PDA

View Full Version : Loss on time



Rincewind
04-10-2009, 09:26 AM
What is the usual procedure for a loss on time? Specifically, if a time control is say 30 move in 60 minutes with an additional 30 minutes to finish the game and a player completes his 30th move after which it is noticed that the clock (an "old" red DGT) is showing -29:50 say. Also for the sake of the argument lets say the player overstepping is playing with the black pieces and lets also assume that white has plenty of time remaining from the original 60 minutes.

The question is can white claim a win on time on his 31st move because it is possible to determine from the clock that black did indeed overstep. Or does the claim need to be made before black completed his 30th move?

CameronD
04-10-2009, 11:17 AM
What is the usual procedure for a loss on time? Specifically, if a time control is say 30 move in 60 minutes with an additional 30 minutes to finish the game and a player completes his 30th move after which it is noticed that the clock (an "old" red DGT) is showing -29:50 say. Also for the sake of the argument lets say the player overstepping is playing with the black pieces and lets also assume that white has plenty of time remaining from the original 60 minutes.

The question is can white claim a win on time on his 31st move because it is possible to determine from the clock that black did indeed overstep. Or does the claim need to be made before black completed his 30th move?

what if the claim was made move 32 and black claims that the clock counter must have been wrong.

Jesper Norgaard
04-10-2009, 01:14 PM
What is the usual procedure for a loss on time? Specifically, if a time control is say 30 move in 60 minutes with an additional 30 minutes to finish the game and a player completes his 30th move after which it is noticed that the clock (an "old" red DGT) is showing -29:50 say. Also for the sake of the argument lets say the player overstepping is playing with the black pieces and lets also assume that white has plenty of time remaining from the original 60 minutes.

The question is can white claim a win on time on his 31st move because it is possible to determine from the clock that black did indeed overstep. Or does the claim need to be made before black completed his 30th move?

Whether it is white or black that has apparently overstepped, doesn't really matter (although it could appear so for the inexperienced) the player must complete the number of moves (here 30) still with time on the clock, e.g. at least enough that the flag has not fallen. In the situation you describe, if white is thinking 20 minutes on his 31.st. move without moving, and *then* discovers his opponent overstepped, he can still claim and should be awarded the point (or if the arbiter sees it in a normal game, which the example is, he should claim it if he sees it). By not pressing the clock White has still not destroyed the evidence that Black lost on time.

The only requirement for the claimant is that *he* has time left when claiming, but in your example he had plenty.



what if the claim was made move 32 and black claims that the clock counter must have been wrong.
The clock counter is not used for determining number of moves, that must be determined by using the scoresheets and possibly the memory of the players plus the position on the board in the reconstruction phase after the claim. Here in Mexico I have heard of several reconstructions with *supposedly* experienced arbiters that took place on the original board :wall: in other words destroying the very position you are trying to reconstruct :wall: :wall:
If there is a claim at move 32 that at move 30 one of the players had lost on time, must be rejected since the evidence has been destroyed (by making more moves). However, if there is a claim, the arbiter should reconstruct those 32 moves using the scoresheets, and if not even 30 moves are reached, the claim stands and wins the game. Again the clock counter is perhaps an indication, but null and void as a proof.

Rincewind
05-10-2009, 06:31 AM
what if the claim was made move 32 and black claims that the clock counter must have been wrong.

What Jesper said...

The clock counter is not used to dtermine the number of moves played, the score sheet is. The DGT clocks don't only signal a flagfall depending on move number, they just signal a flagfall and leaves it to the players to know if that was a loss of time or not.

After 32 moves the arbiter is no longer able to determine if the flag fall happened before the 30th move (it might have happened on the 31st move which is ok). Therefore there is no claim for a loss of time.

However from what Jesper said it sounds like a claim after the 30th move is completed is ok provided the arbiter is still able to determine that the flag fall happened before the 30th move. Is this the consensus of silent readership?

Bill Gletsos
05-10-2009, 12:27 PM
What Jesper said...

The clock counter is not used to dtermine the number of moves played, the score sheet is. The DGT clocks don't only signal a flagfall depending on move number, they just signal a flagfall and leaves it to the players to know if that was a loss of time or not.

After 32 moves the arbiter is no longer able to determine if the flag fall happened before the 30th move (it might have happened on the 31st move which is ok). Therefore there is no claim for a loss of time.Correct.


However from what Jesper said it sounds like a claim after the 30th move is completed is ok provided the arbiter is still able to determine that the flag fall happened before the 30th move. Is this the consensus of silent readership?The players flag must be up at the completion of the move that is the final move of the time control.
In the case in point the players flag must be up when he stops the clock after making his 30th move. If his flag is down then he loses on time.

Jesper Norgaard
11-10-2009, 01:33 PM
The players flag must be up at the completion of the move that is the final move of the time control.
In the case in point the players flag must be up when he stops the clock after making his 30th move. If his flag is down then he loses on time.

Correct Bill, but I don't think that is what Rincewind is asking about.



However from what Jesper said it sounds like a claim after the 30th move is completed is ok provided the arbiter is still able to determine that the flag fall happened before the 30th move. Is this the consensus of silent readership?

First let me admit I have no idea what silent readership is, or why there should be consensus on it (by whom? by arbiters in general?). But let me try to answer all the same.

I think that if the arbiter determines that there was a flag fall before the completion of the 30th. move he should declare the game lost for the player that overstepped. This happens independently if there were issued more moves by one or both players after the flag fall. Two cases. There is a claim after move 32, and the arbiter is able to go back to video documentation of the event and see that the flag fell before completing move 30, then he should declare the win. Another case is the arbiter sees the flag fall from far away, and rushes to the board but does not reach it until several more moves have been completed. He should still act on his knowledge and declare the game lost. That would of course only take place after reconstructing and determining that the position he saw was in fact before completing move 30.

I am interpreting this way since there is no rule that says that making more moves invalidates the original flag fall. In this respect there is a difference between flag fall and the touch-move rule, because 4.7 says "A player forfeits his right to a claim against his opponent's violation of article 4 once he deliberately touches a piece". I interpret this to mean that if player A touches a piece and then moves another, and player B then quickly makes a move, then even though the arbiter saw the incident and was about to instruct player A about this, he can no longer do it since player B has "overwritten" the offense so to speak. But I don't see anything about making moves overwrites the right to claim a flag fall, it just gets tougher to prove.

Apart from these two examples, there will usually not be any other evidence of what happened than the scoresheets, the clocks, the position on the board and the players testimony, and the arbiter can't rely on one players testimony alone. Therefore the more common situation is that only if 30 moves have not been completed on the board, will a claim be successful.

Also note that the arbiter can only act himself in a normal game, while in rapid and blitz he must wait for a claim - he can witness that he saw the flag fall and when, but he must not act without a claim.

Bill Gletsos
11-10-2009, 04:23 PM
Correct Bill, but I don't think that is what Rincewind is asking about.Perhaps he will tell us.