Short draws and the ambiguous rule 14B6

Running Chess Tournaments
61

So, as evidence of subjectivity in making a decision, a game that was played 26 years ago is brought up. Was it a one move draw? No. Was it challenged by the TD? No. If it had been done, Tom and I would have gone back and played the game. I do not recall all of the circumstances of the game, so I cannot say what went into the decision to offer the draw. Probably because we are friends and have worked on the Pittsburgh Chess League for over 30 years. I will freely admit I have played a few short draws in my long career. Some because I was not feeling well, some for tournament management purposes, some because I was playing a friend and not inclined to win, and some because my opponent offered it to me and I saw no good reason to turn it down. Exhange variations of the Slav or the French Defense will do that to you. But I have never played a one move draw.

As I have stated, perspectives as a player and a TD may differ. As a TD, I have followed the Rulebook to the best of my ability and made objective rulings at all times. In the application of the rules, I have ignored friendships and potential losses of income from making rulings against individuals with whom I have worked with or for. My duty as a TD means that the rules and their application was the higher consideration. I believe that all players should be treated fairly and equally regardless of their rating. Some players make mistakes or don’t follow the rules out of ignorance. With those individuals, it is necessary to instruct as well as to penalize. A few willfully ignore the rule when they know better. Instead of being exemplars of sportsmanship, they bring the game into disrepute. With these individuals, harsher penalties should be applied.

Some TDs are intimidated by higher rated players who threaten never to come back to their events. A few TDs revel in being pals with higher rated titled players. Favorable rulings are made on their behalf even when circumstances warrant an opposite ruling. This real subjectivity merits disrespect by players who see TDs do this.

I still await proof that I was subjective in my interpretation of Rule 14B6. The evidence of a one move draw and the difficulty of producing scoresheets clearly shows that no “serious contest” was attempted in the game in question. How this “game”, 1.d4 Draw can be considered a “serious contest” is incredible. My ruling that a game be played was overruled by the Chief TD. I know quite well that a likely short draw would then have been played, but the message would have been sent that playing no game at all and marking a result is unacceptable. Since this game occurred in the same room as the Pa. Scholastic Championship, the organizers should expect the players to behave with due respect to these young players and be models of sportsmanship.

One of the points of contention is the emphasis on the TD tip that is attached to 14B6. That tip was not in the 4th edition of the Rulebook or in previous editions. It was added to the 5th edition and remains in the 6th edition. This tip weakens the intent of the Rule and is often used to justify bad behavior by players. The tip is not the rule. In looking back through all of the Rulebooks and the earlier Blue Book and Official Chess Handbook, there is discussion of the attempts, mainly failed attempts, to address the issue of short draws and prearranged results. Many attempts were made by FIDE to put an end to the practice, some to no avail. Some federations struck out on their own to strengthen their rules and deal with short draws. It is clear from the reading that an extremely foreshortened game like “1.d4 Draw” would not be in compliance with the Rules of Chess on the FIDE or USCF levels. Rule 14B6 is the USCF version of the attempt to deal with the issue and was put into the 4th edition of the Rulebook and remains there.

We talk a lot about how cheating needs to be addressed because it threatens the integrity of the game and undermines our attempts to spread the game to more of the public. Thus, we have strengthened the rules to deal with electronic cheating. We have made rules and policies with regard to sandbagging because this affects tournament attendance and the rating system. Short draws look bad to the general public and to the players. When we pass a rule dealing with that issue which is willfully ignored by players and TDs, it strikes at the integrity of the game as well. If the USCF does not want TDs to enforce this or other rules, then it countenances a bad practice which is poor PR for the game and its players.

62

Boyd,

The rule doesn’t say that it’s about prearranged results only, it talks about premature draws, too.

63

The subjectivity in Tom Magar’s attempt to apply Rule 14B6 here is quite obvious, and doesn’t require evidence other than his own admitted actions. When does a “serious contest” begin? I think most people would say that once a tournament game starts, that is the beginning of the “serious contest”. Unless the tournament has a variant in force to compel a specific minimum number of moves, then why is a minimally short draw illegal? (Notice that I don’t advocate doing this; there’s a clear difference between what is allowable and what is desirable in this discussion.)

The reason for showing his short draw against Tom Martinak - a game that affected prizes for other players, and could just as easily be perceived as a “slap in the face”, a “dishonor”, etc. etc. ad nauseam - was solely to demonstrate the pointlessness of arbitrary in-game application of Rule 14B6. Obviously, both players know and respect the game of chess - as I would say both players this weekend do as well.

What does it matter when the game was played? It was accepted, and rated - just like the chief TD this weekend took the same action. And it makes criticism of this weekend’s play seem a bit hollow. One could, in fact, argue that the game from this last weekend was simply a theoretical improvement on the game Magar-Martinak. Why play seven ply when one will do? :unamused: More seriously, please re-read this post in this thread that I’ve linked to twice, now. It makes the same argument I’m making here. I find the 180-degree turn from there to here to be whiplash-inducing.

As a Special Referee, if this situation had been brought to me, my only deviation from the chief TD’s decision would have been to send the players back to play enough moves to make the game ratable.

64

The rule actually talks about agreeing to “draw before a serious contest has begun”. The question is, absent a pre-announced standard, when is a serious contest considered to have begun? How many moves must be played?

The only place in the rulebook that really discusses this is the ratability requirement, which requires one full move to be played for a game to be rated. So, if they’d have turned in 1. d4 d5 1/2-1/2, would THAT be acceptable? What about, say, the 3.5-move draw shown upthread? Would you accept THAT?

Really, what is the issue here? I don’t get it. The players could have been sent back to play 1, 3 or 10 moves. They were going to draw the game anyway. What - you’re going to forfeit the co-leaders for taking a short draw in the last round? And if you’re not prepared to do that, what exactly ARE you going to do, besides (A) making them play a few moves, or (B) accepting their submitted result?

For the sake of rules compliance, they should have been sent back to play at least one more ply. But beyond that, there’s really nothing to be done except build a bridge, and get over it.

65

I wasn’t trying to focus only on Tom Magar’s comments. (I haven’t yet read the link you gave).

My point was that you contend that only pre-arranged draws count as violations, while the rule states that premature draws are also prohibited.

How to determine when a serious game begins? I don’t know for sure, but 7-10 moves is not it, in my opinion.

66

:laughing: Not only do I have to get over it, I gotta build my own damn bridge :laughing:

67

My contention is a bit more involved than what is related here. What I’m saying is that there is no way to objectively determine when a serious contest has begun - except that USCF rated games are considered serious, and a game can be rated after one full move has been played.

I’m also saying that, unless a TD can prove pre-arrangement, the worst rational punishment available under Rule 14B6 is to send the players back to play more moves. That’s within a TD’s right - but it’s also essentially superfluous.

68

Correction: The event with the 1. d4-draw in the last round was not the open state championship. It was a ‘regular’ open Swiss that ran alongside the state scholastic championship. That is how things had worked for years—until last year, when the official open state championship was held alongside the scholastic championship. This year we are back to the old routine.

Thus my poor brain got confused. I also scratch my head even more as to why the top board players, an IM and an FM, behaved as they did.

There was no state title on the line, it was not ‘that’ much money, neither player is known as shy and retiring and both have reps as gentlemen/sportsmen (I can attest first-hand here to the FM)…and also the IM was younger, higher-rated and I think he had White, though I have received enough conflicting info on this event I would not swear to it.

All they had to do was play a few plausible moves, think for a few minutes, shake hands and all would have been sunshine and roses. And both of them know that…scratching my head.

69

Two words: Plus Score.

Bill Smythe

70

While generally true, I don’t think that it is necessarily true. We could have evidence against that from the play of the game (though it would probably also point to prearrangement). Suppose you have the game: 1. a4 h5 2. h4 a5 draw. I would argue that a serious contest had definitely not started and there would be a prima facie case for a prearranged draw. (Though given this argument, I better be careful about agreeing to a draw when playing the Schliemann!)

71

In the specific two-move game above, I would say that comes pretty close to being prearranged. However, even this exception has limits, and determining where they are gets pretty slippery, pretty fast.

72

To put this reply in context, I am the Chief TD of the Long Island Chess Club in NY. I have in place a rule that players cannot have a draw BY AGREEMENT until 25 moves have been played. That’s a low enough number that it’s not too strict, yet high enough to stop “GM draws” which was becoming common among some players. The response to this rule has been mostly positive. Just wanted to to add my thoughts…

73

I wouldn’t have a problem with this or any other specific restriction that was announced in advance. (If a prospective player hates the rule, they always have the option to not play the event.) If the players generally like it, then that’s a good thing for the club.

74

In my opinion the real blame for this incident, and many similar incidents, lies not with the players, nor any of the TDs. The problem is the vagueness of the phrase “Before a serious contest has begun”. Clearly there is strong disagreement among TDs as to the proper interpretation of this phrase. It would be helpful if someone from the rules committee could provide specifics, and preferably change the wording for future rulebook updates. If it’s intended to mean “Before the game has started” then it should be worded that way. Or if it’s intended to mean that something more, beyond simply starting the game, is needed, then any additional requirement(s) should be clearly specified in the rule.

I think it’s fine to allow individual TDs to impose variations on the default rule, but these variations should be announced in advance and be clearly defined. Something like “You must play X moves before a draw may be agreed” is clear and unambiguous, and is something players will obey without any problems. On the other hand, “You must play enough moves until the TD considers the game beautiful enough for his liking” is highly subjective, and is an argument waiting to happen. I don’t believe players should be subject to the whim of whatever arbitrary interpretation of 14B6 a TD decides on that particular day. Yet, with the rule as vague as it is currently worded, that is exactly what is happening.

For example, a couple months ago “Player A” from this past weekend was involved in a very similar situation in the final round on board 1 of another tournament with a much larger prize fund. His opponent, a top GM, played 1. e4 and offered a draw. Naturally, Player A accepted. Nobody complained. One of the TDs was even joking about it with a group of players afterwards. If the overwhelming majority of TDs allow such short draws to happen (which in my experience they do) then players will naturally come to expect that it is okay, and will be upset if told otherwise after the fact.

To those who contend that short draws embarrass the organizer and the other players: In this particular event, the Chief TD/organizer (the same person) is the one who made the final ruling that the one-move draw stands. Also, my understanding is that Players C and D on board 2, either of whom could have snuck into the prize money with a decisive result on board 1, were both perfectly okay with the short draw. So who exactly was embarrassed?

Logically, if two players who share first place heading into the final round decide that they are content to draw, and don’t want to risk losing, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? They have earned the right to be in that situation by winning their previous games. If other players don’t like it, they have nobody to blame but themselves for falling out of the tournament lead.

75

Because of the exact reason you gave earlier, that is that other players can be in prize contention and relying on a decisive result to gain that prize, which they, too, worked hard to do.

In my view, any tournament is like a team event, in that all players should have the obligation to try to win OTB. After all, that is the objective of the game, isn’t it? (USCF RULE 4A.) Sportsmanship requires that all players play unbiased.

There’s also the possibility of collusion in a premature draw, in that a decisive result between players A & B would knockout player C, but a draw would not. If A and C are friends, and A is much higher rated than B, then A can be compelled to give up a draw in order to help friend, C, while securing prize money for himself.

76

The objective of playing a chess tournament…is to win the tournament. If a player can lock up first place with a short last-round draw, and his opponent agrees to the draw, then as long as the agreement conforms to USCF and tournament rules, the result stands. Any attempt to claim otherwise is, IMO, a stone-cold loser on appeal.

If a TD wants the statutory authority to compel the players to do more in that situation, then that person will need to file an ADM for a rule change, or pre-announce a sufficient rule variant. (Plot spoiler: “No short draws” is woefully insufficient.)

77

I understand why you feel the need to stick hard to this position. The more I read this thread the more I picture John Fedorowicz in his prime, arching an eyebrow at the “clowns” who tried stuff like this at the Marshall or a CCA Swiss.

“C’mon guys; get real.” Arch an eyebrow like Fed in grumpy mode.

That might not be in the Rulebook but then again there are TD Tips left unspoken and understood.

On another note: The Kamsky-Bartell half-move “game” from the LBO got rated. That’s against the rules, right?

That cost Kamsky a few rating points. Now suppose Kamsky misses the next Olympiad team by a fraction of a rating point. Can he sue USCF or file an appeal or pout real hard because of this rules violation?

When we say 1. d4 draw is OK because there is no rule that prohibits it—but you can’t use a scorebook you bought at USCF Sales because there is (some say) a rule that does prohibit it…I dunno.

78

I’m imagining a TD posting a rules variation saying that draws must be one complete move to be acceptable. I would laugh out loud at that one.

79

Actually, I rather suspect you don’t, based on your subsequent comments.

And yet, it’s still allowed, all grumping and name-calling to the contrary.

Now try enforcing one of those “invisible ink TD Tips”. Good luck with that.

I don’t know anything about that game. I wasn’t at the tournament. But assuming the facts are as related here, it is technically against the rules for the game to be rated. Of course, this has been covered in this thread.

I don’t think they make an emoticon that rolls its eyes hard enough to be used in response to this. One can file a suit, file an appeal, or pout over just about anything. The question is how far it would get.

In this case, Kamsky (presumably) offered the draw that resulted in his rating decrease. I strongly suspect that would be a major point against any subsequent complaint he might make. Then again, I doubt he’d ever do any of those things anyway.

Please don’t be so disingenuous as to include me in that “we”. I’ve already said that if I were directing, I’d have made the players play one more half-move so the game could be rated. And I’ve never imposed a penalty on someone using one of those hard-cover scorebooks. So long as it’s always on the table, and the player only opens it to keep score, I’m fine with it. I consider that use case to be analogous to someone using an electronic scoresheet with an automatic screen dimmer.

80

I’m not trying to be an arse here, but are you telling me that if I were to reject a draw as premature and double forfeit the players (likely only after repeated attempts), I would likely lose on an appeal?

If this is the case, then the rule need not be in the book. Heck, why even require a move to be made to be rated, my opponent and I just need to go mark 1/2 on the result sheet and be done. Because that’s the rules, you say? So too is the rule against premature draws, I say.

The agreement does not conform to USCF and tournament rules, as you say.