Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

[Ben Daswani]

I have a couple of questions about situations that occurred in a tournament I directed this weekend. Normally in times of doubt I ask, "What would Jesus do?" but I don't think he's ever been a TD, so I'm asking here instead.

Scenario #1:

To preface, although the tournament was an open event, the two players involved in this game were both young (i.e. U12) juniors.

I am called over due to a dispute regarding touch-move. White claims that Black has touched his rook. Black denies this. I ask both of them to explain what happened in detail. White claims that Black touched his rook, said, "Adjust," and let go of the piece. Black claims that the utterance preceded the touching (twss??). White adds that Black never actually adjusted the rook; in fact, it was already in the centre of the square (f8). Black denies this and claims that the piece was in fact adjusted. I ask him to show me where on the square it was before he adjusted it. He says, "I think... it was here," and moves it to the very corner of the square, notably in need of adjustment. Firstly, the unsureness with which he said this struck me as suspect. I ask him how long it had been unadjusted and he stated that it had been since he castled. It was move seventeen and and he'd castled on move seven. I thought about it, decided that Black's story sounded ridiculous and almost assuredly untrue and told him to move the rook.

You think this story's over, but it's not. Two moves later I'm called over again. White is, once again, claiming that Black has committed a touch-move infraction. He says that White touched his knight, whereas Black said that although his hand hovered over it, he never actually touched it. Now, I'm reasonably certain that Black lied to me during the last touch-move deposition, but I decided that I have to view this situation independently of the first, and since there is no evidence to the contrary, I decide that he has not touched the piece.

Okay, Jesus/ChessTalk, what would you have done for these two cases?

Scenario #2:

Two players are paired (duh). White is in clear first and Black is tied for second. White does not show up until 65 minutes past the scheduled start time. He forfeits. He slept in and clearly made his best effort to arrive in time for the game, so I'm not about to expel him from the tournament or some stupid crap as such.

Now, apparently, some fools rate these forfeits. That's foolish. I am not a fool. I do not rate these forfeits. Essentially, I viewed the result as a full-point bye for Black and a zero-point bye for White. Disaster strikes! Now they're tied for first and should play each other next round. Other pairings are possible, but the correct pairing is for them to play each other. Have they already played? One would think not, as no game has taken place. The FIDE rulebook corroborates this notion. Both players protest. I'm having none of this, though, and tell them to start their game. I then put on my toque and take a sip of water from a bottle. That, however, is irrelevant.

What would Jesus/Muhammad (peace be upon him)/Orr/ChessTalk do?

[Alvah Mayo]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

At the risk of incurring Ben's eternal wrath:

Scenario #1:

I admire your investigatory technique. However, no true smoking gun, no independent witnesses and the arbiter didn't see it either? No touch move. Same thing for the second case. Play on Macduff!

Scenario #2:

For FIDE purposes, the game is unrated but the winner still gets a point. For CFC purposes, its generally accepted to be rated and the winner gets a point. I know of no case where the game was retroactively considered a bye in the circumstances you describe. Consider the ratings as compensation for the player who was deprived of a real game.

As they have already been paired and a game (albeit abbreviated) has already taken place, they cannot be paired again in a Swiss event. You don't get to score more than one win against the same guy in the same tournament.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

On Scenario 1:

A similar thing happened at a chess camp at which I taught. I was almost 100% certain that the player who claimed not to have touched the piece in fact did so (and in this case the move hung his Q). The other tournament director agreed when we discussed the situation afterwards. However, there was, as Alvah wrote, no independent witness so the player was not obligated to move his Q. However, I learned later that this player had been caught before in a similar case. It seems to me that a player's history over the course of several tournaments should be relevant if the arbiter knows about it.

On Scenario 2:

Alvah wrote:

"...Consider the ratings as compensation for the player who was deprived of a real game."

This is standard policy and it is very bad policy. It treats ratings like rewards and punishments rather than as performance measurements. Instead of penalizing or rewarding players with rating points, perhaps cash would be a better method. The forfeited player should have to pay the organizer a standard sum (say $20) or a pro-rated part of the EF to be turned over to his opponent at the end of the event as compensation for the wasted time.

[David Ottosen]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

At the risk of incurring Ben's eternal wrath:

Scenario #1:

I admire your investigatory technique. However, no true smoking gun, no independent witnesses and the arbiter didn't see it either? No touch move. Same thing for the second case. Play on Macduff!

Scenario #2:

For FIDE purposes, the game is unrated but the winner still gets a point. For CFC purposes, its generally accepted to be rated and the winner gets a point. I know of no case where the game was retroactively considered a bye in the circumstances you describe. Consider the ratings as compensation for the player who was deprived of a real game.

As they have already been paired and a game (albeit abbreviated) has already taken place, they cannot be paired again in a Swiss event. You don't get to score more than one win against the same guy in the same tournament.

For a rare occassion, I agree with Alvah. You handled both situations wrongly.

And to Tom, in an ideal world ratings would not be valuable or considered compensation by players. In the real world they are, so I would rate it on the same criteria as Alvah - as a TD, my job isn't to tell the players what to like, it's to give them what they like. I also think that in a volunteer, charity organization, it's much safer to deprive someone of an organizational privilege than it is to charge them extra money.

At the same time, it's interesting that how the "punishment" will be taken would vary from person to person - someone wealthy but ratings obsessed might laugh hysterically at being fined $4 or whatever, but be deathly depressed over the unfought loss of 20 rating points.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

To my way of thinking, the game was played in scenario #2. The result was that one player forfeited, therefore, it should be rated just like any other game where a player overstepped their time allocation. After all the player did have one hour to make the first move....

[Jason Lohner]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

Scenario #1

I saw something like this at the Keres open. A young boy was playing an elderly person. The boy touched a piece and the elderly person claimed the touch move rule. The TD was called over and the boy claimed that he said 'j'adube' and the elderly person said that they didn't hear him say anything. The TD said to the boy that he has to make sure that the opponent knows what he is saying before he touches the piece and gave him a warning that if it happened again that he would be forced to move the piece. After this I noticed the TD spending more time in that area. All of this happened at the board beside me and it completely distracted me! (excuses, excuses!)
I thought the TD did an excellent job with this incident. With your situation I would have 'hovered' around that area of the tournament for awhile.

Scenario #2

You did the right thing and I would have told them to stop whining and play.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

your scenario was discussed here http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt86.pdf in "An Arbiter's Notebook" on ChessCafe. In a nutshell, forfeited players can be paired again.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

In one of the North Bay Internationals ( can't remember which year ), I lost in a round, but neither the winner nor I marked up our score ( technically it was the winner's obligation to do so ). We were given a double forfeit.

The next morning, we looked at the pairings for the next round, and saw what had happened. Lo and behold, we were paired again, with exactly the same colours. We went to the TD ( don't remember who it was ) and asked if anything could be done about it? We were told no and to go play.

We then compounded the situation by mutually agreeing ( without consulting the TD ) that it was only fair if we changed colours , so we each would have a white and black. As far as I remember, I lost that game to him too.

Bob

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

For FIDE purposes, the game is unrated but the winner still gets a point. For CFC purposes, its generally accepted to be rated and the winner gets a point. I know of no case where the game was retroactively considered a bye in the circumstances you describe. Consider the ratings as compensation for the player who was deprived of a real game.

As they have already been paired and a game (albeit abbreviated) has already taken place, they cannot be paired again in a Swiss event. You don't get to score more than one win against the same guy in the same tournament.

I didn't retroactively consider it a bye. I considered it a win by forfeit and a loss by forfeit which is essentially the same as two byes (in that it has the same effect on rating changes and scoring). As pointed out by Roger, the rule is that forfeited players can be paired again. It's good to know that The Geurt agrees.

Ottosen: "[A]s a TD, my job isn't to tell the players what to like, it's to give them what they like."

Actually, as a TD, your job is to ensure that the rules are followed. You have no obligation to please the players. Indeed, a correct ruling that displeases both involved players is still the correct ruling.

Regarding the first scenario, it's clear that I made the wrong decision. Perhaps I should have been less thorough in my assessment?! I'm inclined to wonder if enforcement of the touch-move rule is nearly impossible.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

On a related point on double forfeiture, a situation arose in the Canadian Open in Montreal last July. I had not slept well the night before, and had had a difficult full 6-hour game, and was exhausted. I won, but it was late and I went back to the residence where I was staying, and forgot to mark up my score ( my opponent didn't do it either, which wasn't his obligation anyway ).

The next day, looking at the pairings, I realized my mistake - the cross table showed a double forfeit. I went to Richard Berube, the TD, and explained the situation and asked if anything could be done. He said, obviously, nothing could be done about that round's pairings - too late. But he advised he would correct the crosstable after the round, to show my win in the prior round ( needless to say I was quite appreciative to have the forfeit reversed ).

But in the North Bay International, mentioned in my post above, the TD would not change the forfeit of my opponent who had not posted his win ( in the same way, we had been given a double forfeit )! So my opponent's zero for that round remained on the cross table.

What is the general practice in cases of double forfeiture for failure to post a result, given these directly conflicting rulings? Does the " mercy principle " generally apply , or not?

Bob

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

It seems to me that your view on #1 is understandable, but farfetched, and your view on #2 quite ingenious, even commendable.

[Bob Armstrong]

Double Forfeiture for Not Posting Results

On a related point on double forfeiture, a situation arose in the Canadian Open in Montreal last July. I had not slept well the night before, and had had a difficult full 6-hour game, and was exhausted. I won, but it was late and I went back to the residence where I was staying, and forgot to mark up my score ( my opponent didn't do it either, which wasn't his obligation anyway ).

The next day, looking at the pairings, I realized my mistake - the cross table showed a double forfeit. I went to Richard Berube, the TD, and explained the situation and asked if anything could be done. He said, obviously, nothing could be done about that round's pairings - too late. But he advised he would correct the crosstable after the round, to show my win in the prior round ( needless to say I was quite appreciative to have the forfeit reversed ).

But in the North Bay International, mentioned in my post above, the TD would not change the forfeit of my opponent who had not posted his win ( in the same way, we had been given a double forfeit )! So my opponent's zero for that round remained on the cross table.

What is the general practice in cases of double forfeiture for failure to post a result, given these directly conflicting rulings? Does the " mercy principle " generally apply , or not?

Bob

I wrote Hal Bond on the question of whether TD's should correct double forfeitures for not posting results, for the winner who didn't post. Here is his reply:

" Off hand Bob, I don't know. In FIDE tournaments the Arbiters look after results, so this kind of double forfeit never happens. I think it is a tournament rule, and as such you will have variation. I have never DF'd anyone before. "

Bob

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

I have a question about castling maybe someone can answer.

I was playing blitz with a player who used to play in tournaments about 10 years ago. It didn't come up in our game but we we're discussing castling and he seemed to think you could castle if the Rook had moved, but was back on its home square.

I was thinking you can't castle if either K or R has moved. We agreed about the K and that the R can pass through an attacked square but not the K of course.

Both of us agreed that its a pretty rare occurence where the R has already moved.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

I have a question about castling maybe someone can answer.

I was playing blitz with a player who used to play in tournaments about 10 years ago. It didn't come up in our game but we we're discussing castling and he seemed to think you could castle if the Rook had moved, but was back on its home square.

I was thinking you can't castle if either K or R has moved. We agreed about the K and that the R can pass through an attacked square but not the K of course.

Both of us agreed that its a pretty rare occurence where the R has already moved.

If a players rook or king has moved, s/he can't castle. It's covered on the FIDE web site under the laws of chess.

It was the same 10 years ago.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Questions about touch-move and forfeiture (real examples)

thanks Gary, that's what I was thinking but wanted to be sure, I guess for blitz we can do anything we want but its good to know what tournament rules are