There is a gaping hole in the Official Rules of Chess! Now I realize being a good sport and basically a nice human being should be how we all conduct ourselves. However, this does lend itself to others taking advantage of regular people.
I am talking about the player who enters a chess tournament and NEVER has a set or clock. There is no rule against this!
It is up to the “nice guy” to set the board up, start the clock, and quietly pack up the pieces after the game. Mr. Rude Jerk simply saunters in 5 to 10 minutes after the start of the round and begins his game. EVERY GAME!
Sure, he loses a few minutes on his clock and I guess that is suppose to be the compensation to a player with manners. But I say it is not enough!
Right now all the rules favor Mr. Jerk. If Mr. Nice decides to leave his set in the car, then the tournament director can; 1) ask other Nice people if he can borrow their set and clock (Mr. Rude now expanding his rudeness), 2) Order Mr. Nice to go get his set the tournament director knows he has or forfeit. And equal time will be taken off both Rude and Nice’s clocks in examples 1 and 2, 3) Forfeit both players, 4) declare a draw for both players.
I propose a rule change that says the player with White must provide a regulation set, board and clock for the game by the round start time, or sustain a 25% loss of 1st control limit time. If Black must set up and start the game clock, when White arrives, he cannot hit hs clock until 25% of his time is used.
Currently, it is Black’s responsibility to provide a set and clock. Punitively punishing a player for arriving late (White), but not doing it for another (Black) is sure to cause bad feelings all around.
But hey, that’s all IMO. You’re free to make your own rule variations so long as you announce them first. Why don’t you organize several tournaments of varying time controls with this variant announced, and see how players like it? Let’s see how well it works before making it mandatory for all organizers and players to follow.
It is typical for many high rated players to come into a tournament room without clock, set, board, or even a pen. Like babes born new to the world, they come into the tournament with nothing. The expectation is that the lowly rated peasants will surely have all of the accoutrements of tournament play. Occasionally they do come in with a set and board that appears to date from before 3000 B.C., a set with cracked and mismatched color pieces. If they have a clock, it might not be a digital but a BHB heavily worn from 5 minute chess. I, as a master, find this behavior a poor showing of professionalism that brings discredit to us all. A craftsman should have his own tools, tools of quality that he uses and maintains with care.
Yesterday evening I played a tournament game on a beautiful wooden set that my opponent brought. Even though I had the choice of set, I preferred to play on his set because of its exceptional quality. We played with my DGT NA clock. I treated his pieces carefully and did not bang them or crack them against each other when capturing. There is a way to play respectfully to the opponent and the other players in the room. Please, stop eating potato chips from cellophane bags! Turn your ipods down to a lower decibel level. Sit still and quit fidgeting. Remember that when your game is over that there are other people in the room still playing. It is not time to start talking as if you are the only people in the world. Don’t swear and grumble when you hang your Queen. Quit hanging over people’s shoulders when watching games; keep a distance. Close the door quietly when you come into the room or leave. Shake hands when you lose. Help put everything away when the tournament is over. These and other “rules” I was taught by chess mentors are also part of chess etiquette.
How is this an option?
Alex Relyea
With somewhat torturous extrapolation of the rules I guess 1C2 (director discretion), 14J (draw declared by director), 18G (adjudication based on best play) or 22C (half point bye for missed rounds) might just possibly be used, but I wouldn’t want to be the one defending such a decision if it is appealed (unless the advance publicity mentioned it). In any case the draw would not be rateable since no actual move was played. 22C would seem to be the most applicable and would be based on the players both unable to play the round based on not having any equipment.
One thing to note is that this would give an incentive for a lower rated player to leave any equipment behind and hope to pick up an easy half point. It would also be an incentive for two tournament leaders to split the final round without having to move a single piece.
A double forfeit would more obviously push for at least one player to provide equipment.
Where does it say that it is Black’s responsibility to provide a set and clock?
39A says that Black has the choice of which standard equipment to use. It does not say the Black has to provide it.
In the IL High School Association (non-USCF) competitions (8-player fixed board teams) the rule is that each team must supply at least four sets and clocks. Many schools make sure they have eight sets and clocks so that they can have the clocks running on every board in the event a team is late.
Mike’s proposed rule would also significantly penalize a player who was mere seconds late after being caught in unexpected road or elevator traffic, needing to ask the TD a question, assisting another player to a board (such as a child or a blind friend), etc.
FWIW, I often provide sets for the tournaments I organize. When I don’t, I usually announce in the advance publicity that players who don’t bring their own set (and clock, if it’s blitz) risk forfeiting their games where equipment is not available… presumably because the opponent didn’t bring any either, resulting in a double forfeit.
In our team events, we require each 4-board team to bring AT LEAST 2 sets and delay-capable clocks or risk forfeiting on any boards lacking them.
Our club provides sets, boards, and clocks for tournaments. The players get spoiled. They think every tournament provides equipment, door prizes, and pizza. The shock and disillusionment makes them run back to the comfort of their home club to complain about the uncivilized barbarian TD/organizers who have no understanding of hospitality.
You’re right of course, I said that incorrectly. Black has choice of equipment, my bad.
As an organizer, I have always considered it my obligation to provide sets. Through running many hundreds of events
thus I have provided. So, i guess I, like others are guilty of this “etiquette” problem arising by causing such dependency. Some tournament directors I know even provide very high quality wood sets, or at least triple
weighted sets for all boards. I commend them for this, at the same time, realizing that due to travel restrictions,
for some organizers this is a very difficult task.
Rob Jones
The problem can also be to design a rule which differentiates between Mr. or Ms. Jerk and Mr. or Ms. Newbie who doesn’t yet own a set and wanted to gain experience with what others use before dropping money on a set. (And I applaud that rather than someone showing up with a decorative or even unweighted plastic set.)
This belongs under “How to attract and retain members”! Chess life contains all sorts of articles, why not get your club featured in the magazine as an object of envy and emulation?
So would you prefer in a case where there is a shortage of sets, someone show up with a purple and grey, orange and blue, or
Mario Brothers/Harry Potter chess set??
I had to play with a Civil War chess set as a teen, and lost be cause
of confusion of the pieces. The TD said that this was his set, and even though he was my opponent, I had no choice in the matter,
because he was Boss (but that is another story).
Rob Jones
I’d prefer to not bite the newbies by penalizing them for not bringing a set. And I don’t see how that could be laid down in a rule easily. Yes, I was applauding someone bringing no set at all instead of a Harry Potter or Star Trek set. Then again, I’ve yet to be part of a tournament where any game couldn’t be played because a set literally could not be found. When directing I likewise bring spare sets and boards.
It’s clocks that I find a serious lack of at tournaments more than sets.
I’ve generally declared the game an unrated draw (forfeit draw or half point bye) in such situations, but you do have a point. How about this: if neither player provides equipment by the end of the first time control (e.g. four hours after the start of the round for 40/2, SD/1), if half point byes are available score the game as a half point bye for each player. Otherwise score it as a double forfeit.
Under a strict reading of rule 13F I suppose the TD could impose a double forfeit one hour after the start of the round at 40/2, SD/1. “If both players arrive at the chessboard more than one hour late in a non-sudden death time period … the director may declare the game lost for both players.” If there is no chessboard, it can be argued that the players haven’t arrived at the chessboard until there is one. However, the word “may” implies TD discretion, and I’d use my discretion to give the players four hours to borrow or buy a chess set.
A similar situation which happened at a recent tournament, which was a double round blitz event, was that one player arrived without equipment and his opponent arrived late. The floor TD ruled that there was only time for them to play one game and the first game was a double forfeit. I was surprised that the first game was scored as a double forfeit rather than a forfeit for the player who was late, but I let the ruling stand because although it seemed harsh it wasn’t entirely unreasonable, and it hadn’t been appealed. Later on, though, he asked me to change the result to a forfeit loss for the player who was late and a forfeit win for the player who arrived on time but without equipment.
It’s an interesting question. Under the strict interpretation of rule 13F that I mentioned earlier a double forfeit does seem to be the right ruling. If half point byes had been available, which I don’t think they were in this case since it wasn’t the first round, the game could have been scored as a half point bye for the player who arrived on time but without equipment.
As far as a double-round blitz goes at the scholastic nationals, where boards and sets are provided and players only have to bring their clocks, games without clocks are generally scored as double forfeits (without withdrawing the players).
With a regular time control, games are allowed to start without clocks and then have clocks put on later from whatever small stash the TD or oganizer has (this includes tournaments like the US Open).
From a practical standpoint, it is not that uncommon in a regular time control to have 20 games start without clocks and still be fine with only two TD clocks (which will probably be enough to handle the long-running clockless games). In a blitz event even as few as three initially clockless games with only two TD clocks would often result in some games running long and finishing without a clock (change that “often” to “virtually always” for double-round blitz events). Thus a double forfeit for clockless blitz games is about the only thing manageable for such events where the rounds are being held ASAP.
I think, as long as their is advanced warning, a TD could impose a tardiness limit before declaring it a win for the player present. I think in FIDE events, there is such a limit. Or at least, allowed to have such limits.
Not really sure what the limit would be, other than maybe if the player is over 25% late (excluding increment/delay). Of course, in quick event time controls (<30min), it wouldn’t matter so much, since every minute counts, so if the player was 10min late, he’d already burn a chunk of time.
Black has the right to choose. It’s a small step to say he has an obligation to choose, after all, the game can’t proceed until the choice is made. It’s black’s obligation to start white’s clock, but the board and pieces have to be set up first. If he HAS to choose a set to play on, and if white is not obligated to bring a set, there’s only one way he can be sure that he can fulfill his obligation to choose – by making sure that a choice is AVAILABLE.
The rules already do provide a penalty of a sort, however, if neither player has a set. So there’s no need for speculation on other possible penalties. (time is to be split between the players until a board is set up – eventually this will mean a double forfeit)
this is true. It is hard to continually supply clocks for every single game at larger events. Esp scholastic in nature
in which the care of clocks at times leaves much to be desired on the part of players. I have seen clocks deliberately
smashed by children angry at losing.
Rob Jones