So who should get a Point?

[MichaelBaron]

Part of the problem was that the ''winner'' has withdrawn after rd 6 and left (I am yet to collect details why - will chat to him about it when I see him next as it is unlike his character to withdraw like that without notifying organizers) so we could not hear his account of the events.

[Kevin Bonham]

This is an allegro, so it is rapid, and I assume the games were not recorded (etc) so the following applies concerning claiming a win on time:

A.4.3

To claim a win on time, the claimant may stop the chessclock and notify the arbiter. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the claimant cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

(my emphasis)

6.8 does not apply because it is in the Competition Rules which are overridden for rapid.

The claimant doesn't have to stop the clock or notify the arbiter - it says "may". If the arbiter is satisfied that a claim was made (such as by saying "Time!" or "Flag!") then that's enough basis to record it as a win.

FIDE could have worded this "may" as a "must". However they didn't. I think the reason they didn't is that they didn't want a claim to be invalidated if the player made the claim without stopping the clock.

[Kevin Bonham]

FIDE could have worded this "may" as a "must". However they didn't. I think the reason they didn't is that they didn't want a claim to be invalidated if the player made the claim without stopping the clock.

Indeed it used to be "must" and was changed to "may", from memory for this reason.

[Patrick Byrom]

No. He was eager to get that point. According to the witness, the opponent did claim time.

I assume that you spoke to him before you changed his result? So if he denied that his opponent claimed time, I'm not sure that the statement of a single witness is enough to disprove his denial. If his opponent didn't claim, but resigned after seeing the flag fall, I'm not sure that his opponent should get a win.

[Patrick Byrom]

Part of the problem was that the ''winner'' has withdrawn after rd 6 and left (I am yet to collect details why - will chat to him about it when I see him next as it is unlike his character to withdraw like that without notifying organizers) so we could not hear his account of the events.

Exactly. That's why I am leaning towards a double forfeit result. If he didn't report the result to an arbiter, and made an unannounced withdrawal instead, then he arguably doesn't deserve to be awarded a win unless he has a good reason for withdrawing.

Although I'm not sure why an arbiter didn't immediately attend the game, given that one player was apparently making quite a lot of noise {"loud expressions of the great sorrow"} at the finish.

[Garvinator]

Exactly. That's why I am leaning towards a double forfeit result. If he didn't report the result to an arbiter, and made an unannounced withdrawal instead, then he arguably doesn't deserve to be awarded a win unless he has a good reason for withdrawing.

Small technical point for those watching along at home.

The result would be recorded as a double loss: 0 - 0, not double forfeit - - -.

The difference being that with a forfeit, no colour is allocated. With a loss being recorded, for the player that is still continuing in the event, their white game counts towards their colour balance for the next round. If the result was recorded as a forfeit, then the 'white result' would not count.

[Kevin Bonham]

The result would be recorded as a double loss: 0 - 0, not double forfeit - - -.

Correct. Misuse of "forfeit" for these losses is a common issue, most often seen with "mobile phone forfeit" (most cases of which are defaults that count as played games and are rateable).

As for whether the result should be recorded 0-0, if the arbiter is satisfied that B won the game on time but the tournament has a condition that states that the player must report their result or score zero, then 0-0 is correct.

But it depends on the condition. For instance the one I most commonly announce for local events is that I will make the result 0-0 if the players didn't report it and I cannot find out what it was in time to pair the next round.

[Patrick Byrom]

Small technical point for those watching along at home. The result would be recorded as a double loss: 0 - 0, not double forfeit - - -. The difference being that with a forfeit, no colour is allocated. With a loss being recorded, for the player that is still continuing in the event, their white game counts towards their colour balance for the next round. If the result was recorded as a forfeit, then the 'white result' would not count.

Good point!

Interestingly, one of the players involved in the dispute played at the Brisbane Club when we were both there - it's a small world!

[MichaelBaron]

Actually I like the idea of both getting 0! Makes sense since the other guy left without notifying the arbiter.

[Eamonn O'Molloy]

I heard the discussion at the end of this game and spoke to the witness and there is no doubt that Player B claimed the win on time. Immediately after the game finished, I heard Player A insist several times to player B "you should have resigned". After that Player B decided to leave and said "it's your game". I interpreted this as more "I can't be bothered arguing, I'm going home, put it down as a win for you if you must, I don't care" rather than "you should have the point because you won the game".
Michael entered the result as a win for Player B but after Michael left Player A continued to plead with the other arbiters and they decided to give Player A the point. I questioned that decision and their reasoning was that the point should go to Player A because Player B didn't report the result.
This was clearly the wrong decision - everyone is in agreement that Player A ran out of time and Player B pointed out he had ran out of time - therefore the result was known.

[Patrick Byrom]

I heard the discussion at the end of this game and spoke to the witness and there is no doubt that Player B claimed the win on time. Immediately after the game finished, I heard Player A insist several times to player B "you should have resigned". After that Player B decided to leave and said "it's your game". I interpreted this as more "I can't be bothered arguing, I'm going home, put it down as a win for you if you must, I don't care" rather than "you should have the point because you won the game".

That raises the disturbing possibility that Player B was browbeaten into submission by player A, and possibly left the tournament as a result. And where
were the arbiters while this was going on?

Michael entered the result as a win for Player B but after Michael left Player A continued to plead with the other arbiters and they decided to give Player A the point. I questioned that decision and their reasoning was that the point should go to Player A because Player B didn't report the result. This was clearly the wrong decision - everyone is in agreement that Player A ran out of time and Player B pointed out he had ran out of time - therefore the result was known.

Is this a MCC rule? Because it's not a FIDE one. At worst, as it seems clear now that Player B did claim a win on time, the result should be a double loss - you shouldn't win a game just because the other player fails to report their win.

[MichaelBaron]

That raises the disturbing possibility that Player B was browbeaten into submission by player A, and possibly left the tournament as a result. And where
were the arbiters while this was going on?
Is this a MCC rule? Because it's not a FIDE one. At worst, as it seems clear now that Player B did claim a win on time, the result should be a double loss - you shouldn't win a game just because the other player fails to report their win.

I agree that the player who left the club was just plain annoyed by his opponent's rethorics and left club not to listen to it any more. However, he should have spoken to the arbiters and certainly not withdraw from the event without notifying anyone. I will definitely have a chat to him when I see him next.
Re double loss - makes sense!

[Kevin Bonham]

A player should never berate an opponent for not resigning after the player has lost, by whatever means. The fact that the player has lost itself proves the opponent was entitled to play on.

[Garvinator]

As this discussion evolves and more details are released, or more information is added, I am reminded of the recent discussion on the topic of whether it is a good idea or not to have a non playing arbiter in charge of an event.

These are exactly the type of situations where you need a decent, non playing arbiter in control of the event. They are then watching games that are short of time and when anything like this occurs, they are able to sort the matter out as it occurs.

Players also feel more inclined to bring any issues they have to the attention of a non playing arbiter, than they do to an arbiter who is in the middle of a game that potentially is in time trouble or similar.

[Bill Gletsos]

It appears the event has multiple arbiters.
One of those should actually be the Chief Arbiter, preferably the one with best understanding of the FIDE Laws of Chess.