Players who don't play for the team

[Alex Holowczak]

The other night, there was an incident in a Birmingham League Trophy Semi Final. We were 3-2.5 up (we had 0.5 handicap), meaning we just needed to draw on the last game going to win. The player resisted one of my attempts to communicate this, but I managed to get it to him at the second attempt.

So, it was some relief that after a few blunders on either side, with both players short of time (about a minute each), this position was reached, with black to play. Our player was playing white.

8/8/8/p3k1p1/P5P1/4K3/8/8

Clearly, white can force a draw all day long, simply by maintaining the opposition. For example, 1... Kd5 2. Kd3 Ke5 3. Ke3 Kd5 4. Kd3...

However, the game proceeded: 1... Kd5 2. Kd3 Ke5 3. Kc4 Kf4 4. Kb5 Kxg4 5. Kxa5 Kf4 6. Kb5 g4 7. a5 g3 8. a6 g2 9. a7 g1Q 10. a8Q Qb1+ 11. Kc6?? Qe4+ winning the Q. After much frantic clock bashing, white was mated.

The player said to me after the game that "[he] thought [he] could win". Clearly then, he was more interested in his own result than that of the team, which to my mind, is unacceptable. It simply hadn't clicked that the team result was more important. It wasn't anything to do with time trouble.

The question is, how do I get this player not to do this in future? He's old enough to understand the concept of the team result. I gather that this is far from an isolated incident in this regard. Has anyone else had experience with players like this, and how have you won them over to the right way of thinking?

[Niall Doran]

While not an answer to your question, I've had to take a bullet for the team on occasion. Once I had either a draw by repetition in a team game which I needed to win for the team to draw, or another move which was a sure win for my opponent, unless he totally missed it, which was unlikely as it was a mate in one. I didn't take the perpetual, knowing there was only a 1% chance the opponent would miss the mate, but if I'd taken the perpetual, my team mates would've been unpleased, to say the least.
Maybe just talk to the guy, but wait a few days, so that you'll both be calm when discussing it.
Also if the discussion doesn't 'work out', select other players for a bit, assuming you have a choice of players and aren't begging people at the last minute!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The first thing I'd do is not post about it on a public forum...

But failing that, you probably just need to talk to them about it.

There have been some things I've encountered while captaining chess teams that I'd love to talk about, but it is probably best not to on a public forum like this. It would be nice to be able to give general details and not name anyone, but when specific details emerge it often means the players in question know who you are talking about.

A variation of whether to play on for a draw or resign occurs in adjournments. Earlier this season I resigned an adjourned position that was clearly losing, even though a draw would have won us the match. I did this because it felt like the right thing to do. Funnily enough, I played the same player later in the season, the game was again adjourned and again the result of the match depended on the game. This time though, he was the one that did the right thing and he resigned.

I also forced a draw in a county match recently when that was all we needed to win (with one other game still going on that might have ended up with a loss for us). I did this even though I was likely winning. I kind of regret that now, but again it was the right thing to do at the time.

[Angus French]

Is it permissible to communicate with a player during a match to tell him or her what result is needed? I didn't think it was.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Is it permissible to communicate with a player during a match to tell him or her what result is needed? I didn't think it was.

From FIDE's Rules and Regulations for Tournaments:

16(c): (c) A captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw or to resign a game, unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He must confine himself only to brief information, based solely on the circumstances pertaining to the match. He may say to a player, “offer a draw”, “accept the draw”, or “resign the game”. For example, if asked by a player whether he should accept an offer of a draw, the captain should answer “yes”, “no”, or delegate the decision to the player himself. He shall give no information to a player concerning the position on the chess board and/or the clock times, nor consult any other person and/or computer as to the state of the game.

[Alex Holowczak]

The first thing I'd do is not post about it on a public forum...

I waited for a few days before posting here. I know that I'm the only person in the team who reads this, let alone writes here! I'm confident that this won't be an issue.

[Alex Holowczak]

Is it permissible to communicate with a player during a match to tell him or her what result is needed? I didn't think it was.

From FIDE's Rules and Regulations for Tournaments:

16(c): (c) A captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw or to resign a game, unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He must confine himself only to brief information, based solely on the circumstances pertaining to the match. He may say to a player, “offer a draw”, “accept the draw”, or “resign the game”. For example, if asked by a player whether he should accept an offer of a draw, the captain should answer “yes”, “no”, or delegate the decision to the player himself. He shall give no information to a player concerning the position on the chess board and/or the clock times, nor consult any other person and/or computer as to the state of the game.

I remember having this argument with a member of staff from an opposing school about 6 years ago. I had to quote this regulation at him! When I did it again in a subsequent match, he told me not to, and that I had to go and stand on the other side of the room. So I complained to the organiser/arbiter, and he ruled in my favour.

But saying "we're winning, so we only need a draw to win the match" is surely covered by "brief information, based solely on the circumstances pertaining to the match". This comment was made away from the board, so as not to distract his opponent.

[E Michael White]

From FIDE's Rules and Regulations for Tournaments:

Hello Jack

You should probably expand a bit more on that statement to avoid mistakes. The FIDE Tournament Rules do not necessarily apply in all events and the particular rule you quote can be modified by the event rules. FIDE Tournament Rules apply for any of the following events :-

a) the event offers FIDE norms, IM/GM etc
b) if the event entry form says the rules apply
c) official FIDE events

whereas since 2010 they are only a recommendation for other FIDE rated events.

The FIDE Tournament Rules state “The organisers, competitors and arbiters involved in any competition are expected to be acquainted with these regulations before the start of the competition.” These rules have the effect, among others, that there has to be an appeal committee and every arbiter decision or action can be subject to appeal (except for part of the normal rule 10.2). The appeal rule cannot be overriden by the English practice of writing on the entry form that the arbiters decision is final, where FIDE Tournament Rules apply.

Thus the FIDE Tournament Rules apply although not explicitly stated in :-

1) The London Classic including the FIDE Open as norms were on offer.
2) Likewise the 4NCL - norms are on offer.
3) Likewise the British and Major Open
4) Likewise Hastings , e2e4 etc

The 4NCL chose, as permitted, to modify in their rules the permitted actions for a captain when approached by a team member about whether they should offer a draw. The 4NCL rules do not appear to modify the ability of a captain to approach a player unsolicited and advise them to offer a draw etc.

FIDE Tournament Rules wouldn’t apply in local Leagues or County Matches unless specified. That raises the question of whether, when and how a captain/player may communicate in connection with draw offers in a Local League, as the normal FIDE rules do not prohibit this. I suggest some players would think so and others would think not.

[Martyn Harris]

People play chess for different reasons. Many play for the team, some don't. The club heirarchy should have a pretty good idea of which are which, and, unless your area is so flush with players that you can afford to drop those who do not conform to your ideals, the best you can do is allocate these players to teams that you anticipate finishing anonymously in the middle of their divisions so that their actions will not affect the status of their teams.

The idea that you should be able to educate these players to see things your way is nonsense - they are just as entitled to re-educate you to see things their way.

Alternatively you could be unpleasant to them and deride their actions in public so that they voluntarily move to another club which doesn't have a winning is all that matters mentality.

[Richard Bates]

How good does a player's position have to be before you no longer consider it "unacceptable" to ignore the demands of the captain that he agree to a draw?

It is sometimes said about cricket that it is a team game, played by individuals or something to that effect (when explaining the value put on personal milestones etc). For most participants i suspect that club chess is an individual game played in teams.

[Alex Holowczak]

How good does a player's position have to be before you no longer consider it "unacceptable" to ignore the demands of the captain that he agree to a draw?

That's completely missing the point.

I believe that if the team needs a draw to win the game, there's no prospect of winning the game, and there's a simple draw available, then the player should take it. I was deliberately specific with this example. This isn't a borderline case at all. It's clearly just a draw, even with my endgame ability!

[Richard Bates]

How good does a player's position have to be before you no longer consider it "unacceptable" to ignore the demands of the captain that he agree to a draw?

That's completely missing the point.

No, it's developing/exploring the point to try to make the topic more interesting. (and since he managed to find Kc6??? perhaps the draw wasn't so obvious to the player anyway! )

And anyway, what is the difference between your scenario and one, for example, where a player has a clear perpetual check, but alternative ways to keep the game going to play for the win? That fits quite securely within my scenario. Is your objection simply that the player didn't take the draw when that would have secured the match, or that the player didn't take the easy draw in a situation where a draw was the best for which he could hope? Something which the player apparently didn't realise/disagreed with.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Alex.

"The question is, how do I get this player not to do this in future? "

You leave him alone and congratulate him on winning.
Anything you say may influence his natural style.

In the future he will face a position and be in a dither.
Does he play the 'iffy' move he wants to play or does he
play a move that will please you.

Chances are he will choose neither and lose.

[IanDavis]

The player said to me after the game that "[he] thought [he] could win". Clearly then, he was more interested in his own result than that of the team, which to my mind, is unacceptable. It simply hadn't clicked that the team result was more important. It wasn't anything to do with time trouble.

The team result wasn't more important to him I contend that you overestimate the importance of the team to chess players.

[Alex Holowczak]

Is your objection simply that the player didn't take the draw when that would have secured the match, or that the player didn't take the easy draw in a situation where a draw was the best for which he could hope? Something which the player apparently didn't realise/disagreed with.

The player knew he had an easy draw (he confirmed this afterwards), knew the team needed a draw, but wasn't sure if his deviation with Kc4 was winning or not. He didn't have chance to work it out given the time remaining on his clock.

The thing that annoyed me was that the team had been let down, because he was more interested in trying to win the game, rather than take the easy draw. If it had been a far more complex situation, and he blundered a piece, then fair enough; these things happen.

I contend that you overestimate the importance of the team to chess players.

This is the impression I am beginning to get from the responses I've had, which to be honest, baffles me! If you're going to play in a team situation, then it makes sense to me to play tactically within the team. Otherwise, what's the point of playing in a team environment?