PDA

View Full Version : Blitz - illegal move vs flagfall



Southpaw Jim
22-02-2008, 12:29 PM
Just a quick question about a situation that occurred in our lightning (5 0) tournament on Monday night.

I played an illegal move (moved my K into check) when my opponent hand 0:01 left on his clock. As he thought about it for a moment, his flag fell and I claimed "time". He then claimed the win by illegal move. I let it slide, given there was nothing riding on the outcome.

I couldn’t be bothered arguing about it at the time, and I’m not worried about correcting the score – I was just interest to know whether the flagfall prevented him from claiming the win?

Bill Gletsos
22-02-2008, 12:36 PM
Just a quick question about a situation that occurred in our lightning (5 0) tournament on Monday night.

I played an illegal move (moved my K into check) when my opponent hand 0:01 left on his clock. As he thought about it for a moment, his flag fell and I claimed "time". He then claimed the win by illegal move. I let it slide, given there was nothing riding on the outcome.

I couldn’t be bothered arguing about it at the time, and I’m not worried about correcting the score – I was just interest to know whether the flagfall prevented him from claiming the win?Wins on time like illegal moves must be claimed. You claimed first, therefore you won and he lost.

Southpaw Jim
22-02-2008, 12:48 PM
Phooey. Ah well, not playing for sheepstations :) thanks Bill ;)

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2008, 12:48 PM
Just a quick question about a situation that occurred in our lightning (5 0) tournament on Monday night.

I played an illegal move (moved my K into check) when my opponent hand 0:01 left on his clock. As he thought about it for a moment, his flag fell and I claimed "time". He then claimed the win by illegal move. I let it slide, given there was nothing riding on the outcome.

I couldn’t be bothered arguing about it at the time, and I’m not worried about correcting the score – I was just interest to know whether the flagfall prevented him from claiming the win?

Tricky. These are my intial thoughts but I'm not absolutely sure how it applies with the kinds of clocks we're using (which clearly signal whose flag fell first.)

In the very literal wording of the Laws (B8), to claim a win on time you have to stop both clocks (which in the case of the Excaliburs means flicking the clock to pause - they automatically stop the clock of the player whose flag has fallen, but not the other). Unless you do that you have not formally completed the claim of a win on time.

If you complete the claim formally before he can claim illegal move, then he might try to claim the illegal move distracted him causing him to lose on time and I am not sure how this would be ruled on. I would tend to think that if the clocks and the board were such that he was doomed to lose on time anyway but for the illegal move, then a completed and prior claim of a win on time should stand. But if he was, say, two moves from mate and the illegal move obstructed the mate, it is less clear.

Southpaw Jim
22-02-2008, 01:10 PM
Well, I didn't pause the clock (I didn't realise you had to, or that it didn't stop after the flagfall).

At least I know for future reference..

I don't think he had a forced mate, but I can't remember the exact position. I suspect he may have had a perpetual in the offing.

Aaron Guthrie
22-02-2008, 01:54 PM
It is very odd that one should lose time as a result of an illegal move.

Indeed in a regular game, wouldn't the one whose flag fell be able to A) get the position before the illegal move reinstated B) get the time reinstated and C) get extra time on top of the time reinstated?

So I guess the cost of being able to win from the illegal move in blitz is the situation Eurotrash mentions.

Capablanca-Fan
22-02-2008, 02:18 PM
It is very odd that one should lose time as a result of an illegal move.

Indeed in a regular game, wouldn't the one whose flag fell be able to A) get the position before the illegal move reinstated B) get the time reinstated and C) get extra time on top of the time reinstated?

So I guess the cost of being able to win from the illegal move in blitz is the situation Eurotrash mentions.
If there is a simultaneous claim of flag fall and illegal move, mate, or stalemate, the board position should take priority over the clock.

Bill Gletsos
22-02-2008, 02:31 PM
If there is a simultaneous claim of flag fall and illegal move, mate, or stalemate, the board position should take priority over the clock.True, however in the situation described the claims were not simultaneous, one followed the other.

Denis_Jessop
22-02-2008, 03:07 PM
It is very odd that one should lose time as a result of an illegal move.

Indeed in a regular game, wouldn't the one whose flag fell be able to A) get the position before the illegal move reinstated B) get the time reinstated and C) get extra time on top of the time reinstated?

So I guess the cost of being able to win from the illegal move in blitz is the situation Eurotrash mentions.

There's a practical side to all of this which distinguishes blitz from regular games, at least in the average club tournament. Kevin mentions the formal need for the clocks to be stopped but he doesn't point out that this is for the purpose of claiming a win on time. The arbiter must also be notified and the arbiter then rules on the claim. In, say, an average club event of 15 boards with one arbiter who is also playing, if the prescribed procedure was always followed - and not only re time claims but all sorts of other incidents - the event would soon become a shambles. That may happen even if the arbiter was not playing which is the preferable situation.

DJ