Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,322

    Game agreed drawn after one players flag fall.

    As asked by Howard in other thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Duggan
    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).
    Last edited by Garvinator; 16-05-2006 at 11:21 PM.

  2. #2
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    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.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,245
    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.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    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.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  5. #5
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  6. #6
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Duggan
    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.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  7. #7
    CC FIDE Master Phil Bourke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Blayney
    Posts
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    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?
    Get into chess, its a lifetime of enjoyment!
    Blayney Chess Club is online
    http://blayneychessclub.com

  8. #8
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Bourke
    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.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    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.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 17-11-2009 at 05:10 PM.

  11. #11
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 17-11-2009 at 05:11 PM.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    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?
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 17-11-2009 at 05:12 PM.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  13. #13
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    Terribly sorry, misquote? He had no time left.
    Ok.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthasar
    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.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 17-11-2009 at 05:13 PM.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  14. #14
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Bourke
    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.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,896
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. My one hell of a famous game!!
    By hitman84 in forum Games and Analysis
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 20-02-2012, 05:50 AM
  2. Melbourne Chess Club Christmas Swiss 2005
    By Bereaved in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 21-12-2005, 11:49 AM
  3. New Laws of Chess as of 1st July 2005
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 02-11-2005, 09:45 PM
  4. Does checkmate end the game?
    By Garvinator in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 26-04-2005, 08:43 AM
  5. Allocation of Divisional Prizes
    By 1min_grandmaster in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 05-08-2004, 10:28 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
  •