Advice During a Game

[Kevin Thurlow]

A colleague emailed me recently...

"Then towards the end of the match one home member had a quiet word with my opponent saying "Do you know that you do not have to make any more moves?". Blatant cheating in my opinion but I would
not be able to prove it to the League Committee as the only people near at the time were the players on boards 1 and 2 (clearly those on board 2 probably did not hear it as they were deep in thought at the time). I
looked at the home member and shook my head in disgust at which point he moved away."

I share his view that it's cheating, but wondered what other people thought. (The person who approached the board may have been a non-playing captain, if that makes a difference.)

[Roger de Coverly]

I share his view that it's cheating, but wondered what other people thought. (The person who approached the board may have been a non-playing captain, if that makes a difference.)

I would use it as an argument in favour of the abolition of adjudication. Players who sit on the position with perhaps fifteen minutes or more of playing time remaining was one of adjudications's most objectionable features.

[Matthew Turner]

In most leagues the Captain is able to offer advice on such matters as whether to accept a draw. I would have thought that this was the sort of thing that a captain would advise a player on. The problem of course is that this advice should be independent of the position on the board - in reality this is almost impossible. I assume the Captain would not have issued the advice if his player had been losing.
Really, I completely agree with Roger, if you have adjournments then this is going to happen. Either accept it, or move into the twentieth century (sic) and ditch adjudications.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I was at a match once when the opposition had White on top board. Their guy played his 35th move - thus reaching the time control - and then got up and walked off not even waiting for our guy to play his 35th. Their chap didn't return for about 15 mins which, coincidentally or otherwise, was just as time was called.

[Roger de Coverly]

I was at a match once when the opposition had White on top board. Their guy played his 35th move - thus reaching the time control - and then got up and walked off not even waiting for our guy to play his 35th. Their chap didn't return for about 15 mins which, coincidentally or otherwise, was just as time was called.

Adjudication attempts to estimate or guess the result of a game were it to continue. Historic practice was to assume it continued with infinite time at the playing standard of the adjudicators. But suppose you used a sort of Duckworth-Lewis approach and the adjudication attempted to estimate the result taking the clock positions into account as well - so add say 30 seconds for each previously played move. Thus the player with -15 minutes would have about 2 minutes( if 35 moves had been played ) for the rest of the game so his winning or even not losing chances are reduced and the adjudicator's verdict would reflect this.

[Martin Benjamin]

Adjudication attempts to estimate or guess the result of a game were it to continue. Historic practice was to assume it continued with infinite time at the playing standard of the adjudicators. But suppose you used a sort of Duckworth-Lewis approach and the adjudication attempted to estimate the result taking the clock positions into account as well - so add say 30 seconds for each previously played move. Thus the player with -15 minutes would have about 2 minutes( if 35 moves had been played ) for the rest of the game so his winning or even not losing chances are reduced and the adjudicator's verdict would reflect this.

An ingenious notion which made me smile. A similar idea once mooted was to factor in the playing strengths of the two players by feeding their grades into Rybka/Fritz and then allowing the program to play the position out using those settings. However, without wishing to start yet another thread on the relative merits adjudication/adjournment/quickplay or increment, I imagine Roger and I would both agree that adjudication is simply the wrong way to settle a game of chess, and is neither necessary nor desirable given the alternatives.

As for advising a player that he no longer has to make any moves, I would not do so myself, but I would not agree that to do so would be cheating. In one match I was captaining years ago, one of our players (a good 2200+ player) played on in a clearly winning position against a weaker opponent (circa 2000) despite having made more than the necessary number of moves with a large amount of time in reserve. I did not know whether my player knew about the end of the session rules, which allowed for either adjudication or adjournment (possibly home or away) - there was a sort of ritual questioning to be followed based on whoever had the move, and unless one played regularly, the process was arcane. Anyway, my player in his haste blundered a piece, which turned the position from a clear win into unclear (I think it was eventually adjudicated as draw). The opponent at that stage had just enough time in hand not to move for the remaining 20 minutes of the session, so he stopped playing and correctly pointed out he could adjudicate. I have seen similar things happen in other matches, so I don't think it is cheating for a captain to tell his players about the playing rules, provided it has nothing to do with the position. It is rather like a captain informing a player that the team is one up with just his game to finish or informing him of the latest score. Perhaps it is a verbal nicety, as I would accept this form of words, but not a captain telling his player to take a draw.

[Tim Spanton]

Adjudication attempts to estimate or guess the result of a game were it to continue. Historic practice was to assume it continued with infinite time at the playing standard of the adjudicators. But suppose you used a sort of Duckworth-Lewis approach and the adjudication attempted to estimate the result taking the clock positions into account as well - so add say 30 seconds for each previously played move. Thus the player with -15 minutes would have about 2 minutes( if 35 moves had been played ) for the rest of the game so his winning or even not losing chances are reduced and the adjudicator's verdict would reflect this.

An ingenious notion which made me smile. A similar idea once mooted was to factor in the playing strengths of the two players by feeding their grades into Rybka/Fritz and then allowing the program to play the position out using those settings. However, without wishing to start yet another thread on the relative merits adjudication/adjournment/quickplay or increment, I imagine Roger and I would both agree that adjudication is simply the wrong way to settle a game of chess, and is neither necessary nor desirable given the alternatives.

As for advising a player that he no longer has to make any moves, I would not do so myself, but I would not agree that to do so would be cheating. In one match I was captaining years ago, one of our players (a good 2200+ player) played on in a clearly winning position against a weaker opponent (circa 2000) despite having made more than the necessary number of moves with a large amount of time in reserve. I did not know whether my player knew about the end of the session rules, which allowed for either adjudication or adjournment (possibly home or away) - there was a sort of ritual questioning to be followed based on whoever had the move, and unless one played regularly, the process was arcane. Anyway, my player in his haste blundered a piece, which turned the position from a clear win into unclear (I think it was eventually adjudicated as draw). The opponent at that stage had just enough time in hand not to move for the remaining 20 minutes of the session, so he stopped playing and correctly pointed out he could adjudicate. I have seen similar things happen in other matches, so I don't think it is cheating for a captain to tell his players about the playing rules, provided it has nothing to do with the position. It is rather like a captain informing a player that the team is one up with just his game to finish or informing him of the latest score. Perhaps it is a verbal nicety, as I would accept this form of words, but not a captain telling his player to take a draw.

The problem surely is that nine times out of 10, the only reason to give such advice is if you think your player is winning, so the mere giving of such advice is telling the player your assessment of his position.

[Peter Rhodes]

It is rather like a captain informing a player that the team is one up with just his game to finish or informing him of the latest score.

Martin, although I agree with your sentiment, you have to take Tim's interpretation seriously.

Imagine the scenario where a player has reached the required number of moves - but does not realise how bad his position is and that it is likely to get worse. In this scenario a Captain can insinuate to the player in question that his position is worse than the players own assessment, and therefore advice is being given indirectly OR influencing the player to take a course of action that he might not had otherwise taken. Even if the Captain had not intended to give an assessment, the opposition could still be concerned that he had inadvertantly done so.

I could not think of an exact analogy, but this seems to me to be similar to bridge - where "two spades" can mean alot more - or something entirely different to the plain message itself.

But in all other respects, I think your point is fair.

[Anthony Taglione]

Another difficult topic. I believe that a captain has a right to tell a player what the team needs.

Imagine that there is one game left to play, the player is unaware of the performance of the rest of the team but the score currently sits at 2-3. The captain knows that the player needs to win for the sake of the team and maybe has no interest in seeing any other result from the player. I don't consider it unreasonable for the captain to tell the player that he needs a win from him. It's then up to the player to decide whether he: a) is a team player and is prepared to force things to give a chance of a win; b) actually has any real prospects of a win on the board.

There is no advice being given in this situation but it's the captain's responsibility to manage the match. It's the player's responsibility to manage his game. The laws of chess don't preclude an overlap of interests in such a situation.

Equally, a player might have been offered a draw, or be about to offer one, and I consider it entirely reasonable for him to consult with his captain as to whether a draw on his board is of any use to the team.

Obviously, for the captain to make and express an assessment of the player's position is not acceptable.

[Tim Spanton]

Another difficult topic. I believe that a captain has a right to tell a player what the team needs.

Imagine that there is one game left to play, the player is unaware of the performance of the rest of the team but the score currently sits at 2-3. The captain knows that the player needs to win for the sake of the team and maybe has no interest in seeing any other result from the player. I don't consider it unreasonable for the captain to tell the player that he needs a win from him. It's then up to the player to decide whether he: a) is a team player and is prepared to force things to give a chance of a win; b) actually has any real prospects of a win on the board.

There is no advice being given in this situation but it's the captain's responsibility to manage the match. It's the player's responsibility to manage his game. The laws of chess don't preclude an overlap of interests in such a situation.

Equally, a player might have been offered a draw, or be about to offer one, and I consider it entirely reasonable for him to consult with his captain as to whether a draw on his board is of any use to the team.

Obviously, for the captain to make and express an assessment of the player's position is not acceptable.

But that's not what happened here, according to the first post:
"Then towards the end of the match one home member had a quiet word with my opponent saying "Do you know that you do not have to make any more moves?".
Short of actually saying, "Your position is winning," I can't think of a more blatant way of communicating a game assessment.
Anyway, players can easily find out the match situation by checking the results sheets.

[Simon Spivack]

Captains have the right to give the match score to a player, but little else, unless the rules of a particular competition determine otherwise. One frustrating time for me was when a team I ran was five-four up. In the remaining game my player was offered a draw. I willed him to get up and consult me, sadly he did not. He eventually lost.

[Martin Benjamin]

But that's not what happened here, according to the first post:
"Then towards the end of the match one home member had a quiet word with my opponent saying "Do you know that you do not have to make any more moves?".
Short of actually saying, "Your position is winning," I can't think of a more blatant way of communicating a game assessment.Anyway, players can easily find out the match situation by checking the results sheets

Without wishing to be pedantic, that is not strictly true. A captain might want his player to stop playing when a position is equal, for example, if it suited the match situation, or if his player were facing a stronger opponent, and stood worse, but not clearly losing on adjudication; although I agree it is unlikely to happen when the captain's player is losing!

As I wrote in my original response, I would not do it myself, as it feels against the spirit of the game, but I think "cheating" is too strong a word, which should be reserved for blatant transgressions such as "play Rc4" or "go into the Q+P ending".

But the best course of action is to abolish adjudications.

[David Pardoe]

Another situation when a captain might intervene is at the close...to advise players that the club premises are about to close, asking players to seal there next move...where adjournments apply.
Talking of adjournments...many dont like these, but the adjournment can be a double edged sword.....particularly in unclear positions. Many players might spend hours analysing variations on computer etc. But my experience is that generally it is not easy to predict the course of such games on resumption. Where one side has a very clear advantage, I guess most times a resignation will be offered....avoiding the need to resume a second session.

I do remember one particular case, where, as we reached adjournment, my opponent urged me to play more moves (in order to clarify the position....??....and because I think he wanted to seal). I didnt need to continue, so, after a little thought, I said I`ll seal my next move. This gave me a clear advantage in an unclear position that my opponent may well have been plussing. I found a cracking sealed move.....
Unfortunately or otherwise, the game was never resumed....it would have been very interesting to continue.
Suffice it to say that arrangements to continue to adjourned game proved to have unforeseen difficulties....my fellow team players were hinting that maybe I had a loss.....but I was by no means convinced of this.

What fun......
Another point...... sometimes it is difficult to quantify rules to cover some situations....you probably need an appeals procedure to obtain a decision. But I do agree that theres no substitute for a little sportsmanship at times.

[Eoin Devane]

Captains have the right to give the match score to a player, but little else, unless the rules of a particular competition determine otherwise. One frustrating time for me was when a team I ran was five-four up. In the remaining game my player was offered a draw. I willed him to get up and consult me, sadly he did not. He eventually lost.

The FIDE Tournament Rules (which I presume apply here) state:

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 to give only 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.
The captain shall abstain from any intervention during play. He shall give no information to a player concerning the position on the chess board, nor consult any other person as to the state of the game.

From my reading of the first paragraph, you could have gone over to your player and advised him to take the draw. However, the statement "The captain shall abstain from any intervention during play" then might be seen to prohibit this. Which of these takes precedence?

In a knockout competition last year I experienced a similar situation. I was captain and we needed a draw from the last game to go through. My player had been losing but had pulled the position back in mutual time trouble so that it was now unclear. Nonetheless, my player was still worse off for time with both players down to seconds, but his opponent offered him a draw. My instant reaction was to tell him, without being asked, to accept this, which he did and we went through. Although no-one voiced any objection, I found myself wondering whether what I had done was correct or not. After reading this section of the Laws I am still none the wiser. What do others think?

[Peter Rhodes]

That's interesting to me because it gives some insight into how people view rules as they are written down, and the way they interpret their correct implementation.

What we have here is Rule A and Rule B.

For the laws of the game not to be contravened, both rules must be satisfied.
But we have a situation where a player can think of a scenario that is within the scope of "Rule A" but contravened by "Rule B".

I don't know if I am alone in my approach, but my understanding is that the only "legal" scenario is one where neither rule is contravened. I can think of such a scenario :

Rule A : The match captain may advise his player.
Rule B : The match captain may not interfere during play.

Conclusion : The scenario that satisfies both these rules is where a player interrupts his play in order to seek counsel from his match captain.




I have seen such an approach in a recent dispute where a player(s) interprets something that is allowed to mean that other rules can be disregarded.

But in reply to Eoins point, I think given that it's normal etiquette for a player to seek the captains advice, I think they should just change the rules to allow a captain to assume he has been consulted if he overhears a draw offer.