“No Tolerance” rule considered harsh
The clock strikes one… or two! In yet another controversy brought on by the FIDE “no tolerance” rule, two players forfeited games at the Chinese Championships recently held in Jiangsu, China. The rule was famously deployed at the 2008 Chess Olympiad in Dresden, Germany, an event replete with controversial rulings. There were several forfeits and in several cases, the ruling was applied inconsistently.
.jpg)
Amon Simutowe of Zambia (left) questioning the forfeit of Suriname’s Roger Matoewi (far right) who was seconds late. Simutowe wanted to play the game. The arbiter stood firm on the policy. Photo by Daaim Shabazz.
The new ruling states that a player has to be seated at the board when the round begins or they IMMEDIATELY forfeit the game. This issue was debated during the FIDE Congress in Dresden and a poll was taken. Predictably, the players felt that a grace period was far while the arbiters and organizers felt the rule was just. The rule still reads that player gets an hour to make the appearance, but FIDE has employed the rule across the board. The rule states,
E.I.01A. Laws of Chess
6.5 At the time determined for the start of the game the clock of the player who has the white pieces is started.
6.6 If neither player is present initially, the player who has the white pieces shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives; unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.
6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.
The proposed rule change is:
6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different default time.
There was particular outrage at the imposition of the rule. One may ask, “What is the purpose of the rule?”? Is it to instill discipline in the players? Is it to attract support from the IOC? One poster made the point that coming within an hour of game is just since the loss of time is a tangible penalty. So what happened in the Chinese Championships?
The arbiter awards a forfeit win to Ding Liren!
Photo by Sina Chess News.
GM Wang Hao had played solidly throughout the tournament and had held the lead for practically the duration of the tournament. However, Wang summarily lost to Ding Liren, a 2400-rated player who was playing the tournament of his life. Wang was still in the lead, but needed to win to clinch 1st since the overachieving Ding would have better tiebreaks. Ding’s opponent was Zhou Jianchao, a GM who had played in the middle of the pack, but was clearly a favorite. When the bell sounded, Zhou was not at the board so the arbiter declared Ding the winner.
In other action, Hou Yifan was also victimized by the rule. According to the ChessBase report,
Incidentally the youngest player and the only female in the event, Hou Yifan, was also forfeited in round eight, against tailender Liang Chong. Hou was in the hall, we are told, had filled out her scoresheet and was waiting for the game to start. But when it did, at 14:00:00h, she was not actually sitting on her chair in front of the board. 0-1.
So there you have it… FIDE’s “no tolerance” rule. Eventually the rule will be tested when a high profile match is decided by such a fluke. It will force FIDE to ease since there would be tremendous publicity damage in one instance of protest. After the Dresden controversies, there was a meeting and there was discussion of finding a compromise in the time allowed to get to the board. However, that rule apparently is not on the books. The saga continues.
Section 6.7 should be a little more detailed as it could be misunderstood to the player. But as I find it contradictory to Section 6.6. Thanks for the article great blog, keep goin…
If professional chess wants to be taken seriously by the mainstream public, it needs to be staged in a serious way. The players need to be at the board, ready to go, when the round begins.
Imagine if the time came to tip off an NBA finals game .. but the Lakers weren’t on the court ! “Oh, we had to go to the bathroom”, “It’s not our fault, they put us in a hotel that was far away” Such behavior wouldn’t be tolerated .. it is self defeating.
In the chess world, we long for the financial support that the commercially successful sports get. We need to realize that the difference is that they have worked long and hard to package a product that brings in fans, which brings in sponsors. Of course it’s not just one detail that makes the difference, it’s all of them … starting on time … reliability that the players will compete (and not be rewarded for not playing), etc.
I linked the ChessNinja discussion in a comment yesterday, saying your earlier piece on Dresden was valuable for my comments there. I think my having 3 links is what caused your spam filter to trap it. My critiques are not with the rule per-se, but () how it is implemented compared to ATP pro tennis and other peer professional organizations, and () re Hou Yifan, how it was explained to the players. My fellow CS researcher Soren Riis, writing to ChessBase, opined that “The players CLEARLY have not been properly informed about the very strict interpretation of the rules. The spirit of the rules is that players should be present at the start of the game. It seems that the players have not been given a correct definition of what it means to be present. Had the players been told they would lose the game if they were not seated when game were to begin I cannot imagine any player would have be late at the board for such important games.”
Some knowledgeable people from outside of chess, who are involved in the world of sports sponsorship, were asked why is it so difficult to gain sponsorship for chess. One of the 3 reasons that they gave was “chess people themselves”. We make all kind of excuses for not doing the things that must be done to improve the commercial attractiveness of our game.
“There is no chance that all 12 basketball players will not be present unless there is a transport problem or a protest.” Of course there would be a chance of that happening … if the league and teams allowed themselves the same excuses that we in chess make. But they don’t, because they have worked too hard to create a high quality product that sponsors are will to pay $$millions to support.
“If someone can tell me where chess has lost a sponsor because a player was late to a game, then I would like to know about it.” A well known GM, who I highly respect, made a similar argument to me …” … they either give us the money or they don’t”. The answer to your question Daaim is the same one I gave that GM – that many potential sponsors don’t even pursue the discussion with us after their initial investigation of the various aspects of chess. They simply don’t tell us why they aren’t interested.
As I mentioned earlier … no single detail is a showstopper. The continuing resistance by chess players to all things that they view as change, is an inhibitor to attracting sponsors. Commercially successful sports have tailored the details of how they operate with the idea of making money in mind … not just for their own convenience. Examples: When they interview an NFL coach for 30 seconds at the end of the first half, its not because he is a nice guy and has nothing better to do at that moment! It’s in the league contract with the networks, because fans like it, and more fans leads to more advertising revenue; We all have heard about TV timeouts — stoppages in the game to accommodate commercials; Also, there is a dress code for what can be worn by players during NFL games. The league has dress code police on staff, typically retired players, who inspect the teams during the pre-game warmups. They provide a list of violations to the teams, which must be corrected before the teams come back out to start the game; How would chess players react to these “infringements”? lol
The bottomline is that the savvy sports continually work to make themselves as attractive as possible. They prioritize commercial viability over arbitrary traditions and customs. We have a long way to go in chess.
My first main point is that chess should not leapfrog its traditions to become more strict than peer professional organizations. I showed in the ATP rulebook where they have a 15-minute grace period with fines for players who are late but on-site. They also have a “signing in” provision in a related context. Fines or some other sanction could curtail this being used as a means of throwing games.
My second point recommends that “ZT” start times be off the hour, e.g. 7:05pm as with many US sporting events. This is not a “grace period”, but could work like one. It also builds in 5 min. for media intros, visiting dignitaries etc.—if you’re going to have a short speech or ceremony on the hour (as I once did for a US Open round), it’s inconsistent to stipulate 7:00 as the start time. In tournament listings, the “:05” could be an immediate visual clue that the strict appearance rule is in effect.
With the appropriate thinking about implementation and context of an event, I support such a rule.
Daaim — Sorry if my description of the view of the person involved in sports sponsorship was vague … their point was not vague! Their observation was that members of the chess world – players, entrenched organizers, etc., did not have the right perspective on working with sponsors to create an attractive package. And I’ll make the point again .. these guys won’t feel like they owe you an explanation … everybody wants their money. If chess seems too inflexible to deal with, they’ll just move on.
For the most part, professional chess today is very dependent on wealthy patrons – individuals who love the game, and don’t care about it’s quirks, because they are not trying to make money. But that is a limited pool of sponsorship, so it limits the growth of the professional game.
While I was in Vegas a couple of weeks ago for the National Open, I went over to the Rio to check out the World Series of Poker. Not out of any interest that I have in playing tournament poker, but as an investigation of what poker is doing to fuel their tremendous commercial success. I’ll save the details for later posts, but my conclusion is that chess has just as compelling a potential as poker, with the two having different strengths & weaknesses. The main difference is that some creative people in the poker world saw the potential, and are doing what it takes to realize that potential. Keep in mind that the success of the sports that we envy did not happen overnight … they worked long and hard, in some cases for decades, to achieve their current levels of success. PGA, NBA, Tennis, NFL, NASCAR, etc.
Ah, Kenneth welcome to the chessdrum, nice ideas, excellent for tv too! We will be in the mall this weekend to expose the proper use of the fischer clock, Ivanchuck and the traditionalist dont really know how to use it, but not a bad idea by Fide, Trust, the “Black Chess will “assist” you in showing up on time. HaHa Peace.
Daaim — I hear those arguments all the time – they just aren’t true!
#1. There wasn’t a lot of chit-chat going on at the WSOP tables! I saw a few situations where a player was obviously tying to use banter to get an edge on his opponents, but for the most part it was as intensely quiet as a room full of chessplayers. After all, these guys have staked in their hard earned money, and they are serious about winning it back. Quite a few had mp3 players, I assume to block out distractions and calm their nerves. I suspect that even the talking that we see on broadcast poker is not quite as continuous as it seems, since those shows are heavily edited.
#2. Live spectating at a big poker tournament not as accessible as at a chess tournament, because you can’t really see any of the play, — remember, the cards are all hidden. In fact, many (most?) hands end when the next-to-last player folds. In that case you don’t even get to see what hand the winner had. In chess of course we have demonstration boards or projectors/screens- nothing is hidden.
#3. Admittedly the visible action of the athletic sports creates a lot of excitement, which attracts spectators. But I disagree that those sports are any easier to understand than chess. And you are overestimating the difficulty of explaining chess concepts, during a game, in a way that a non-tournament chess player would find informative & entertaining. At the last college chess final four, I was sitting with one of the VP’s at UTD, who is not a chessplayer. I explained to him that top chessplayers approach the opening phase of the game just like NFL teams approach preparing for their opponents … cooking up special “formations and strategies”, often far in advance of sitting down to play. Similar to viewing film, chessplayers can access databases that store the games of their opponents. Of course he immediately got it! I’ve effectively used that analogy, and others, many times, including during the live commentary that I host annually during the TransAtlantic Cup match. People get it, and they are intrigued.
4. Here is the key to #3 above … even though we all love a sport like football, we really don’t understand it as well as we delude ourselves into believing. 99% of NFL fans, myself included, could not accurately diagram the play that they just saw. Oh sure, we might be able to say that it was a running play … but could we diagram it, using the proper nomenclature and diagramming conventions, as it is described in the team’s playbook? Well, we don’t need to be able to do that to enjoy the game. So what makes us think that knowing the first 20 moves of a topical line in the Semi-Slav is a pre-req to enjoying top level chess?? Back to football – our enjoyment is aided to a large degree by the expert commentary of the broadcasters, who use information fed to them by an entire staff of support people. Plus there is an extensive camera infrastructure at the stadium, that captures and replays and zooms and pans all sorts of things that we would otherwise miss. In other words, we get a lot of help to understand and enjoy a game that we all claim is so simple. All of that is due to the work that the leagues and their partners have done to make the game more attractive and entertaining.
Daaim – lol I did explain to the UTD VP exactly what was going on! The players were jockeying for position using their pre-planned opening strategies. That is no different than saying that the SF 49ers are executing George Seifert’s scripted first 20 plays. The NFL broadcasters don’t bother to try and decipher for the viewing audience the details of those plays, people get the intention, and that is intriguing enough to them. And the example I gave you was a general comment about the opening stage of all the games. It’s not hard to use a similarly straightforward “bridge analogy” to explain what is happening in a specific game.
You actually corroborated 2 of my points … first, indeed, “what is there NOT to understand”… about chess! And secondly, there are fundamental elements of strategy that are common across all sports which involve players or teams competing against each other, including chess. The more we emphasize those aspects of our game, the quicker we will debunk the myth of chess incomprehensibility.
Sure, professional chess will have its unique identity. But it won’t get a pass and prosper without incorporating the elements of reliable drama, quality staging and compelling personalities/teams/organizations, that form the bedrock of all commercially successful sports.
I don’t use condescending phrasing like “…moved his horse from h3 to f4” with intelligent adults. They know the proper names of the chess pieces. Straightforward analogies to bridge chess concepts to what they are familiar with are all that’s needed, and you can sustain interest.
The video you attached is not suitable for a non-chess playing audience. I subscribe to David Shenk’s (author of the Immortal Game) advice for discussing chess games with mainstream audiences – don’t spout variations. The Kasparov v Anand video fails in that regard. But it was produced years ago.
Much better is the series of round updates on the recent US Championship, starring Jennifer and MaCauley. First — unlike your video, the broadcasters are seen in those videos! They do a good job of intermixing contextual info, i.e. what games and matchups are key and why, with first person comments from the competitors themselves. Sports fan like to get personal insights on the competitors, their history, motivations, etc. They do show moves and variations, but its kept to a minimum, and enough concept level words are use to help non-players understand the essence of what happened. Finally, the production values are superb … great camera work, editing, graphics, etc.
I can only tell you that in my experience, many people understand how to play chess, the names of the pieces and how they move. They don’t call knights horses or horsies, they call them knights.
They may not be familiar with the world of organized chess, or with the body of master practice, but they are capable of being entertained by the game, it’s players, and its events.
Since you asked .. how might you explain a move like Nf3?
Host: So Mr GM, we see that white has made a move, with his knight. Tell us what is going on.
Mr GM: Well, in this opening, white will typically try to make a breakthrough in the center. So before he attempts that he wants to reposition the knight closer to where the action will be.
Host: I see, so how might black respond.
Mr GM: He has a choice. He can try to get something going first on the queenside. Or he can sit tight and be prepared to counterattack, which is currently the most popular way to handle white’s plan. In fact, the black player in this game scored a key victory with that strategy at the XXXXX tournament, held in Serbia last year. Maybe white has a new idea in mind.
People follow that … I don’t why they wouldn’t. Of course if you include lots of chess jargon, without explanation, you’ll lose them.
Finally — Should Kasparov have been forfeited .. no, because that wasn’t the rule. And perhaps FIDE’s current attempt to implement such a rule has been sloppy and confused. But as part of a full set of actions to stage an entertaining event, a zero tolerance policy on being present at the start of the game seems natural.
I bet that Mr Daaim Shabazz has on occasion muttered to himself when he was trying to get some pictures of the top boards at an event, and the players were not present at the start of the round! An organizer works hard to get the mainstream press to their events, and marquee players aren’t even present for the photo window. They lose credibility ..and interest from the press.
I agree that in the scenario that you describe it would be silly and counterproductive to forfeit the player. But it is also counter-productive to resist efforts to improve the staging of chess events.
Admit it — it would be better for you as a photo-journalist if the players were all there on time, at the start of a round. You may tolerate it since you are a member of the world of chess, but mainstream journalists, trying to make deadlines, will not be so tolerant.
Promoting chess is very hard. I don’t believe that there are any shortcuts or silver bullets. But there also isn’t anything intrinsic to our game that prevents us from achieving much greater commercial success. We can learn a lot from the roads that other sports have traveled, embracing appropriately the common elements that entice all sports fans & sponsors, and combining those with the unique attractions of chess. (yes, there are some!)
Interesting opinions on both sides. The questions I’d like to ask are (1) what would began to happen to viewership/sponsorship when major games slated for telecast are suddenly forfeited due to this zero tolerance rule? (2) If you think it would erode the sponsorship and organizer relationship, how would you go about resolving this problem?
I’ll start by asking you a question – if Tiger Woods signs and turns in an inaccurate scoresheet at the end of today’s third round of the US Open, would they kick him out of the tournament ? Would the reason that his scoresheet was inaccurate make a difference in how the situation was handled?
And would the fact the he is Tiger Woods influence how the situation is handled?
If there’s a rule in place,regardless who the individual is, it must be adhered to. So the answer to your questions is somewhat obvious. Lets assume your analogy is intended to address my questions of viewership/sponsorship. In your scenario, Tiger woods did get a chance to play and the viewers got their satisfaction . I would bet to guess that viewers are more interested in watching the game, and not so much in what happens after the game. A few might, but I doubt if it would have a significant impact on viewership/sponsorship. That’s my best response to your scenario/question. I’d still appreciate your perspective to my original question.
Thanks Daaim. I agree there are no easy answers! When a Superstar , like BobbyFisher, comes along, perhaps fiding sponsorship/viewership will not be as difficult.
Daaim – I do owe you an answer to your original question, even though it is one of those “your answer will sound ridiculous” setups. But I’m game!
1. Yes, Magnus would be forfeited, in accordance with the match rule that we’re clearly spelled out in advance.
2. The fact that he was late would be disappointing to the broadcasters, organizers and sponsors, but not a surprise to them.That is because it would already have been clear for some time that Magnus had not arrived at the venue by the proscribed arrival time. Perhaps he had already accrued a penalty by missing that target, which would exist to try and prevent the totally undesirable scenario that you described.
3. The broadcast story would then become – Magnus is not here, where is he, will he make it on time, what happens if he doesn’t, how will the forfeit impact his chances to win the match. The drama and controversy might actually increase interest in the match.
4.The impact to the stature of chess with sponsors would depend upon whether or not Magnus’ tardiness was an exception or a pattern, and what his reaction is to the forfeit. If he admits that he screwed up, apologizes to fans and sponsors and promises to get an earlier start to the venue going forward, then the quality image of the event is preserved. If he protests and refuses to continue the match, perhaps destroying the event, that would turn off existing and potential sponsors.
I think you all have made some very interesting points, the answer to this question is defined by who or why you are replying to it! Let us for a momuent consider that we are “doctor’s”… then in a particular situation we are concern with treating a patients condition, short term and long term and what is best for the patient is our highest priorty. Is it not “clear what we are doing and why”? Then in a similiar situation we are ask a question about the “practical theory” involve with a particular “treatment”, especially the cost, the time we meant have to invest for reseach etc. etc are we searching for a true or or are we trying to “remove a cancer” if we believe something is wrong or in error is it not our responsibility to inform and assist in its correction?! The attractive aspects of the royal game are subtle and complex at the same time but there is one thing clear if we would like to bring more attention to this game there are two important ascepts to consider. The first is the “similiarity or the power of association” that exsist with all things, by finding common ground the explanation of many activities can be “simplified” and the mysteries removed. When I was in 5th grade my history teacher give the class an explanation and defination as to why history is important, after class I brought to his attention that I strongly disagreed with his explanation and defination and give a clear definative reason why. In short, if life is one reaccuring big circle then the dates and names are not as important as recognizing the effects and circumstances so we can recognize them …and pervent them from happening again!!!
Daaim – I remember those days of overt segregation, as contrasted with the covert flavor that still exists in some areas today.
Getting back to to the original topic of the thread… the Dresden and Wang Hao situations seem to be simply cases of players not bothering to be present on time. Such a goal is a worthwhile one, organizers and players should cooperate to achieve it, and it is fair (just) to hold themselves accountable via severe penalties, like game forfeiture. My experience is that quality execution leads to greater success.
Regarding the golf example I gave earlier, Tiger would be disqualified from the tournament, no doubt to the disappointment of TV advertisers and the local organizing group. That is what happened to Sergio Garcia at the 2007 PGA Championship – even though the root cause of the error was his playing partner’s (yes, his competitor) mis-marking of one of Sergio’s holes. The players keep each others scores during the round, but each player is still held strictly accountable for double checking the accuracy of the tally before he signs the scoresheet and turns it in at the scoring tent. Sergio was careless, probably because he had a disappointing round.
His reaction to going home with zero dollars — “I screwed up”. Even though Sergio is a multimillionaire, national hero in Spain, and gallery favorite because of his skill and animated style. But he also realizes that he has a responsibility to protect the goose that lays the golden eggs! Can you imagine if FIDE required chessplayers to turn in accurate scoresheets, or else be disqualified! lol
I’ve been traveling so I couldn’t respond until now.
Agreed – FIDE’s implementation of the zero-tolerance rule is flawed. I said so earlier. I also said that the underlying goal is still a good one, as part of a broader effort to improve the staging of chess events.
Tiger would definitely be forfeited. Again, I said his reaction would then determine what happened next. If he complained that his disqualification was unfair, too harsh, that could lead to a battle where one side or both sides might lose. In that scenario, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the PGA Tour back down and change the rule, after the fact, since Tiger’s emergence has dramatically increased the revenue for everyone involved in golf.
My bet is that Tiger would just blame himself, and move on. He also has his image to consider — why risk being viewed as someone who wants a pass from obeying the rules. The PGA has been very supportive of what he wants to do. They don’t hassle him about the fact that he plays very few PGA Tour tournaments, which lets him play in more lucrative guaranteed fee events like in Dubai. And they moved an established tournament to a less desirable slot so that he could have his own signature event that weekend.
I’m glad to see you researching other sports. We in chess can learn a lot from the successes and failures of other sports.