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?
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?
Comment