Here is an example of a problem that occurred at the recent National Junior High Championships (Individual and Team event). I’m just going to provide the problem and not state how it was ruled at the event, but I’ve usually found that by discussing what people think and how they would have ruled, other TD’s (and players) will learn a lot, especially considering the different levels of experience and qualifications that exist here on the forum!
Players A and B are playing. Player A has an overwhelming position on the board and is easily winning. Suddenly, Player C, another competitor in the tournament, walks past and states to Player A “you have mate in one”. Player B complains about what Player C said.
I believe that the rules say that if you think the player will find a move on his/her own, then they don’t get penalized for unsolicited advice.
If Player A is dominating the game, then I would say to Player A that I don’t think that he had attempted to break the rules, remind both players that they are not allowed to consult other players, and then throw Player C out of the tournament for unacceptable behavior. (If I was feeling generous, I MIGHT refund his/her entry fee.)
I think that the whole focus here should be around player C, not player A
20E2. Unsolicited advice. Ruling on unsolicited advice can be difficult. The giver deserves a penalty, but what of the recipient? The director’s task is to prevent a player from benefiting from advice but also not unduly penalize the player for another’s offense. There is sometimes no good solution to this problem, but here are a few examples of possible rulings.
I would subtract 1 point from the giver’s tournament score. I would not penalize the recipient because of:
20E2.a…If, as is likely, the director feels the Master would probably find the move without recourse to the advice, no penalty should be imposed.
I’m not going to answer since I know how it was handled, but I agree with what the TDs did. I don’t know if you left out a certain piece of information about player C on purpose or not, so I won’t mention it unless you do.
Is player C on the same team as player A (or B?) Is player C on a team that is helped if player B wins (i.e. given that A has an overwhelming edge, is he trying to get A forfeited)? I would likely be hardest on C if either of the above are true.
Unless A and C are on the same team, I probably do nothing to A. That might change if they are on the same team, depending on other circumstances.
As Polly had mentioned, which may, or may not, have led to this line of questioning, it was determined after the original ruling and both games had finished that Player A and Player C were on the same team.
So I guess we now have two scenarios with the players not being on the same team, and with the players being on the same team. Do the rulings change from both scenarios?
As far as I’m concerned, the only reasonable punishment to player A, and it’s not necessarily necessary IMO, is to prohibit him from playing the mating move. If he has an overwhelming position, that shouldn’t matter much. Player C must be punished somehow.
If the players are on the same team, then I look to see if C is just a young inexperienced kid who screwed up (perhaps time pressure), and if so, I scare the beejeebers out of him and give him a warning. If there is any hint of real intent, or if he meaningfully changed the outcome, I find a way to hit C with at least one meaningful forfeit.
I’m curious - why did the relationship between A and C not come out until what appears to be later? Shouldn’t that have been question #1 or #2? I didn’t see Polly’s post, but I guess 15+ years involved with scholastics just got me to ask that right away.
The question was definitely asked and apparently the two players said they didn’t know each other!
I deliberately tried to just give the bare minimum of information since the line of questions that should be asked in a situation to determine the correct ruling are just as much a learning curve as the eventual ruling once all the facts are determined. This scenario however could easily apply to an individual tournament as well as one with teams, and the ruling could easily be significantly different depending on the situation, as we have found out.
(For those curious - A ruling was made on the floor that was made using the facts that were known at the time. A subsequent additional ruling was made once it became clear the two players were team mates, although both games had already finished at that time.)
More than a decade ago there was a similar situation at the national school grade where I was one of the floor TDs. In that case the third (high school) player was not on the same team as either of the two players (determined while I was trying to find out which of the two players to forfeit), and his comment was not as critical to the game (he thought the two players were analyzing and suggested a move). The two players were willing to simply ignore his comment. I was one of the two TDs discussing it with him and was saying that one possibility was to simply give him a zero point bye for the next round (as a prelude to actually enforcing that). The other TD thought I was merely playing the “bad cop” to his “good cop” and when the commenter mentioned (after about 10-15 minutes of investigation and commentary) that his game was still going on the other TD opted to simply consider that time lost as a sufficient penalty and gave him a severe warning.
Penalizing the next round means that a player that is losing (or just lost) the current round doesn’t feel like there is nothing to lose by kibitzing on a current game.
At the national elementary in Pittsburgh there was a player that walked by a teammate who was still very early in an even opening an teased him by saying “resign”. In that case I discussed the situation after the game witht the coaches of the team (I asked for the coach and had 6-8 show up) and warned them that even though I was 100% certain in this case that no actual advice had been given, I would forfeit future occurrences if they didn’t have their players avoid making comments on active games.
I would have considered letting both games stand for ratings purposes as separate games played, but forfeiting their games for the match. They lied to the TDs and should be punished.
At our state team tournaments, we announce right up front that if one player gives unsolicited advice that both players will be forfeited. I suspect the TD did this so there would be no ambiguity. I don’t recall if we specified that only if they were teammates. Imagine would would happen if another player, who had already lost his game, gave the advice specifically to get the player forfeited to help his own team…
In the Jr. High case, if they weren’t teammates I would forfeit C and not penalize A since he clearly gained no benefit. If they had been up front about being teammates, I would probably do the same thing or maybe give A a minor time penalty which would likely be totally irrelevant. Once they lied about it, though, I’d forfeit them both.
