Deciding not to cheat = good sportsmanship?

Dana Mackenzie posted a lengthy piece on John Donaldson and the USCL's San Francisco Mechanics. It is quite a good read, though I was taken aback by the following paragraph:

In fact, Bhat’s loss was a triumph of good sportsmanship. As shown in my previous post, in league competition Bhat plays his moves on a regular board and with a regular clock, then enters them into the computer. (At least until the time pressure gets too intense, then he switches to all-computer mode.) Against Lugo, Bhat played 23. Bd5 and then realized it was a bad move. However, according to Donaldson, because he had already made the move on his board "he felt honor bound to make that move on the computer."

I'm not sure what to make of this. The USCL rules clearly state that entering a different move into the computer than was made on the board is illegal:

A player may also play with a physical board at their side, as some players can concentrate better on an actual chessboard as opposed to playing directly at a computer. In this case the players would first make their move on the chessboard and then input it into the computer. The player is FORCED to make whatever move they made on the chessboard on the computer as well. If a TD sees that they have done otherwise then the player will be penalized.

Were this rule not in place, players would be able to use their physical boards to analyze the position prior to selecting a move to play on the computer -- a clear violation of the principles of OTB play.

So, when Mackenzie/Donaldson say that Bhat showed "good sportsmanship," what could they possibly mean? ...that Vinay considered the option of cheating, but chose not to because "he felt honor bound?" ...that the TD wasn't looking, so Vinay realized he could get away with playing another move, but didn't do so since he realized it would be wrong? Could they possibly mean to disparage Bhat's reputation in this way?

Isn't it more likely that Vinay played the inferior move on the computer because that's what the rules required and he never considered anything other than following them? That's what I'd like to believe. I'd also like to believe that playing by the rules is an expectation of all players in the league. Therefore, I don't think we need to be handing out good sportsmanship medals and badges of honor to those who do so.

Re-entry Re-visited

Remember our discussion awhile back about problems with reentries at the club? Well now, in a fairly length post about dropping out of tournaments, Polly of Castling Queen Side mentions similar reentry shenanigans at the Marshall Club in New York:

.... I've seen him play on Thursday night where he's way down on the wall chart with me. He's lost his first round to a much higher rated player, and then reenters with a 1/2 point bye for another $15. If he continues to lose on the reentry he drops out. Maybe he likes to try for upsets, or avoid getting paired down. (I knew one kid who used to reenter to avoid getting the bye in the next round. I think he did it to tick me off, because I'd be the next one in line for the bye.) ....

Here and There

• For those of you who were amused by the fact that the BCC players who answered Blue Devil's questionnaire were reluctant to share their opening repertoires, consider Chess Tyro's recent experience at a local club tournament.
  
  
• Atomic Patzer wraps up a remarkable US Open - 4.5/9 and tied for first for the Class D prize. Here's hoping this doesn't turn out to be the pinnacle of his tournament career.
  
  
• The Chess Goddess already seems ready to declare Susan Polgar's USCF revolution a failure. Wow, that was fast!
  
  
• The Goddess also has some fun reviewing the 2007 USCF Annual Awards.
  
  
• Patzer's Corner compares Michael De La Maza to Dr. Atkins. Atkins is a hero of mine, since I lost 50 lbs following his diet. Perhaps proportional chess improvement results are achievable through intensive tactical training.
  
  
• I know y'all like rules disputes, so here's one from Chessbuff. Had the same thing happened to Rihel, I'm sure it would have been good for 40 or so comments here.
  
  
• Gila Chess Patzer points us to some music for chess computers.
  
  
• Meanwhile, Montse channels Pink Floyd; apparently, he is giving up the fight.... In a related note, Knights Errant Mousetrapper, Abend, and Pawn Sensei have all been quiet since June.
  

Playing by the Rules - UPDATE

After an impressive 42 comments on my clock episode at the BCC, I thought I should follow up with news.

My opponent in that game decided not to withdraw from the tournament after all. Instead he chose to return the following Thursday to protest some more. Inexplicably, he was trying to insist that the night's pairings were all wrong because it lists our game as a win for me (Jason), and now his tournament is all messed up. (Note: It turns out that he was paired with a 2200 player who had an upset loss last week. No wonder he was so adamant about the "bad" pairings!)

I also understand the BCC has to form some kind of protest committee to hear the merits of the situation and make a ruling.

Jason

Playing by the Rules

During this week's Thursday Night BCC tournament, I was involved in a dispute over rules vs. "fair play". I would love to hear comments about this situation, especially how other people would have handled it.

Here is what happened:

At the start of the game, my opponent was about 10 minutes late. I was White, and I started my opponent's clock. He finally arrives, and he stops the clock and gets the TD. I was following an old rulebook, and I didn't make White's first move. After looking up the rule, we learn that I was in error, and that this rule now states that White should make the the first move. We reset the clocks and started play. Please remember who set the rulebook tone for this match.

Fast forward to a cliffhanger position. I had sacked two pawns for the initiative, but now, with 15 seconds vs. 40 seconds, my attack was slowed, and I was still down a pawn. With two moves to play for the first time control, my opponent inexplicbly stops the clock for a rule clarification. With the seconds ticking, I found this break to be most annoying and distracting. A little rude.

He wants to know what happens if time runs out, but neither of us have a complete scoresheet. He is told that, in order to claim a win on time, the player must have a complete score, missing up to three moves. So, if both sides have stopped taking score, then the clock will advance to the next time control, with neither side able to claim a flag. During this discussion, I looked down at my scoresheet, and I realized that I was missing 5 or 6 moves. I WAITED UNTIL HIS CLOCK WAS RESTARTED, and then I quickly filled in the missing moves, and watched as my opponent inexplicibly let his time run out, perhaps thinking that we both still had incomplete scores.... So I claimed a win on time.

He was very angry about this and claimed that the TD had misled him, that he was told the time didn't matter, even though another witness supported the account of the TD. He complained about this for about 30 minutes, when the TD finally said that this is his ruling. He also said that we could keep playing, but it was my choice. I was tired, this argument ran the game very late now, and so I claimed my win. I pointed out that he may have misunderstood the rule somehow, but he wasn't very shy about implementing the letter of the law at the start of the game. I thought it only fair to the TD, who would have to stay past midnight, and to the rule-laden spirit of this encounter, to take the gift win and go home.

He tried to shame me for this cheapo, and I do feel a little bad about the win. But didn't he, in a way, start it? What do other people think?

Jason

Are time delay and time increment the same?

Those who play online quickly become familiar with the concept of time increment. For example they might play games at 5 minutes + 5 seconds/move or 2 minutes + 12 seconds/move. In these cases the increment (say 5 seconds) is added to your time before each move; so if your clock reads 4:02 while your opponent is pondering his move, it moves up to 4:07 when it is your turn to move. Time increment has also been used over the board in FIDE tournaments with 90 minutes + 30 seconds/move a common variation.

However, over the board in the U.S. (and perhaps elsewhere?) we use time delay instead. In this case, the 5 seconds are not added to our time but instead the clock pauses for 5 seconds before continuing to count down. Obviously this has implications for the type of chess clock one might consider purchasing since some have time delay, others time increment, and still others both modes.
Given this, I was surprised to read this post at NYChessKids about the DGT 2000 Chess Clock. Since this clock only offers time increment it has not been particularly popular in the states. However, the poster notes that:

...the current (5th edition) of U.S. Chess Federation rules state that DELAY and INCREMENT are considered equivalent: not only do few players know this, probably the majority of tournament directors do not realize this either, given the lack of uniformity in training and qualifications of TDs who direct events.

In summary: the DGT is the official clock of the International Chess Federation, and is perfectly acceptable in USCF-rated events.

Hey tournament directors: Is this really true? Can I use time increment at the next tournament I play in where time delay is in use?

Time to learn the rules

This guy thinks he's finally caught Microsoft red-handed. He posted a video that he believes proves that Microsoft's chess program cheats. How does he know this? Well apparently the program moved two different pieces during the same move.

That's right, Einstein. Black moved his King from e8 to g8 and his Rook from h8 to f8 all in the same move.

No writing moves in advance at the US Championship!

From the rules and regulations:

Scorekeeping move-by-move except the player may write both his/her own move and the opponent's response at the same time but may not respond before completing the recording of the moves. Do not write the move before it is played.

Put your pen down ...

... and slowly move away from your scoresheet.

Finally the FIDE rules committee has done the right thing by outlawing the practice of writing your move down before you play it. I never understood how anyone could argue that this didn't constitute note-taking (though many did and I'm sure still will). Here is the new wording of the rule from Guert Gijssen's November 2004 "An Arbiter's Notebook" column on ChessCafe.com:

Article 8.1: In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponents in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the 'scoresheet' prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance.

It is forbidden to write the moves in advance -- music to my ears! It will undoubtedly take time for this rule to work its way down through USCF and to local and club tournaments, but this is clearly heading in the right direction.