The rarest event

[loveinvain]

Originally Posted by Dynasty

I was the TD for a tournament when two players were blitzing to make the time control. As a result, they both had to abandon keeping score.

They reached a position where both players thought it was their turn and both players had mate-in-1.

When I arrived at the table, neither could confindently tell me the order of the last few moves. Neither player thought the other was lying. They both agreed it was simply a confusing situation.

Awesome!

[ganstaman]

Originally Posted by KyleJRM82

Eesh. What was the ruling?

Gotta be a draw, right?

[HungryHippo]

Originally Posted by Dynasty

I was the TD for a tournament when two players were blitzing to make the time control. As a result, they both had to abandon keeping score.

They reached a position where both players thought it was their turn and both players had mate-in-1.

When I arrived at the table, neither could confindently tell me the order of the last few moves. Neither player thought the other was lying. They both agreed it was simply a confusing situation.

I remember you posting this before? Wasn't one guy able to reconstruct the moves over lunch or something and determine it was his move?

[PyramidScheme]

As I recall Dynasty rulled in favor of Player A because his version sounded "more believable" Then after lunch Player B returned with a complete scoresheet and Dynasty changed the ruling. However he realized after Player B filled in that scoresheet later, so perhaps he shouldn't have switched it.

Ruling it a draw is def. wrong though. I think you have to pick someone.

[Ajezz]

Well, someone's clock must be running, so until proven otherwise, it is that player's move.

They have to reconstruct the game on a different board together with the arbiter and to update their scoresheets to see if they had reached the time control.

If the game cannot be reconstructed, play is continued with the following move being considered as the first of the new time control (e.g. the 41st move).

Also, they should never have gotten into that situation. The arbiter should have kept score or appointed someone to do it. I understand though that in a big tournament that often is not possible.

[Dynasty]

Originally Posted by HungryHippo

I remember you posting this before? Wasn't one guy able to reconstruct the moves over lunch or something and determine it was his move?

Originally Posted by PyramidScheme

As I recall Dynasty rulled in favor of Player A because his version sounded "more believable" Then after lunch Player B returned with a complete scoresheet and Dynasty changed the ruling. However he realized after Player B filled in that scoresheet later, so perhaps he shouldn't have switched it.

Ruling it a draw is def. wrong though. I think you have to pick someone.

That's basically right.

I handled the situation fairly bad, including not confiscating both players' scoresheets as soon as I leaned about the dispute.

Since the mate-in-one situation was in place, I was determined to find some help in the USCF rulebook for when players weren't sure whose turn it was. But, I never found anything to guide me. It's just too unlikely a scenario.

The only part of my final decision I'm happy about is that the win went to the player who earned it over-the-board. Even the losing player accepted that.

It's possible I should have sought some type of club sanction on the winning player who said he didn't think the game could be reconstructed and then later gave me a reconstructed scoresheet. But, I knew he was moving to Texas within a couple months. So, I just let it all go other than discussing it with the club's tournament committee.

[Dynasty]

Originally Posted by Ajezz

Well, someone's clock must be running, so until proven otherwise, it is that player's move.

When a dispute occurs, you stop the clock, resolve the problem, and then restart the clock

Also, they should never have gotten into that situation. The arbiter should have kept score or appointed someone to do it. I understand though that in a big tournament that often is not possible.

This was a club tournament with about twenty players in it. There isn't a staff member to monitor every game.

[smilingbill]

Is this a better ruling:

Rewind the game to the last position that can be reconstructed. Continue the game from there, with the next move being the first one after the time control

(I am a TD and this is an interesting situation)

[mcteague]

Although it is correct, as someone pointed out, that clocks are stopped during a dispute it would have been running beforehand. To me that should settle it. I have lost and won many games when I or the opponent had mate on the board. Just one move to late. What is being described could really only happen if one of the players was lieing about whose clock was running. But normally the person on move would have been the one to stop it
It just seems that someone would have , and should have executed mate on the board. Unless the players were so weak that they both sat there with mate in one one for several moves. By the way the claim was made one or both must have had it the previous move at least.
There also could have been the claim that someone moved twice.
Even if there were no assistant TDs available, time scrambles usually draw attention from others. So witnesses could have been consulted.
But it just reminds you that you have to visit the boards when time pressure occurs

[Ajezz]

Originally Posted by smilingbill

Is this a better ruling:

Rewind the game to the last position that can be reconstructed. Continue the game from there, with the next move being the first one after the time control

This is not in accordance with the Laws of Chess. The only two times when a game is reset to a previous position is when they find out about an irregular move having been made before (rule 7.4) or one or more pieces having been displaced (rule 7.5).

Apart from that, reconstructing the game mostly just has the purpose of updating the scoresheets. The actual position on the board stands, even if it cannot be determined how the players got there (rules 8.5c, 8.6).

[smilingbill]

Yeah I was trying to interpret 7.5 a little loosely - is "knowing which player is to move" a requirement to having a position on the board? I wanted to backtrack to where we know who is to move and go on from there. If I ever make a TD exam, I'll put this situation in

[Noir_Desir]

Originally Posted by Dynasty

When a dispute occurs, you stop the clock, resolve the problem, and then restart the clock

This was a club tournament with about twenty players in it. There isn't a staff member to monitor every game.

a) with electronic clocks, it should be possible to know whose clock was running. With mechanical ones, place a pawn on the side of the clock that was running before stopping the clock.

b) when TDing a tournament, watch out for games that may turn into a time scramble. Our referees in the league matches usually have a sheet where they put in the number of moves made after 1h, 2h, 2,5h 3h, 3h 15m (time scrambles usually start after 3,5h). If more than one time scramble looms, look out for competent assistants (maybe players who have finished their games and are still watching). Give them a scoresheet and a pencil. Make sure they don't tell the players how many moves are made. I've played in opens with >100 boards were every mutual time scramble was supervised (i know the arbiter well and was usually one of the first choice assistants), in another with 150 board the referee usually just sits around and does nothing (well he's like 105 years old).