Here's the scenario.

I'm directing a scholastic tournament in Morgan Hill, California - about 80 participants in three sections by age.

It was game/30, but there were no clocks - unfinished games were to be adjudicated by the tournament director (me).

In the top section, one of the players, a 10 year old boy appeared to be receiving communication from a parent mostly in the form of head and eye gestures. He went on to win that game.

I was roaming the tournament hall but didn't catch it. This was brought to my attention after the fact by 3 uninvolved parents and the tournament organizer who saw it first hand.

There were no scoresheets so I could not ascertain if the gestures were in fact communication or if they had made any difference in the result.

After discussing the incident with both players and their parents (of course the offending Dad denied everything) I decided to declare the game drawn.

Even though it wasn't a USCF event, we played by USCF rules/TD discretion.

One more round to go, but (and I knew this ahead of time) the net effect of my decision was to mathematically eliminate the alleged offender from a shot a first place and a trophy as tall as he was.

Remarkably, both parents accepted my decision gracefully.

At the beginning of the event I had publically announced that parents were not allowed to communicate with their kids in any way while the games were in progress, and parental observation areas were clearly defined.

How would you have handled this? Did I do the right thing?

The evidence against the kid (and his dad) was strong, but not conclusive. Had I caught them in the act or if they'd confessed I would have likely invalidated all his results and sent him home.

I'd just as easily say the TD's discretion is final.  Suspicion is enough to deny prize money but there is a lot to be said about "getting caught in the act" or having reliable proof before one can boot the little munchkin out of the event.

In the wall chart incident on the other thread I started, there was a clear "over-write" by somebody for everyone to see. When questioned, the suspect did not initially come clean whether he lost or won and finally, the true winner produced his scoresheet (signed) to clear up the matter.

Even the famous cat-in-the-hat of the Philly World Open was made to take his "magical hat" off and play the final few rounds at which point his deception was clearly made evident.

I'd say it was a perfect call, but then the quintessential "my kid can do no wrong" chess parents let you off easy. *grin.

Though I'm wondering if the USCF can form a TD-access only list of members who have been accused atleast once of an incident, regardless of whether they were proven guilty or not. If every TD files a report, eventually, scumbags like this will rack up a huge tally of dings will not be able to hide under the shadow of doubt and may even be denied entry to events, at the TD's discretion.

Though while I'm at it, I might as well wish for world peace. :)

I nominate Shivsky for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.

I would say put the parents behind him, and the same for everyone. Seance the parents deny that they have done wrong, they cannot dissagree. If they complain that they can't see how their child is playing, write the game down, so they can scorn him later. You may want to explain it to them before, but that's just me.

you stated:  Even though it wasn't a USCF event, we played by USCF rules/TD discretion.

Senior USCF TD for the last 20 years here.

I think that is sufficient right there.  TD Discretion.   You may want to consider a public announcement of the rules - no assistance on moves to any player by parents during the game.  And then request that any player or parent observing what they believe is assistance of any form, to notify you quietly so you can observe before anything else is done or said.

  We had a highschool kid get into a claim of "insufficent losing chances" in USCF Rated scholastic tournaments - EVERY TIME.  my wife - also a TD - one time asked him if he was going to claim that, was he ready to drop his clock time remaining from 38 minutes to 2 minutes with a 5 second delay?  he declined.

   My response was: next event, an additional "tournament rule":   Improper claims of "insufficient losing chances" will be dealt with at TD discretion, to include forfeiting out the player making the invalid or improper claim.   Either read the rule book and know what it says, or stop trying to remember and inaccurately quote some other TD from some other tournament.   Since that was prominently posted and briefly covered prior to start of the subsequent events, no further disputes occurred.

   A final cure for that occurred a couple events later:  NO TIME DELAY allowed.  period. therefore, no claims of insufficient losing chances can be filed.    Since then, no one has attempted to file such a claim.

there is more than one way to outwit the lawyers.  [did that for some 21 years at work.]

Here is a good one for you: Years ago I was at a tournament.  A master was playing an expert on the master's board.  The expert had mate in 2 or 3 moves and was obvious.  The master stopped the clock, stood up, shook his opponents hand, and said "Good game."  The expert shook hands and left the room.  The master proceeded to sit down and start his opponent's clock.  When time ran off, he tried to claim a win on time.  He cited a rule that says, "A handshake does not constitute a resignation."  The TD forfeited him anyway.

Good one. I've heard of the handshake being mistaken for draw offers too.

when one of the players stops the clock, that player should state the result, draw, or I resign, or You win.   not stop the clock and wordlessly shake hands, wait for an opponent to leave and restart his clock.  that would be rude.

you don't need a "TD's 'bad boys' list" for bad behavior like that.  Believe me, the TD's all get the word on who behaves badly and we watch for them to show up - and keep an eye out for troublemakers to 'catch them in the act' should they repeat their bad behavior.

    One of my highschool students knows exactly why he has a chess clock on his games, in unrated scholastic tournaments - because he 'gamed' one of his opponents on the clock last year, and our answer is: ensure he must use a clock every game.  (we furnish it if he doesn't bring his own).  we never told him why, but he figured it out, I'm sure - and he knows he has been directed to have a clock on his game every time, right from the start.

It makes me a bit sick to my stomach seeing people go all out for a win like this.  I know I am a diehard optimist when it comes to the intentions of other people, but I'm glad to hear that TD forfeited him anyways, I'd boot him from the tournament for an act like that myself.  Chess is viscious certainly.  I think Nigel Short said it that you must be ready to kill over the chessboard.  I don't think he meant, you must be ready to stab your opponent in the back.  Unfortunately many do not see a difference between the two.

I also heard about a player who won a game at the NY Open and recorded his result.  When he came back, he had been "paired down."  He asked the TD, and found that his opponent had changed the result.  When they were asked to produce score sheets, his opponent's sheet had a totally different game recorded on it. 

That's ridiculuous mtal56.  What was the result?

musiclife,

    you should not get nearly sick to your stomach over things like this. 

the stress is often imparted to children by overzealous parents or chess coaches, who, in a misguided way, think that stressing:  WIN AT ALL COSTS is a goal and will motivate their youngsters into thinking they have to win no matter what, in order to gain praise from the parent or coach.

    A part of their 'childhood' has been removed from them, by the parent or coach then, and they don't get a chance to learn good sportsmanship and dignity.       Our jobs, as somewhat better balanced adults is to guide them in the better ways of living and guiding other children to be balanced, and not just seek to 'win at any cost'.

     Playing a good game, and learning from it whether you won or lost is the goal I try to impart to all my students.

I certainly agree with you and you've pretty much summed up my teaching philosophy with regard to chess.  Play your game, and then learn from it regardless of the outcome, since that has more to do with the opponent than with how you played.

I'd further note, however, that plenty of times the kid has simply not learned good morals (I mean every kid lies at some point to some one, but some lies are in bigger circumstances than others), I think the kids have to take some of the responsibility too so that they can mature.  Emphasizing good sportsmanship even with a high competitive drive is especially important in the scholastic events.

How exactly does communication with the parent help them find the right move? Maybe because the kid is young, he wants his parents to be watching him for comfort or something and give him a nod.

Elubas, you might be totally amazed at how cheeky some of them can be.  yes, they make codes and have 'signals'...   desire to win sometimes carries so much weight that the parent and child both lose sight of good sportsmanship.

   (they watch our politicians in all parties - too much).

Have you seen the movie...Searching for Bobby Fischer?

I've encountered many parents like that.

 I haven't see the movie, what happen there ? 

I would make give him a lost in that round, and he will not be allowed to be in 1st place,

if the rule was no communication, then no communication allowed and he broke the rules.

All the parents get locked in a room away from the tournament hall for this very reason. 

I'm not fluent or anything but I also know some sign language for the deaf. It is entirely possible to have an entire conversation without opening one's mouth. Though I doubt asl would be used in a case like this - the involved more likely would develop their own code.

Some years ago I think it was major league baseball that hired deaf people who were expert lip readers to spy on what players were saying during those on the field meetings. That's why these days when the pitcher and catcher chat it up, they cover their mouths with their mits.

Here's another interesting example of people communication in codes totally out in the open:

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/nativeamerican01/code.html