2016 Olympiad - Baku

[MartinCarpenter]

You have to get their attention with a clearly filled in score sheet or something.

If you're allowed to "get their attention", then why aren't you just allowed to tell them? The whole business of casually waving a scoresheet in their line of sight seems rather a farce.

Well, it avoids breaking their concentration by actually actively tapping on their shoulder to tell them. Just drop it on the table next to them to glance it when they have the time. If they keep ignoring it then maybe do more.

It is easier if they actually ask of course, as people normally do a little bit before any potentially match critical time scramble.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

One of the points if that usually both players are in time trouble, so if you try and "catch your player's attention" when it is his or her move, then you are disturbing them on their time. On the other hand, if you attempt to catch their attention when it is the opposing player to move, then you will be disturbing them. Arguably, whenever you do this, you are disturbing both players. Hence the Rules of Chess state that you shouldn't communicate with the players except for strictly defined reasons. In practice, more communication than this does actually happen. If you wait until they move away from the board, and then try and talk to them, you may get some people objecting as they don't know what is being said. Hence the rules at the Olympiads about conferring with both captains and an arbiter present. In evening league chess, there is more trust than this, because there is less at stake (though you wouldn't know it from the way some players behave).

[Tim Harding]

The team captain even has the authority to proactively order the player to offer a draw

Is this the correct interpretation of the Competition Rules? I'm not sure, although it does appear to read that way. In English club competitions, I have taken the view that a captain is not allowed to intervene to tell a player that a draw would be a good result, even though I might wish otherwise.

So far as FIDE team competitions are concerned, Brian is almost correct (in his posting of 12.23 today).
This precise situation arose in the World Senior Team Championships where I was Irish team captain. We had been leading 2-0 with another player easily winning but he blundered so we needed a draw in the fourth game to clinch the two match points. (That position was a more or less equal bishop endgame with our player higher rated.)
To avoid the risk of further accidents, I said to the arbiter that I wished to instruct our remaining player to offer a draw next time he was not on move.

The arbiter wasn't sure that was allowed, but I had the Competition Rules with me and showed him clause 12.5. He then agreed it was permissible to do this. So when it was no longer my player to move, he was called over and, in front of the arbiter, I asked him to offer the draw. It was agreed.

But the rule says "advise" not "order" (the word Brian used). I don't think it allows captains to agree results without the players concurring.
In a later round I did the same thing in a match where we led 2-1 but while I was giving the advice his opponent made a weak move rather than the one expected. Our player in this case thought about it, realised his winning chances had greatly increased, so ignored my advice and won the game.

Of course the last clause of 12.5 means that the organisers of specific non-FIDE team competitions might not permit this but they would need to make that clear in the tournament announcement, I believe.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Very instructive examples, thanks, Tim. Does the other captain have to be present when such advice is given, or can they be excluded? I presume the player offered the draw is allowed to confer with his or her captain, but does that (carefully worded) discussion similarly have to be in the presence of the arbiter?

[Tim Harding]

It's not required for the other captain to be present but any conversation between player and captain (whichever requests it) has to be done through the arbiter and in his/her presence.

There were some cases where our player was offered a draw and just took it (or declined) without any consultation but that would usually be early in a match when there had not yet been any decisive results. As captain and top board I unilaterally agreed a couple of draws myself.

I think in the case where your player receives the draw offer and consults his captain, the implication is that the player will accept or decline according to the captain's advice although the advice does not have the force of an order in the rules.

[Ian Thompson]

You are allowed to ask what the latest match score is. I think you have to work out for yourself what is then needed.

What about, as I did once, asking who would win on tie-break if the match was drawn 8-8 (when I knew the current score was 7.5 each and had reached a position where I could force a draw by repetition)?

[Alistair Campbell]

Regarding league chess I suspect that for ease of administration many local rules will make reference to official laws of chess in some guise or other, and only highlight differences. This may leave grey areas, or differences of practice.

During a match all players may approach their team captains for advice on points of Law or dispute; but team captains may not give specific advice or contravene the FIDE laws on 'Conduct of the Players'. Players offered a draw, or who wish to offer a draw, may ask team captains for advice provided that the position of the game is neither discussed nor scrutinised by team captains. Team captains shall not offer unsolicited advice to players”;

Meanwhile

A match captain is not permitted to intervene during play except he/she is authorised to [snip] advise any of his players to make or accept the offer of a draw, but not claim a draw provided he does so in the presence of the opposing match captain.

SNCL rules refer to FIDE rules (which I am unable to locate with a quick search)

Of course, we could argue about things like “intervention”, “points of law”, “advice” or “scrutinised”.

I guess the intention is to allow the captain to represent the team’s interests in decisions over whether to accept (or offer, in some jurisdictions) a draw, but to forbid anything that may be seen as offering advice such as an assessment of a position. This is problematic, as during the normal course of events a captain is likely to have a reasonable idea of what is going on (modulo a recent blunder). An on-the-ball captain may ensure that (s)he is aware of the current position of the relevant boards should the relevant question be asked.

We must also guard against the unscrupulous – where there is communication, there is the chance of coded messages being passed.

The key question to be asked seems to be ”what is needed to get the desired match result?” Sometimes, this is not immediately obvious if there is a handicap or tie-breaking method at play.

I’m not sure that it is explicitly allowed to ask this, although it could be interpreted as it being permissible to ask for advice as this is a question on a point of local law. However, the response may require care. “We need 1.5 points to win” may be an acceptable response. “If you win and Bob draws” could be interpreted as “Bob’s position is level, but I think you are better”.

There is less of a problem if there is only one game to finish – I wouldn’t have a problem with the consequences of win/lose/draw being outlined.

Is casually leaving the results card in a prominent position intervention, or advice, or helpfulness? It happens all the time.

In practice, I cannot recall ever hearing a captain instruct their player to offer a draw.
I have occasionally heard a captain, when asked whether a player could accept a draw, give a rather stilted response along the lines of “the current match score is 3-2 to us” (or whatever), but then captains tend not to know the local rules.
Less often, I have heard a captain respond “up to you” when asked about an early draw offer.
I have seen occasions where people have accepted a draw when they needed to win, because the captain was unable to tell them the match situation.

By far the most frequent occurrence is that players in the last couple of games to be finished will be aware of the match score and of the position on any other boards, and will make up their own minds.

So basically there are slight variations from league to league, it seems to be fairly universal that match scores are communicated, but captain's advice is rarely sought or given - is that a fair summary?

[Mike Truran]

That's pretty much the way it seems to work in the Oxfordshire League.

Not that many Witney players seem to worry about that sort of thing. I recall our cup match last season against perennial rivals Oxford University when one of our players, in an advantageous/winning position, pressed for a win when a draw would have secured our progression to the next round of the Frank Wood Shield. It's all very well a captain being ready and waiting with the match score, but if your player never even looks up from the board it's a touch difficult to intervene.

Still, as their board 4 is graded 218 I guess we can hardly complain.

[NickFaulks]

SNCL rules refer to FIDE rules (which I am unable to locate with a quick search)

Thanks, Alistair, a useful summary of conduct North of the Border which warrants close reading. For now, I can help you on the FIDE Tournament Rules, which are not in the Handbook, presumably because they are not actually Regulations.

They can be found at http://rules.fide.com/images/stories/do ... -April.pdf

[NickFaulks]

It's all very well a captain being ready and waiting with the match score, but if your player never even looks up from the board it's a touch difficult to intervene.

We all seem to be broadly agreed that in the UK, if a player insists on playing without paying attention to the match position, there is nothing a captain can do to stop him - even if that is not clear in the FIDE Rules ( which assume the presence of an arbiter, but I don't see how that makes a difference here ). Perhaps the captain may wave a match scorecard around, as if trying to attract the attention of a waiter. I dislike that solution.

The main outstanding question is, if a player does responsibly request guidance on the result the team hopes for from his game, how much is the captain permitted to give him?

[MartinCarpenter]

You are allowed to ask what the latest match score is. I think you have to work out for yourself what is then needed.

What about, as I did once, asking who would win on tie-break if the match was drawn 8-8 (when I knew the current score was 7.5 each and had reached a position where I could force a draw by repetition)?

If your team is vaguely organised they'll already have worked out that for you long in advance! And firmly let you know

If they haven't then it does seem only fair to let you ask, but goodness knows about the formal rules.

[Mick Norris]

You are allowed to ask what the latest match score is. I think you have to work out for yourself what is then needed.

What about, as I did once, asking who would win on tie-break if the match was drawn 8-8 (when I knew the current score was 7.5 each and had reached a position where I could force a draw by repetition)?

I can't see a problem with a request for factual information, and being told that the team would win/lose on tiebreak - an active intervention of "Ian, a draw would win us the match" might be different?

[NickFaulks]

And firmly let you know

How?

[MartinCarpenter]

From what I remember of the relevant county matches, most likely saying what an 8-8 draw would most likely mean. Board count can be tricky when there are 3 or 4 boards still in play of course.

There aren't any individual match tie breaks in the Yorkshire league, so there I just say in advance of the big matches if a draw is an acceptable match result or not.

[NickFaulks]

From what I remember of the relevant county matches, most likely saying what an 8-8 draw would most likely mean.

Yes, but how do you get the information across? Do you interrupt the game to make an announcement?