Just the Rules: Online Side-Effects

The forced migration of chess to online environments has created some interesting side effects. The marriage of over-the-board (OTB) wood pushing with the online universe produced a whole new set of unforeseen concerns—or unintended consequences. Take a look at what the troops discovered:

Bob McAdams: The platform I was using erroneously decide that either I or my opponent had abandoned the game and counted it as a loss for that player, even though the player still had plenty of time left on his clock.

I also had a situation just in the past couple of weeks when I was playing a game with a friend, had a winning piece-advantage, but as I was in the process of moving my piece (I had picked it up and was about to set it down on its destination square), my platform suddenly declared the game a draw with no explanation, even though I still had plenty of time left on my clock.

TJ: Your experience is exactly why players would be wise to check out what their chess-playing platform is programed to do in these kinds of situations. It has been rumored that at least one platform automatically promotes a pawn to a queen—that is probably good to know before you get to that point in an endgame. I suspect there will be a bit of pointing and clicking to find the document that lists those platform regulations, but it is well worth the time in the long run to dig it up. We are still in the infant stage when it comes to the relationship between US Chess and the platforms. As chess grows in our new world order, I suspect there will be some prodding from US Chess to tweak those platform routines.

Neal Bellon: In the long run—well after COVID has passed—the emphasis on online chess will hurt OTB, as people will view it as the easier option and as (the new) normal.

TJ: It will probably all depend on how available the post-pandemic world makes OTB chess. Your prediction brings to mind an observation by my friend Peter Spizzirri: At first there was a McDonalds on one of the four corners of a local intersection. Soon three of the four corners housed a McDonalds, Burger King and a Wendy’s. One would think that at least one of them would be put out of business due to the insane competition. Instead, all three are swimming in burger profits. Perhaps the availability of US Chess OTB tournaments coupled with the ease of online chess will have them both swimming in members.

Hal Bogner: The way to leverage online play to support OTB and chess club infrastructure is to establish supervised rated play at a distance—something which Greg Shahade has shown how to do. Initiate leagues ala the old National Chess League, or Greg's USCL, with four players and a TD at each location.

TJ: Ideally you have a point. In fact, the old Chapter 10 internet rules required a TD onsite. The trick here would be getting four players and a TD safely together in our infected world.

Shaun Bowcaster: Why do online platforms need the USCF at all? Once they put up a searchable page where common people can look up a player’s rating… the USCF will be done. What caused the first jump in USCF membership? Arpad ElO's rating system which is a measure of Human Ego. When people's online rating is higher than their USCF rating, their Ego will dictate that's the better rating. When the chess online platforms start telling people they are a master or an expert, they …will love telling their friends and family that they are a master or an expert.

TJ: Hmm, I have known more than a few individuals who make the claim of being a Master or Expert in US Chess, but they are not. I have observed that their friends don’t bother to check out such grand claims. Why? Those title spouters generally crush their friends at chess. That is all the evidence their pals need—no rating verifications necessary. While any online platform may post searchable ratings, I suspect that hardly anyone will use it to check out any proof of chess title claims. Just like right now.

Charles Roberson: At the end of an event the tentative leader was insistent that he didn't cheat; therefore, he won. Charles pointed out, “…it is possible the person a half-point behind you lost a game due to cheating; thus, that result was flipped for (all of) his opponents—then (maybe) you wouldn't be the leader (after that score change).”

TJ: The only real concern I have seen discussed is one player earning his way to the top prize, while another player, due to a cheating opponent, is freely handed a score that gives him the top prize. Organizers might consider creating a document that explains their process behind the adjustment of scores due to a cheating player, and how it might impact prizes. In general, the opponent of the cheater will have their loss turned into a draw and their draw turned into a win, but organizers and TDs do have wiggle room here.

Dennis Kosterman: There are just numerous things I don't like about playing online. One of them is that the vast majority of events are at quick (or even faster) time controls. I never liked those time controls OTB either.

Cheating is also a big problem, and anti-cheating measures can cause their own problems. If you're required to be "on camera" for the entire game, how do you go to the bathroom (a frequent necessity for old men like me, especially at longer time controls)?

TJ: You might try hunting around in those Chess Life TLAs to find an event with longer online time controls. Don’t get overly concerned about those two camera appearances, especially if you alert the TD about your bathroom break. Leaving the camera is not the only indication that something fishy is going on.

Daniel Miller: In Vegas, if you use electronic devices to cheat and win money, you go to jail. In online chess, they give you a one-year ban and tell you not to do it again. If you're looking for suggestions on rules: The punishments need to be much, much higher. A lot of us will never trust any online tournament, and feel there should not be titles or money associated until the penalty for cheating is much higher.

TJ: Perhaps your concern here will catch the attention of the US Chess delegates—you know: the rule givers. A heavy cheating penalty would probably also require hardcore evidence. And I suspect you are referring to adult chess warriors when it comes to severe penalties, not kids. I did notice you are concerned about electronic cheating, but not unfair human help. In my opinion, the penalties for both fair-play violations should be the same.

The free, updated US Chess Rules (Chapters 1+2 + 10 +11 from the 7^th edition rulebook) are now downloadable and available online. Past “Just the Rules” columns can be viewed here. Plus listen to Tim when he was a guest on the US Chess podcast “One Move at a Time.”

Tim Just is a National Tournament Director, FIDE National Arbiter, and editor of the 5^th, 6^th, and 7^th editions of the US Chess Rulebook. He is also the author of My Opponent is Eating a Doughnut & Just Law, which are both available from US Chess Sales and Amazon/Kindle. Additionally, Tim recently revised The Guide To Scholastic Chess, a guide created to help teachers and scholastic organizers who wish to begin, improve, or strengthen their school chess program. Tim is also a member of the US Chess Rules Committee. His new column, exclusive to US Chess, “Just the Rules” will help clarify potentially confusing regulations.