Page 1 of 27 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 398
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046

    Arbiter's Corner: Notes & Queries

    If player A offers player B a draw, must player B accept before his (B) flag fall?

    AR

  2. #2
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    He must claim the draw before A claims the win on time.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  3. #3
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    We had two Blitz nights (G5) at our club in the last month and the same player was involved in two disputes (although through no "fault" of their own, just mentioned as it was a remarkable coincidence).

    OK.

    To keep it less confusing I will word it as a single situation with various claims by the players.

    Situation

    Player A with the move is about to checkmate player B. Player B calls "time". Arbiter arrives on the scene there is checkmate on the board and the clock shows player A's flag fallen but time remaining for player B. There were no witnesses.

    Case A

    A claims to have made the checkmate move before the time call
    B claims the time call came first

    Case B

    A claims to have made the checkmate move before the time call
    B is unsure if the time call came first

    Case C

    A is unsure if the checkmate move was made before the time call
    B claims the time call came first

    Case D

    A is unsure if the checkmate move was made before the time call
    B is unsure if the time call came first

    What happened

    OK what happened first was case C and the game was ruled won by B on time. The second was case D and the players agreed to a draw and reported that result without consulting an arbiter. I think it should have been awarded as a win to A by checkmate.

    What do others think?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #4
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    We had two Blitz nights (G5) at our club in the last month and the same player was involved in two disputes (although through no "fault" of their own, just mentioned as it was a remarkable coincidence).

    OK.

    To keep it less confusing I will word it as a single situation with various claims by the players.

    Situation

    Player A with the move is about to checkmate player B. Player B calls "time". Arbiter arrives on the scene there is checkmate on the board and the clock shows player A's flag fallen but time remaining for player B. There were no witnesses.

    Case A

    A claims to have made the checkmate move before the time call
    B claims the time call came first

    Case B

    A claims to have made the checkmate move before the time call
    B is unsure if the time call came first

    Case C

    A is unsure if the checkmate move was made before the time call
    B claims the time call came first

    Case D

    A is unsure if the checkmate move was made before the time call
    B is unsure if the time call came first

    What happened

    OK what happened first was case C and the game was ruled won by B on time. The second was case D and the players agreed to a draw and reported that result without consulting an arbiter. I think it should have been awarded as a win to A by checkmate.

    What do others think?
    These situations have obviously happened before.

    The answers are simple.

    In all cases other than C the arbiter should declare A the winner.
    In case C then B is declared the winner.

  5. #5
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Thanks for the reply Bill. I agree with you on B, C and D. As I said, D was not recorded that way but that was no fault of mine, the incident was relayed to me by the player until the following week.

    However Case A is interesting. I was thinking that perhaps it should be replayed, time permitting, or recorded as a draw otherwise.

    Is the onus on the player with the time claim to prove that such a claim was made before the checkmating move? Otherwise, what is the reasoning?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Thanks for the reply Bill. I agree with you on B, C and D. As I said, D was not recorded that way but that was no fault of mine, the incident was relayed to me by the player until the following week.

    However Case A is interesting. I was thinking that perhaps it should be replayed, time permitting, or recorded as a draw otherwise.

    Is the onus on the player with the time claim to prove that such a claim was made before the checkmating move? Otherwise, what is the reasoning?
    That is pretty much the reasoning.
    Under your scenario where there are no witnesses, when the arbiter is called to the board he is presented with a mate on the board. The player making the time claim has no means of proof where as the player claiming the mate has proof since it is apparent from the board position.

    One thing that may nort be obvious to the casual reader of your scenario is the following.

    For his claim to be valid the player making claiming the mate must have completed his move prior to his opponent claiming the win on time.
    What this means is that the player claiming the mate must have made the mating move on the board AND released the piece. The mate is then immediate and he wins the game. He does not have to stop his clock.
    If however his hand is still on the piece when the opponent claims the win on time then the move is incomplete and he loses on time.

  7. #7
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    That is pretty much the reasoning.
    Under your scenario where there are no witnesses, when the arbiter is called to the board he is presented with a mate on the board. The player making the time claim has no means of proof where as the player claiming the mate has proof since it is apparent from the board position.
    Thanks again but I'm still not sure and/or confused.

    The checkmate position cannot be the be all and end all. For example the checkmate must have come about from a legal move. So if the move that created checkmate was illegal it cannot stand. Therefore, I would think the arbiter cannot simply rule on the board position.

    Likewise, the clock is showing no time for player A. But the arbiter cannot know if the time claim came before the checkmate move.

    The question is was the move made before the time call or not. A cannot "prove" the checkmate position was legal, B cannot prove the time call was made first. I know B is not claiming a win by illegal move, but you get my point. Why should the board overrule the clock as neither provides absolute proof for either claim.

    It is basically one word against another, I wouldn't have thought it appropriate to find in favour of either party in that situation. Therefore replay or draw.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    It is basically one word against another, I wouldn't have thought it appropriate to find in favour of either party in that situation. Therefore replay or draw.
    If I were the arbiter with this dilemma, I would say draw - no replay.

    AR

  9. #9
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    That is pretty much the reasoning.
    Under your scenario where there are no witnesses, when the arbiter is called to the board he is presented with a mate on the board. The player making the time claim has no means of proof where as the player claiming the mate has proof since it is apparent from the board position.
    Thanks again but I'm still not sure and/or confused.

    The checkmate position cannot be the be all and end all. For example the checkmate must have come about from a legal move. So if the move that created checkmate was illegal it cannot stand. Therefore, I would think the arbiter cannot simply rule on the board position.

    Likewise, the clock is showing no time for player A. But the arbiter cannot know if the time claim came before the checkmate move.

    The question is was the move made before the time call or not. A cannot "prove" the checkmate position was legal, B cannot prove the time call was made first. I know B is not claiming a win by illegal move, but you get my point. Why should the board overrule the clock as neither provides absolute proof for either claim.
    Naturally the mating move has to be a legal move. However the player claiming the win on time is not claiming an illegal move. Hence you can conclude the mating move was legal. The player making the claim on time cannot prove that the opponents falg had fallen at the time of the mate. The player claiming the mate can prove the mate since it is on the board.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    It is basically one word against another, I wouldn't have thought it appropriate to find in favour of either party in that situation. Therefore replay or draw.
    It isnt really one word against the other. One can prove the mate. The other cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

  10. #10
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Naturally the mating move has to be a legal move. However the player claiming the win on time is not claiming an illegal move. Hence you can conclude the mating move was legal. The player making the claim on time cannot prove that the opponents falg had fallen at the time of the mate. The player claiming the mate can prove the mate since it is on the board.
    Yeah, I used the illegal position to illustrate the arbiter cannot consider just the board.

    But it seems to me you have a claim and counter-claim which are logically incosistent (they cannot both be true). If the move was made before the time claim then A should win, if the time claim was made before checkmate then B should win. There seems no way to determine who is right, so I can't see why A's opinion is adopted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    It isnt really one word against the other. One can prove the mate. The other cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.
    Player A cannot prove the mate was made before the time claim. What is the difference?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Naturally the mating move has to be a legal move. However the player claiming the win on time is not claiming an illegal move. Hence you can conclude the mating move was legal. The player making the claim on time cannot prove that the opponents falg had fallen at the time of the mate. The player claiming the mate can prove the mate since it is on the board.
    Yeah, I used the illegal position to illustrate the arbiter cannot consider just the board.

    But it seems to me you have a claim and counter-claim which are logically incosistent (they cannot both be true). If the move was made before the time claim then A should win, if the time claim was made before checkmate then B should win. There seems no way to determine who is right, so I can't see why A's opinion is adopted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    It isnt really one word against the other. One can prove the mate. The other cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.
    Player A cannot prove the mate was made before the time claim. What is the difference?
    If I recall the argument correctly it goes as follows.

    A is simply claiming to have mated B. There is an implied before his flag fell.
    B is claiming a win on time before being mated.

    Based on the evidence available to the arbiter their is a mate on the board. This cannot be disputed.
    B cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

    A is declared the winner.

    FWIW all IA's I have ever heard describe the above all agree that A wins.

  12. #12
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    If I recall the argument correctly it goes as follows.

    A is simply claiming to have mated B. There is an implied before his flag fell.
    B is claiming a win on time before being mated.

    Based on the evidence available to the arbiter their is a mate on the board. This cannot be disputed.
    B cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

    A is declared the winner.

    FWIW all IA's I have ever heard describe the above all agree that A wins.
    If I were to rephrase this to

    A is not making a claim, he just checkmated his opponent.
    B is making a claim of win on time but connot establish his claim occurred before the checkmate.
    As the claim cannot be proved, it is rejected and the checkmate stands.


    Does that capture the reasoning?

    If so I'm happy but will need to remember this for next time.


    Fortunately, Case A didn't occur what actually happened was Case C but after talking to the player at length another night it turns out it was more like a combination of A and C.

    Player A couldn't say whether the time claim was made before or after the checkmate was made, but challenged B's certainty of knowing the time claim was made first. His argument being he would have had to be looking at the clock to make a valid claim at the right time and there was so little time taken in the last move that there would not have been time for B to be certain he got in first. What happens then???
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #13
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,164
    Barry's case C is interesting in that if A claims the checkmate we have case A [unfortunately the cases and players have the same names]. If player A is sure that his flag fell first then it would be unethical to claim otherwise, but if he isn't sure then shouldn't he be entitled to ask the arbiter for a ruling - like a cricketer asking whether a ball nicked the bat when he isn't sure but it's close enough to let the umpire decide.

    I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.

  14. #14
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    If I recall the argument correctly it goes as follows.

    A is simply claiming to have mated B. There is an implied before his flag fell.
    B is claiming a win on time before being mated.

    Based on the evidence available to the arbiter their is a mate on the board. This cannot be disputed.
    B cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

    A is declared the winner.

    FWIW all IA's I have ever heard describe the above all agree that A wins.
    If I were to rephrase this to

    A is not making a claim, he just checkmated his opponent.
    B is making a claim of win on time but connot establish his claim occurred before the checkmate.
    As the claim cannot be proved, it is rejected and the checkmate stands.


    Does that capture the reasoning?

    If so I'm happy but will need to remember this for next time.
    I'm happy if you want to look at it in that way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Fortunately, Case A didn't occur what actually happened was Case C but after talking to the player at length another night it turns out it was more like a combination of A and C.

    Player A couldn't say whether the time claim was made before or after the checkmate was made, but challenged B's certainty of knowing the time claim was made first. His argument being he would have had to be looking at the clock to make a valid claim at the right time and there was so little time taken in the last move that there would not have been time for B to be certain he got in first. What happens then???
    A would win. He has the mate. B cannot prove the flag fell first.


    I have been one of the arbiters where case A has occured twice with no witnesses.
    In one of those tournaments there were 4 arbiters. The arbiter of the lowest division was confronted with case A. He was unsure how to rule. He raised it with the Cheif Arbiter(an IA), the other arbiter and myself.
    We all agreed that the player who had checkmated his opponent won the game.
    The ruling in the other tournament was the same.

    However I have personally witnessed case A 3 times where I was the arbiter and observing the board.

    In one A's hand left the piece maybe 1-22 seconds before B called time. A was declared the winner.
    In the other A's hand left the piece maybe 1-2 seconds after B called time. B was declared the winner.
    The last was very difficult. A's hand left the piece and B called time virtually at the same time. I declared A the winner.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    sorry Bill. I reckon I'm with Bazza on this - though I'd be a little more decisive and declare the game a draw. I just don't like to waste my time and other people's. If I were one of the players I'd simply offer a draw too.

    It just doesn't seem right to award a full point to Player A. Let's hope you won't be an arbiter when I'm Player B cos I just about reckon you'd make me quite upset with you mate. I think you're wrong in your reasoning and Bazza was right to characterise this as "one player's word against anothers's".

    Whaddya other fellaz reckon?

    AR

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Chessbase: Notes & Queries
    By arosar in forum Computer Chess
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 30-01-2006, 10:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •