Just The Rules: Quizamania is Runnin' Wild, Again

Three multiple choice goodies flavored with a touch of astonishment. The solutions are at the end of the column.

1. Bending the Rules?

You could see by the way the four of them strolled up to the registration desk that they were headed toward complications. It was just like one of those slow-motion strutting quartet scenes from the movies. It was probably their body language that gave them away. They had a special request when entering the Annual State of Confusion Quads. They did not want to be paired against each other, as they were family.

Their ratings would make them the first-, second-, third- and fourth-highest-rated wood-pushers at the event. Those rankings seeded them all into the same quad. Since they did not want to essay rated games against each other. What options are available?

A. Place those four players in the top quad. They have to play each other.

B. Thank them for coming to the event and don’t accept their entry fees.

C. Place each of the four family members, individually, in different quads.

D. All of the above are possibilities.

2. Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire?!

Your opponent makes a move and offers you a draw. It’s a tough decision. You both need a win to collect serious tournament cash. A draw soothes the ego, but reduces your take home pay. After a deep think, and some serious headache causing game analysis, you utter, “I accept your draw offer.” Your opponent’s reaction is totally unexpected, “What draw? I didn’t offer you a draw. You are a liar!” And now the real headache begins. Oh, what to do?

A. There is no evidence that your opponent offered a draw. The game continues.

B. Your claim is the same as offering a draw. Your opponent rejects the offer. The game continues.

C. Your claim is the same as offering a draw. Your opponent accepts the offer. The game is a draw.

D. All of the above are possible.

3. Scoresheet Accuracy Not Needed?

Your scoresheet accurately shows no pieces were captured — by either you or your opponent — since move 57. Neither of you can show any pawn movement for that same move count. You make your draw claim.

Your opponent challenges your scoresheet’s adequacy. He points out errors in your score keeping — errors made long before the 50-move proof you offer. You have score keeping slip-ups way back at the start of the game. A total of four mistakes in the first fifteen moves. Your claim is also a draw offer that your opponent rejects. Is it a draw?

A. The game is a draw. Those early errors don’t count as proof for this claim.

B. The game continues. Those early errors make your scoresheet inadequate.

C. None of the above, the game continues.

D. None of the above, the game is a draw.

Solutions

1. Amazingly all three of the solutions offered here can happen. Why? The TD does not have to honor the “no-pair” request (28T). So, solutions A and B are obvious choices that those four players need to make for themselves. Option C is the third choice that may not have much of a downside, as it just needs the approval of the other quads. Spreading out those same family pawn pushers will change the nature of the other quads. The question is how much of a change? The change may be almost unnoticeable. Or, the change may drop one of those relatives into a group that they outrank by leaps and bounds. Since quads by their very nature try to keep the entrants close in rating, this change would seem unfair. Simply asking if the new redistribution is ok with the three other members of the impacted quads could prove workable. If the family’s quad distribution does not work out because of other player’s objections, then those four kinfolks are back to deciding on option A or B. The bottom line is that A, B and C are all possible: D is the solution.

2. Without evidence the only solution is D. IMHO, A and B are the most likely outcomes when the TD gets sent over to make the call. Given the circumstances, it is unlikely — but possible — that C is going solve the problem. But, all three are possible.

3. Option A is the correct solution. This scenario is the point of an upcoming rulebook wording change that kicks in on 1-1-24 (see my September column). A reasonably complete score (13C7) is proof that a stated number of moves (starting at move one) must be made in a defined period of time — like 40 moves in one hour (40/1). The wording change will re-emphasize that a 13C7 definition of a completed scoresheet is not necessarily appropriate for other scoresheet claims — check out the current TD TIP to rule 14F. Why? Scoresheet evidence for other claims don’t always require proof starting at move one (13C7). In this case the move count does not start until move 57; i.e., from move 57 onward the scoresheet needs to be adequate for 50 moves.

The free, updated US Chess Rules (Chapters 1+2 + 9 + 10 +11 from the 7th edition rulebook) are now downloadable and available online.
 

Want more? Past columns can be found here or by searching the Chess Life Online archives.
 

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 5th, 6th, and 7th 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 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. US Chess awarded the 2022 Tournament Director Lifetime Achievement Award to Tim. He is also a member of the US Chess Rules Committee plus the Tournament Director Certification Committee (TDCC). His new column, exclusive to US Chess, “Just the Rules” will help clarify potentially confusing regulations.