ICCF 2015-035: To Adjudicate a Win Also for a Deceased Player
Delegate for Sweden
To Adjudicate a Win Also for a Deceased Player
Proposal
In the Arbiters Manual 2.4.3.3 c) it is written that in case of a player dies during play and adjudication must be performed, then passing away will be treated as a claim of draw without analysis.
The proposal is to remove this from the Arbiters Manual.
Rationale
We find that a win is a win and shall not be counted as a draw. So if the deceased player is winning the position then the win shall be awarded to him, if the adjudicator makes this assessment.
Other Comments/Considerations
If you know that your opponent is old and ill, then this can be used to prolong the game in the alleged DMD fashion. You may get a draw in a lost position and have a reason to continue in a lost position.
Relevent Documentation
https://www.iccf.com/userfiles/files/ICCFArbiterManual_01-01-2011.pdf
Arbiters Manual is updated but has the same passage in the new version.
Voting Summary
- A vote of Yes will mean that a win is a win also posthumous.
- A vote of No will mean that the situation is kept.
- A vote of ABSTAIN is not a vote but means the vote holder has no opinion and does not wish to represent the correspondence chess players of his or her federation in this matter.
Comments by Relevant Committees, Commissions, or ICCF Officers
Eric Ruch (EB)
No comments yet
Frank Geider
No comments yet
Dennis Doren
Before I can respond to the proposal as a whole, I need to point out that what it says about the existing rules is not fully accurate and is, in my opinion, misleading.
The proposal states:
"In the Arbiters Manual 2.4.3.3 c) it is written that in case of a player dies during play and adjudication must be performed, then passing away will be treated as a claim of draw without analysis". The proposal also says: "Arbiters Manual is updated but has the same passage in the new version."
That statement is both accurate, and not. There is a part that was omitted from the cited rule. Both the current and revised "Arbiters Manual(s)" say the following:
"c. In the event of withdrawal due to death, or an accepted withdrawal on the basis of extreme illness preventing the player from submitting a claim and analysis, the Tournament Director shall handle the game as if that player claimed a draw and submitted no analysis, with the following exceptions:
- All known theoretic [sic] positions when the player has clear win by tablebase
- All Title Tournaments
- All Tournaments with norms available, unless the result will have no effect on norms awarded
- All Tournaments with prize money, unless the result will have no effect on prize award.
- Any other tournament as determined by the WTD or as announced by the Tournament Director prior to the start of play."
The proposal omitted "the portion that lists "with the following exceptions". Those exceptions mean that many events are not included in the rule where dying equates to an adjudication claim of draw. Essentially all international events regularly involving higher rated players except friendly matches are already exempted from this rule. Only events regularly involving lower rated players are included in the general rule where death of a player equates to an adjudication claim of a draw. The proposal will have almost no effect on players in higher rated events.
This clarification does not argue for or against the proposal. I offer this clarification so voting members of the Congress understand what they are voting for or against in response to this proposal.
Also before I can state an opinion about the proposal as a whole, I also feel a need to point out that something is lacking in this proposal that would affect its implementation. The proposal would cause Tournament Directors (TDs) and adjudicators to presume that all deceased player's games should be considered as being accompanied by claims for wins. However, there is no method for providing analysis to accompany any such "claim for a win". Not only does the existing Arbiter Manual rule 2.4.3.3. state that any claim for a win (except by a deceased player) must be accompanied by supportive analysis (or be considered just a claim for a draw), it also states "The adjudicator shall not use his own analysis to find a win that was not presented in the analysis." (These phrases have also not been changed in the revised manuals.) So, except for a win based on tablebase data, or otherwise argued to involve a "theoretical position where the player has a clear win" (a possibility that already exists in the rules, as quoted above), there is no method for an adjudicator to conclude that a deceased player should be credited with a win without the adjudicator doing his/her own analysis. These possibilities already exist in the rules, and are repeated in the set of rules in the revised manuals.
And there would be more adjudications conducted. This proposal seems designed to change the presumption for every game involving a deceased player from ones where the games are presumed to be accompanied by a claim for a draw to ones where they are presumed to be accompanied by claims for a win. This situation would mean that TDs would no longer be able to avoid sending games to adjudicators when a player dies and the other player only claims a draw, under any circumstance. [The current rules indicate that TDs are simply to record those games as a draw, without further adjudication (See Arbiter Manual 2.4.3.3.d).] If I understand this proposal correctly, its passage would mean TDs would instead always need to send every game from a deceased player to an adjudicator for adjudication, unless the opponent never files a claim. (The rules already grant the deceased player a win if the opponent fails to file a claim, no matter the game position: See Arbiter Manual 2.4.3.3.a.) The volume of games needing formal adjudication will necessarily increase, to a degree that could be significant, as TDs would no longer be able to siphon off the obvious draws.
And in all of the "new" type of adjudications, adjudicators will work without at least one player's analysis from which to determine the proper conclusion of the games. In fact, this proposal would specifically cause a situation that virtually never exists currently: the adjudication of games where no analysis has been submitted at all! Currently, if a player dies, and his/her opponent submits a claim for a win or draw but without analysis, the TD must view the opponent's claim as for a draw (Arbiter Manual 2.4.3.3.g); and with two presumed draw claims (including that from the deceased player), the TD would rule the game to be a draw. No adjudicator would be involved. With this proposal, TDs would not be allowed to presume a claim of draw by the deceased player, and would need to send the game to an adjudicator - with no analysis from either player. The adjudicator would have to make a decision about the game based totally on his/her own analysis, contrary to the spirit of existing adjudication rules (see next paragraph for details in this regard).
Some people might argue that the appropriate standard for adjudicators is to search for the "truth" of positions (on their own) anyway, every time they do adjudications, for living and deceased players, and hence the issue of a lack of submitted analysis is really not important. That argument, however, suggests adjudicators regularly and systematically ignore the dictates of the rules. The rules specifically do not ask or even expect adjudicators to find the "truth" of the position. Instead, the rules say (from Arbiter Manual 2.4.3.3.e.): "The adjudicator shall not use his own analysis to find a win that was not presented in the analysis", and relative to deceased players' games (from 2.4.3.3.f): "The adjudicator shall be mindful of the deceased player’s skill level, based upon the strength of play in the game to reach the adjudicated position." The degree to which an adjudicator is expected to find the "truth" of a position is specifically limited by the rules based on the "strength of play in the game". This is in keeping with the more typical adjudication situation, where adjudicators are to base their conclusions quite substantially on the submitted analysis (which obviously reflects the strength of play in the game).
The point of my review above is that with this proposal:
(a) there are already listed exceptions to the "deceased players' games shall be viewed as accompanied by claims of a draw", exceptions that already allow for games from deceased players to be scored as wins;
(b) there would still be no method for producing supportive analysis for the claim of a win independent from what the adjudicators analyze on their own. The effect of this proposal would be to have adjudicators do the analysis for deceased players' games and sometimes even for the deceased player's opponent. I point out that adjudicators already have a special approval within the existing rules to consider wins for deceased players (from 2.4.3.3.g): "No player may be awarded a win when he has submitted a claim of a draw, or when he has submitted a claim of a win without supporting analysis. The only exception shall be for those players covered under (c) [= deceased players], who may be awarded a win based on the adjudicator’s analysis under (f), even in the event that the Tournament Director has submitted the position with a claim of a draw for that player." My point is that adjudicators already can determine that a deceased player should be granted a win even with the presumption of a claim of a draw.
(c) TDs would no longer be allowed to make the game determination when deceased players' games were called for adjudication (except as a win if the opponent never files a claim), contrary to current rules. This would be true despite those situations in which it is early in the game and the opponent filed a claim of draw. All adjudicated games involving deceased players would necessarily go to adjudicators. An increase in adjudications is obvious.
Overall:
This proposal apparently seeks to address the rules stating: "In the event of withdrawal due to death, or an accepted withdrawal on the basis of extreme illness preventing the player from submitting a claim and analysis, the Tournament Director shall handle the game as if that player claimed a draw and submitted no analysis" (2.4.3.3.c.) and "In the event that both players claim a draw, the Tournament Director shall declare the game a draw (2.4.3.3.d.). Concerning the first of these two rules ("c"), the rules already list exceptions, and adjudicators already have the right to determine a deceased player won a game despite a TD's presumption of a claim for a draw. In other words,the first rule really does not matter much. Effectively, the main target of this proposal is the second rule ("d").
I personally find this proposal to be trying to address something important but not in a way that seems best. Ideally, the proposal needed to suggest a new method for how to overcome the "no accompanying analysis" problem (along the lines of what is already in Proposal 2015-018, for example). I find that omission unfortunate, as conceptually the idea of equalizing the adjudication process for deceased players compared to everyone else makes sense.
I also find the proposed solution to be a case of "overkill". Right now, TDs are often required to presume that a deceased player's game has an accompanying claim of a draw. With that presumption can come an automatic determination of a draw if the opponent also claims a draw. It is that automatic process that is the problem. On the other hand, with this proposal, TDs would be required always to presume that the accompanying claim is for a win. The effect of this change in presumption is twofold: to increase the number of games needing to be sent to adjudicators, and to cause adjudicators more often to rely on their own analyses. These unwanted effects might have been lessened simply by changing the relevant rule's (2.4.3.3.d.) wording from "In the event that both players claim a draw, the Tournament Director shall (emphasis added by me) declare the game a draw" to something like: "In the event that both players claim a draw, the Tournament Director has the option to declare the game a draw instead of sending the game to an adjudicator, with this decision being appealable".
I find the idea of increasing the degree to which adjudicators use their own analysis (versus submitted analysis) to make game determinations as moving in the wrong direction, as I do not believe adjudication is synonymous with "finding the truth" about a position. I am not fully comfortable with the way things are, but I am also not comfortable moving in the wrong direction to make something else better. To me, this proposal represents a tradeoff that does not persuade me. Hence, I cannot support this proposal, but also do not specifically recommend against it either.
Dennis Doren, Chair, Arbiter Committee