PDA

View Full Version : Can time be added to a player's clock after flagfall?



Desmond
03-09-2006, 10:20 PM
A thoroughly weird situation arose at club this week.

It was an allegro 10+10 game.

Player A's flag fell. Player B did not claim a win on time.

Later on, Player B made an illegal move, and Player A had 2 minutes added to his clock.

Ok, now that you have picked yourself up from the floor from either laughing, crying, or losing consciousness, any comments on whether it is permissable for a player to have time added to his clock after flagfall?

Basil
03-09-2006, 10:30 PM
I have a 100% failure rate on these things, but I digress :) ...

I'm certain that a player loses once the flag has fallen, regardless of whether or not it is noticed.

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2006, 10:41 PM
I'm certain that a player loses once the flag has fallen, regardless of whether or not it is noticed.

Bzzzt. It's a Rapidplay game (10 mins + 60x10secs = 20 mins), so:


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

The claim of illegal move (B6) came first so I would address that claim by adding two minutes. If the clock has stopped at zero rather than going negative then the player whose flag has fallen should have their clock reset to two minutes. Game continues.

If the opponent tries to say "but you lost on time" I would rule that he had to make that claim (B8) before the illegal move claim (B6) for it to be valid.

Hilarious.

Basil
03-09-2006, 10:53 PM
Bzzzt.
Yup. Had that sinking feeling as I was typing! :)

antichrist
04-09-2006, 10:28 AM
I think it should all be simplified so that when flag falls the clock is locked and loss unavoidable. Otherswise the game is decided on the clock and not over the board which is what Digital clocks is supposing to be avoiding. If one has to constantly look at the opponent's clock as well in a time struggle finish it defintely diminishes the standard of play. And as the Dgt clocks are supposed to take pressure off DOPs well my proposal would do likewise, avoid arguments and simplify game in a healthy positive manner.

Denis_Jessop
04-09-2006, 09:47 PM
Bzzzt. It's a Rapidplay game (10 mins + 60x10secs = 20 mins), so:



The claim of illegal move (B6) came first so I would address that claim by adding two minutes. If the clock has stopped at zero rather than going negative then the player whose flag has fallen should have their clock reset to two minutes. Game continues.

If the opponent tries to say "but you lost on time" I would rule that he had to make that claim (B8) before the illegal move claim (B6) for it to be valid.

Hilarious.

I take it from Boris' post that no claim of a win on time was made by B, in which case the adding on of time for the illegal move was clearly right. But I'm not sure I necessarily agree with Kevin on the answer if B claimed a win on time. This would seem to depend on the precise facts. For example, if B claims a win on time after the illegal move claim has been made by A but before the arbiter has ruled on it, B's claim must surely be valid. That is, B's claim must be decided first because it relates to an event that preceded that forming the basis of A's claim. I am inclined to think that the same reasoning would apply even if the arbiter had decided A's claim in his favour as it would be obvious to the arbiter that A had exceeded the time limit when he went to adjust A's clock. But if B did not make his claim until after play resumed the situation is probably different. I think that, in that case, I would agree with Kevin's view.

:hmm: :rolleyes:

DJ

Desmond
04-09-2006, 10:02 PM
My understanding was that for player A to claim an illegal move was made, he must stop the clock and summon the arbiter. If he fails to stop the clock before his own flag has fallen, wouldn't his loss on time stand? Therefore, in this case, should the arbiter rule a false claim and not add the time?

As to whether a win on time was ever claimed, I am not sure, as I only heard about the incident later. My understanding is that B had observed the flagfall, but was unsure what he needed to do.

Bill Gletsos
04-09-2006, 10:19 PM
I take it from Boris' post that no claim of a win on time was made by B, in which case the adding on of time for the illegal move was clearly right. But I'm not sure I necessarily agree with Kevin on the answer if B claimed a win on time. This would seem to depend on the precise facts. For example, if B claims a win on time after the illegal move claim has been made by A but before the arbiter has ruled on it, B's claim must surely be valid. That is, B's claim must be decided first because it relates to an event that preceded that forming the basis of A's claim. I am inclined to think that the same reasoning would apply even if the arbiter had decided A's claim in his favour as it would be obvious to the arbiter that A had exceeded the time limit when he went to adjust A's clock. But if B did not make his claim until after play resumed the situation is probably different. I think that, in that case, I would agree with Kevin's view.

:hmm: :rolleyes:

DJThe sequence is:
1) A's flag falls but B makes no claim
2) B makes an illegal move
3) A claims illegal move
4) B claims a win on time

It is not important that A's flag fell prior to the illegal move. All that is important is when B claimed because the flag is not considered to have fallen until a claim is made as stated in Article B7.

The arbiter must handle the illegal move claim first.

If however 3) above does not take place then 4) is the only claim and is valid.

Geurt comments on this in one of his columns on Chesscafe.

Bill Gletsos
04-09-2006, 10:26 PM
My understanding was that for player A to claim an illegal move was made, he must stop the clock and summon the arbiter. If he fails to stop the clock before his own flag has fallen, wouldn't his loss on time stand? Therefore, in this case, should the arbiter rule a false claim and not add the time?Illegal moves are covered by Artilce 7.4. No mention is made that the player must stop his clock before making the claim.
Article B6 is in effect for rapid games which this game was but it also does not require the player to stiop his clock.

As to whether a win on time was ever claimed, I am not sure, as I only heard about the incident later. My understanding is that B had observed the flagfall, but was unsure what he needed to do.If B makes no claim then his observing it makes no difference.

Desmond
04-09-2006, 10:48 PM
Illegal moves are covered by Artilce 7.4. No mention is made that the player must stop his clock before making the claim.
Article B6 is in effect for rapid games which this game was but it also does not require the player to stiop his clock.Quite right. Wow, looking up the rules is such a help :D

If B makes no claim then his observing it makes no difference.I knew that one, just clarifying what I knew of the scenario.

Kevin Bonham
04-09-2006, 11:26 PM
But I'm not sure I necessarily agree with Kevin on the answer if B claimed a win on time. This would seem to depend on the precise facts. For example, if B claims a win on time after the illegal move claim has been made by A but before the arbiter has ruled on it, B's claim must surely be valid. That is, B's claim must be decided first because it relates to an event that preceded that forming the basis of A's claim. I am inclined to think that the same reasoning would apply even if the arbiter had decided A's claim in his favour as it would be obvious to the arbiter that A had exceeded the time limit when he went to adjust A's clock.

The arbiter is not allowed to draw the conclusion that A's flag fell before the illegal move because B7 requires that the flag "is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect". For all the arbiter knows and is entitled to infer, the sequence of events could have been that B made the illegal move then A's flag fell before A claimed illegal move.

In blitz whichever of an illegal move claim and a win on time claim comes first decides the game - if a player correctly claims illegal move with their flag down, they win. Likewise in Rapidplay whichever claim comes first should be ruled on first by analogy.

I also think that B's claim cannot be deemed valid while there is a penalty pending that may affect the fact required for a valid claim under B8.

However I had not considered the possibility that the arbiter might simply rule on the second claim first so you have given me food for thought there.

Rincewind
05-09-2006, 12:19 AM
In blitz whichever of an illegal move claim and a win on time claim comes first decides the game - if a player correctly claims illegal move with their flag down, they win.

Would it be pedantic to point out that if the claimant lacks a series of legal moves with a path to mate then they only draw? :)

Kevin Bonham
05-09-2006, 01:17 AM
Would it be pedantic to point out that if the claimant lacks a series of legal moves with a path to mate then they only draw? :)

Not at all.

This allows the following scenario.

Player X with, say, K+N vs K+Q (no other pieces on board) claims a win by illegal move. Player Y counters by pointing out that player X's flag has fallen. The arbiter dismisses player X's claim because Player X was only entitled to claim a draw and not a win. Player Y now wins the game on time before player X can remedy his faulty claim. :owned:

Rincewind
05-09-2006, 06:47 AM
Player X with, say, K+N vs K+Q (no other pieces on board) claims a win by illegal move. Player Y counters by pointing out that player X's flag has fallen. The arbiter dismisses player X's claim because Player X was only entitled to claim a draw and not a win. Player Y now wins the game on time before player X can remedy his faulty claim. :owned:

Player X's claim is that his opponent made an illegal move.

Desmond
05-09-2006, 08:39 AM
In blitz whichever of an illegal move claim and a win on time claim comes first decides the game - if a player correctly claims illegal move with their flag down, they win. Likewise in Rapidplay whichever claim comes first should be ruled on first by analogy.I find these rules (not your interpretation of them; the rules themselves) sorely lacking.

In a busy tournament hall, we can have both players run off in opposite directions seeking an arbiter. Who ever finds one first gets his claim upheld. What if they both find different ones and return to the board triumphantly, only to find that their opponent has done likewise? Do the arbiters try to estimate how many seconds ago the claim was made?

Surely one claim should outweigh the other.

Denis_Jessop
05-09-2006, 10:52 AM
The sequence is:
1) A's flag falls but B makes no claim
2) B makes an illegal move
3) A claims illegal move
4) B claims a win on time

It is not important that A's flag fell prior to the illegal move. All that is important is when B claimed because the flag is not considered to have fallen until a claim is made as stated in Article B7.

The arbiter must handle the illegal move claim first.

If however 3) above does not take place then 4) is the only claim and is valid.

Geurt comments on this in one of his columns on Chesscafe.

I don't follow the logic of this. Even if the arbiter handles the illegal move claim first, he must also consider the flagfall claim and, if satisfied that the flag fell before the illegal move was made, he must award the game to B. If Geurt says otherwise he is wrong which wouldn't be the first time.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
05-09-2006, 11:46 AM
The arbiter is not allowed to draw the conclusion that A's flag fell before the illegal move because B7 requires that the flag "is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect". For all the arbiter knows and is entitled to infer, the sequence of events could have been that B made the illegal move then A's flag fell before A claimed illegal move.

In blitz whichever of an illegal move claim and a win on time claim comes first decides the game - if a player correctly claims illegal move with their flag down, they win. Likewise in Rapidplay whichever claim comes first should be ruled on first by analogy.

I also think that B's claim cannot be deemed valid while there is a penalty pending that may affect the fact required for a valid claim under B8.

However I had not considered the possibility that the arbiter might simply rule on the second claim first so you have given me food for thought there.

I've partly answered this in my reply to Bill. What worries me is the concept of adding time to a player's clock when the player has already exceeded the time, that is, of considering matters going backwards instead of in the order in which they actually occurred. If the arbiter cannot determine whether the flag fell before the illegal move was made, then he can't uphold B's claim but B still has the right to make it. On the other hand,if on all the evidence available to the arbiter, it can be determined that A's flag fell before the illegal move was made, I cannot see how B's claim should be rejected. Contrast the specific provision in Art. 4.7 about a player forfeiting his right to make a claim.

Moreover, if the players are using a DGT clock, it will have refused to record A's time further upon A's flagfall. Art B6, in relation to an illegal move, refers to a player's clock having been "started". I'm not sure how a DGT clock that is not recording time any more for one player can be said to have been "started" for that player in any meaningful sense. This example assumes the flag fall ocurred first. Not only that, but, if A's clock is showing the dreaded triple zero and so has not been recording A's time since that occurred, there is a possibility that even adding two minutes to A's clock would not give him enough "credit" to take his time back to a pre-flagfall position - with DGT clocks it would be almost impossible to establish how much time A had used since his flag fell. It would be most unjust and even wrong simply to give A 2 minutes before flagfall. I think this highlights the fact the the FIDE Laws have not yet adequately caught up with the use of digital clocks

The situation would be even more stark were the game being played without increments using analogue clocks. If flagfall was on the hour and A's clock showed 2.5 minutes past the hour when the illegal move claim was made and upheld, adding 2 minutes to A's clock would put him 30 seconds after flagfall! QED

DJ

Garvinator
05-09-2006, 12:07 PM
from reading the latest posts, what is the status of the original ruling?


A thoroughly weird situation arose at club this week.

It was an allegro 10+10 game.

Player A's flag fell. Player B did not claim a win on time.

Later on, Player B made an illegal move, and Player A had 2 minutes added to his clock.

Are the latest posts saying that this action was incorrect, or is it the laws of chess that are being debated, perhaps both?

Denis_Jessop
05-09-2006, 12:22 PM
from reading the latest posts, what is the status of the original ruling?



Are the latest posts saying that this action was incorrect, or is it the laws of chess that are being debated, perhaps both?

As the matter involves the application of the Laws of Chess and as the actual facts are not clear I would say that the answer is "both".

At least I am saying basically that if B made a properly substantiated claim about the flag fall (including that it occurred before the alleged illegal move) that takes precedence over the illegal move claim and the game should be awarded to B. That view involves both a viw about the correctness of the decision made (subject to the facts being as described) and the proper interpretation of the Laws of Chess. Had B not made any claim regadring flagfall, the decision was correct.

I am also saying that in certain circumstances it may not be possible to add 2 minutes to A's time in a just and proper way and in other circumstances adding 2 minutes to A's time may still leave him in a position where his flag has already fallen.

DJ

Bill Gletsos
05-09-2006, 12:28 PM
I don't follow the logic of this. Even if the arbiter handles the illegal move claim first, he must also consider the flagfall claim and, if satisfied that the flag fell before the illegal move was made, he must award the game to B.This is incorrect.
The time at which the fall fell is irrelevant. The flag is considered to have fallen when either player makes the claim (or in a normal game when the arbiter observes it). In a normal game (not rapid or blitz) it is only if both flags have fallen that the issue of when is a consideration as which fell first becomes relevant.

If Geurt says otherwise he is wrong which wouldn't be the first time.It is you my friend who are wrong. :)

Bill Gletsos
05-09-2006, 12:39 PM
Rather than edit my previous posts I'll quote it and comment on a point made by Denis above.


The sequence is:
1) A's flag falls but B makes no claim
2) B makes an illegal move
3) A claims illegal move
4) B claims a win on time

It is not important that A's flag fell prior to the illegal move. All that is important is when B claimed because the flag is not considered to have fallen until a claim is made as stated in Article B7.

The arbiter must handle the illegal move claim first.

If however 3) above does not take place then 4) is the only claim and is valid.

Geurt comments on this in one of his columns on Chesscafe.

As I stated the arbiter must handle the illegal move first.
In this case he adds 2 minutes to A's clock.

Having done this there are two scenarios:
a) A now has time on his clock (i.e. his flag hasnt fallen). The arbiter therefore dismisses B's claim for a win on time.
b) A has still overstepped the time limit (i.e. his flag has still fallen). The arbiter upholds the B's claim for a win on time.

Note in the above the question of a draw since B cannot mate via any series of legal moves is ignored for simplicity. ;)

Denis_Jessop
05-09-2006, 12:42 PM
This is incorrect.
The time at which the fall fell is irrelevant. The flag is considered to have fallen when either player makes the claim (or in a normal game when the arbiter observes it). In a normal game (not rapid or blitz) it is only if both flags have fallen that the issue of when is a consideration as which fell first becomes relevant.
It is you my friend who are wrong. :)

I think that ths only points up another problem, namely having the rules written and interpreted by FIDE officials for whom English is not their native language and who are most probably unskilled in statutory interpretation. For the rules to be read as saying that a flag falls "at the time" = "when" that a player makes the claim is bizarre. It certainly doesn't have that meaning in the provision regarding the observation of the fact by the arbiter whatever "observes" may mean in that provision. (There is an old case quoted to first year law students on the Statute of Frauds - Halfpenny v. Ballet - in which it was reported that counsel for one of the parties asked the judge to "observe the Statute to which he replied humourously 'I do, I do' ".)

DJ

Kevin Bonham
05-09-2006, 12:49 PM
Player X's claim is that his opponent made an illegal move.

Yes, if he is clever. X should simply say "illegal move", and let the arbiter decide what result to apply.


I find these rules (not your interpretation of them; the rules themselves) sorely lacking.

In a busy tournament hall, we can have both players run off in opposite directions seeking an arbiter. Who ever finds one first gets his claim upheld. What if they both find different ones and return to the board triumphantly, only to find that their opponent has done likewise? Do the arbiters try to estimate how many seconds ago the claim was made?

Surely one claim should outweigh the other.

An arbiter should not uphold a claim without going to the board and checking.

If the arbiter cannot establish which claim was made first (sometimes happens), whatever happens on the board generally takes priority over what happens on the clock. Certainly this is the case if there is checkmate on the board.


On the other hand,if on all the evidence available to the arbiter, it can be determined that A's flag fell before the illegal move was made, I cannot see how B's claim should be rejected. Contrast the specific provision in Art. 4.7 about a player forfeiting his right to make a claim.

My problem with this is still that B7 doesn't allow the arbiter to rule that the flag fell some time before a valid claim to that effect was made. If the arbiter rules that B's claim is correct because A's flag fell some time ago, then the arbiter is ruling that that the flag had fallen at a time earlier than that defined as when the flag is considered to have fallen by B7, and therefore contradicting himself. A valid claim of a win on time by B7 needs to be based on the fact that the opponent's time is up at the time the claim was made, not on the fact that his time was up some time previously. And if the player whose flag has fallen is entitled to extra time, then his time may not really be up after all.


Moreover, if the players are using a DGT clock, it will have refused to record A's time further upon A's flagfall. Art B6, in relation to an illegal move, refers to a player's clock having been "started". I'm not sure how a DGT clock that is not recording time any more for one player can be said to have been "started" for that player in any meaningful sense.

I would consider the act of pressing the button with the intent of starting the opponent's clock to be sufficient whether the clock actually starts or not. However I agree that the rules have not yet caught up to features of some DGT clocks (in particular their manner of stopping on flagfall) in this regard.


Not only that, but, if A's clock is showing the dreaded triple zero and so has not been recording A's time since that occurred, there is a possibility that even adding two minutes to A's clock would not give him enough "credit" to take his time back to a pre-flagfall position - with DGT clocks it would be almost impossible to establish how much time A had used since his flag fell. It would be most unjust and even wrong simply to give A 2 minutes before flagfall. I think this highlights the fact the the FIDE Laws have not yet adequately caught up with the use of digital clocks

Art 7.4a applies so the arbiter is entitled to use his best judgement and deduct the amount of time he reckons A has used since flagfall from the 2 minutes if he wishes, or even rule that he has gone more than 2 minutes overtime if he wishes. My comment that the arbiter should simply adjust A's clock to 2 minutes in this case above was wrong - I had not considered Art 7.4a.


The situation would be even more stark were the game being played without increments using analogue clocks. If flagfall was on the hour and A's clock showed 2.5 minutes past the hour when the illegal move claim was made and upheld, adding 2 minutes to A's clock would put him 30 seconds after flagfall! QED

In this case the game continues and B can immediately claim a win on time as the two extra minutes has not rescued A from being lost on time.

Incidentally I agree with Denis that "Gijssen said so" arguments don't work since Gijssen has frequently been wrong in the past. If Gijssen and Reuben say the same thing that is a better sign - I have never known them to be both clearly in error about the same point!

Denis has convinced me that this situation is either genuinely unclear or at least poorly explained in the Laws as they currently stand. It should be possible to work out what to do without going into highly technical debates about what things do or don't imply. I would not like to be ruling on an appeal against a decision on this one.

Kevin Bonham
05-09-2006, 01:00 PM
Are the latest posts saying that this action was incorrect, or is it the laws of chess that are being debated, perhaps both?

Bill is saying the action was correct and that any other action is wrong.
Denis is saying it was incorrect.
I was originally saying it was correct and that any other action is wrong.
I am now saying that although it is certainly what I would do, I am no longer sure it is clearcut that you have to go that way in the Laws as they are written.

Rincewind
05-09-2006, 01:29 PM
Yes, if he is clever. X should simply say "illegal move", and let the arbiter decide what result to apply.

I don't think it is a case of being clever, it is a case of what a player is able to claim under the Laws. I would view player X coming to me saying, "I claim a win by illegal move," as two claims

1) X claims her opponent made an illegal move. If upheld then the game is decided according to the rules (either a win or draw to the claimant).

2) X also claims to have won the game. This may be false but irrelevant to the arbiter as X is not entitled to make such a claim. I certainly wouldn't invalidate claim #1 because claim #2 was incorrect.

Garvinator
05-09-2006, 01:32 PM
might be time for a thread split as RW situation deals with blitz and the rest is a rapid rules debate.

Bill Gletsos
05-09-2006, 02:26 PM
might be time for a thread split as RW situation deals with blitz and the rest is a rapid rules debate.No it may as all well be discussed here with any comments relevant to specific sections noted.

Bill Gletsos
05-09-2006, 02:29 PM
Incidentally I agree with Denis that "Gijssen said so" arguments don't work since Gijssen has frequently been wrong in the past. If Gijssen and Reuben say the same thing that is a better sign - I have never known them to be both clearly in error about the same point!Which is exactly why I said Geurt comments on it rather than stating what he actually said.

Denis has convinced me that this situation is either genuinely unclear or at least poorly explained in the Laws as they currently stand.You are too easily convinced. ;)

Bill Gletsos
05-09-2006, 02:45 PM
I find these rules (not your interpretation of them; the rules themselves) sorely lacking.

In a busy tournament hall, we can have both players run off in opposite directions seeking an arbiter. Who ever finds one first gets his claim upheld. What if they both find different ones and return to the board triumphantly, only to find that their opponent has done likewise? Do the arbiters try to estimate how many seconds ago the claim was made?

Surely one claim should outweigh the other.This isnt an issue.
In fact the more likely scenario is that both players A dn B make their claims at the board, get in an argument and the arbiter approaches them to sort it out. ;)

In fact lets look at the situation where the players make their respective claims virtually simultaneously. What then is the result.

It is generally considered by the Rules Committee that what occurs on the board is the most important. As such the illegal move would be given precedence to the flag fall claim.

Lets look at the following situations:
a) Player A picks up a piece to deliver mate, release the pice on the square but prior to pressing his clock his opponent player B claims flag fall. In this circumstance player A wins as the mate immediately ended the game and stopping the clock is irrelevant.

b) Player A picks up a piece to deliver mate but prior to releasing the piece on the square, his opponent player B claims flag fall. In this circumstance the flag fall is valid as player A has not completed his move.

c) Player A picks up a piece to deliver mate and at vitually the same instant as he releases the piece on the square, his opponent player B claims flag fall. If the arbiter is observing the game he can determine the result based on what he witnessed. However if he is not observing it or is unsure which occurred first then he should rule in favour of the mate.

Note in a) and b) above I assumed there is no disagreement between the players as to what happened. If in both cases player A claims to to have released the piece prior to player B claim flag fall then the arbiter is essentially in case c).

antichrist
05-09-2006, 05:29 PM
See, pages of debate over such a tiny part of chess playing. If this was any other "sport" it would be intolerable and laughed at.

Much more sensible is my earlier suggestion of clocks freezing when flag falls and that's it. Just like when KB bars me for such misdiscretion - that's it.

Denis_Jessop
05-09-2006, 06:19 PM
I say, this is getting rather exciting isn't. I'm sorry A/C doesn't seem to be enjoying it.

Now, on with the fun.

The more one looks into the Laws of Chess the sillier they seem.

There are a few relevant articles that so far haven't been mentioned so we can throw them into the pot.

First, Art 6.3 says, among other things, that "immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.2(a) must be checked". Checked by whom - presumably the arbiter. In a Rapid Play game it follows that if the arbiter applies Art. 6.3 he knows that A's flag has fallen and that A has exceeded the time limit. But B7 forbids his signalling flag fall. Once B makes a claim regarding the flag fall the arbiter can act. The real meaning of B7 is that the arbiter can take no action regarding the flag fall until B claims and, in that sense, the flag is not considered to have fallen until B claims.

Then look to Art 6.11 which says that "every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive...". If A claims "illegal move" and B claims a win on time, even if the arbiter considers A's claim first (which I say he shouldn't do) and upholds it, when he comes to adjust A's clock he will be faced with conclusive evidence that A has exceeded the time limit as B has claimed. How then can he properly adjust the clock to give A extra time. in chess terms A has no time to be given to him - he has run out of time.

Consider also the different nature of each claim. B's claim is one that, if established, ends the game whereas A's claim merely reults in a restoration of the position and a time penalty for B. In my view the seriousness of B's claim requires it to be considered first as, if established, the need to consider A's claim disappears. If A's claim is determined first, B's claim must also be determined;it cannot just be ignored.

To be continued...

DJ

Bill Gletsos
05-09-2006, 06:34 PM
I say, this is getting rather exciting isn't. I'm sorry A/C doesn't seem to be enjoying it.

Now, on with the fun.

The more one looks into the Laws of Chess the sillier they seem.

There are a few relevant articles that so far haven't been mentioned so we can throw them into the pot.

First, Art 6.3 says, among other things, that "immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.2(a) must be checked". Checked by whom - presumably the arbiter. In a Rapid Play game it follows that if the arbiter applies Art. 6.3 he knows that A's flag has fallen and that A has exceeded the time limit. But B7 forbids his signalling flag fall. Once B makes a claim regarding the flag fall the arbiter can act. The real meaning of B7 is that the arbiter can take no action regarding the flag fall until B claims and, in that sense, the flag is not considered to have fallen until B claims.

Then look to Art 6.11 which says that "every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive...". If A claims "illegal move" and B claims a win on time, even if the arbiter considers A's claim first (which I say he shouldn't do) and upholds it, when he comes to adjust A's clock he will be faced with conclusive evidence that A has exceeded the time limit as B has claimed. How then can he properly adjust the clock to give A extra time. in chess terms A has no time to be given to him - he has run out of time.

Consider also the different nature of each claim. B's claim is one that, if established, ends the game whereas A's claim merely reults in a restoration of the position and a time penalty for B. In my view the seriousness of B's claim requires it to be considered first as, if established, the need to consider A's claim disappears. If A's claim is determined first, B's claim must also be determined;it cannot just be ignored.

To be continued...

DJAll irrelevant. ;)
The flag is considered to have fallen not when it actually fell (except when witnessed by the arbiter in a normal game) but when a claim is made by the player.
As such as far as 6.3 is concerned the fall fell when it was claimed by the player.
As for 6.11 that is concerned with the fact the clock is not defective or not.

Chat
05-09-2006, 06:54 PM
A thoroughly weird situation arose at club this week.

It was an allegro 10+10 game.

Player A's flag fell. Player B did not claim a win on time.

Later on, Player B made an illegal move, and Player A had 2 minutes added to his clock.

Ok, now that you have picked yourself up from the floor from either laughing, crying, or losing consciousness, any comments on whether it is permissable for a player to have time added to his clock after flagfall?

I would suggest that as player A's flag fell, player B wins whether he claims it or not. If your opponent surrenders by knocking his king down, you don't have to point it back out to him, do you? :lol:

This would override the illegal move that player b made in my opinion, but about the illegal move in itself, if it's not spotted and the game continues,... can get real tricky. who sets the rules on these things?

About the guys who said:
The more one looks into the Laws of Chess the sillier they seem.

...I would say that's true with laws in general

anyway, who wrote "The Laws of Chess" ?

Bill Gletsos
05-09-2006, 07:22 PM
I would suggest that as player A's flag fell, player B wins whether he claims it or not.Totally incorrect.

If your opponent surrenders by knocking his king down, you don't have to point it back out to him, do you? :lol:Knocking over your king isnt a form of resigning recognised by the laws of chess. However that is irrlevant.
The rules make it clear that to claim a win on time a player must make the claim or the arbiter must observe it.

This would override the illegal move that player b made in my opinion, but about the illegal move in itself, if it's not spotted and the game continues,... can get real tricky. who sets the rules on these things?It is covered by the FIDE rules.

About the guys who said:
The more one looks into the Laws of Chess the sillier they seem.

...I would say that's true with laws in general

anyway, who wrote "The Laws of Chess" ?FIDE.

Garvinator
05-09-2006, 07:27 PM
Chat,

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE102

I see you are from England, the ECF might have some of their own chess laws as well.

Denis_Jessop
05-09-2006, 07:43 PM
All irrelevant. ;)
The flag is considered to have fallen not when it actually fell (except when witnessed by the arbiter in a normal game) but when a claim is made by the player.
As such as far as 6.3 is concerned the fall fell when it was claimed by the player.
As for 6.11 that is concerned with the fact the clock is not defective or not.

I dislike replying to such an honourable exponent of matters of all kinds on this BB by the single word "nonsense" so I'll reply instead by saying that your statements are ex cathedra statements by you with which I utterly disagree.

:whistle: :owned: :rolleyes: :lol: :wall: :clap: :hand: :evil:

DJ

Bill Gletsos
05-09-2006, 08:52 PM
I dislike replying to such an honourable exponent of matters of all kinds on this BB by the single word "nonsense" so I'll reply instead by saying that your statements are ex cathedra statements by you with which I utterly disagree.

:whistle: :owned: :rolleyes: :lol: :wall: :clap: :hand: :evil:

DJYes, I can see we are going to have to agree to disagree. ;)

Chat
05-09-2006, 09:34 PM
i used to play in competitions as a child, but haven't been competing as an adult. only been playing friendly timeless matches where the clock is flexible and the rules are decided by logic and ethics.

what kinds of prizes are there these days for winning a game under the rules of the "FIDE" ?

Basil
05-09-2006, 09:39 PM
I dislike replying to such an honourable exponent of matters of all kinds on this BB by the single word "nonsense" so I'll reply instead by saying that your statements are ex cathedra statements by you with which I utterly disagree.

:whistle: :owned: :rolleyes: :lol: :wall: :clap: :hand: :evil:

DJ

Denis
That's got to be worth 30 HCDs every day.


timeless matches where the clock is flexible and the rules are decided by logic and ethics.
ah yes, you would want the The Green Party, third door on left.

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2006, 11:39 AM
First, Art 6.3 says, among other things, that "immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.2(a) must be checked". Checked by whom - presumably the arbiter. In a Rapid Play game it follows that if the arbiter applies Art. 6.3 he knows that A's flag has fallen and that A has exceeded the time limit. But B7 forbids his signalling flag fall. Once B makes a claim regarding the flag fall the arbiter can act. The real meaning of B7 is that the arbiter can take no action regarding the flag fall until B claims and, in that sense, the flag is not considered to have fallen until B claims.

There is no contradiction because B7 defines that a flag is considered to have fallen when B correctly claims it. This means that 6.3 does not apply in Rapidplay until B makes a valid claim. If the arbiter rules that B's claim is not valid because A is entitled to restitution for the illegal move, then 6.3 does not apply at all. There are many other cases in which an arbiter might rule that a claim of a win on time is not valid despite the clock showing time up - for instance when the claimant has brought about the situation by illegally holding his clock down.


Then look to Art 6.11 which says that "every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive...". If A claims "illegal move" and B claims a win on time, even if the arbiter considers A's claim first (which I say he shouldn't do) and upholds it, when he comes to adjust A's clock he will be faced with conclusive evidence that A has exceeded the time limit as B has claimed. How then can he properly adjust the clock to give A extra time. in chess terms A has no time to be given to him - he has run out of time.

He uses his best judgement to determine how much time A should have as allowed by 6.14 and 7.4b. Incidentally if the arbiter reckons A's flag fell some moves ago and the clock is jammed on zero, this means A gets his 10 second increments back, so he could indeed have more than two minutes! B might get extra time as well.

There is a problem however if the arbiter judges A should still have less than no time. In this case he can safely uphold B's claim at once since what happens with A's claim is immaterial to it. If however B hasn't claimed then the arbiter really can't do anything without giving the situation away. I guess he could pick up the clock, fiddle with it for a bit, put it back on the table, press the button to "start" B's clock running, and wait for B to claim? That's getting farcical. Bill, what would you do in this case?


Consider also the different nature of each claim. B's claim is one that, if established, ends the game whereas A's claim merely reults in a restoration of the position and a time penalty for B. In my view the seriousness of B's claim requires it to be considered first as, if established, the need to consider A's claim disappears. If A's claim is determined first, B's claim must also be determined;it cannot just be ignored.

I don't see why eliminating the need to consider a claim is a valid argument for resolving a later claim before an earlier one. Indeed if the claim's outcome is serious and its resolution hinges on which claim is assessed first, and it is unclear which claim should be assessed first, doesn't the benefit of the doubt entitle A to have the claim of a win on time assessed last? :P

I agree the Laws have some silly aspects. They should:

* Cater clearly for clocks that freeze on flagfall.
* State that claims by players should be assessed in the order they are made if the outcome of one claim affects the outcome of another.