PDA

View Full Version : Game agreed drawn after one players flag fall.



Garvinator
16-05-2006, 11:13 PM
As asked by Howard in other thread:


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?

The situation that was asked afterwards (didnt occur in the actual game).

Normal chess rules, so not a rapid or blitz game.

Player A has run out of time, dgt being used, so is showing - 0.00. Player B hasnt realised that Player A has run out of time and they both have agreed a draw. What is your call? Normal/classical chess rules apply? It is clear that Player A ran out of time before the draw agreement.

Variant: What if it wasnt clear which came first, the draw or flagfall?


The most relevant rule here would seem to be:

6.9 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

Therefore, in Situation A, the arbiter had observed the fact that the flagfall occurred before the draw, so Player A loses.

In the Variant situation, the game is drawn as the arbiter hasnt observed the flagfall and neither player has made a valid claim (they agreed a draw).

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2006, 11:45 PM
As asked by Howard in other thread:



The situation that was asked afterwards (didnt occur in the actual game).

Normal chess rules, so not a rapid or blitz game.

Player A has run out of time, dgt being used, so is showing - 0.00. Player B hasnt realised that Player A has run out of time and they both have agreed a draw. What is your call? Normal/classical chess rules apply? It is clear that Player A ran out of time before the draw agreement.

Variant: What if it wasnt clear which came first, the draw or flagfall?


The most relevant rule here would seem to be:

6.9 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

Therefore, in Situation A, the arbiter had observed the fact that the flagfall occurred before the draw, so Player A loses.I'll play devil's advocate.
It could be argued that the arbiter on observing player A's flag fall should have immediately approached the players and declared the game lost for player A, however as the arbiter had not done this then the game is still in progress (as the arbiter has not declared it ended). Therefore if the players then agree to the draw (before the arbiter intervenes) the game immediately ends in line with Article 5.2c. As such the arbiter should not now rule the game lost for A as the game concluded with the draw agreement and not at the time of the flag fall.

In fact the arbiter by not intervening when he observed the flag fall is remiss in his duties under Article 13.1.

Basil
16-05-2006, 11:56 PM
I'm nearly there (with you) Bill. And I confess to being at a disadvantage with knowledge.

May I add, either correct me if I am wrong) from what I understood from Garvin on the night ...

At the point in which the flag fell, the game is lost regardless of whether the players have realised. Much the same as if checkmate is achieved and then discussion of a draw ensues.

Alan Shore
17-05-2006, 12:03 AM
The thing i would observe...

The article 'If a player's flag has fallen and his opponent still has mating material, the player who's flag has fallen has forfeited any right to a claim'.

Now I played a tournament a bit over a year ago when I beat FM Stawski due to this rule - he claimed some BS but his flag had gone this the arbiter ruled I had won the game despite the rubbish he was claiming.

So, was the arbiter out of line in intervening after a player's time had run out? Is my question.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2006, 12:16 AM
The thing i would observe...

The article 'If a player's flag has fallen and his opponent still has mating material, the player who's flag has fallen has forfeited any right to a claim'.Has forfeited the right to claim what exactly.
Also what actual Article of the Laws of chess are you supposedly referring to.

Now I played a tournament a bit over a year ago when I beat FM Stawski due to this rule - he claimed some BS but his flag had gone this the arbiter ruled I had won the game despite the rubbish he was claiming.This description isnt exactly illuminating.
Could you be a little more explicit.

So, was the arbiter out of line in intervening after a player's time had run out? Is my question.If the game is under rapid or blitz rules the arbiter should not intervene even if both flags are down unless a claim is made by either player.

If its a normal game the arbiter should intervene as soon as he notices the flag fall.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2006, 12:19 AM
I'm nearly there (with you) Bill. And I confess to being at a disadvantage with knowledge.

May I add, either correct me if I am wrong) from what I understood from Garvin on the night ...

At the point in which the flag fell, the game is lost regardless of whether the players have realised. Much the same as if checkmate is achieved and then discussion of a draw ensues.FIDE use the words "this immediately ends the game" in a number of Articles in the Laws of Chess. They do not use it in Article 6.9 regarding flag fall.

Phil Bourke
17-05-2006, 12:21 AM
If the game is under rapid or blitz rules the arbiter should not intervene even if both flags are down unless a claim is made by either player.

If its a normal game the arbiter should intervene as soon as he notices the flag fall.
This strikes me as odd! I would think that it be more crucial for the arbiter to intervene on flagfall in rapid and blitz games where time is a more critical factor in the game than in normal games.
Any reason as to why it is the way it is?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2006, 12:33 AM
This strikes me as odd! I would think that it be more crucial for the arbiter to intervene on flagfall in rapid and blitz games where time is a more critical factor in the game than in normal games.
Any reason as to why it is the way it is?I suppose that since time is more crucial in Rapid and Blitz they feel that the arbiter should not be impacting on the game in Rapid and Blitz.

Stewart Reuben has stated that he believes that Artcile 6.9 should only referr to a claim by the players and that the arbiter observing it should be removed from the rules. If any change at all is to be made to Artcile 6.9 it wont happen before the FIDE Congress in 2008.

BTW Article B7 of the rapid rules states:
B7. The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall.

Note also that B8 and B9 are respectively:

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.

B9. If both flags have fallen, the game is drawn.

These rules also apply to Blitz.

Alan Shore
17-05-2006, 12:35 AM
Has forfeited the right to claim what exactly.
Also what actual Article of the Laws of chess are you supposedly referring to.

Obviously I am not an international arbiter (despite arbiting at least 4 tourns) but once a player's clock has reached 0:00 (no incs) and THEN summons the arbiter without stopping the clock while he still has time, the rule supercedes others such that that player has lost on time and cannot make claims after running out of time. Is this correct?


This description isnt exactly illuminating.
Could you be a little more explicit.

Sure.

Stawski made the false claim that I had made an illegal move, after his clock had reached 0:00 in a 5 0 tourn. I had at least 4 substantiating witnesses that I had not made an illegal move. Despite this, Arbiter Graeme Gardiner still ruled in my favour Stawski had no right to claim as his time had completely elapsed.


If the game is under rapid or blitz rules the arbiter should not intervene even if both flags are down unless a claim is made by either player.

That is indeed MY point. In *******-Chandler, Chandler's flag has gone. Yet Arbiter GG added time after flag had gone.

In my case, I made claim of flag, with Stawski 0:00 and myself 0:04.


If its a normal game the arbiter should intervene as soon as he notices the flag fall.

Normal how though? My instance the TC was 5 0, with *******-Chandler it was 15 0/ +0:05.

Garvinator
17-05-2006, 12:43 AM
That is indeed MY point. In [Alex]-Chandler, Chandler's flag has gone. Yet Arbiter GG added time after flag had gone.
replied in other thread on this situation.

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2006, 01:14 AM
Obviously I am not an international arbiter (despite arbiting at least 4 tourns) but once a player's clock has reached 0:00 (no incs) and THEN summons the arbiter without stopping the clock while he still has time,How can his clock read 0:00 indicating he has lost on time and you then say "while he still has time". That doesnt seem to make any sense.

the rule supercedes others such that that player has lost on time and cannot make claims after running out of time. Is this correct?There is no such all encompassing rule. It depends on what the player who has lost on time is claiming. e.g. Lets say players A and B are playing either normal or rapid (not blitz) and Player A makes an illegal move. Player B's clock starts and player B's flag falls. However before player A can claim a win on time, Player B claims illegal move by player A. Player's B's claim is entirely valid. As such when the arbiter should award player B two extra minutes due to player A's illegal move, dismiss player A's claim for a win on time and tell the players to play on. Of course if Player A claims the win on time prior to player B claiming illegal move (or in fact if Player A's move was in fact not illegal) then player A wins.

Now assume the situation is as described above but it is a blitz game.
In this case if the claim of illegal move supercedes the claim of the win on time then the player who made the illegal move loses even if his opponent has run out of time. However if the claim of a win on time is made before the illegal move claim the win on time claim is successful.

Sure.

Stawski made the false claim that I had made an illegal move, after his clock had reached 0:00 in a 5 0 tourn. I had at least 4 substantiating witnesses that I had not made an illegal move. Despite this, Arbiter Graeme Gardiner still ruled in my favour Stawski had no right to claim as his time had completely elapsed.Graeme's ruling is incorrect simply based on the fact that Stawski had run out of time. If Stawski claimed illegal move after you claimed a win on time then Stawski's claim is too late, however if Stawski's claim of illegal move was made before you claim then his right to claim is valid. All that then needs to be determined is his illegal moce claim is valid. Of his illegal move claim is invalid then he loses. If its valid then see my example above.

That is indeed my point. In [Alex]-Chandler, Chandler's flag has gone. Yet Arbiter GG added time after flag had gone.That isnt how it was described. As described in the other thread [Alex] made a claim for a win based on the minus sign not the flashing minus whilst his opponent's clock still showed seconds remaining. The arbiter interevned after a claim by [Alex], not before. Hpwever [Alex]'s claim was invalid and the arbiter had every right to penalise him for disturbing his opponent and award addional time to his opponent.

In my case, I made claim of flag, with Stawski 0:00 and myself 0:04.As I explained above the critical point is did Stawski claim illegal move before you claimed the win on time or after.


Normal how though? My instance the TC was 5 0, with [Alex]-Chandler it was 15 0/ +0:05.Ok this is where it gets interesting. It appears your game is a Blitz game and [Alex's] was a rapid.

With regards iillegal moves and 2 minutes this only applies to normal games and rapid games not blitz as illegal moves dont result in 2 minute being added to the claimants clock in blitz.

In b

Alan Shore
17-05-2006, 01:26 AM
How can his clock read 0:00 indicating he has lost on time and you then say "while he still has time". That doesnt seem to make any sense.

Terribly sorry, misquote? He had no time left.


There is no such all encompassing rule. It depends on what the player who has lost on time is claiming. e.g. Lets say players A and B are playing either normal or rapid (not blitz)

Wait - already a false assumption - it was blitz!


and Player A makes an illegal move. Player B's clock starts and player B's flag falls. However before player A can claim a win on time, Player B claims illegal move by player A. Player's B's claim is entirely valid. As such when the arbiter should award player B two extra minutes due to player A's illegal move, dismiss player A's claim for a win on time and tell the players to play on. Of course if Player A claims the win on time prior to player B claiming illegal move (or in fact if Player A's move was in fact not illegal) then player A wins.

This is dicey. Player B claims illegal move. However, player A claims, player B's claim is false AND is backed up by witnesses. What is the protocol then?


Now assume the situation is as described above but it is a blitz game.
In this case if the claim of illegal move supercedes the claim of the win on time then the player who made the illegal move loses even if his opponent has run out of time. However if the claim of a win on time is made before the illegal move claim the win on time claim is successful.

I call flag. THEN Stawski calls illegal move. By your rules, I would win the game.


Graeme's ruling is incorrect simply based on the fact that Stawski had run out of time. If Stawski claimed illegal move after you claimed a win on time then Stawski's claim is too late, however if Stawski's claim of illegal move was made before you claim then his right to claim is valid.

I see. However, Stawski claimed the illegal move after I called time. He THEN had the AUDACITY to claim I had not called flag!! THEN played on and summoned the arbiter!!!


All that then needs to be determined is his illegal moce claim is valid. Of his illegal move claim is invalid then he loses. If its valid then see my example above.


But this is interesting too. Say he claims it. I deny. I claim 4 witnesses that back me up. What criteria is used for a 'valid claim'?



That isnt how it was described. As described in the other thread [Alex] made a claim for a win based on the minus sign not the flashing minus whilst his opponent's clock still showed seconds remaining. The arbiter interevned after a claim by [Alex], not before. Hpwever [Alex's] claim was invalid and the arbiter had every right to penalise him for disturbing his opponent and award addional time to his opponent.

Like i posted on that thread, I was told Chandler's time had elapsed. I was not present and can only rely on account, thus I am really not the person to ask about this. ;)


As I explained above the critical point is did Stawski claim illegal move before you claimed the win on time or after.
Ok this is where it gets interesting. It appears your game is a Blitz game and [Alex's] was a rapid.

Absolutely correct Bill.

He claimed AFTER I claimed flag.

With [Alex]-Chandler I was told by [Alex], Chandler was flagged. I am awaiting confirmation of this from Garvin (arbiter).


With regards iillegal moves and 2 minutes this only applies to normal games and rapid games not blitz as illegal moves dont result in 2 minute being added to the claimants clock in blitz.

Does this mean, IF Chandler had time on his clock AND claimed (not the arbiter) he would be entitled to +2 mins BUT if he had run out of time THEN arbiter intervened he would not?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2006, 02:14 AM
Terribly sorry, misquote? He had no time left.Ok.

Wait - already a false assumption - it was blitz!No false assumption at all. You had not previously mentionedit was blitz so I explained all scenarios.

This is dicey. Player B claims illegal move. However, player A claims, player B's claim is false AND is backed up by witnesses. What is the protocol then?Not dicey at all. As I explained the arbiter determines if the which claim was made first. He then verifies the accuracy of the claims and then rules.

I call flag. THEN Stawski calls illegal move. By your rules, I would win the game.Correct, even is Stawski's illegal move claim was valid.

I see. However, Stawski claimed the illegal move after I called time. He THEN had the AUDACITY to claim I had not called flag!! THEN played on and summoned the arbiter!!!Then you need witnesses who the arbiter deems as both unbiased and reliable.

But this is interesting too. Say he claims it. I deny. I claim 4 witnesses that back me up. What criteria is used for a 'valid claim'?It is the arbiter's call. If he deems some witnesses unreliable and others biased then you could end up with no witnesses.
Then it comes down to the position on the board. Clearly his flag is down. If your king is in check then clearly you made an illegal move. Unfortunately the arbiter cannot determine which occurred first, the flag claim or the illegal move claim. In this case he probably should rule it drawn.
If however your king is not in check and there is no apparent illegal move (i.e. you dont have two dark squared bishops ;)) and there is no evidence of an illegal move then the arbiter can only go by the clock and declare the game won for you.

Like i posted on that thread, I was told Chandler's time had elapsed. I was not present and can only rely on account, thus I am really not the person to ask about this. ;)Thats why I described my understanding of it.

Absolutely correct Bill.

He claimed AFTER I claimed flag.

With [Alex]-Chandler I was told by [Alex], Chandler was flagged. I am awaiting confirmation of this from Garvin (arbiter).According to Garvin, Chandler had not run out of time.

Does this mean, IF Chandler had time on his clock AND claimed (not the arbiter) he would be entitled to +2 mins BUT if he had run out of time THEN arbiter intervened he would not?Firstly their game was a rapid so the arbiter isnt allowed to interfere with regards illegal move or flag falls unless a claim is made by either player. However and more importantly there has been no mention of an illegal move issue in the [Alex] V Chandler game.

However just for debate, let us assume there had been an illegal move by [Alex] and look at the resulting scenarios:
(a) Chandler made the claim of illegal move before [Alex] made a valid claim for a win on time.
(b) Chandler made the claim of illegal move before [Alex] made an invalid claim for a win on time.
(c) Chandler made the claim of illegal move after [Alex] made a valid claim for a win on time.
(d) Chandler made the claim of illegal move after [Alex] made an invalid claim for a win on time.

Therefore in
(a) Chandler gets 2 minutes in line with Article 7.4b for [Alex's] illegal move.
(b) Chandler gets 2 minutes in line with Article 7.4b for [Alex's] illegal move. The arbiter is then free to take whatever action he deems appropriate for [Alex] disturbing his opponent with his invalid claim.
(c) [Alex] wins.
(d) Chandler gets 2 minutes in line with Article 7.4b for [Alex's] illegal move. The arbiter is then free to take whatever action he deems appropriate for [Alex] disturbing his opponent with his invalid claim.

In b and d the arbiter could award Chandler additional time for the disturbance over and above the 2 minutes given for [Alex's] illegal move.

Ian Rout
17-05-2006, 09:10 AM
This strikes me as odd! I would think that it be more crucial for the arbiter to intervene on flagfall in rapid and blitz games where time is a more critical factor in the game than in normal games.
Any reason as to why it is the way it is?
I'd suggest that the point of the rule is to maintain the purpose of the game. Players only have to play chess, not watch clocks continously as well, because the arbiter ensures that the time limit is observed. If you lose, you lose - you don't get a lucky reprieve because your opponent wasn't watching the clock.

In most circumstances in most sports official make calls without claims. It means that players can just play the game and rely on the referees to referee, though the players often give advice to the officials.

On the other hand in speeed games the clock is more than a regulatory device, it's part of the game. Hence players have to look after it themselves.

antichrist
17-05-2006, 09:22 AM
I think clocks should have a vibrator or something non-distrubing alarm to other boards that reacts on flagfall. So that is it 'capult' when time runs out that is it. Not whose petticoat was showing and who saw it first.

Denis_Jessop
17-05-2006, 10:08 PM
I'd suggest that the point of the rule is to maintain the purpose of the game. Players only have to play chess, not watch clocks continously as well, because the arbiter ensures that the time limit is observed. If you lose, you lose - you don't get a lucky reprieve because your opponent wasn't watching the clock.

In most circumstances in most sports official make calls without claims. It means that players can just play the game and rely on the referees to referee, though the players often give advice to the officials.

On the other hand in speeed games the clock is more than a regulatory device, it's part of the game. Hence players have to look after it themselves.

I believe that this is pretty much right, especially the last sentence.

The matter seems to be in the shape it is as a result of history. My oldest reference is The Official Rules of Chess (David McKay Company, Inc., 1978). Then, Art. 14.4 of the Laws read as follows:
"14.4 When determining whether the prescribed number of moves has been made in the given time, the last move is not considered to have been completed until after the player has stoppoed his clock."

In a FIDE Rules Commission Interpretation (1974) of that law there appears the sentence "The flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter has observed the fact." This is now in Art. 6.9. Note that there is nothing specifically requiring the arbiter to call flag fall. It only follows from a combination of 6.9 and Art 13.1 requiring the arbiter to see that the Laws are strictly observed. This is because there was a bitter difference of opinion in the FIDE Rules Commission either in 1996 or 2000** on the question whether an arbiter should call a flag fall, the USCF being opposed to the practice.

At the same time (1978) the Rules for Five-minute Lightning Chess contained the following relevant matter:

"9. A player must claim a win himself by immediately stopping both clocks and notifying the arbiter. ............"

15. [prohibiting spectators from interfering including drwaing attentionto a flag fall]....The arbiter, too, must refrain from calling attention to a flag-fall or an illegal move, as this is entirely the responsibility of the players themselves."

This concept has now found its way into Rapid and Blitz games via Art. B7.

Thus it seems, on the face of it, that the two rules have just evolved separately though it would seem surprising if the Rules Commission had never looked at them together.

[** It was in 1996 - see Stewart Reuben's Organiser's Handbook 1997 - comment on Art 6.9 (then 6.8) on p72. He said:"In rapidplay, blitz and, indeed, all games in the US, the arbiter is never allowed to step in and call a flag fall. Discussions concerning making the change became extremely heated and clearly there was no concensus. Thus it was decided to keep the old Law." I cannot recall what the proposed change was - I think it was specifically to allow the arbiter to call flag fall which the USCF opposed. ]


DJ

Oepty
18-05-2006, 06:26 PM
I'll play devil's advocate.
It could be argued that the arbiter on observing player A's flag fall should have immediately approached the players and declared the game lost for player A, however as the arbiter had not done this then the game is still in progress (as the arbiter has not declared it ended). Therefore if the players then agree to the draw (before the arbiter intervenes) the game immediately ends in line with Article 5.2c. As such the arbiter should not now rule the game lost for A as the game concluded with the draw agreement and not at the time of the flag fall.

In fact the arbiter by not intervening when he observed the flag fall is remiss in his duties under Article 13.1.

Bill. There is a third possibility, an arbiter may see a flag falls when dealing with another issue, or might not right next to the players when he sees the flag fall. This might mean the players agree to a draw, or even the player who has won on time, resign, in between the observation and the arbiter being able to convey the fact to the players involved. What happens then?
Scott

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2006, 06:39 PM
Bill. There is a third possibility, an arbiter may see a flag falls when dealing with another issue, or might not right next to the players when he sees the flag fall. This might mean the players agree to a draw, or even the player who has won on time, resign, in between the observation and the arbiter being able to convey the fact to the players involved. What happens then?I believe my previous answer covered this. The draw or resignation stands as the game was still in progress at that time.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2006, 10:42 AM
My reading of 6.9/6.10 is that once the arbiter sees flagfall the game is over and lost/drawn according to 6.10. So say that White is about to play a mate and White's flag falls before he gets the mate down (been there, done that :rolleyes: ), the arbiter (seeing the flagfall, unable to intervene before the mate but knowing that the flagfall was first) can step in and say "there's no mate because you'd already lost on time". Any other interpretation places the result of the game at the mercy of the arbiter's reflexes.

If the arbiter sees flagfall and lets it go then a different result happens I would argue the game was still lost/drawn on time according to 6.10. However the arbiter has significantly breached 13.1 and should be disciplined.

Sometimes where a flag has fallen but the opponent will certainly win in a move or two anyway I have let these go and let the player decide whether they wish to claim the flag (if they've seen it) or deliver the obvious mate/crushing blow OTB. But if there is any doubt I will always intervene and declare flagfall.

The reason the arbiter does not have the same power in rapid or blitz is that it is too onerous as the arbiter cannot observe all games, hence the requirement for players to watch their own clocks.

Basil
19-05-2006, 10:46 AM
Oh yeah, oh yeah. I'm with Bonbot. I 'fess to having no training or readings on this matter, but I had a gut [which my brothers would call a 'pluck'] and it seems there was some basis.

I just love it when a pluck comes together!