 1 game had continued, there would have been an incentive for the struggles and tension on all boards would have been higher and all results would have been possible. Player C, who had a decent game for much of the time would have been in a better position to win against his higher rated opponent who would have needed to play riskier because he had something to play for. Players D and E would also have had the incentive to play well and would not have been psychologically deflated by the little show that happened on top board.
I do not know A and B personally. Their ratings are irrelevant. A result by “1 d4 Draw” by the two players does neither of them any great honor. Rule 14B6 reads: “Premature or prearranged results It is unethical and unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest has begun. The same is true of all arrangements to prearrange game results. In case of a clear violation of the moral principles of the game, penalties should be imposed at the director’s discretion.”
Had a serious contest begun? I did not think so. Evidence of that was the difficulty of the players to produce a scoresheet. Was there a clear violation of the “moral principles” of the game? While there is some subjectivity in this, by playing only a half move, or in computer terms half ply, this appears to be against the “moral principles” embodied in chess competition. Another TD agreed with me. I told the players as much, and that they should play a game. They disagreed and would not play. I took the matter to the Chief TD for a final ruling. He overturned my decision and accepted the half move draw as a game. Much of the argument turned not on Rule 14B6, but on the TD tip that followed. It seems that this tip was more important than the black letter law of the rule. This game will now be rated.
I don’t think that TD decisions should not be based on the ratings of the players or whether you know them. Whether a 2600 rated player or a 600 rated player is involved, he or she should expect to receive the same regard and the same objective ruling. Even if you know the players or are friends with them, the facts should guide your decisions. Otherwise, you are exhibiting favoritism and violating your ethical principles as a TD for the USCF.
Why bother having Rule 14B6, or even 20L, if they are not going to be enforced? It makes a mockery of the game and is a poor model for other players, especially juniors, if games like “1.d4 Draw” are allowed to be played and rated.
As a player, I fully understand what Players A and B were doing to protect their share of the prize money. To put on a little show and play only one move is less than discrete. It was a slap in the face to the organization of the event by the PSCF and to the TDs who were present. They could have done themselves true honor and played a real game.
I would hope this game was not submitted for USCF rating.
So if they go back and toss off 10 moves of a Petroff or an Exchange Ruy, and then shake hands, is that materially better than the game actually played? And how does this new-found bent for strict interpretation of Rule 14B6 square with this previous post, in this very thread?
There were no specific rules about short draws in place for this tournament. So, please point to one rule these two players violated. The practical key to applying penalties under Rule 14B6 is that you must prove pre-arrangement. There was zero evidence of that presented on site, and no such new evidence has been presented here. As I’ve said before on this subject, if two strong players are in the mood to draw, they will do so - and they don’t need to pre-arrange it. One look at the wallchart before the round will tell you all you need to know.
Whether a TD likes the result or not, or whether it offends his personal sensibilities, is irrelevant. The real injustice is substituting one’s own personal preferences for black-letter rule. If you don’t like the rules, change them…but you’ll want to do that BEFORE the tournament, NOT during.
I wasn’t on staff, and I don’t know whether the game is being submitted for rating. It shouldn’t be, by rule. However, if it is, I probably won’t flip out about it.
I am not asserting pre-arrangement of a result. Had I heard them do that, I would have forfeited them on the spot. The rule also refers to “premature” draws. In this case, the evidence is quite clear. The players played one half of a move pair and called it a day. At best, they could provide only the flimsiest of a record of their play. They had difficulty providing a scoresheet.
What I personally think, as a TD and a player, may differ because those are two different perspectives. I have thought in the past that these short draws were difficult to police and that Rule 14B6 was onerous, but it was still a rule. Since my previous post in January, I have obtained the new 6th edition of the Rulebook and re-read it in its entirety. The rule is still in there as well as the TD tip. The TD tip is not the rule but just shows the difficulty of enforcement absent clear evidence. As a TD, I am required to enforce the rules. When I and another TD see the same thing occurring, then it is my duty to enforce 14B6 with regard to “premature” draws. If I do not enforce it, I think I would be in big trouble with the Ethics Committee if someone brought a case because I did not enforce the rule. I would have no leg of support to stand on.
I recall an incident at the World Open a number of years ago where two GMs posted a result without playing the game. The TD in charge of the section, Carol Jarecki, forfeited the players for violation of FIDE and USCF rules. The organizer made them go back and play a game when they appealed. If you want a precedent for the use of a rule, here it is. I was surprised that two prominent GMs would be forfeited, but there it was and certainly food for thought. They had to turn in scoresheets to prove they played a game. In all games, the organizer has the right to see scoresheets to prove a game has been played.
For FIDE rules and practice, I defer to Boyd Reed and his judgment concerning how a ruling would be made in an international tournament. All I have to use is the Rulebook, all 6 editions, the Harkness Bluebook and Official Chess Handbook, and forty plus years of experience as a player and as a TD. There has never been an occasion where I saw a TD allow such a farce to occur. Older players and my mentors who introduced me to being a tournament director would have more than bristled that players would stoop to playing “1.d4 Draw.” Players so inclined to draw made at least an effort to produce a semblance of a game rather than to try to show up an organizer or a TD by such a game. The play might still be a farce, but at least there would be more than one act before the curtain fell.
First, I (and my opponent) can both testify that there were scoresheets used. I saw them, and I’m quite certain my opponent did as well. Now, I wouldn’t be surprised if they got pitched when they walked out of the room, but they did exist.
The World Open situation in Tom Magar’s previous post - and the ruling on its appeal - illustrates exactly why attempts to enforce Rule 14B6 beyond pre-arrangement are generally futile. I’d gladly wager whatever sum one cares to name that there was zero (as in none, nil, zip, nada) chance of a forfeit being upheld in that situation. The simplest solution, which allows the floor TD to be “upheld” while still allowing the players to do what they’ve already declared an intent to do: have the players go back, play 5-10 moves and shake hands.
The chief TD, in the event in question here, didn’t bother with that. Frankly, when I know what the result of the “game” will be either way, I don’t think it matters. A one-move “farce”, a five-move “farce” or a twenty-move “farce” is all the same, in both name and effect. All of those descriptions are subjective - and why attempting to strictly enforce Rule 14B6, without any additional rules or variations having been pre-announced, at anything larger than a small local event is a non-starter. At worst, the chief TD failed to make the players play a few more moves. If you can’t prove they pre-arranged the result, so what?
If anyone were to file an Ethics complaint in this situation, I’d write in defense of the chief TD (even though I’d have handled it differently if I saw it coming; see below).
One final note. I’ve only got 27 years in running USCF events, but I’ve worked events of many sizes, and I’ve seen this come up with adults, with kids, with masters and with class players. When I’ve seen games such as this, I’ve found it works best to quietly approach the players - before they’ve left the board, if possible - and appeal to their better selves. It’s very likely that they will still draw, but they’ll at least give you 10-15 moves, and they’ll appreciate the manner in which you approached it.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Magar’s position in the scenario he outlines here. A serious contest, the tournament, had begun. A draw was the only way that both players could guarantee that they would win the tournament. Surely a tournament is more important than a single game. I would have liked to see Black respond so that the game would be ratable. Did you treat it as a forfeit draw? I have no idea what a half-ply is.
Alex Relyea
I await to see whether the game in question will be sent in by the chief TD and rated by the USCF.
I would also like for someone to prove that I imposed my “personal preferences” over black letter law. That is a serious allegation. The rule is pretty clear given the evidence. The tournament was a Grand Prix event in which prize money and points were to be distributed. The “game” had a potential effect on other games. I did not make the ruling lightly and brought the matter to the attention of the Chief TD for final disposition.
Since this is a situation that likely will arise again, it would be well to get an opinion by members and/or the chairman of the Rules Committee whether Rule 14B6 should be enforced. This is one of the very few rules where a “moral principles” clause is made a part of the rule. A rule which is roundly ignored, flouted openly, or open to misinterpretation because of the attached TD tip is not a good rule; not for the players, and not for the TDs who must enforce it. If the USCF does not want the rule enforced, someone in authority should say so.
In a highly unusual one-time move, I have agreed to post a comment on this issue from Eric Johnson. See below. I told Eric J this is the first and last time I would do this.
The main reason I agreed to this is that Eric J is the TD/organizer at the club where the issue that started this thread arose. The most recent flare-up is also a PA thing, from an open Swiss that ran alongside this past weekend’s state scholastic championship.
If the two players involved in the d4-draw are who I have been told, then I know one of them slightly and have seen and heard nothing but good from and about him. (And his brother was my opponent in my first game of rated chess, in Philadelphia in 1980. Gnats and elephants.)
I hope this discussion stays civil—and especially hope we will not see a PA civil war. This is not a new topic and this “game” won’t be the last such case.
All comments below (in italics) from Eric C. Johnson:
[i]I absolutely refuse to post on these forums – as they generate nothing but mean-spiirted snickering and mocking responses to honest rules questions.
However, the absurd abuse of chess that (apparently) occurred at the PA tournament in Lancaster this weekend cannot go without comment.
I commend Tom Magar – floor TD – for valiantly trying to do the right thing when two players abused chess by playing a game that went 1. d4 1/2-1/2 to share money and (potentially) titles.
Let me say it again – I applaud Tom Magar. I learned my ethics of chess from wonderful teachers in Bradford (Bob Ferguson) and in Pittsburgh (Tom Martinak and Tom Magar, among others). I am proud to say Tom was one of those persons. There is no way such a game would be tolerated in any Pittsburgh event I ever played in – and I carry that strong sense of ethics into the Allentown club that I run.
Such a game has no chess content. It clearly violates the spirit and letter of the rule on premature draws. Where people got this idea that one must prove pre-arrangement to enforce this rule is beyond me. All that is needed is to show that the “game” has no chess content. None. Zilch. A game that goes 1. d4 “would you like a draw” means that one of the players did not intend to play a game. And by accepting the offer, the other player has conspired not to start a game.
There are plenty of drawing lines in opening theory – some are forced draws in less than 15 moves. Any of them can be used to achieve a scoring result. They constitute chess content. Players who avail themselves of such lines – while they may be avoiding a real fight over the board – at least provide appropriate cover for themselves, their reputations, the organizers and the TDs. Players who play 1. d4 1/2-1/2 abuse the organizer, the other players, and the TDs. They rub the organization’s nose in it – expecting to do so with impunity.
Some will argue “but you have played short draws too” – and that is correct, but my draws have chess content. If experienced TDs cannot tell the difference between 1-move draws that last 10 seconds and barely registers on a scoresheet, vs. short draws that last 20-25 minutes…they should turn in their certifications.
I am ashamed that this happened in Pennsylvania. It goes against everything that club chess is about. Not only should the players have been forfeited, but they should have been tossed from the event. Maybe after losing a prize fund or two, such antics would be curtailed (as likely perpetrators would know that the actions do indeed carry a price).
I say this without regard to the identity of the two players. It doesn’t matter who they are, whether they have played locally (they have) or not. It doesn’t matter whether I like them personally (I do)…or not. It matters that they believed that they could do this type of thing – in front of their peers – and get away with it. They know better. They know there are clubs in the state that don’t allow this sort of thing. They truly know better. That is the shameful part of this.
Kudos to Tom Magar. Shame to the Chief TD who overruled him. Double shame on the posters on this forum who think this is acceptable behavior under our rules.
Eric C. Johnson
USCF Local TD
USCF Assistant Director 1994-99
Member and player since 1980
[/i]
Tom,
I agree with your position on this, that is, that a rule stated should be enforced. Well, let me say that in the situation you had, I believe the Chief TD was wrong to not to back you up on a ruling that was clearly valid. A one move draw (not to mention, a 1/2-move draw) is clearly in violation of the rule as it is written. It is unsporting to agree to a draw before a serious contest, and TDs are able to penalize such unsporting and unethical behavior.
Now, however, the problem is, as you know, how to enforce it when you know that the players will achieve the result that they want. Well, maybe, it doesn’t really take much smarts to understand when a result was manufactured, especially after several warnings, and directions to continue the game, and the result is the same after 40 moves.
But, are we, as TDs, allowed to force players into losing a game by rejecting a draw offer in a losing position? I don’t know, but surely there’s procedures we “rules lawyers” 
could come up with.
My problem with short draws like this is as I’ve said before, other people’s money is involved. I could see myself becoming very upset if I was deprived of my share of a prize due to a premature draw. Surely the framers of this rule took that into consideration when drafting that rule. If so, why can’t we enforce it?
As for me, I would have no trouble at all rejecting such a result as in the case you present, and if the players get upset, so be it; they can avoid my events.
Since it’s difficult to truly prove that a result was manufactured, especially when the players turn in a score sheet with 40+ moves, perhaps a monetary penalty could be prescribed, and awarded to a player who was harmed by the result. But then, that may not be enough.
Boyd, et. al… I’m trying my best to have an open mind about this, and understand the other side of the argument, but it’s rough going; the rules are there, and they should be enforced without fear of upsetting people and causing them to boycott your event.
Given the continued discussion - and the accompanying sanctimony - I thought the following game might be of interest. I found it in the Games section of the PSCF website.
[code][Event “Golden Triangle Open”]
[Site “Pittsburgh”]
[Date “1989.04.02”]
[Round “4”]
[White “Magar, Thomas P”]
[Black “Martinak, Tom M”]
[Result “1/2-1/2”]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 1/2-1/2[/code]
I was curious about the tournament situation, so I inquired of one of the competitors. It appears the two players were tied for first entering the fourth and final round of the 1989 Golden Triangle Open. Assuming the notation is correct, it seems obvious which player offered the draw.
I offer this game, as well as this post (again!) from earlier in this thread, as proof that there is a brutally obvious problem with any attempt to impose Rule 14B6 in a subjective manner.
IMO, the two players from this weekend should have been sent back to at least meet the ratability requirement. However, I’m not going to string up the chief TD for not doing that, given the obvious inclination the two players have to draw the game. There’s a good chance the TD didn’t know this particular requirement in detail (my experience is that it doesn’t come up until you get into larger events).
All the sermonizing about this weekend’s game fails miserably when measured against the plain language of the rulebook. As long as the two players don’t pre-arrange the result, and you don’t have a pre-announced variant requiring more than the minimum ratability requirement, then a one-move game is legal. It doesn’t matter if any of those people like it or not. (For the record, the shortest draw I’ve ever taken is nine moves, one time, and it had no effect on any prizes.)
For those arguing about enforcement…I would strongly suggest you stop and think about the purpose/intent of Rule 14B6. It’s designed to make pre-arranged results illegal. Attempts to impose the rule beyond that specific point are doomed to failure, because the standard becomes impossibly subjective after that.
(Should Eric Johnson ever decide to come on-line himself and directly defend his directing practices in this regard, I’ll comment further on those at that time. I hope he does. Might be interesting to see who needs to turn in their certification after that discussion.)
I agree completely with Boyd Reed here. I also want to bring up a game played a few months ago here in Austin in the last round between 2 brothers leading a tournament: 1. d4 Resigns. The result was allowed to stand, even though TD/organizer (same person) apparently asked them not to it again. This particular result maximized the total prize money for the 2 players involved. I did not play in that particular event (so I have no standing to challenge this result), but I did play many times previously in the same type of events by the same organizer/TD. Ever since this case, I have been boycotting these events. I strongly feel that 1. d4 Resigns is in itself a sufficient evidence of a prearranged game, while 1. d4 Draw Agreed is not.
I would say that the first game score is, prima facie, enough evidence to throw both players out of the tournament, at a minimum. If they had pulled this stunt previously, and been warned not to do it again, then I’m not sure why the TD didn’t drop the proverbial hammer on them.
I didn’t mean to imply it wasn’t their first time. I meant to say they were warned not to do it again in the future.
This is the event in question: http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201405315782.1
Michael Langer
Austin, TX