What I’m telling you is pretty simple. Without a specific standard set before the event, attempting to forfeit players for not meeting your arbitrary guideline for not making a premature draw is highly unlikely to survive an appeal.
A game of chess is between two players. A director doesn’t get to substitute his judgment for that of the players, save some very specific situations in the rulebook (for example, the ability to adjudicate an abandoned game). So, if two players turn in a five-move draw, unless the tournament has a specified move minimum (for example, like the standing 25-move rule at the Long Island Chess Club), I don’t have objective grounds to reject the draw.
If you feel comfortable with your position, given the plain language of the rulebook, that’s an area of director discretion. I am utterly uncomfortable with it, I don’t think it’s defensible, and I think any player who is subjected to such a ruling has excellent grounds for appeal - because they’ve not violated a USCF rule. I’ll leave it at that.
If a half-move draw doesn’t constitute a “premature draw”, I am hard pressed to come up with anything that would. Certainly a game that does not meet the minimum requirements for ratability is pretty premature. I think if you could make an argument for an implied cutoff point not specified in the rules, ratability would seem to be a defensible threshold.
So Boyd, should we delete all language related to “premature draws” (leaving in the prohibition of prearranged results)? Or should we define it? If the latter, where would you draw the line? I’m sympathetic to the arguments against the subjectivity of the last question.
Boyd,
The words arbitrary and subjected are very unnecessary, I mean I’m simply going by the rule, and it is a rule (you seem to imply that it isn’t a rule). I go out of my way to be objective in my decisions, and to suggest that I have arbitrary and subjective rules isn’t true.
If a premature draw, like in this case, is not a violation of the rule, then all I can say is there must be some hidden guideline that only NTDs are privy to.
Please tell me why 14B6 isn’t considered a rule. I’m not talking about the difficulty with enforcing the rule, I’m just asking why … I don’t know what I’m asking here, I’m so flabbergasted Certainly your experience, and level of TD certification, is far above my own, so I guess: what is the secret here I’m missing?
I agree that a half-move draw is premature, since all games in a USCF rated event must be rated. I just don’t think there’s much recourse besides sending the players back to play another half-move, absent any proof of pre-arrangement or a pre-announced standard that is more stringent than ratability. No one in their right mind is going to forfeit players in that situation.
This is why, when I suspect there might be a quick draw on top board in the last round, I go talk to the players before starting. I don’t specify a minimum number of moves, and I make the request jocular, which helps break the ice, I think. I’ve never had a player in that situation refuse to comply with such a sotto voce request for a reasonable scoresheet.
I don’t know about deleting the “premature draws” language. I like having it, because it opens the door to a TD/organizer setting a minimum number of moves for draw by agreement. I also think it provides a link to the ratability requirement. I just think TDs who want to declare premature draws by Rule 14B6 need to come up with a minimum number of moves, and stick to it no matter what.
Look at this thread. We’ve already seen three wildly different interpretations of “premature draws”, all from people who argue that TDs should enforce a “premature draw” standard other than ratability:
“no short draws - unless I say it’s an emergency”
“a half-move draw is no good - but 3.5 moves is okay”
“7-10 moves is not enough”
The subjectivity of these varying interpretations leaves me slack-jawed. The lack of support in the rulebook for any of them (except no half-move draws) doesn’t give me any confidence that these interpretations are defensible.
My uses of “arbitrary” and “subjective” in this thread are descriptive, not pejorative. I hope the following questions illustrate this.
Can you define for us what constitutes a “premature draw”? And can you tell us what language in the rulebook supports your definition?
Read the thread more closely. I’ve already said that a half-move draw violates the “premature draw” clause. I’m also saying that the reason it violates the clause is because every game in a USCF rated tournament must be rated, and a half-move game is not ratable, by rule. Finally, I’m saying that in the event of a half-move draw, and in the absence of any other pre-announced standard, the only reasonable recourse is to send the players back to play a ratable game.
Notice how all those things tie directly to the rulebook, and are supported by language that can be directly cited. There’s a reason for this approach. It removes all question of subjectivity from my rulings.
I’ve never said Rule 14B6 isn’t a rule. And I’ve read Rule 14B6 this way since I was a local TD.
I will keep this short as I have other things to do today. The players in question played a half move game, “1.d4 Draw”. I called them on this, telling them they violated the rules. I told them they should be forfeited but instead should go back and play a game. They would not. I took it to the chief TD for a final ruling. He read the rule, 14B6, emphasizing the TD tip, not the rule. He overruled requiring them to play a game. The game will likely be sent in and rated. I have yet to see the final rating report.
Most seem to agree that “1.d4 Draw” violates the “premature draw” clause. Even Boyd finally agrees with this. This is the most extreme example of short draws. Since this violates the rule, the game should not be rated. They should have played a game, if for no other reason than to observe the forms and allow the game to be rated. The taking of short draws has been cynically abused by the players and has led to some players thinking they do not have to play at all.
It’s probably too much trouble to have you show where I disagreed with the bolded premise. So I won’t bother. For the record, though, my disagreement is with the idea of forfeiting the players - or making them play some arbitrary number of moves. All you can do is either send them back to play a ratable game, or accept the result. (This is a recording.)
You are still dodging the question of how many moves you would have had them play before you’d have been satisfied. If they’d have played 1. d4 d5, 1/2-1/2, would you have accepted that? What if they’d replayed Magar-Martinak, Pittsburgh 1989? Perhaps Kamsky-Ivanchuk, Gibraltar 2014? Would that be enough? Where’s the line? And where in the rulebook is your justification for drawing that line?
Given how much disagreement has been generated in this thread, it is hard to justify applying the phrase “clear violation” to anything beyond the non-ratable game lasting less than one full move.
Given all that, is there any energy behind setting a definitive standard in the rules? If we did, I would propose ten full moves. Whatever number is selected would by definition be arbitrary.
(1) Assuming you meant 1. d4, we are in agreement that a half-move draw is premature. So that’s all cleared up, I hope.
(2) If the players come back with a five-move draw, and you impose a double forfeit as the chief TD, I think you lose an appeal. If you do this as a floor TD, I think the chief TD overrules you. Why? Because you don’t get to substitute your judgment for that of the players - and you don’t have a sixth-edition leg to stand on to reject the five-move draw (IMO, of course).
I honestly don’t care if a minimum move number is applied to Rule 14B6. I think whatever number one applies, two peacefully-inclined players would simply pound out that number of moves, then shake hands. I strongly suspect the reason that the rule doesn’t have such a minimum move number attached to it now is that it doesn’t materially change how such players will approach the game.
Terry, I can point to my own playing career - as undistinguished as it is - as proof that, sentimentally, I agree with your position on this matter. I just think it’s important to separate sentiment from enforcement when it comes to directing.
How I personally feel about a practice is, to me, not relevant to whether such a practice is permitted by rule. That means I sometimes have to accept players doing things that I personally would not do, so long as they’re not violating the rules.
No, it’s not rateable, it just means that that particular TD chose to include the game in the rating report. The office/MSA doesn’t know the difference. I guess a game of checkers could be chess rated so long as the TD reports it.
While the side discussion around plus-score or score-based prizes has been interesting, I doubt the prize format would have made much difference in the tournament situation I was talking about immediately prior to the topic diversion.
This is a rather questionable basis to use for interpreting the rules, IMO. For example: Can you define for us what constitutes “annoying behavior”? If not, does this mean that Rule 20G should never be enforced? The rulebook presumes that a TD has the ability to impartially apply rules dealing with situations that can’t be fully anticipated and defined in advance.
I would consider that “a serious contest” has never begun on the first move, since it is impossible for anyone to be checkmated in fewer than 2 full moves. And I would not, in general, consider “a serious contest” to have begun in 1 1/2 moves. But I would make an exception for:
g4 d5
f3 draw
It would be hard to argue that “a serious contest” had not begun when black literally had a checkmate in 1 move! In fact, such a scenario could occur quite legitimately in a game between two novice players: White grasps his f pawn on his second move, only to realize (too late) that he is now forced to move a pawn that he cannot move without leaving himself open to immediate checkmate. So he decides to try to bluff his opponent. He moves the pawn to f3 and then, before hitting his clock button, offers his opponent a draw, muttering something about being tired and being willing to accept a draw so he can get the game over with and go to bed early. His opponent, who hasn’t yet spotted the immediate checkmate, but who had expected to lose the game because he was lower rated than white, happily accepts white’s apparent “gift”.
Of course, it is impossible to prevent players who are determined to prearrange a draw from doing so. But that doesn’t mean that a TD shouldn’t impose penalties in the case of “clear violations” of Rule 14B6.
The point is that the idea of a “serious contest” is highly subjective. A TD’s personal preference should not be substituted for player judgment unless specifically permitted by either USCF or tournament rule. In the case of two players agreeing to a draw after one ply, a director can reject that based on the rules surrounding ratability.
I would recommend reviewing the thread. You’ll see that three different proponents of stricter reading of the rule in its entirety have produced three vastly different standards for what they would consider acceptable games. I’m sorry, but I don’t think such a subjective standard is ever good cause to forfeit two players. Further, I am aware of no case where such an attempt was ever upheld on appeal.
So, if they’re not going to be forfeited, what penalty will you apply? You’re probably send them back to play a certain number of moves. (I would hope no director would send the players back with such an open ended mandate as to “play a real game”.) When they come back with the scoresheet that reflects that certain number of moves and a drawn result, what will you do then?
No such checkmate exists in this position. I will assume, though, that you meant to have black play a different move.
As pointed out earlier, what penalty is a director seriously going to impose other than sending the players back to play some prescribed number of moves? No director is ever going to issue a forfeit there, unless the tournament has some predefined standard for a minimum number of moves. I don’t think such a standard should be part of the USCF rules, but as I’ve said previously, it doesn’t really matter if it is.
Certainly your experience, and level of TD certification, is far above my own, so I guess: what is the secret here I’m missing?