PDA

View Full Version : Flag claim during followed by time section



Garvinator
11-05-2006, 01:00 AM
This occurred during one of the rapid games I was in charge of last night.

Time control was 15 minutes per player followed by 5 seconds per move. Option 14. So game is played under rapid rules.

Player A has used up his 15 minutes and the dgt has changed over to showing the minus sign and is counting down 5,4,3.

Player B, who has about 3 minutes remaining, claims flagfall, saying that Player A has run out of time as the dgt clock is showing the minus sign.

What is the correct decision?

My decision was to dismiss Player B's claim as Player A has not run out of time and I added two minutes to Player A's clock.

Player B then 'demanded' that I show exactly in the fide laws of chess where the penalty and rule is.

At the end of the tournament, the best I could find is-

From the 2005 fide laws of chess appendices:

B8.
To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant`s flag must remain up and his opponent`s flag down after the clocks have been stopped.

Is there something better in the laws of chess and what penalty would you have applied (if any), if you have ruled that the claim was incorrect?

Alan Shore
11-05-2006, 01:06 AM
I wasn't aware false claims warranted an extra two minutes.

And, I know exactly who players A and B were. ;)

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 01:40 AM
I wasn't aware false claims warranted an extra two minutes.
There has to be a time penalty of some sort. Cant get a free false claim;) . The question is, if the claim is wrong, then whose clock do you adjust, or both maybe and if so, by how much?

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2006, 02:01 AM
There has to be a time penalty of some sort. Cant get a free false claim;) . The question is, if the claim is wrong, then whose clock do you adjust, or both maybe and if so, by how much?

I think some time adjustment to the opponent can be justified on the grounds of the disturbance caused by the false claim. You don't necessarily have to call it a penalty as such. I might have added one minute rather than two.

Some kinds of claims have clear penalties stated but they are usually those where there are much stronger reasons to discourage and punish false claims. A false 50 move claim or triple rep claim creates a lot of work for the arbiters and can give the player undeserved time to consider the position.

WhiteElephant
11-05-2006, 07:47 AM
2 minutes seems way too much as it upsets the balance of the game. It is too harsh a penalty for player B and too much of a freebie for player A who has not managed his time effectively. The arbiter is not there to punish those who are not sure of the rules, but to clarify the rules and then let the game proceed with minimum interruption.

I would say add 10 seconds at most.

bergil
11-05-2006, 10:09 AM
The arbiter is not there to punish those who are not sure of the rules, but to clarify the rules and then let the game proceed with minimum interruption.
Ignorant players (regards the laws of chess) should not impose their view of the rules on others and if they do suffer the consequences if they are wrong.

I witnessed a player insist on the touch move rule (more than fair) in the team challenge 20min+10sec. It was a knight check but the person didn't realise it was a check and went to move her queen grabbing it briefly, then she saw she was in check and then tried to move the king when her opponent said touch move.

Why? I don't know but as the queen was the first touched piece and could legally take the knight she ended up doing so!! :oops: :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
11-05-2006, 10:15 AM
Why was the claim false? Didn't A run out of time as claimed?

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 12:05 PM
Why was the claim false? Didn't A run out of time as claimed?
If you read the original situation, I said:


Player A has used up his 15 minutes and the dgt has changed over to showing the minus sign and is counting down 5,4,3. That is what the dgt clock does under the followed by setting. It will show a minus sign and start counting down the 5 second increment. Both players then start receiving the 5 second increment. It is one of the main defects of the followed by time control. Confusion on the part of the players.

Player B claimed flagfall with Player A still having two seconds remaining. Therefore Player B's claim is incorrect.

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 12:07 PM
GG, serves them all right for using ridiculous digital clocks in the first place. None of this plus time and minus time piffel with analogues. Flagfall and that is it mate. The Aussie way.

You had better give them an extended version of the Rules Sermon before the games begin - KB is the expert on that - but lock the exist doors first.
If you play guillotine, then its 10.2 claims that happen.

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 12:08 PM
I think some time adjustment to the opponent can be justified on the grounds of the disturbance caused by the false claim. You don't necessarily have to call it a penalty as such. I might have added one minute rather than two.

Some kinds of claims have clear penalties stated but they are usually those where there are much stronger reasons to discourage and punish false claims. A false 50 move claim or triple rep claim creates a lot of work for the arbiters and can give the player undeserved time to consider the position.
My thoughts later were that possibly some time off Player B's clock would have been appropriate, instead of just adding time to Player A.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2006, 02:10 PM
My thoughts later were that possibly some time off Player B's clock would have been appropriate, instead of just adding time to Player A.

I think the advantage of time on to player A is that that way you can package it as compensation not as penalty. Also in this case B will not suffer if time is deducted, whereas the disturbance may affect A's concentration (very important when you are very short of time). So I would give A extra time.

I'm not sure it should be said that A's managed his time ineffectively. If A is in a position he can win with only five seconds per move then that might be part of the plan. Though my limited experience of this is that increment junkies tend to succumb far more often than not.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-05-2006, 02:32 PM
If you read the original situation, I said:

That is what the dgt clock does under the followed by setting. It will show a minus sign and start counting down the 5 second increment. Both players then start receiving the 5 second increment. It is one of the main defects of the followed by time control. Confusion on the part of the players.

Player B claimed flagfall with Player A still having two seconds remaining. Therefore Player B's claim is incorrect.

I didn't know there is a time control where increment is not added from the first move. My apologies.

For the note: I prefer increment to the guillotine, even for the blitz (e,g 4/1 instead of 5/0)

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 03:08 PM
I didn't know there is a time control where increment is not added from the first move. My apologies. ahh ok, I wasnt aware that you werent aware that increments can be added after the first set of time. Now we both know ;) .

This discussed option isnt used much because of the confusion it can create with either players' claiming that they didnt receive the increment, or that their opponent is receiving the extra time and they didnt.

Also, confusion is created with this type of time control when, lets say Player A (general example) uses up his/her initial thinking time and is then allocate the increment. Player B then thinks that their situation is the same and will allow their clock to run down to zero and wait for the increment. Unfortunately for Player B, as soon as one side starts receiving the increment, both sides start receiving it. Therefore, Player B has had both time periods and loses on time if Player B's clock hits zero.

You can now see why you dont see that type of time control very often, especially with only an additional 5 or 10 seconds.

Some tournaments use 60 minutes followed by 10 seconds per move, instead of 60 minutes plus 10 seconds from the start. The main reason is time saving and the fact that 60 fb 10 is a pre set time control on the red dgt clocks. It is option 12.



For the note: I prefer increment to the guillotine, even for the blitz (e,g 4/1 instead of 5/0) 3/2 is more common than 4/1 for increment blitz and is also a pre set time control on the red dgts. It is option 21.

WhiteElephant
11-05-2006, 04:43 PM
Ignorant players (regards the laws of chess) should not impose their view of the rules on others and if they do suffer the consequences if they are wrong.

I witnessed a player insist on the touch move rule (more than fair) in the team challenge 20min+10sec. It was a knight check but the person didn't realise it was a check and went to move her queen grabbing it briefly, then she saw she was in check and then tried to move the king when her opponent said touch move.

Why? I don't know but as the queen was the first touched piece and could legally take the knight she ended up doing so!! :oops: :lol:

Bergil. man, you have such an aggressive style of posting. Ignorant players are not out to kill you, they are people too!

I think Garvin's case study is different to your example. The touch move rule is one of the fundamental rules of chess and it should be enforced in the example you give. In Garvin's case, however, he has arbitrarily decided to add 2 minutes. Are you saying 2 minutes is appropriate/too much/not enough?

PS Just noticed all the new Avatars, Kevin, I prefer this new one to the goose :)

Arrogant-One
11-05-2006, 04:45 PM
I wasn't aware false claims warranted an extra two minutes.



Bloody Oath!!!!

I wasn't aware of it either Dion, but the ridiculous decision of adding 2 minutes to my opponents clock cost me the game - so Garvin achieved his goal afterall. In a 15 minute game, adding 2 minutes is beyond excessive. 2 minutes is the norm for a 60 second per side game, not a quick rapid.

The Arbiter should have known that.

Arrogant-One
11-05-2006, 04:49 PM
2 minutes seems way too much as it upsets the balance of the game. It is too harsh a penalty for player B and too much of a freebie for player A who has not managed his time effectively. The arbiter is not there to punish those who are not sure of the rules, but to clarify the rules and then let the game proceed with minimum interruption.

I would say add 10 seconds at most.

White Elephant, you've always struck me as a rather intelligent fellow. Today you proved me correct!

I couldn't agree with you more, especially when the clock showed the negative sign (-3) before I called the flag. I thought 5 second increments were 'added' to player B's clock, not deducted. As such, when I claimed flag there seemed to be a legitimate basis to do so.

WhiteElephant
11-05-2006, 04:50 PM
Bloody Oath!!!!

I wasn't aware of it either Dion, but the ridiculous decision of adding 2 minutes to my opponents clock cost me the game - so Garvin achieved his goal afterall. In a 15 minute game, adding 2 minutes is beyond excessive. 2 minutes is the norm for a 60 second per side game, not a quick rapid.

The Arbiter should have known that.

Yeah that sucks, the arbiter decided the game instead of the players!

Arrogant-One
11-05-2006, 04:53 PM
My thoughts later were that possibly some time off Player B's clock would have been appropriate, instead of just adding time to Player A.

Yeah,

After you threw the result of the whole touranment this thought occurred to you! Righteo.

The only problem with this approach is that once again its not found in the rules that the arbiter can do this.

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2006, 05:06 PM
Yeah,

After you threw the result of the whole touranment this thought occurred to you! Righteo.

The only problem with this approach is that once again its not found in the rules that the arbiter can do this.You clearly dont know the rules.

Your claim is invalid. The arbiter has every right to impose a penalty.


The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

a. warning,

b. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,

c. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,

c. declaring the game to be lost,

d. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,

e. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,

f. expulsion from the event.

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 05:14 PM
Yeah,

After you threw the result of the whole touranment this thought occurred to you! Righteo.

The only problem with this approach is that once again its not found in the rules that the arbiter can do this.
You accused me of making the rules up last night and you are doing it again. I showed you where the rule was located and I did it again in my first post here. Please stop claiming I am making up the rules.

I explained how the time control works before the tournament began, it is not my fault if you chose not to listen. Making things up is your MO, not mine.

I showed you rule B8 from the rapid play rules after the tournament.

B8. To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant`s flag must remain up and his opponent`s flag down after the clocks have been stopped.

Rule 13.4 also says for penalties:

13.4

The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

a. warning,
b. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
c. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
d. declaring the game to be lost,
e. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
f. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
g. expulsion from the event.

I chose option 2 and two minutes. Kevin has said that maybe 1 minute would have been more appropriate.

I did not throw the result of the whole tournament and it is offensive to accuse me of doing so. It was a round robin tournament.

You are actually lucky, because I seriously contemplated option g after you accused me in front of the other players of making the rules up. If you do it at a caq tournament, I will probably choose option g.

bergil
11-05-2006, 08:16 PM
Bergil. man, you have such an aggressive style of posting. Ignorant players are not out to kill you, they are people too!
Sorry about that its my peasant breeding! ;) I always thought if you are without knowledge or lacking information you are ignorant and I freely admit to not knowing all the rules so it applies to me as well. :cool:

Look maybe it because I’ve seen a lot of cases lately where players are adamant that they know the rules and complain bitterly afterwards when shown the didn’t and suffer the consequences of their actions. Having now read further in this thread it once again appears to be the case of some Tool shooting his mouth off.

"Ignorant players (regards the laws of chess)" Please tell me how to rephrase this so I'm not so aggressive next time.



I think Garvin's case study is different to your example. The touch move rule is one of the fundamental rules of chess and it should be enforced in the example you give. In Garvin's case, however, he has arbitrarily decided to add 2 minutes. Are you saying 2 minutes is appropriate/too much/not enough?
My story relates because both parties sought a result that favoured them and because both parties didn't know the rules it backfired.

Alan Shore
11-05-2006, 08:29 PM
lol, [Alex]... maybe a bit hard done by? But that's ok, things can't go your way 100% of the time, I don't think Garvin was out to get you, I think he just made the decision as to what he thought was the best course of action at the time.

Don't get too wound up Garvin.. he'll get over it, and you admitted you might have done things differently after consultation, so I think everyone's happy.. or will be eventually.

Not like it was the Tin Cup, lol.

I dunno wtf bergil's beef is though, I think he got out of bed on the wrong side today. :confused:

bergil
11-05-2006, 08:42 PM
I dunno wtf bergil's beef is though, I think he got out of bed on the wrong side today. :confused:Whilst I do have a cold :boohoo:I think this is unacceptable from any player
Yeah, after you threw the result of the whole touranment this thought occurred to you! Righteo.

antichrist
11-05-2006, 09:01 PM
lol, [Alex]... maybe a bit hard done by? But that's ok, things can't go your way 100% of the time, I don't think Garvin was out to get you, I think he just made the decision as to what he thought was the best course of action at the time.

Don't get too wound up Garvin.. he'll get over it, and you admitted you might have done things differently after consultation, so I think everyone's happy.. or will be eventually.

Not like it was the Tin Cup, lol.

I dunno wtf bergil's beef is though, I think he got out of bed on the wrong side today. :confused:

_________________________________________________
Bloody Oath!!!!

I wasn't aware of it either Dion, but the ridiculous decision of adding 2 minutes to my opponents clock cost me the game - so Garvin achieved his goal afterall. In a 15 minute game, adding 2 minutes is beyond excessive. 2 minutes is the norm for a 60 second per side game, not a quick rapid.

The Arbiter should have known that.
_____________________________________-

The bold is libellous or bordering on it.

Denis_Jessop
11-05-2006, 09:12 PM
I assume that the player B did not comply with para B8. if so then Art. 12.6 (forbidden to distract opponent), Art 13.1 (Arbiter to see that laws are strictly observed) and Art.13.4 (penalties) apply. The penalty is within the discretion of the Arbiter and there is no hard and fast rule. The same offence may not always receive the same penalty if the circumstances are different. Two minutes is the prescribed penalty for an illegal move (Art. 7.4.b) so it is not obviously unreasonable in the present case.

DJ

ElevatorEscapee
11-05-2006, 09:14 PM
...I explained how the time control works before the tournament began....

Letting people know that you explained something before the start of a tournament might get you into trouble in another topical thread here Garv! ;) :lol:

Denis_Jessop
11-05-2006, 09:23 PM
If you read the original situation, I said:

That is what the dgt clock does under the followed by setting. It will show a minus sign and start counting down the 5 second increment. Both players then start receiving the 5 second increment. It is one of the main defects of the followed by time control. Confusion on the part of the players.

Player B claimed flagfall with Player A still having two seconds remaining. Therefore Player B's claim is incorrect.

In fact the minus sign merely indicates that the player on whose side it appears is the first of the two to enter a subsequent time period - it is only if the minus sign is flashing that expired time is indicated (see DGT instruction book p.30 para 11). Anyone who regularly plays using a DGT clock should know that unless he is totally unobservant.

DJ

Alan Shore
11-05-2006, 11:05 PM
Anyone who regularly plays using a DGT clock should know that unless he is totally unobservant.

Please don't be so arrogant - the time added on after 0:00 is actually quite rare these days. Also, our UQ tournaments are generally 15 0 so the control has not been used before.

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 11:35 PM
Not like it was the Tin Cup, :lol: now now, no trolling;)

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 11:37 PM
In fact the minus sign merely indicates that the player on whose side it appears is the first of the two to enter a subsequent time period - it is only if the minus sign is flashing that expired time is indicated (see DGT instruction book p.30 para 11). Anyone who regularly plays using a DGT clock should know that unless he is totally unobservant. (my italics).

DJ


Please don't be so arrogant - the time added on after 0:00 is actually quite rare these days. Also, our UQ tournaments are generally 15 0 so the control has not been used before.

This is correct, the followed by time control is rarely used at all and for good reason. It was something different.

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 11:38 PM
Letting people know that you explained something before the start of a tournament might get you into trouble in another topical thread here Garv! ;) :lol:
explain things beforehand and you get into trouble in one thread. Dont explain things beforehand and you get into trouble in another thread. Sheesh, this bb is rough:eek:

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 11:41 PM
I assume that the player B did not comply with para B8. if so then Art. 12.6 (forbidden to distract opponent), Art 13.1 (Arbiter to see that laws are strictly observed) and Art.13.4 (penalties) apply. The penalty is within the discretion of the Arbiter and there is no hard and fast rule. The same offence may not always receive the same penalty if the circumstances are different. Two minutes is the prescribed penalty for an illegal move (Art. 7.4.b) so it is not obviously unreasonable in the present case.

DJ
This is exactly correct. I feel that probably one minute added onto Player A's clock and one minute off Player B's clock might have been a different approach.

Garvinator
11-05-2006, 11:45 PM
Don't get too wound up Garvin.. he'll get over it, and you admitted you might have done things differently after consultation, so I think everyone's happy.. or will be eventually.
what pissed me off was this:


I wasn't aware of it either Dion, but the ridiculous decision of adding 2 minutes to my opponents clock cost me the game - so Garvin achieved his goal afterall. In a 15 minute game, adding 2 minutes is beyond excessive. 2 minutes is the norm for a 60 second per side game, not a quick rapid.

The bolded part clearly implies that I was wanting to see Alex lose and was willing to employ any method to do it.

And also claiming that I was just making rules up

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2006, 10:30 AM
The bold is libellous or bordering on it.

Inclined to agree actually. But I suspect that in this case Garvin will be content if instead of a deletion, his opponent in this debate is let off with a goosemaster norm. :whistle:

firegoat7
12-05-2006, 02:40 PM
Technically speaking,

The participant has not claimed a win on time. They did not stop the clocks. So the whole claim was in fact illegal, much like a false triple repetition rule claim.

Therefore all the offending party really has done, is talk during a game. I don't think you should have altered the time, but you most definately should have warned them for disrupting their opponents concentration and imposed the appropriate penalty.

You most certainly should not have added two minutes in my opinion.

cheers fg7

Arrogant-One
12-05-2006, 03:27 PM
The penalty is within the discretion of the Arbiter and there is no hard and fast rule.

You're right when you say there are no hard and fast (aka 'clear') rules Dennis.

But I disagree with your view that the penalty was moderate. The Arbiter said before the tournament started that upon hitting zero time (0:00) 5 seconds increments would then be added to the players clock.

What in fact happened was the clock started counting in negative time. I didn't expect this and no reasonable person would have. I just assumed because the clock was in negative time my opponent had flagged.

Why does this proposition strike you as unreasonable?

When the time control is 15 minutes aside, and both players have less than 2 minutes on the clock, giving player B an additional two minutes for a so called 'penalty' is excessive and throws the momentum.

On top of that there is no rule that says claiming a flag before it falls attracts a penalty, especially in circumstances where it was reasonable to call the flag.

This is what the arbiter decided to do though. You can make up your own mind whether it was correct, excessive, or not harsh enough. Whats done is done, I'm over it now.

Arrogant-One
12-05-2006, 03:34 PM
Rule 13.4 also says for penalties:

13.4

The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

a. warning,
b. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
c. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
d. declaring the game to be lost,
e. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
f. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
g. expulsion from the event.

... If you do it at a caq tournament, I will probably choose option g.

I would be surprised if any self respecting CAQ event would have such a silly time control. With unclear and unfamiliar time controls players are bound to get confused with these types of situations arising.

Garvin, do you think expelling me from a tournament for calling a players flag, which was in negative time, is excessive in the circumstances?

Arrogant-One
12-05-2006, 03:39 PM
Having now read further in this thread it once again appears to be the case of some Tool shooting his mouth off.

If you're taking a shot at me bergil, then I refer you to my post (#37) in this thread, and ask you to please answer the query contained therein.

Regards,

AO

Rincewind
12-05-2006, 03:40 PM
What in fact happened was the clock started counting in negative time. I didn't expect this and no reasonable person would have. I just assumed because the clock was in negative time my opponent had flagged.

The dash is not a negative sign it is a flag fall indicator. Therefore the clock was not counting down in negative time but rather indicated that the first time control had lapsed and the increment period had begun. A reasonable person would have familiarised themselves with the operation of the clock before the start of the tournament.

Personally I understand why 2 minutes was chosen as a default but 1 minute would probably have been more appropriate for the time control of the tournament, depending on the level of disturbance caused by the false flag-fall claim.

Also I think the time control was more likely to cause problem than prevent them and IMHO increments from move 1 are almost always preferrable.

Arrogant-One
12-05-2006, 03:45 PM
In fact the minus sign merely indicates that the player on whose side it appears is the first of the two to enter a subsequent time period - it is only if the minus sign is flashing that expired time is indicated (see DGT instruction book p.30 para 11). Anyone who regularly plays using a DGT clock should know that unless he is totally unobservant.

DJ


I am a chess player Dennis, not a technician! I didn't design the clock either, so don't blame me! :P

Ian Rout
12-05-2006, 04:00 PM
The clock doesn't show "negative time", or reverse the direction of counting. It works the same as at any time but uses the hyphen to denote which player's flag fell first, which is an issue if you are playing to a certain number of moves at the first time control.

It's unfortunate that the manufacturers chose this way of doing it because everybody who sees it for the first time thinks it is a minus sign and tries to work out what it means. The only antidote, if players don't already know, is for the arbiter to explain it before the first round starts.

In my opinion a time control that kicks in when one player's time expires is inferior to one which operates from the start because you don't know the rate of play; you might have to reach move ten by Initial plus One Increment, or move one hundred by that time; you can lose on time while playing faster than a player at the next board whose game continues. On the other hand people who get excited about the results of games of rapid chess need to calm down.

bergil
12-05-2006, 04:18 PM
If you're taking a shot at me bergil, then I refer you to my post (#37) in this thread, and ask you to please answer the query contained therein.

Regards,

AO
When you say Garvin deliberately and unfairly penalised you because he wanted you to lose your way out of line. Apologise and delete your posts saying or impling so. :hand:

Bloody Oath!!!!

I wasn't aware of it either Dion, but the ridiculous decision of adding 2 minutes to my opponents clock cost me the game - so Garvin achieved his goal afterall. In a 15 minute game, adding 2 minutes is beyond excessive. 2 minutes is the norm for a 60 second per side game, not a quick rapid.

The Arbiter should have known that. Having spoken to a few arbiter since this has arisen they were all in agreement that 2 min was fair and not unreasonable.

Yeah,

After you threw the result of the whole touranment this thought occurred to you! Righteo.

The only problem with this approach is that once again its not found in the rules that the arbiter can do this.Three different arbiters say he can as do the rules see 13.4. :hand:


What in fact happened was the clock started counting in negative time. I didn't expect this and no reasonable person would have. I just assumed because the clock was in negative time my opponent had flagged.
Still blaming others and refusing to apologise to Garvin! :doh:


I am a chess player Dennis, not a technician! I didn't design the clock either, so don't blame me! Still singing "I'm a victim, its not my fault" Apologise and learn the rules. :wall:

Garvinator
12-05-2006, 04:23 PM
When you say Garvin deliberately and unfairly penalised you because he wanted you to lose your way out of line. Apologise and delete your posts saying or impling so. :hand:
Bergil,

I dont want Alex to delete his comments.

The comments he posted were exactly what he said after the game and during the rest of the night.

It was only a six person round robin uni tournament, but since this issue of the time control came up, I thought I would get some clarification from other posters on their thoughts to the penalties (if any).

Garvinator
12-05-2006, 04:25 PM
Garvin, do you think expelling me from a tournament for calling a players flag, which was in negative time, is excessive in the circumstances?
I would not expel you for the above- it would be for:


I wasn't aware of it either Dion, but the ridiculous decision of adding 2 minutes to my opponents clock cost me the game - so Garvin achieved his goal afterall. In a 15 minute game, adding 2 minutes is beyond excessive. 2 minutes is the norm for a 60 second per side game, not a quick rapid. (my bolding to highlight) and then continuing it on through the rest of the tournament.

bergil
12-05-2006, 04:30 PM
Bergil,

I dont want Alex to delete his comments.

The comments he posted were exactly what he said after the game and during the rest of the night.

It was only a six person round robin uni tournament, but since this issue of the time control came up, I thought I would get some clarification from other posters on their thoughts to the penalties (if any).
That's your call Garvin but I assume you want the apology from him?

Garvinator
12-05-2006, 04:39 PM
That's your call Garvin but I assume you want the apology from him?
Alex wouldnt mean it even if he did apologise. It isnt his way. I would rather him admit he was wrong ;)

Denis_Jessop
12-05-2006, 11:25 PM
Please don't be so arrogant - the time added on after 0:00 is actually quite rare these days. Also, our UQ tournaments are generally 15 0 so the control has not been used before.

This post really puzzles me.

First I don't know what you mean by time added on after 0.00. Once a DGT clock registers 0.00 the flashing minus sign appears and it refuses to function further. At a change of time control the fixed minus sign appears and the clock immeditely credits the player with the time relevant to the following period.

Secondly, when we started using DGT clocks in the Canberra Chess Club about 9 years ago, just about the first question players were asking was "what does the minus sign mean". Everyone noticed it and wanted to know, hence my observation. So arrogance is not an issue.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
12-05-2006, 11:56 PM
You're right when you say there are no hard and fast (aka 'clear') rules Dennis.

But I disagree with your view that the penalty was moderate. The Arbiter said before the tournament started that upon hitting zero time (0:00) 5 seconds increments would then be added to the players clock.

What in fact happened was the clock started counting in negative time. I didn't expect this and no reasonable person would have. I just assumed because the clock was in negative time my opponent had flagged.

Why does this proposition strike you as unreasonable?

When the time control is 15 minutes aside, and both players have less than 2 minutes on the clock, giving player B an additional two minutes for a so called 'penalty' is excessive and throws the momentum.

On top of that there is no rule that says claiming a flag before it falls attracts a penalty, especially in circumstances where it was reasonable to call the flag.

This is what the arbiter decided to do though. You can make up your own mind whether it was correct, excessive, or not harsh enough. Whats done is done, I'm over it now.

There are several things amiss with what you say.

First, I did not say that the penalty was "moderate". I said it didn't seem unreasonable having regard to the penalty prescribed for an illegal move, which is a rather different thing. Also the penalty is within the discretion of the arbiter.

Secondly, the clock did not start "counting in negative time". It displayed the static minus sign that indicates a change of time period. Your assumption was based on an insufficient knowledge of how a DGT clock works. (There may be a maxim "Ignorance of the clock is no excuse";) )

Thirdly, though there is no specific rule regarding a penalty for wrong flagfall claims, there is a rule (Art 12.6) prohibiting one from distracting an opponent and a wrong flagfall claim is within that provision. There is also B8 in the Rapid rules that apparently was not complied with.

Fourthly, in the circumstances as described in the postings here, I would not regard the flagfall claim as reasonable, but rather as misconceived.

But finally, as you say, it's best to put these things into the dustbin of history and just learn from the experience. It (or worse) happens to all of us at one time or another. And it was only a rapid game after all :)

DJ

Alan Shore
13-05-2006, 12:08 AM
This post really puzzles me.

First I don't know what you mean by time added on after 0.00. Once a DGT clock registers 0.00 the flashing minus sign appears and it refuses to function further. At a change of time control the fixed minus sign appears and the clock immeditely credits the player with the time relevant to the following period.

You should realise that when you have +.05 AFTER time runs out, clock will get to 0:00 THEN go -0:05.


Secondly, when we started using DGT clocks in the Canberra Chess Club about 9 years ago, just about the first question players were asking was "what does the minus sign mean". Everyone noticed it and wanted to know, hence my observation. So arrogance is not an issue.


Good for Canberra chess club then. This was the FIRST time UQ has used inc time AFTER 0:00 has been reached.

Hence the obvious arrogance with your claim that 'Surely everyone would know about that'. :hand:

Denis_Jessop
13-05-2006, 08:27 PM
You should realise that when you have +.05 AFTER time runs out, clock will get to 0:00 THEN go -0:05.

Sorry Dion but this assertion is not based upon observation of a DGT clock since they do not show 0:00 when changing from one time period to another.


Say the time controls are 40 moves in 90min plus rest of the game in 60 min. When the 90 min has expired the clock immediately credits each player with the next 60 min, does not display 0:00 and displays a static minus sign. Note that, as the clock doesn't count the moves, the arbiter and the players have to be on the QV if there is to be a flagfall claim in such a case.

Likewise, if the time controls are game in 15 min plus 20 spm thereafter, the clock moves straight to a credit of 20 secs each without indicating 0:00 after the first player's 15 min expires, again with a static minus sign. In such a case a player cannot claim a win on time at the changeover because the first player didn't run out of time.

If, in the second case, the Fischer mode was being used, the clock would credit a player with 20 secs each time he moved. There would be no minus sign unless one player's time completely when the clock would indicate 0:00 and the minus sign would be flashing.

Before you stupidly accused me of arrogance you should have learnt how the clock works. But then some chess players will never admit that they are wrong even when it is patent to Freddy the blind miner.

DJ

Garvinator
13-05-2006, 08:36 PM
Before you stupidly accused me of arrogance you should have learnt how the clock works. But then some chess players will never admit that they are wrong even when it is patent to Freddy the blind miner.
Hello Denis,

I think this should be reworded. Belthasar wasnt even at the tournament and certainly wasnt the claimant. Arrogant One ([Alex]) was the claimant.

I can understand though about the confusion regarding the minus sign, even though your explaination is correct.

bergil
13-05-2006, 09:22 PM
Hello Denis,

I think this should be reworded. Belthasar wasnt even at the tournament and certainly wasnt the claimant. Arrogant One ([Alex]) was the claimant.

I can understand though about the confusion regarding the minus sign, even though your explaination is correct. Garvin, IMO it is worded correctly. At no time has Denis said he was! :confused:

Alan Shore
13-05-2006, 11:13 PM
Sorry Dion but this assertion is not based upon observation of a DGT clock since they do not show 0:00 when changing from one time period to another.

Say the time controls are 40 moves in 90min plus rest of the game in 60 min. When the 90 min has expired the clock immediately credits each player with the next 60 min, does not display 0:00 and displays a static minus sign. Note that, as the clock doesn't count the moves, the arbiter and the players have to be on the QV if there is to be a flagfall claim in such a case.

Likewise, if the time controls are game in 15 min plus 20 spm thereafter, the clock moves straight to a credit of 20 secs each without indicating 0:00 after the first player's 15 min expires, again with a static minus sign. In such a case a player cannot claim a win on time at the changeover because the first player didn't run out of time.

If, in the second case, the Fischer mode was being used, the clock would credit a player with 20 secs each time he moved. There would be no minus sign unless one player's time completely when the clock would indicate 0:00 and the minus sign would be flashing.

:rolleyes:

You know exactly what I mean. The time before incs when the main time runs out, whatever the hell you want to call it. Don't waste my time with pointless semantics.


Before you stupidly accused me of arrogance you should have learnt how the clock works. But then some chess players will never admit that they are wrong even when it is patent to Freddy the blind miner.


My point was that some players aren't familiar with the time control. Your tangential point about 0:00 display has no relevance, despite it being correct. You were being arrogant claiming that 'everyone knows about that' when clearly they don't. Please stay with us next time. :hand:

antichrist
14-05-2006, 12:41 AM
Why can't a claim be made "without prejudice"?

Ian Rout
14-05-2006, 12:37 PM
Why can't a claim be made "without prejudice"?
It would be better just to allow players to take a "time out" when in trouble, since this is the main purpose for which such a provision would be used but it would extend it to everyone rather than just the unscrupulous.

arosar
15-05-2006, 11:16 AM
Only just now did I read this thread. So the claimant was ignorant of how the DGT worked. Can't blame him too much I think because, apparently, it was the first time this TC was used in QLD. I should say, same reaction from players in Rose Bay '05 (I think it was) when their clocks suddenly indicated "negative". I recall FM Jesse Sales looking a bit puzzled by it all.

So the question is, did the arbiter clearly explain this aspect of the TC prior to the start of play?

I agree also that 2 mins time added on was a bit too rough. The arbiter should learn to relax and display better judgement. He seems to be developing a reputation as the Osama Bin-Laden of chess laws. No wonder he came in for special mention by Lee Forace in Doeberl.

AR

Arrogant-One
16-05-2006, 01:35 PM
I can understand though about the confusion regarding the minus sign, even though your explaination is correct.

Okay people, sorry I've been gone for a few days. I guess this sentence is what everything boils down to.

For the record everyone, Garvin and I are mates. But that doesn't stop us from disagreeing sometimes and having harsh words for one another on occasion. :D

ElevatorEscapee
16-05-2006, 07:36 PM
So in conclusion, can we all agree that this is a really crappy time limit? :lol:

(especially the confusing way it is represented on the clock)

Garvinator
16-05-2006, 10:30 PM
So in conclusion, can we all agree that this is a really crappy time limit? :lol:

(especially the confusing way it is represented on the clock)
I wont just agree, I will definetely agree on the way it is represented on the clock;) I think the time limit has alot going for it if it was displayed differently.

What is worse is that on the newer dgt xl's flagfall and changing over to the second time session are also shown in the same manner, a small flag appears:doh: except that when it is flagfall, it flashes.

Why something else wasnt used, I dont know:rolleyes:

Basil
16-05-2006, 11:01 PM
Garvin
You were also arbiter where I pointed out conversationally that a player's flag had fallen. The opponent was engrossed in the position and unaware (that's always fun to watch:)).

I asked you whether you could (if you wished) step in and put everyone out of there misery. The point was that a DGT was being used and even if player 2's time elapsed, the minus sign would have shown that player 1's flag fell first.

There was some discussion with you and Pat Byrom regarding when and if a claim was made. Finally, you consulted da books and agreed to differ.

Do you now have definitive ruling?

Garvinator
16-05-2006, 11:11 PM
Garvin
You were also arbiter where I pointed out conversationally that a player's flag had fallen. The opponent was engrossed in the position and unaware (that's always fun to watch:)).

I asked you whether you could (if you wished) step in and put everyone out of there misery. The point was that a DGT was being used and even if player 2's time elapsed, the minus sign would have shown that player 1's flag fell first.

There was some discussion with you and Pat Byrom regarding when and if a claim was made. Finally, you consulted da books and agreed to differ.

Do you now have definitive ruling?
new thread for a new rule section Howard;)

Garvinator
17-05-2006, 12:42 AM
From the other thread:


That is indeed MY point. In *******-Chandler, Chandler's flag has gone. Yet Arbiter GG added time after flag had gone.
There was no flagfall.
Chandler's clock was showing -0.02. Yes the minus sign is annoying and we have discussed this, but the point that posters have missed and Alex missed as well is that the clock is saying 2 seconds, not -0.00. There was no flagfall.

Alan Shore
17-05-2006, 12:54 AM
From the other thread:


There was no flagfall.
Chandler's clock was showing -0.02. Yes the minus sign is annoying and we have discussed this, but the point that posters have missed and Alex missed as well is that the clock is saying 2 seconds, not -0.00. There was no flagfall.

This is contrary to the account I heard from Alex.

If things transpired as you said, the point is, did Stephen himself stop the clock before the 0:00 or did you the arbiter intervene before clock reached 0:00?

Or, was Alex's initial description correct?

Garvinator
17-05-2006, 01:07 AM
This is contrary to the account I heard from Alex. and Alex's accounts are always reliable?? :uhoh:


If things transpired as you said, the point is, did Stephen himself stop the clock before the 0:00 or did you the arbiter intervene before clock reached 0:00? Why would Stephen stop the clock? It was Alex claiming flagfall, not Stephen.

I said in my first post of this thread:


Player B (Alex) , who has about 3 minutes remaining, claims flagfall, saying that Player A (Stephen) has run out of time as the dgt clock is showing the minus sign. (my bolding now).

Alan Shore
17-05-2006, 01:35 AM
and Alex's accounts are always reliable?? :uhoh:

Why would Stephen stop the clock? It was Alex claiming flagfall, not Stephen.

I said in my first post of this thread:


Player B (Alex) , who has about 3 minutes remaining, claims flagfall, saying that Player A (Stephen) has run out of time as the dgt clock is showing the minus sign.

And my bolding....

WAS Stephen out of time or not?

Garvinator
17-05-2006, 01:37 AM
And my bolding....

WAS Stephen out of time or not?
No, he had two seconds remaining.

Alan Shore
17-05-2006, 01:38 AM
No, he had two seconds remaining.

But was the clock stopped by Stephen or did you stop it?

Garvinator
17-05-2006, 01:41 AM
But was the clock stopped by Stephen or did you stop it?
Neither, Alex claimed flagfall.

Alan Shore
17-05-2006, 01:47 AM
Neither, Alex claimed flagfall.

Exactly... so when you came in, did Stephen have time or did he not?

Garvinator
17-05-2006, 01:56 AM
Exactly... so when you came in, did Stephen have time or did he not?
Are you trolling now:eh: I replied less than one hour ago: Stephen had two seconds remaining.

Alan Shore
17-05-2006, 02:00 AM
Are you trolling now:eh: I replied less than one hour ago: Stephen had two seconds remaining.

I ask again... did Stephen stop the clock or not?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2006, 02:13 AM
But was the clock stopped by Stephen or did you stop it?That is irrelevant.
At the time [Alex] made the claim his opponent still had time remaining.
[Alex's] invalid claim is clearly a disturbance to his opponent.
The arbiter is entitled to penalise [Alex] for the disturbance caused by making an incorrect claim.

Arrogant-One
18-05-2006, 03:15 PM
That is irrelevant.
At the time [Alex] made the claim his opponent still had time remaining.
[Alex's] invalid claim is clearly a disturbance to his opponent.
The arbiter is entitled to penalise [Alex] for the disturbance caused by making an incorrect claim.

Well, not really. Apparently this time control has been used at tourney's in the past and simply caused people confusion.

Moreover, if the disturbence is deliberate and unfounded, at that point a player should be penalized, but if the player is genuine and reasonable (in this case claiming a flag based on a minus symbol before the digits) no penalization should occur.

In conclusion, the fact that seems to emerge is this: The traditional clocks, with a flag that clearly flags down, are vastly superior to these digital clocks which cause unimaginable amounts of confusion to humble chess players like myself.

Lastly, in closing, I state that I am rarely wrong in relating the facts and a proper/accurate account of things that happened. There seemed to be some sarcasim on that point earlier in the thread.

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2006, 04:00 PM
Well, not really.Yes, really.

Apparently this time control has been used at tourney's in the past and simply caused people confusion.Many have not been confused by it.

Moreover, if the disturbence is deliberate and unfounded, at that point a player should be penalized, but if the player is genuine and reasonable (in this case claiming a flag based on a minus symbol before the digits) no penalization should occur.Irrelevant, as deliberate has nothing to do with it. You disturbed your opponent. He deserves to be compensated. How much is at the discretion of the arbiter.

In conclusion, the fact that seems to emerge is this: The traditional clocks, with a flag that clearly flags down, are vastly superior to these digital clocks which cause unimaginable amounts of confusion to humble chess players like myself.In conclusion, the fact that seems to emerge is this: The traditional clocks, with a flag that clearly flags down (which also requires resetting for 2nd period time controls and offers no increments), are vastly superior to these digital clocks which cause unimaginable amounts of confusion to humble chess players who dont bother aquainting themsleves with how they operate.

Lastly, in closing, I state that I am rarely wrong in relating the facts and a proper/accurate account of things that happened. There seemed to be some sarcasim on that point earlier in the thread.Well you did claim the clocks counted in negative time and that just isnt the case.
As Rincewind previously noted:
A reasonable person would have familiarised themselves with the operation of the clock before the start of the tournament.
You didnt bother and it ending up coming back to haunt you.

Garvinator
18-05-2006, 04:19 PM
You didnt bother and it ending up coming back to haunt you.and now haunts everyone else who reads this thread:eek:

antichrist
18-05-2006, 05:06 PM
.........In conclusion, the fact that seems to emerge is this: The traditional clocks, with a flag that clearly flags down, are vastly superior to these digital clocks which cause unimaginable amounts of confusion to humble chess players like myself.

.

Listen AO, before the DOPs had to get off their backside and adjust each individual clock after (for example) 90 minutes - the exercise did them a world of good that they did not appreciate. Now instead they pore over a laptop getting overweight and causing heartburn to some players who think the digital clocks unnecessary and ridiculous.

But my greatest gripe is that they deminish my natural advantage of being able to play time well.

Phil Bourke
18-05-2006, 07:33 PM
All this consternation and fuss just because some people cannot tell the difference between a constant hyphen and a flashing minus sign. :lol:
Just joking gentlemen :D
Though I have learnt of one time control not to use in any serious tournament. :)