A potential dilemma following a review of the rules (hypothetical)

[Peter Ackley]

In the Newarkgate thread (not that you need to read it to understand my post) the following was posted:

A situation which is being discussed in some of the new FIDE IA Seminars is to consider what an arbiter should do if a player, albeit in a lost position, sits at the board without moving until their flag falls. This is being discussed, not as a breach of the Laws, but because it is rude to the opponent. Your actions were rude to your opponent in much the same way. Discussion at these seminars on 'waiting for the flag to drop' usually results in the feeling that the arbiter cannot intervene until the game is finished. At which point the offending player will be warned that a repetition will see them being punished for bringing the game into disrepute.

Consider the following scenario, not outside the realms of possibility.

Two teams, A and B, are playing an Open County Final (16 boards, arbiter present, time limit G/120 + 0:10). Match score is 7-7 HOWEVER team A, regardless of how it is achieved, must achieve 8.5 points as their tie-break situation is so bad.

Two games remaining, board 1 and board 16. On both boards it's unclear; the team A player is in control of the position has a choice of plans, unpreventable equality and a probably drawn position or an unclear sacrifice and all hell breaks loose. All players know the match situation and have seen each other's position, however, on both boards the team A player is now down to the 10 second increment whilst the team B player has much more time (and even more on board 1, having made more moves).

On board 16 the team A player decides to make the sacrifice and the team B player accepts it and, after a couple of moves, makes a valid offer of a draw, based on the match situation and also their analysis of the position. The team A player makes a move and the team B player realises their analysis was wrong and there's now a forced mate on the board. Normally the team B player would resign but he then thinks about the match situation. Being 15 boards apart the team A board 1 has no idea what is going on, only that a draw has been offered and declined, and they cannot easily walk the full length of the hall as they might lose on time if their opponent makes a move. Under the laws of chess no-one can tell the team A board 1 what is going on. If they resign then the result will go on the match sheet and the board 1 team A player will know a draw wins them the match and go for equality however if they do nothing then the team A player on board 1 has to make the same choice but, knowing that a draw has been offered, might consider that they have to take the risk to try to win. Eventually the team B's flag falls on board 16, as it was either mate or flag fall.

Should team B's board 16 be warned as, after all, he did waste his opponent's time or would a defense of "the match situation required me to" negate the warning?

[Roger Lancaster]

In the Newarkgate thread (not that you need to read it to understand my post) the following was posted:

A situation which is being discussed in some of the new FIDE IA Seminars is to consider what an arbiter should do if a player, albeit in a lost position, sits at the board without moving until their flag falls. This is being discussed, not as a breach of the Laws, but because it is rude to the opponent. Your actions were rude to your opponent in much the same way. Discussion at these seminars on 'waiting for the flag to drop' usually results in the feeling that the arbiter cannot intervene until the game is finished. At which point the offending player will be warned that a repetition will see them being punished for bringing the game into disrepute.

Consider the following scenario, not outside the realms of possibility.

Two teams, A and B, are playing an Open County Final (16 boards, arbiter present, time limit G/120 + 0:10). Match score is 7-7 HOWEVER team A, regardless of how it is achieved, must achieve 8.5 points as their tie-break situation is so bad.

Two games remaining, board 1 and board 16. On both boards it's unclear; the team A player is in control of the position has a choice of plans, unpreventable equality and a probably drawn position or an unclear sacrifice and all hell breaks loose. All players know the match situation and have seen each other's position, however, on both boards the team A player is now down to the 10 second increment whilst the team B player has much more time (and even more on board 1, having made more moves).

On board 16 the team A player decides to make the sacrifice and the team B player accepts it and, after a couple of moves, makes a valid offer of a draw, based on the match situation and also their analysis of the position. The team A player makes a move and the team B player realises their analysis was wrong and there's now a forced mate on the board. Normally the team B player would resign but he then thinks about the match situation. Being 15 boards apart the team A board 1 has no idea what is going on, only that a draw has been offered and declined, and they cannot easily walk the full length of the hall as they might lose on time if their opponent makes a move. Under the laws of chess no-one can tell the team A board 1 what is going on. If they resign then the result will go on the match sheet and the board 1 team A player will know a draw wins them the match and go for equality however if they do nothing then the team A player on board 1 has to make the same choice but, knowing that a draw has been offered, might consider that they have to take the risk to try to win. Eventually the team B's flag falls on board 16, as it was either mate or flag fall.

Should team B's board 16 be warned as, after all, he did waste his opponent's time or would a defense of "the match situation required me to" negate the warning?

My immediate reaction to this one, Peter, is that you're asking the wrong question. A warning "that a repetition will see them being punished" might have some force in the early rounds of a tournament but, in a one-off event such as a county match, it's not a remotely effective sanction.

If the A team player on board 1 had more time, he could take a leisurely stroll down the room and decide for himself what was going on so to that extent I suppose it could be said that his inability to do so through shortage of time is a self-imposed injury for which one shouldn't have too much sympathy. Of course, your example takes for granted that the board 1 would have understood what was going on on board 16. Reverse the situation so that the board 1 takes the sacrificial plunge instead and there's no guarantee that board 16, being a weaker player, would have understood what was going on on board 1 no matter whether he had the time or not.

[John Townsend]

In the scenario mentioned above by Alex McFarlane, what criteria does an arbiter use to distinguish between a player who, in a lost position, genuinely runs out of time, and one who "sits at the board without moving until their flag falls"?

[Tim Spanton]

And what about someone who leaves the board and lets their time run down to a minute or so before returning to let the flag fall? Is this worse than sitting at the board and letting time run down?

[David Williams]

Surely the worst is the opponent who goes home without actually resigning?

[John Townsend]

Tim Spanton said:

"And what about someone who leaves the board and lets their time run down to a minute or so before returning to let the flag fall? Is this worse than sitting at the board and letting time run down?"

Is the act of sitting suspicious in itself?

[IM Jack Rudd]

My feeling, as an arbiter, is that delaying so that a player at another board has to take a decision before you do is a normal part of tournament and match play, and this includes delaying the decision to resign. I might still have a word if a player allowed their clock to run out, but if they gave an explanation along the lines of the OP, I'd consider that reasonable and not impose penalties.

[Peter Ackley]

Back in the 90s I played at the one-off Midlands weekender and my opponent on the Saturday night, having blundered from a better position, went home without resigning. The arbiter at the time (I can't remember who) took the view that as no-one had seen them leave and their pen and scoresheet was next to the board that they might not have left and I needed to wait until flag fall. Which annoyed me and also the player giving me a lift home.

Equally annoying, although falling under the heading of "acceptable, I think" in a match more recently a player from my team offered their opponent a draw when much lower on time in a very equal position (they had enough time to hold it). Their opponent waited until literally the last minute before accepting the draw, stating that they were waiting to see what happened on the other boards.

But then this does start to move into the area of "what is a reasonable amount of time to take over a move"? It might seem an odd question but early 2000s in a London event I played a junior on the Saturday night who blitzed out all their moves. They played them well and I ended up a lot of time down with a worse position until I played a cheapo which worked and I won, I think, a rook for no compensation. Suddenly the moves slowed right down and I was up on time. I quickly got to a position of forced mate (literally my opponent had a sequence of "only" moves) but they spent an hour over them, most of the time spent staring round the room. No flag fall occurred but certainly poor conduct.

[Alex McFarlane]

Discussing Peter's last post.
I too have told a player who has commented on their opponent being absent the very same answer. I then get a search party looking for the missing player. Depending on the remaining time I will either allow the time to run out or declare a loss for the absent player, assuming they cannot be found. I have to say that I did have one claim from a player that his opponent had been absent for a significant time. However, the claimed period of absence was more than showed on the missing player's clock and wasn't much less than the total time on both clocks!
I've also had someone claiming his opponent was nowhere in the building. I pointed a few rows away and asked "Isn't that him watching that other game?". End of discussion!
The two players I've had who did walk out in the manner described were not included in the draw for the next round.
I've also had an inebriated player who was a bit of a disturbance. I awarded the game to his opponent and told him to leave the building until he was sober. "If that's you're attitude, remove me from the tournament." I did. The next day he turned up sober and was expecting to play. I told him that he had withdrawn the previous day. This was denied until confirmed by others. He then went into the hall to the board of his previous day's opponent, removed the king from her board, walked outside and through it into the field opposite. I have no explanation for his behaviour. Ironically, his surname was Nice.

[LawrenceCooper]

He then went into the hall to the board of his previous day's opponent, removed the king from her board, walked outside and through it into the field opposite. I have no explanation for his behaviour.

[Roland Kensdale]

I've also had an inebriated player who was a bit of a disturbance. I awarded the game to his opponent and told him to leave the building until he was sober. "If that's you're attitude, remove me from the tournament." I did. The next day he turned up sober and was expecting to play. I told him that he had withdrawn the previous day. This was denied until confirmed by others. He then went into the hall to the board of his previous day's opponent, removed the king from her board, walked outside and through it into the field opposite. I have no explanation for his behaviour. Ironically, his surname was Nice.

Entertaining story. Who would be an arbiter?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... 0developed.

Five hundred years ago, when nice was first used in English, it meant "foolish or stupid." This is not as surprising as it may seem, since it came through early French from the Latin nescius, meaning "ignorant." By the 16th century, the sense of being "very particular" or "finicky" had developed. In the 19th century, nice came to mean "pleasant or agreeable" and then "respectable," a sense quite unlike its original meaning.

<end paste>

He probably came from a very nice family. Perhaps the family had roots in the French city of the same name.

[Tim Spanton]

Tim Spanton said:

"And what about someone who leaves the board and lets their time run down to a minute or so before returning to let the flag fall? Is this worse than sitting at the board and letting time run down?"

Is the act of sitting suspicious in itself?

It's not about suspicion, it's about poor sportsmanship.

[LawrenceCooper]

He then went into the hall to the board of his previous day's opponent, removed the king from her board, walked outside and through it into the field opposite. I have no explanation for his behaviour.

I'm surprised this scenario wasn't covered on the arbiter course I attended

[John Townsend]

Tim Spanton wrote: "It's not about suspicion, it's about poor sportsmanship."

It would be wrong to accuse anyone of that without proof.

Yet, there has been no reply so far to my earlier question:

"In the scenario mentioned above by Alex McFarlane, what criteria does an arbiter use to distinguish between a player who, in a lost position, genuinely runs out of time, and one who "sits at the board without moving until their flag falls"?

[Tim Spanton]

Tim Spanton wrote: "It's not about suspicion, it's about poor sportsmanship."

It would be wrong to accuse anyone of that without proof.

Surely poor sportsmanship is a matter of opinion, not proof?