PDA

View Full Version : Blitz/Rapidplay FIDE rules



IM_bob
26-01-2007, 11:15 PM
The FIDE laws which govern the game and are prone to certain ambiguous interpretations and debate amongst arbiters and chess players alike, has lead me to pose this following question.

What are the laws of chess according to FIDE for

1) blitz (5mins) and

2) rapid play (e.g. 30min, no increments)?

And how do these differ from the normal tournament rules (to take the australian juniors for e.g. 90mins with 30 sec increments)?

I understand in blitz one is allowed to 'capture' the opponent's king thereby ending the game if said opponent misses a check. However this would not be true in rapid play and definitely not for tournament chess as seen here http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101.

If there is no 'official documentation' for either blitz or rapidplay chess rules would others please post any rules they know apply for blitz and/or rapidplay.

I'll get the ball rolling: in blitz one can move their own king next to the opponent's and if they fail to see this illegal move, one can capture the opposite king next move! :owned:

Just noticed this thread http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4355.

I suppose the rule i quoted above is no longer in effect? Although i must say, to (rightfully) claim your opponent has made an ilegal move in chess and win the game is definitely a rule i was not acquainted with for blitz.

Rincewind
26-01-2007, 11:38 PM
Illegal move definitely loses a Blitz game. By appendix C3.

see..
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE102

However Capture of the king is not allowed and is itself illegal. This was a matter of some debate over the years but recently the FIDE rules committee moved to ban it specifically.

1.3 It is not allowed to capture the King.

So if you opponent makes an illegal mve, you stop the clock and make a claim. If you capture his king then you are making a move and thereby forfeiting your right to claim a win. In addition YOU are making an illegal move under 1.3 and your opponent can claim a win under C3.

Therefore, I recommend not capturing your opponent's king the next time he leaves it in check. ;)

IM_bob
27-01-2007, 12:14 AM
Therefore, I recommend not capturing your opponent's king the next time he leaves it in check. ;)

Thank you Rincewind for your very quick reply and the link.

Just to confirm, if i accidentally leave my king in check and my opponent captures it claiming 'checkmate' then i would be entitled to claim they have made an illegal move and as i have claimed this before them, i would win the (blitz) game. Correct?

Rincewind
27-01-2007, 12:20 AM
Thank you Rincewind for your very quick reply and the link.

Just to confirm, if i accidentally leave my king in check and my opponent captures it claiming 'checkmate' then i would be entitled to claim they have made an illegal move and as i have claimed this before them, i would win the (blitz) game. Correct?

Correct except for the reason.

C3 states
An illegal move is completed once the opponent`s clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected

So the fact that he made a move (by capturing your king) that means he can no longer make a claim a win by a legal move. The primacy or otherwise of your claim is not the issue.

Also it is only a win if you have mating potential. If there is no series of legal moves leading to mate then the game is simply drawn.

Hope this clears it up.

IM_bob
27-01-2007, 02:39 AM
Yes, crystal clear :)

Anywho i just thought i'd raise something i read in another section of this sub-forum.


I agree with this concern.

It would also seem that under his proposed changes if a player fails to promote and the opponent touches a piece without claiming the illegal move then the pawn must remain on the 8th rank (which is what you would do about it under the current rules anyway.)

Really, can a pawn be promoted to just a pawn in a blitz match if the player has pushed it to the last rank and pressed their clock whereby their opponent makes their own move and presses the clock?

And just one more for the patient souls.


We had the same thing happen in a league game last year, and the guy used the old upside down rook, which the opponent of course allowed knowing that a rook is always a rook regardless of how it stands. The player not knowing he had underpromoted until he made a false rook move which his opponent quickly drew his attention to. So we learnt pretty quickly to just stop the clock and draw the adjudicators attention to the matter of an extra queen not being available.

An upside down rook (or two pawns on the same square) isn't necessarily a queen if a pawn is promoted? And the opponent can claim for the rook to be used as a normal rook instead of a queen in this situation?

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2007, 12:10 PM
Yes, crystal clear :)

Anywho i just thought i'd raise something i read in another section of this sub-forum.



Really, can a pawn be promoted to just a pawn in a blitz match if the player has pushed it to the last rank and pressed their clock whereby their opponent makes their own move and presses the clock?No, in real terms a pawn cannot be promoted to a pawn, however the following is what is actually happening.
If a player places the pawn on the 8th rank and presses his clock without replacing the pawn with a piece, then his move is illegal and his opponent can make such a claim. If however his opponent fails to make such a claim before making a move then the pawn remains a pawn for the remainder of the game. Any attempt by the player to replace the pawn by a piece on a subsequent move would again be grounds for a claim of illegal move by the opponent.

N.B. A player promoting his pawn to an opponents piece and pressing the clock is also committing an illegal move.

And just one more for the patient souls.

An upside down rook (or two pawns on the same square) isn't necessarily a queen if a pawn is promoted? And the opponent can claim for the rook to be used as a normal rook instead of a queen in this situation?Actually the opponent could simply claim illegal move.

pax
27-01-2007, 03:58 PM
Actually the opponent could simply claim illegal move.

Where is the act of inverting a rook regarded as an illegal move?

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2007, 04:30 PM
Where is the act of inverting a rook regarded as an illegal move?I might be wrong but I seem to recall it being mentioned in one of Geurt's columns.

Garvinator
27-01-2007, 06:13 PM
I might be wrong but I seem to recall it being mentioned in one of Geurt's columns.
A difficult task unless you know which one, but could you dig it out please? I went looking and couldnt find anything (I probably just missed it).

A lot of players use upside down rooks. I have always said that a rook is a rook no matter how it is shaped. The point being is that even if upside, it is still a rook and not a queen.

After saying this, I have advised players (after the game of course), that if they move it in any other way than a legal rook move, they would be making an illegal move.

So if this is incorrect and even placing the rook upside is illegal, it would be good to have a written reference to go by.

IM_bob
29-01-2007, 12:59 AM
Yes i'd like to know about that rook rule too. I guess technically if that were true, i could continue playing in a dead lost K (some minor pieces and pawns) vs. K, Q and P (about to be promoted) and if the opponent promotes the P to a Q using an inverted rook i call them out for illegal move and they lose in blitz!

Thanks for all the replies to the thread so far, although i'd appreciate if Kevin Bonham in particular could post something in relation to my earlier quote

pax
29-01-2007, 01:08 PM
A difficult task unless you know which one, but could you dig it out please? I went looking and couldnt find anything (I probably just missed it).

Google (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=Q6g&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=geurt+gijssen+inverted+rook+illegal+move&spell=1) is your friend.

It seems that Geurt considers an inverted rook to be an 'illegal action', but not an 'illegal move'. By Geurt's reasoning, it seems that the illegal action could be penalized, but probably not by the loss of the game.

I don't agree with his reasoning. According to the rules he quoted, it seems to me that a rook is a rook, whichever way it is placed.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2007, 02:56 PM
Thanks for all the replies to the thread so far, although i'd appreciate if Kevin Bonham in particular could post something in relation to my earlier quote

The post of mine you were quoting came from 2004 before the Laws were changed, but discussed a proposed amendment that was essentially adopted.

The situation now is that "failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn" is clearly specified as an illegal move in 7.4a. Therefore if a player moves a pawn to the eighth rank and fails to replace it before pressing their clock the opponent can immediately claim a win. If the opponent doesn't make such a claim before making a move then it is too late and the pawn stays a pawn, as Bill notes.

The new wording of 7.4a gets rid of the old debate about whether failing to promote before pressing the clock was an illegal move or just an incomplete one.

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2007, 03:57 PM
Google (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=Q6g&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=geurt+gijssen+inverted+rook+illegal+move&spell=1) is your friend.

It seems that Geurt considers an inverted rook to be an 'illegal action', but not an 'illegal move'. By Geurt's reasoning, it seems that the illegal action could be penalized, but probably not by the loss of the game.

I don't agree with his reasoning. According to the rules he quoted, it seems to me that a rook is a rook, whichever way it is placed.You also should note that those Arbiter's notebooks were before adoption of the 2005 rules.

pax
29-01-2007, 04:39 PM
You also should note that those Arbiter's notebooks were before adoption of the 2005 rules.

True. I just assumed that these must have been the columns you referred to. Did you find any reference where Geurt states that an upside-down rook is an illegal move?

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2007, 06:32 PM
True. I just assumed that these must have been the columns you referred to. Did you find any reference where Geurt states that an upside-down rook is an illegal move?I've been too busy to go looking. However I believe he made a comment about upside down rooks since the 2005 laws were adopted at the 2004 General assembly.

Denis_Jessop
29-01-2007, 08:28 PM
I've been too busy to go looking. However I believe he made a comment about upside down rooks since the 2005 laws were adopted at the 2004 General assembly.

There was this bit in his column for June 2006 which rather leaves the matter in the air though it may follow from what he says that an upside-down rook is still a rook. If so, what the answer is if you put a pawn on top of the u/d R I don't know.


Question During the Blitz Championship of my club, with only 11⁄2 minutes
left on each clock, I promoted a pawn to a queen (my second one on the
board). I was going to place one of the previously captured rooks upside-
down on the board to signify the new queen, but my opponent was holding
the rooks in his hand. Therefore, I placed a bishop on the promotion square
and said that it was a queen. I played my queen from b8-c7-a5-b5 and my
opponent did not protest. Then I moved the new queen to b4 to check his king
on e4, but he left his king in check and played another move. I then claimed a
win, because he made an illegal move. At that moment, my opponent claimed
that my new queen was only a bishop, and he claimed a draw. However, the
arbiter declared the game won for me. What is your opinion? Peter
Verbeeren (Belgium)
Answer Many things went wrong in this game. First, if there is not an extra
queen available after the promotion of a pawn, the player should stop the
clocks, summon the arbiter and request a queen. Since July 1, 2005, an upside-
down rook is not considered to be a queen. Therefore, I agree that your new
queen was only a bishop. You were lucky that your opponent did not claim a
win because of your illegal move, when your “bishop” moved like a rook. His
draw claim was incorrect, as was the arbiter’s decision to declare the game
won for you. The only correct decision was to continue the game with a
bishop on b4.

DJ

IM_bob
29-01-2007, 09:04 PM
The post of mine you were quoting came from 2004 before the Laws were changed, but discussed a proposed amendment that was essentially adopted.

The situation now is that "failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn" is clearly specified as an illegal move in 7.4a. Therefore if a player moves a pawn to the eighth rank and fails to replace it before pressing their clock the opponent can immediately claim a win. If the opponent doesn't make such a claim before making a move then it is too late and the pawn stays a pawn, as Bill notes.

The new wording of 7.4a gets rid of the old debate about whether failing to promote before pressing the clock was an illegal move or just an incomplete one.

And so if i promoted my pawn to simply a pawn in a rapidplay match, my opponent could claim a win? I realise for blitz it's a win because of the illegal move rules but in rapidplay i thought only 2mins was added to the opponent's clock and i'd only forfeit the game if i did this thrice.

I guess that's why in my original post i tried to differentiate between blitz, rapid play and normal tournament rules :wall:. And i have read the link posted up by Rincewind although it's highly ambiguous.

Btw Bonham do you know this tasmanian junior (he might actually be 18 now) called Suraj Dutt? Old friend of mine from school chess in nsw :lol:

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2007, 09:35 PM
And so if i promoted my pawn to simply a pawn in a rapidplay match, my opponent could claim a win? I realise for blitz it's a win because of the illegal move rules but in rapidplay i thought only 2mins was added to the opponent's clock and i'd only forfeit the game if i did this thrice.

The latter is correct. It is only an immediate win in blitz. In rapid if you fail to promote a pawn before pressing your clock, the arbiter will intervene and apply the 2 minutes.


Btw Bonham do you know this tasmanian junior (he might actually be 18 now) called Suraj Dutt? Old friend of mine from school chess in nsw :lol:

Yeah, he has played in a few tournaments here now and then.

suraj
16-05-2007, 07:54 PM
Hi Robert Liang !!!
PM me ur msn pls ...

Jesper Norgaard
19-12-2009, 11:13 AM
A lot of players use upside down rooks. I have always said that a rook is a rook no matter how it is shaped. The point being is that even if upside, it is still a rook and not a queen.

After saying this, I have advised players (after the game of course), that if they move it in any other way than a legal rook move, they would be making an illegal move.

So if this is incorrect and even placing the rook upside is illegal, it would be good to have a written reference to go by.
I think so far consensus is that promoting to an upside down rook is not illegal, and not even punishable, but the rook is still a rook. If a bishop move is done (which would be OK for a proper queen) then it is an illegal move and could lose the game if claimed.

I just saw to my horror from a video of the Doeberl Cup 2008 Lightning tourney that apparently (tell me if I'm wrong in any of these details) the latter winner of the lightning tournament Varuzhan Akobian playing against a female player in the following video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8p15jRig9o
actually promotes to an upside down rook and performs three bishop moves with it!!
At 1:39 the female player resigns, with the inverted rook still on the board.

As this was 2008 I believe that she instead of resigning could have claimed the illegal move and the game!
The route is IR-g8-g4-e4-d5(illegal)-c4(illegal)-b5(illegal).
Who would the female player be, by the way?

... I would bet all these irregularities happened because they were playing the old-fashioned Blitz with 5min. + 0sec. while WC and other qualifications under FIDE are always played with an increment (even the odd Armageddon game). In last WC in Moscow, the Blitz time control was 3min. + 2sec.

Perhaps something to consider for future Doeberl Lightning tournaments?

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2009, 01:05 PM
As this was 2008 I believe that she instead of resigning could have claimed the illegal move and the game!
The route is IR-g8-g4-e4-d5(illegal)-c4(illegal)-b5(illegal).
Who would the female player be, by the way?

Giang Nguyen (Australian rep at the last Women's Olympiad, among other achievements). 2108 FIDE, formally untitled but stronger than most Australian WIMs.

The crosstable (http://www.doeberlcup.com.au/DBL2008_results/2008lightning/) shows they played in the last round and the win secured Akobian outright first; a draw would have been =1st with David Smerdon.

Giang would only have been entitled to claim a draw under 2005 Laws as she had only her king remaining.

I also notice that at about 1:30, after Akobian plays his quook (:lol:) from g8 to g4, Giang responds by knight-hopping her king across the line of fire from f5 to e3! Akobian just plays on instead of claiming a win. There are possibly other illegal moves in there as well but with the number of pieces knocked over it is difficult to tell.


... I would bet all these irregularities happened because they were playing the old-fashioned Blitz with 5min. + 0sec. while WC and other qualifications under FIDE are always played with an increment (even the odd Armageddon game).

It certainly looks like a 5/0 game but I don't know this for certain.

Props to the video editor for choice of Rammstein's "Engel" for soundtrack; the line that translates into English as "God knows I don't want to be an angel" is quite appropriate for the mentality of blitz at that time limit. :)

Jesper Norgaard
19-12-2009, 03:36 PM
Giang Nguyen (Australian rep at the last Women's Olympiad, among other achievements). 2108 FIDE, formally untitled but stronger than most Australian WIMs.
Quite impressive style, she also got a draw from Gawain Jones (with lone king?).



The crosstable (http://www.doeberlcup.com.au/DBL2008_results/2008lightning/) shows they played in the last round and the win secured Akobian outright first; a draw would have been =1st with David Smerdon.

What a pity for Smerdon - but he lost his game to Akobian, so he quite probably would have had an inferior tie-break. All the same, it might have been a consideration for prize money, or even a play-off.


Giang would only have been entitled to claim a draw under 2005 Laws as she had only her king remaining.

Correct, I wrote she could "claim the game" where in fact I meant "claim the draw".


I also notice that at about 1:30, after Akobian plays his quook (:lol:) from g8 to g4, Giang responds by knight-hopping her king across the line of fire from f5 to e3! Akobian just plays on instead of claiming a win. There are possibly other illegal moves in there as well but with the number of pieces knocked over it is difficult to tell.

First I think that you are wrong about the king/knight, the sequence was 1.Kf7,Kh7 2.g6+,Kxh6 3.g7,Kg5 4.g8=(IR),Kf4 5.(IR)g4+,Ke3 6.(IR)e4+ but there was another sequence wiping out the three black pawns on the king's side which at first seemed incredible to me, but now I realize Kxf5,h5,Bxg5(hxg5) and Kxg5 was played. A real bullet mess!


It certainly looks like a 5/0 game but I don't know this for certain.

It would seem likely since Doeberl 2010 Lightning is also 5/0. Frankly what a great pity since the video shows all games were played with DGT XL clocks that can quite easily be set with a time control including an increment. The 5/0 die-hard Dinosaurs is a difficult species to extinct.


Props to the video editor for choice of Rammstein's "Engel" for soundtrack; the line that translates into English as "God knows I don't want to be an angel" is quite appropriate for the mentality of blitz at that time limit. :)
Oh I didn't put sound on until I saw your tip. The murky diabolic tone of Rammstein seems to be quite appropriate for what was going on in the games. Quite the contrary to the Blitz WC where Geurt Gijssen in his latest column of ChessCafe boasts that no incidents happened in 460+ blitz games with increment! Well that must be because he didn't see Ivanchuk promoting pawn to pawn :lol: Still in such a game the effect would be minor if claimed (it wasn't since Mamedyarov quite sportsmanlike instead helped find the black queen for Ivanchuk) because with adequate supervision, an illegal move does not lose, it will just be corrected as in a normal game, including 2 extra minutes to the opponent.

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2009, 04:50 PM
First I think that you are wrong about the king/knight, the sequence was 1.Kf7,Kh7 2.g6+,Kxh6 3.g7,Kg5 4.g8=(IR),Kf4 5.(IR)g4+,Ke3 6.(IR)e4+ but there was another sequence wiping out the three black pawns on the king's side which at first seemed incredible to me, but now I realize Kxf5,h5,Bxg5(hxg5) and Kxg5 was played. A real bullet mess!

Looking at that first sequence closely it now seems to me that after g8=whatever, Black moves her king from g5 towards the f-file at a slightly forwards angle. It lands on the boundary of f4 and f5 and then wobbles back so that it settles (momentarily) with most of the king on f5. Hence my assumption that the king moved like a knight to e3. So I suspect you are right that the intended move was Kf4 not Kf5 but I would feel sorry for any arbiter who had to untangle it if the opponent claimed illegal move and argued otherwise.

Oepty
20-12-2009, 11:11 AM
It certainly looks like a 5/0 game but I don't know this for certain.


Definitely 5 min game - I remember watching some of that finish.

Giang was reigning SA Blitz Champion at the time having won this tournament, http://www.sachess.org/results/results2007/sablitz07.htm
She is a very strong blitz player compared to her normal rating. Her ACF rapid rating is also very high at 2243, 15th in Australia, although the rapid ratings are quite often way way out.
Scott

Jesper Norgaard
22-12-2009, 06:38 AM
Looking at that first sequence closely it now seems to me that after g8=whatever, Black moves her king from g5 towards the f-file at a slightly forwards angle. It lands on the boundary of f4 and f5 and then wobbles back so that it settles (momentarily) with most of the king on f5. Hence my assumption that the king moved like a knight to e3. So I suspect you are right that the intended move was Kf4 not Kf5 but I would feel sorry for any arbiter who had to untangle it if the opponent claimed illegal move and argued otherwise.
Fortunately there was no claim (or unfortunately for Smerdon!). I think now after reexamining that you are right that her king landed more towards f5 in that move, but with the king's center near the center of the rectangle f4-f5-g5-g4. A close call.

What surprises me is that none of them seemed to know the rules, especially I am surprised about Akobian, but also Giang should know that moving an upside rook as a bishop is illegal. Akobian was also using both hands instead of just one hand in many of the video clips. This is against the FIDE rules. At around 3:45 he moves around both king and rook in such a way that the rook is pushed from e5 to e4 while the king is moved around too - although his opponent is also dancing his king around, and both kings fall over etc. A typical guillotine blitz finish!

It is a pity that Doeberl Blitz tourney is still 5min. + 0sec. instead of 3min. + 2sec. as in the WC. I could see that all clocks were DGT 2000 clocks, so adding an increment time insted of fixed time should be easy. But the Doeberl Blitz Dinosaurs (and others) are apparently die-hard.


Definitely 5 min game - I remember watching some of that finish.

Giang was reigning SA Blitz Champion at the time having won this tournament, http://www.sachess.org/results/results2007/sablitz07.htm
She is a very strong blitz player compared to her normal rating. Her ACF rapid rating is also very high at 2243, 15th in Australia, although the rapid ratings are quite often way way out.
Scott
Or perhaps not so "way out" in her case since her ACF rapid rating seems to match Blitz strength - she might just be better in the quick games. It is a common mistake to assume that a players strength is the same in all three types of games (normal, rapid, blitz).

Oepty
22-12-2009, 07:34 PM
Or perhaps not so "way out" in her case since her ACF rapid rating seems to match Blitz strength - she might just be better in the quick games. It is a common mistake to assume that a players strength is the same in all three types of games (normal, rapid, blitz).

The way out remark was meant to refer to others ratings being way out (Zhao isn't even active in rapid) so the 15th in Australia is probably very generous. Admittedly I was not very clear in what I wrote.
Scott

Jesper Norgaard
23-12-2009, 07:53 AM
The way out remark was meant to refer to others ratings being way out (Zhao isn't even active in rapid) so the 15th in Australia is probably very generous. Admittedly I was not very clear in what I wrote.
Scott
Whether her rating is way out or others are way out doesn't matter it leads to the same effect - more chance to advance on the rapid list. My point was that her 15th. place is probably more accurate than generous, both because she is relatively better, and because many "classic" player don't play (many) rapid games, like Zhao.

Lekko
31-01-2010, 11:24 PM
Is there still an official thread where I can view these rules? A few disputes in reference to the clock have arisen recently and I'd like to be able to tell who was right and who was wrong.

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2010, 12:10 AM
Is there still an official thread where I can view these rules? A few disputes in reference to the clock have arisen recently and I'd like to be able to tell who was right and who was wrong.

Note that this thread was started in 2007. There were some substantial changes in the 2009 Laws.

The main part of the 2009 Laws can be found at http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article

The part dealing with Blitz and Rapidplay can be found at http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=125&view=article - it often needs to be read in conjunction with the main part.

Feel free to post summaries of the disputes here. No need to mention names.

Lekko
01-02-2010, 01:34 PM
Note that this thread was started in 2007. There were some substantial changes in the 2009 Laws.

The main part of the 2009 Laws can be found at http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article

The part dealing with Blitz and Rapidplay can be found at http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=125&view=article - it often needs to be read in conjunction with the main part.

Feel free to post summaries of the disputes here. No need to mention names.

Ok if both clocks are at 0:00, does it matter who claims "time"? As I understand it, if the person who flagged first calls time, then it's a draw. But what happens if the person who didn't flag first calls time? Is it still a draw?

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2010, 02:02 PM
Ok if both clocks are at 0:00, does it matter who claims "time"? As I understand it, if the person who flagged first calls time, then it's a draw. But what happens if the person who didn't flag first calls time? Is it still a draw?It is immaterial.
If both flags have fallen in rapid or blitz then it is a draw.

Jesper Norgaard
01-02-2010, 05:42 PM
It is immaterial.
If both flags have fallen in rapid or blitz then it is a draw.
Note that it is also immaterial who claims first in a classic game control (60 min. pr. player or more). If if is an analog clock it is a draw as in rapid and blitz. However if it is with an electronic clock that shows whose flag fell first, then that player loses, and the other wins.

IMHO this is not very neat that there are so many rules that are different depending on the mode of play. If both players have 2 minutes left for the game, all the characteristics of the game are the same except the starting time. So why should rules be different for classic compared to rapid/blitz?

Kevin Bonham
01-02-2010, 06:16 PM
This occurred in a game in the Aus Junior Lightning:

A and B were in an insane time scramble, each with seconds left. A moved and A's flag was shown as having fallen. B said "flag" or "time" and it was agreed by all including an arbiter who witnessed the event that B had said "flag" or "time" before B's time expired. Then B's time expired (showing 0:00 with A still showing -0:00 for having flagged first).

Technically this is in fact a draw as B has not made a formally valid claim but the players both accepted it as a win to B on time so that stood.

Lekko
01-02-2010, 11:34 PM
This occurred in a game in the Aus Junior Lightning:

A and B were in an insane time scramble, each with seconds left. A moved and A's flag was shown as having fallen. B said "flag" or "time" and it was agreed by all including an arbiter who witnessed the event that B had said "flag" or "time" before B's time expired. Then B's time expired (showing 0:00 with A still showing -0:00 for having flagged first).

Technically this is in fact a draw as B has not made a formally valid claim but the players both accepted it as a win to B on time so that stood.
Thank you. That actually solved another dispute I had received too.

Denis_Jessop
03-02-2010, 12:03 PM
This occurred in a game in the Aus Junior Lightning:

A and B were in an insane time scramble, each with seconds left. A moved and A's flag was shown as having fallen. B said "flag" or "time" and it was agreed by all including an arbiter who witnessed the event that B had said "flag" or "time" before B's time expired. Then B's time expired (showing 0:00 with A still showing -0:00 for having flagged first).

Technically this is in fact a draw as B has not made a formally valid claim but the players both accepted it as a win to B on time so that stood.

I wonder whether, in practice, it's possible to make a legally valid claim in such a case. Commonsense (and, dare I say, justice) supports the actual result rather than strict resort to the rules in this case.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2010, 12:33 PM
I wonder whether, in practice, it's possible to make a legally valid claim in such a case. Commonsense (and, dare I say, justice) supports the actual result rather than strict resort to the rules in this case.


It takes a lot of presence of mind to do it if it is even possible. If you have 1-2 seconds on your clock and want to claim flagfall you technically need to reach for the clock, stop the clock (provided you know how) and then, having stopped the clock with time still showing on yours, make the time claim.

A problem here is that some players aren't clear on how to stop particular models of digital clocks clearly.

I had to concede a draw under this rule once in a blitz event where my opponent had flagged, I said "time" and instantly after I said it my flag fell. My opponent disputed that I had said "time" before my flag fell and as I had not stopped the clocks in time I had no way to prove my case. But I would not have had time to stop them anyway.

Garvinator
03-02-2010, 02:41 PM
I think all these examples just go to show why 3 mins plus 2 secs should be used for competition blitz games, instead of 5/0.

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2010, 03:20 PM
I think all these examples just go to show why 3 mins plus 2 secs should be used for competition blitz games, instead of 5/0.

I do wonder if the AusJCL will look at revising the time limits for blitz at future juniors. Probably not very high on their list of priorities but increments certainly make the arbiters' lives a lot easier, even if they are a lot less dramatic for the spectators.

Garvinator
03-02-2010, 03:31 PM
I do wonder if the AusJCL will look at revising the time limits for blitz at future juniors. Probably not very high on their list of priorities but increments certainly make the arbiters' lives a lot easier, even if they are a lot less dramatic for the spectators.If I recall correctly the ACF has moved to 3 + 2 for the Australian Blitz Championship for future years.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2010, 04:12 PM
If I recall correctly the ACF has moved to 3 + 2 for the Australian Blitz Championship for future years.The possibility was discussed but no formal decision has been made.

Denis_Jessop
03-02-2010, 07:13 PM
The possibility was discussed but no formal decision has been made.

Possibly if the ACF adopts that time limit, the AusJCL will follow.

DJ

Jesper Norgaard
04-02-2010, 04:24 AM
I think all these examples just go to show why 3 mins plus 2 secs should be used for competition blitz games, instead of 5/0.
I completely agree! :clap: :clap: :clap: