PDA

View Full Version : clock not adding increment



Pages : [1] 2

Mischa
07-01-2007, 08:28 PM
Can a player be ruled to be lost on time when the arbiter has acknowledged the clock is faulty?
[QUOTE]
"6.11 Every indication given by the clocks considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall use his best judgement when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess clock."

MichaelBaron
07-01-2007, 08:35 PM
Yes the player can still lose on time (as confirmed by IA Gary Bekker) :(

Mischa
07-01-2007, 08:37 PM
Was he aware the clock was defective and that the arbiter had confirmed that he knew the clock was defective?

Rincewind
07-01-2007, 08:40 PM
Yes the player can still lose on time (as confirmed by IA Gary Bekker) :(

If the clock is known to be faulty how can it be used as evidence that the game has been lost? Isn't that like using a faulty program to mark an exam and using the results even though you know that the program is faulty?

Mischa
07-01-2007, 09:01 PM
Well obviously it can if you are a DArK HORSE

Bereaved
07-01-2007, 09:03 PM
I find this debate interesting in that I have not infrequently found that a clock has been incorrectly set in an MCC event that I am running, and have had to adjust the times accordingly, to indicate the amount of time not allotted. This is usually a very easy thing given that the scoresheets are up to date. In the event of a flag fall owing to this, a glance at my watch can quite quickly determine the veracity of a claim to this effect, ie clock fault, and it is relatively simple to do so, owing to basic mathematics of taking away time of start versus time elapsed via the chess clock.

Interested in others opinions on what they would do in this matter,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

eclectic
07-01-2007, 09:10 PM
The net is full of programs promising corrective increments for faulty clocks.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 09:16 PM
How on earth can a player lose when he is given a defective piece of equipment?
THe Arbiter and one of the appeals commitee agreed that the clock was defective
The Arbiter was wrong not to replace the defective equipment
instead he called a loss for the unlucky victim of said defective clock...
I doubt very much that FIDE would uphold this decision
I am surprised that the arbiter did not use common sense ...

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 09:27 PM
Onto the situation at hand.

Did the player stop the clocks before time ran out and claim the clocks were defective?

Macavity, I dont think incorrect clock setting has been mentioned so far, do you have further information?

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 09:27 PM
How on earth can a player lose when he is given a defective piece of equipment?
THe Arbiter and one of the appeals commitee agreed that the clock was defective
The Arbiter was wrong not to replace the defective equipment
instead he called a loss for the unlucky victim of said defective clock...
I doubt very much that FIDE would uphold this decision
I am surprised that the arbiter did not use common sense ...It would benefical to know what the actual defect of the clock was as it may well be the case that the defect does not negate the loss on time.
e.g. a player is supposed to be getting a 10 second increment but is getting a larger increment.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 09:28 PM
why are you asking Macavity?

Mischa
07-01-2007, 09:29 PM
I think it was a 30 second increment

Bereaved
07-01-2007, 09:32 PM
It is apparent that the increment was to have been +30 secs per move but was adding 25, according to at least one eye witness, and the arbiter,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Mischa
07-01-2007, 09:39 PM
I t was not a blitz game it was 30 second increment
It was move 25
the game was undecided...no apparent advantage
the arbiter apologised and said that he noticed the clock was defective and was just waiting for the move to be made before he moved in.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 09:44 PM
Just to be on the safe side I've deleted a few posts that were getting towards dodgy territory (also I deleted one of mine which was outdated as some of the questions had been answered - that's the one to which Mischa's comment about it being not rapid or blitz applies.)

When there is a loss on time caused by a faulty clock setting then the arbiter uses their best judgement to determine what the correct time should be.

If the arbiter's best judgement is that the player has still lost on time then the arbiter should award the game to the opponent.

With clocks using increments that would not be a common scenario unless the clocks show negative time. Many digital clocks freeze upon time expiring, which usually results in players noticing this immediately.

MichaelBaron
07-01-2007, 09:51 PM
Ok let me tell the complete story here.

Apparently, the clock was set incorrectly (without 30 sec increment). I am not sure who was setting the clock, the arbiter or the players. The mistake was uncovered immidiately after the game finished! (Marcus Rain noticed that the clock was not set properly and contacted the arbiter but it was too late)

The arbiter decided that in accordance with the Fide rules, once the game is complete, the result should not be reversed. I must add that it was a difficult decision for Geoff. "On the way" to this decision he has asked Hacche's opponent if he would like to "continue a game as a good gesture". The opponent refused....

After this the case was taken to the appeals commitee. The appeals committee comprised of: Leonid Sandler, Garry Bekker, myself, Sales and Trevor Stunning.

Unfortunately by the time to commitee meeting was arranged, IA Gary Bekker (who is obviously the main expert on such matters) has already left the venue and a "teleconference" with Gary was arranged. Gary emphasised that he feels very strongly that once the game is complete, the result should stand. Sales felt that the game should continue (with each players being giving 2-3 mins) Sandler was having doubts but felt that may be the game should continue. I was having doubts but felt that the result should probably stand (even though I did realise that the result was in a way unfair, I just could not see how we can rule over Fide rules of chess). Trevor also felt that the result has to stand...

Let me emphasise the following:

ALL of the members of the appeals committee felt very sorry for David. Leonid suggested (and i supported this idea fully) that David should reimbersed financially for this sad incident. However, in the end all the members of the appeals committee (including the ones that have originally considered the possibility of the game continuing) agreed that it was not possible for the game to continue.

P.S. We just tried to follow the rules but i guess the rules could be unfair. May be someone should write to Fide and suggest the rules should be changed.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 09:57 PM
Did you see the clock was defective?
If you agree that David should be financially reimbursed that seems that you agree he was wrongly given a loss?
and why is his last game recorded as a win to his opponent and not a forfeit?

Basil
07-01-2007, 09:57 PM
We just tried to follow the rules but i guess the rules could be unfair. May be someone should write to Fide and suggest the rules should be changed.
Thanks for the version of events, Michael. As a layman, I agree with the overriding principle. Very similar in substance to the one Kevin enforced over quoting Matt Sweeney last week.

The rules were upheld despite the natural (and shared by me) misgivings and a suggestion that rule changes might be sought as a result.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 10:00 PM
Did you see the clock was defective?
If you agree that David should be financially reimbursed that seems that you agree he was wrongly given a loss?
and why is his last game recorded as a win to his opponent and not a forfeit?No doubt because the game is not a forfeit.
The game was actually played and the arbiter and appeals committe ruled that he lost the game.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:01 PM
He Did Not Play the last game...this is a forfeit surely?

WhiteElephant
07-01-2007, 10:05 PM
Hi Mischa,

How do you know that the clock was faulty? I was at the tournament today and although I did not see the incident, I spoke to the arbiter & committee members and no one mentioned that the clock was faulty, just that it was set incorrectly.

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 10:05 PM
No doubt because the game is not a forfeit.
The game was actually played and the arbiter and appeals committe ruled that he lost the game.
From reading across threads, this situation occurred in round 5. Hacche did not show for round 6 in protest to the round 5 happenings. So the forfeit is in round 6.

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 10:06 PM
Apparently, the clock was set incorrectly (without 30 sec increment). I am not sure who was setting the clock, the arbiter or the players. The mistake was uncovered immidiately after the game finished! (Marcus Rain noticed that the clock was not set properly and contacted the arbiter but it was too late)I have bolded the most relevant sentence to me. The responsibility is on the player to claim while the game is in progress. As soon as flagfall occurs, game over in almost all circumstances.


"On the way" to this decision he has asked Hacche's opponent if he would like to "continue a game as a good gesture". The opponent refused....I believe this is a major mistake on Geoff's part. The reason being is that it puts the opponent in an awful position. Especially if Geoff has actually said 'as a good gesture'. That really does apply pressure to the player to continue the game. The inference being that it is bad sportsmanship to not continue the game. Both players were responsible for pointing out during the game that the time was incorrectly set and they both failed to do so.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:06 PM
Hi Mischa,

How do you know that the clock was faulty? I was at the tournament today and although I did not see the incident, I spoke to the arbiter & committee members and no one mentioned that the clock was faulty, just that it was set incorrectly.

Set incorrectly...faulty?
It was set incorrectly and therefore not correct so faulty

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 10:06 PM
He Did Not Play the last game...this is a forfeit surely?Ah ok, my mistake.

I see the game in question regarding the clock is not the last game.

If he physically didnt turn up at the board for the final round then it should be recorded as a forfeit.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:08 PM
I have bolded the most relevant sentence to me. The responsibility is on the player to claim while the game is in progress. As soon as flagfall occurs, game over in almost all circumstances.

I believe this is a major mistake on Geoff's part. The reason being is that it puts the opponent in an awful position. Especially if Geoff has actually said 'as a good gesture'. That really does apply pressure to the player to continue the game. The inference being that it is bad sportsmanship to not continue the game. Both players were responsible for pointing out during the game that the time was incorrectly set and they both failed to do so.

Then give me your opinion of an arbiter that KNOWS the clock is not working properly but lets the game continue?

WhiteElephant
07-01-2007, 10:08 PM
Set incorrectly...faulty?
It was set incorrectly and therefore not correct so faulty

Ok, yes, so there was nothing wrong with the clock itself. Just checking.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:10 PM
There most DEFINITELY WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE CLOCK GEORGE

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:10 PM
It was set incorrectly so faulty...:)
in terms of the game

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 10:11 PM
Then give me your opinion of an arbiter that KNOWS the clock is not working properly but lets the game continue?
I am digging through the rule books at the moment.

WhiteElephant
07-01-2007, 10:12 PM
There was something wrong with the way it was set. Not a faulty mechanism.

By the way, how do you know that the arbiter knew the clock was set incorrectly during the game? Michael said that this was only discovered after the game finished.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:15 PM
Geroge
I am told that when the game was declared won by one player ...teh arbiter came and apologised to the loser saying that he knew the clock was defective and was waiting for the move to be finished before he interrupted...as I said earlier

WhiteElephant
07-01-2007, 10:16 PM
Geroge
I am told that when the game was declared won by one player ...teh arbiter came and apologised to the loser saying that he knew the clock was defective and was waiting for the move to be finished before he interrupted...as I said earlier

Ok, I didn't know that.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 10:17 PM
The arbiter decided that in accordance with the Fide rules, once the game is complete, the result should not be reversed.

This does not necessarily apply. A flagfall only proves the game is over in the absence of any evident defect on the clocks. If, for instance, a player has 25 mins on their clock and a fault suddenly causes their clock to jump to 1 second left and the flag then falls, then the player does not lose on time. Article 6.11 is applied: "A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced" and the game continues. If the clock is defective then indications it gives are not conclusive.

However, reading 6.11 carefully:


Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall replace the clock and use his best judgement when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess clock.

Is an incorrect setting an evident defect? I don't believe it is. The meaning of evident defect can be seen from the fact that a clock with one is replaced, not "adjusted or replaced". It means specifically that the clock is faulty.

I initially thought Geoff had acted incorrectly but I now believe his decision was at least reasonable and the appeals committee was correct to uphold it. If a clock is adding the wrong increment it is up to the player (or arbiter) to notice this and get the arbiter to adjust the clock during the game. If the increment was set incorrectly and this causes a player to lose on time without noticing the issue, I don't see that the player has any recourse.

If that is so, that is a big problem, because what happens if you are playing game in X moves + 1 minute per move added before the move after move X, and you get to move X with just a few seconds left, then the clock fails to add your minute and you lose on time before you can notice this or play move X+1?

Terrible way to lose whether the decision is right or wrong. :(

Desmond
07-01-2007, 10:18 PM
Who set the clock?

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:18 PM
but the arbiter DID notice this

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 10:19 PM
I believe this is a major mistake on Geoff's part. The reason being is that it puts the opponent in an awful position. Especially if Geoff has actually said 'as a good gesture'.

I think it is possibly not the best idea but not a major error.

It is best to leave the situation open and see if the opponent makes the offer unilaterally.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:19 PM
the arbiter apologised...said he was just waiting for Hacche to make his move before he interrupted
sadly...too late

Kerry Stead
07-01-2007, 10:23 PM
From what I heard from people at the tournament (I was not present when the incident occurred), Michael's account of events is basically what I heard happened. The only thing to add is that after the spectator (MR) pointed out to the arbiter that he suspected the clock was incorrectly set, the arbiter approached the game, but chose not to intervene until Hacche made a move (with 20 or so seconds on the clock apparently, so one would expect the move to be imminent). However, a move was not made before the flag fell.
The difficulty is what to do if the claim of the spectator's is incorrect? If the arbiter intervenes with 10s remaining on the clock and attempts to check the workings of the clock, could it break that player's concentration, so that when the game is resumed, they do not make the best move in their remaining time and subsequently lose the position.

Although it is an unfortunate incident, both players should bear some responsibility for ensuring that the clocks are working properly (glancing at the clock as it is pressed to ensure the increment is being added correctly).

A similar incident occurred in the 2001 FIDE World Cup involving Ehlvest & Radjabov, and Geurt Gijssen comments on it http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt45.pdf

I know one of the clocks I was using for one of the rounds was problematic - I pressed my side of the clock, but it did not stop my time from counting down, and I only noticed it as I glanced back at the board to see if my opponent had moved - but something like ensuring that when you press the clock your time stops running is a responsibility of the players ...

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 10:25 PM
This does not necessarily apply. A flagfall only proves the game is over in the absence of any evident defect on the clocks. If, for instance, a player has 25 mins on their clock and a fault suddenly causes their clock to jump to 1 second left and the flag then falls, then the player does not lose on time. Article 6.11 is applied: "A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced" and the game continues. If the clock is defective then indications it gives are not conclusive.

However, reading 6.11 carefully:



Is an incorrect setting an evident defect? I don't believe it is. The meaning of evident defect can be seen from the fact that a clock with one is replaced, not "adjusted or replaced". It means specifically that the clock is faulty.

I initially thought Geoff had acted incorrectly but I now believe his decision was at least reasonable and the appeals committee was correct to uphold it. If a clock is adding the wrong increment it is up to the player (or arbiter) to notice this and get the arbiter to adjust the clock during the game. If the increment was set incorrectly and this causes a player to lose on time without noticing the issue, I don't see that the player has any recourse.

If that is so, that is a big problem, because what happens if you are playing game in X moves + 1 minute per move added before the move after move X, and you get to move X with just a few seconds left, then the clock fails to add your minute and you lose on time before you can notice this or play move X+1?

Terrible way to lose whether the decision is right or wrong. :(I would still believe Artilce 6.11 still applies.

The Article's wording is essentially the same from well before digital clocks and increments became the norm.
It believe it could be argued that if the clock should be adding a increment and isnt doing so then that is an evident defect in the clock.

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 10:27 PM
It is best to leave the situation open and see if the opponent makes the offer unilaterally.
I disagree on two counts:

1) From the situation presented here, the player has lost the game. So it is over. If someone can present from the 2005 fide laws of chess that this is not the case, then I will change my opinion.

The other player cant then say, oh I feel sorry for you so we shall continue the game with some time added on.

2) A player should never be put in a position of having to say no for something that the laws of chess fully entitles them too. It is even worse for the arbiter (who is supposed to be representing the interests of both players) to make this offer.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:27 PM
Michael agreed the clock was defective and initially said he would abstain from voting

Desmond
07-01-2007, 10:29 PM
both players should bear some responsibility for ensuring that the clocks are working properly (glancing at the clock as it is pressed to ensure the increment is being added correctly).Yes, I agree the players would be well served to check that they are not getting ripped off their increments. However, the majority of the responsibility lies with the arbiter, or whoever sets the clocks. What did they get penalised? Presumably not a point in the tournament nor part of their fee. Presumably nothing.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 10:32 PM
The difficulty is what to do if the claim of the spectator's is incorrect? If the arbiter intervenes with 10s remaining on the clock and attempts to check the workings of the clock, could it break that player's concentration, so that when the game is resumed, they do not make the best move in their remaining time and subsequently lose the position.

The arbiter should do it anyway to avert any risk of a loss on time. If the arbiter is concerned about disruptions to concentration, the arbiter may award both players extra time to regather their thoughts.

If the arbiter did notice the issue before the flagfall (I am not assuming this is the case as there are conflicting accounts) then to me that makes a big difference - the arbiter should jump in.

It's also notable that the Ehlvest-Radjabov case you mention resulted in a FIDE ruling that the game continue, even though the flag had fallen. Radjabov then appealed presumably arguing that the incorrect flag setting had caused him to reach a lost position, but that appeal was rejected.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:34 PM
I think...and I may be wrong..but I understood that Hacche looked at the clock and saw 25...knowing that it could NOT be 25 seconds (given he just moved and it was 30 second increment) so just reflectively thought it was 25 mins I guess...
but I like Boris' point...
who's responsibility is it? the player who must assume that the arbiter is doing his job that he is paid for making sure all is ship shape?
Or the players who have paid a lot of money to turn up and play chess the best they can in a grand prix tournament?

Kerry Stead
07-01-2007, 10:36 PM
Now Michael's account of when the problem with the clock was discovered varies with that of Misha's. One would hope that given Michael was on the appeals committe his version is the correct one, then another question that comes to mind is did the players sign the scoresheets before the problem with the clock was discovered.

As far as I know, until Hacche's flag fell, it was only a suspicion that the clocks were set incorrectly - it was impossible for the arbiter to tell this as a move was not made prior to the flag falling. It was only afterwards when the arbiter checked the clock (turning it on and off and seeing what the previous setting was) that the incorrect setting of the clock was confirmed.

As for signing the scoresheets, I know its in the FIDE rules, but for a weekender you will find that it is rare for opponents to sign scoresheets, unless it is a major event (eg: Doeberl Premier).

I think the issue here is would it have made any difference? How is that determined? The fact that there was a not insignificant amount of time remaining on the clock (20s) when the arbiter was alerted to the problem, and the player did not make a move in that time suggests that perhaps with the increment, when his clock correctly displayed 20s, he would not have made a move prior to flagfall. Admittedly this is all speculation and hypothesis, as this did not in fact happen.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 10:39 PM
I disagree on two counts:

1) From the situation presented here, the player has lost the game. So it is over. If someone can present from the 2005 fide laws of chess that this is not the case, then I will change my opinion.It could be argued that the player hasnt lost on time because the clock is in fact wrong in showing he has lost on time.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 10:40 PM
I would still believe Artilce 6.11 still applies.

The Article's wording is essentially the same from well before digital clocks and increments became the norm.
It believe it could be argued that if the clock should be adding a increment and isnt doing so then that is an evident defect in the clock.

This would depend on why the clock was not adding an increment - is it a fault of the clock, or a mistake by the person setting it, or somewhere in between (eg a clock that is confusing to set)?

It seems that this is another area in which the Laws have not been updated sufficiently to cover digital clocks, since setting errors with analog clocks are very easy to spot.

I've gone backwards and forwards a bit on this one a few times. My current position is:

* If the arbiter knew about the error before flagfall - then the arbiter was clearly incorrect not to correct it immediately given the risk of a player losing on time. The player should not lose on time because of the arbiter's failure to protect him from doing so.

* If the arbiter did not clearly know - then the arbiter isn't clearly wrong (and hence shouldn't be overturned on appeal), although FIDE reached a different decision in the Ehlvest-Radjabov case discussed.

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 10:41 PM
It could be argued that the player hasnt lost on time because the clock is in fact wrong in showing he has lost on time.
and this is part of what we are debating ;)

Axiom
07-01-2007, 10:48 PM
It could be argued that the player hasnt lost on time because the clock is in fact wrong in showing he has lost on time.
is time allocation (a)what both players believe it to be as per their clocks or (b)as stated in the tournament rules?

if it is (a) then hacche lost, if its (b) then hacche has case for appeal

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:49 PM
AS in stated as in the rules...30 seconds

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 10:51 PM
By the way, who was the arbiter? I believe it was Geoff Saw. Is this correct?

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 10:51 PM
As far as I know, until Hacche's flag fell, it was only a suspicion that the clocks were set incorrectly - it was impossible for the arbiter to tell this as a move was not made prior to the flag falling.You and I keep posting whilst the other is composing. ;)

I had deleted the part you quoted because realised it was not relevant when I noticed your post only after I had made my post.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 10:54 PM
I don't think the identity of the arbiter is an issue here

Bereaved
07-01-2007, 10:58 PM
Hello Everyone,
If I play a game and I have used less than the time that I am allowed for that game given the number of moves I have made, then it is patently obvious that I have not lost on time irrespective of what the clock may display. To say elsewise as I have seen done within this thread is more than very silly.

As a player is required to stop their clock upon completion of their move, after each move, David has fulfilled his requirement. I agree that many people might have noticed the poor setting of the clock prior to flagfall, but the fact that David didn't does not make him culpable in this matter but puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the arbiter, who should have found a much better solution than asking David's opponent whether he would like to continue, as the chances of a favourable reply is highly unlikely, and silly to request of them, especially given the wording that is purported to have been used.

It certainly should have not been ruled a loss as 6.11 is completely applicable, and all other sections in regard to clocks to me are superseded by this subsection, in this issue.


Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 10:59 PM
This would depend on why the clock was not adding an increment - is it a fault of the clock, or a mistake by the person setting it, or somewhere in between (eg a clock that is confusing to set)?

It seems that this is another area in which the Laws have not been updated sufficiently to cover digital clocks, since setting errors with analog clocks are very easy to spot.

I've gone backwards and forwards a bit on this one a few times. My current position is:

* If the arbiter knew about the error before flagfall - then the arbiter was clearly incorrect not to correct it immediately given the risk of a player losing on time. The player should not lose on time because of the arbiter's failure to protect him from doing so.

* If the arbiter did not clearly know - then the arbiter isn't clearly wrong (and hence shouldn't be overturned on appeal), although FIDE reached a different decision in the Ehlvest-Radjabov case discussed.I believe Artilce 6.10 is relevant.

Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

In this case not completing the prescribed number of moves means the whole game. Now it could be shown that the allotted time had not actually elapsed. e.g. 25 moves had been made. At 30 seconds increment that means an additional 12.5 minutes per player. On checking the elapsed time from the start of the session and the times on the clocks it is possible to detemine if the times add up. 12.5 minutes is such a larger amount of time to be missing that it should be fairly straighhtforward to show that the player has not exceeded his allocated time and as such in line with article 6.10 the game cannot be declared lost.

Axiom
07-01-2007, 11:01 PM
Hello Everyone,
If I play a game and I have used less than the time that I am allowed for that game given the number of moves I have made, then it is patently obvious that I have not lost on time irrespective of what the clock may display. To say elsewise as I have seen done within this thread is more than very silly.

As a player is required to stop their clock upon completion of their move, after each move, David has fulfilled his requirement. I agree that many people might have noticed the poor setting of the clock prior to flagfall, but the fact that David didn't does not make him culpable in this matter but puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the arbiter, who should have found a much better solution than asking David's opponent whether he would like to continue, as the chances of a favourable reply is highly unlikely, and silly to request of them, especially given the wording that is purported to have been used.

It certainly should have not been ruled a loss as 6.11 is completely applicable, and all other sections in regard to clocks to me are superseded by this subsection, in this issue.


Take care and God Bless, Macavity hmm ,well said....as i suspected.

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 11:04 PM
I don't think the identity of the arbiter is an issue here
The reason I asked is to give the arbiter an opportunity to give their version of events if they wish. Geoff Saw already posts on here, so it is not a big task for him if he is the arbiter and so wishes to reply.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 11:05 PM
This could be yet another backflip in this complex case but is it true that the arbiter specifically warned players earlier in the tournament to beware of incorrectly set clocks?

If he did then that, to me, puts the onus on the players to keep an eye on their clock and ensure it is working. In which case, even if the arbiter should have intervened I don't think this should change the outcome.


I disagree on two counts:

1) From the situation presented here, the player has lost the game. So it is over. If someone can present from the 2005 fide laws of chess that this is not the case, then I will change my opinion.

The other player cant then say, oh I feel sorry for you so we shall continue the game with some time added on.

There is nothing in the Laws that clearly prevents an arbiter (or appeals committee) from reversing a decision to declare a result if he sees a valid reason to do so.

An example: a player claims a win by mate. The arbiter initially agrees and awards the win, then the opponent notices it is actually not mate. The arbiter should correct the decision immediately and reinstate the game rather than needing an appeal to be filed. Only if the opponent indicates acceptance of the decision (eg by signing the scoresheet) should the false mate stand.


2) A player should never be put in a position of having to say no for something that the laws of chess fully entitles them too. It is even worse for the arbiter (who is supposed to be representing the interests of both players) to make this offer.

If the arbiter simply declares the game over then the player is not in that position. The player has what they are entitled to unless they make an exceptional decision otherwise.

MichaelBaron
07-01-2007, 11:07 PM
Did you see the clock was defective?
If you agree that David should be financially reimbursed that seems that you agree he was wrongly given a loss?
and why is his last game recorded as a win to his opponent and not a forfeit?

He should be reimbersed because organisers should feel responsible (to some extent) for the clock not being set properly. Besides, its a good gesture of "good will".

The result should stand IN ACCORDANCE WITH FIDE RULES OF CHESS!

Why is his last result recorded incorrectly as a win for his opponent? Hmm..No Idea, I am not the arbiter for this tournament

Mischa
07-01-2007, 11:09 PM
Why do you say that they were warned?
Where do you get this information?

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 11:11 PM
In this case not completing the prescribed number of moves means the whole game. Now it could be shown that the allotted time had not actually elapsed. e.g. 25 moves had been made. At 30 seconds increment that means an additional 12.5 minutes per player. On checking the elapsed time from the start of the session and the times on the clocks it is possible to detemine if the times add up. 12.5 minutes is such a larger amount of time to be missing that it should be fairly straighhtforward to show that the player has not exceeded his allocated time and as such in line with article 6.10 the game cannot be declared lost.

However since 6.11 says all indications given by the clock are assumed to be correct in the absence of an "evident defect", then unless there is an "evident defect", the arbiter must consider the flagfall conclusive evidence that time is up, even if he (following the line of reasoning detailed above) actually knows for a fact that it isn't.

So for me it hinges on what "evident defect" actually means, or whether the arbiter wishes to apply the preface, and there is enough subjectivity there that I think the arbiter could go either way without being clearly wrong.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 11:14 PM
He should be reimbersed because organisers should feel responsible (to some extent) for the clock not being set properly. Besides, its a good gesture of "good will".Is it not the case that Hacche had actually been the one who set the clock.
If it is the case, then it is his own fault that the clock was incorrectly set and no fault of the arbiters or the organisers.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 11:14 PM
I think evident defect means it is not operating effectively within accordance to the games parametres

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 11:14 PM
Why do you say that they were warned?
Where do you get this information?

Never mind where I got it; is it true or not?

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 11:17 PM
However since 6.11 says all indications given by the clock are assumed to be correct in the absence of an "evident defect", then unless there is an "evident defect", the arbiter must consider the flagfall conclusive evidence that time is up, even if he (following the line of reasoning detailed above) actually knows for a fact that it isn't.

So for me it hinges on what "evident defect" actually means, or whether the arbiter wishes to apply the preface, and there is enough subjectivity there that I think the arbiter could go either way without being clearly wrong.I dont beleive evident defect only refers to the functional working of the clock but also whether the clock is actually following the prescribed time control. i.e. a failure of a clock to be adding an increment when an increment should be being added is an "evident defect".

Mischa
07-01-2007, 11:17 PM
It matters totally where you got it
Starter would say that

Kerry Stead
07-01-2007, 11:18 PM
Why do you say that they were warned?
Where do you get this information?
Geoff did say something on the Saturday about some clocks being set incorrectly for an early round. I think it was before round 2, though I must admit to only paying vague attention to the announcements. :uhoh:

Mischa
07-01-2007, 11:20 PM
So then Geoff was fully aware that some clocks may be set incorrectly but as arbiter didn't double checK?

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 11:21 PM
Geoff did say something on the Saturday about some clocks being set incorrectly for an early round. I think it was before round 2, though I must admit to only paying vague attention to the announcements. :uhoh:

Thanks Kerry, that is consistent with what I heard.

Kerry Stead
07-01-2007, 11:22 PM
I dont beleive evident defect only refers to the functional working of the clock but also whether the clock is actually following the prescribed time control. i.e. a failure of a clock to be adding an increment when an increment should be being added is an "evident defect".
Doesn't evident defect refer to a defect, or fault that is clear or obvious? At the start of the game, the clock would read 1:00 with the triangle indicating an increment is being added. When the arbiter initially came over to the board, the clock displayed a time something like 0.20, again with the triangle indicating an increment is being added. Both clocks had used time, indicating that there was no fault with the button mechanism ... so is the 'defect' (assuming it is a defect) actually evident?

Mischa
07-01-2007, 11:22 PM
so that means that a clock incorrectly set as aknowledge by the arbiter means that player loses....

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 11:25 PM
Does the clock show seconds from move 1, or only from below a certain amount of time?

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 11:27 PM
Geoff did say something on the Saturday about some clocks being set incorrectly for an early round. I think it was before round 2, though I must admit to only paying vague attention to the announcements. :uhoh:That is consistent with my information.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 11:27 PM
I don't know
I just know that this is wrong
for anyone this happens to
ths is just sooo wrong and so bad sportsmanship by all concerned

Mischa
07-01-2007, 11:28 PM
and Starter...you yourself cams hat in hand to him offering all sorts of apologies and now you do this???

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 11:28 PM
Does the clock show seconds from move 1, or only from below a certain amount of time?Only once the remaining time drops below 20 minutes.

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 11:28 PM
Does the clock show seconds from move 1, or only from below a certain amount of time?
only under 20 minutes. Above 20 minutes the clock only shows hours and minutes. Under 20 minutes it shows minutes and seconds.

Kerry Stead
07-01-2007, 11:38 PM
Surely this incident goes to highlight things that players and officials need to be aware of at a chess tournament:
Be conversant with the rules, or at the least the main ones, and be aware of who the arbiter is if there is a problem
Be aware of what is happening in your game (or the main games as arbiter)
If you notice something is wrong, do something about it immediately

It can (and had been) be argued there were a number of people in error in this incident. I don't think any one person can fairly shoulder all the blame, and the matter needs to be put down as one of those unfortunate incidents which although avoidable, occurred.

Move on with things ... there's more tournaments to be played!

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2007, 11:44 PM
Doesn't evident defect refer to a defect, or fault that is clear or obvious? At the start of the game, the clock would read 1:00 with the triangle indicating an increment is being added. When the arbiter initially came over to the board, the clock displayed a time something like 0.20, again with the triangle indicating an increment is being added. Both clocks had used time, indicating that there was no fault with the button mechanism ... so is the 'defect' (assuming it is a defect) actually evident?A flag on an old fashioned analogue clock could and at times did drop early.
This could often only be confirmed by a close examination of the clock.
I see that situation as no different as checking the fact that the digital clock is showing a flag fall and on closer inspection seeing that it has fallen early due to the lack of the increment being added.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 11:45 PM
only under 20 minutes. Above 20 minutes the clock only shows hours and minutes. Under 20 minutes it shows minutes and seconds.

That is what I thought. When clocks show seconds from the start it is easy for the arbiter to cruise around all the games checking all the clocks right away. When they don't, and when players only get to the easily checkable stage later in the round when there are a lot of things going on, it is more difficult for the arbiter to always ensure all clocks are checked. The arbiter should still try if possible.


It can (and had been) be argued there were a number of people in error in this incident. I don't think any one person can fairly shoulder all the blame, and the matter needs to be put down as one of those unfortunate incidents which although avoidable, occurred.


I agree.

It's still a horrible way to lose. I just cannot see a clear argument that the loss on time was incorrect under the Laws as they stand (or perhaps that should read for cases like this, "as they stagger". :rolleyes: )

FIDE should fix this up so it is clear. I will send a submission to their next review of the Laws asking them to clean up this issue so that it is clear under the Laws what happens in this scenario.

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 11:50 PM
To add possibly another scenario or twist: What happens if one or both players have been receiving too much increment?

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 11:51 PM
A flag on an old fashioned analogue clock could and at times did drop early.
This could often only be confirmed by a close examination of the clock.

Where it is confirmed, that is a clear fault in clock manufacture, ie an "evident defect". A properly made analogue clock in perfect condition used correctly would never do that - by definition.

What we have here is different. It is a problem with the carbon-based lifeforms setting the clock and not with the clock itself.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2007, 11:52 PM
To add possibly another scenario or twist: What happens if one or both players have been receiving too much increment?

I've had to deal with this several times. I just step in and reset the increment. It is unfair to reduce their time, since they might have used less for the moves since the problem arose had they been aware of the fault.

Mischa
07-01-2007, 11:54 PM
I will maintain tho..as a paying player ...it should not be your responsibiliity(tho to your benefit)..to be checking the clocks.
this is what you pay for in a tournament isn;t it?

Garvinator
07-01-2007, 11:54 PM
I've had to deal with this several times. I just step in and reset the increment. It is unfair to reduce their time, since they might have used less for the moves since the problem arose had they been aware of the fault.
Also you could have a scenario where if you reduced the time, the time goes below zero.

zigzag
07-01-2007, 11:59 PM
Can someone tell me why Sandler,Baron and Sales were on the appeals committee?:hmm:

They were playing in the tournament and potentially could have benefitted from the final decision made.

Is this a normal practise?:hmm: Or just something thrown together for this tournament?:hmm:

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2007, 12:03 AM
Where it is confirmed, that is a clear fault in clock manufacture, ie an "evident defect". A properly made analogue clock in perfect condition used correctly would never do that - by definition.It usually isnt a clock manufacturing defect but an action by a person that can cause it to happen by slightly bending the minute hand of the clock.

What we have here is different. It is a problem with the carbon-based lifeforms setting the clock and not with the clock itself.Not really. My understanding is that in the past if a analogue clock was set incorrectly e.g. the flag is at 6pm but one side was set at 4 and the otherside at 5 then when the one set at 5 falls the game would continue with the clock corrected.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 12:16 AM
* If the arbiter did not clearly know - then the arbiter isn't clearly wrong (and hence shouldn't be overturned on appeal), although FIDE reached a different decision in the Ehlvest-Radjabov case discussed.

I have another question based on more info from a mysterious source:

When the spectator approached the arbiter, did he raise the concern that the players were not getting correct increments, or did he actually suggest the players were not getting increments at all?

Mischa
08-01-2007, 12:21 AM
Why doesn't your mysterious source aka Starter speak for himself???
He approached David and was apologetic and asked David to please play the last round
He said it would look better if he did (not sure for whom)
He also sugested quite strongly that gven the increase in players that perhaps the prize pool should be increased

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 12:22 AM
It usually isnt a clock manufacturing defect but an action by a person that can cause it to happen by slightly bending the minute hand of the clock.

True. Still, if the minute hand is bent the clock is damaged, and has an evident defect.


Not really. My understanding is that in the past if a analogue clock was set incorrectly e.g. the flag is at 6pm but one side was set at 4 and the otherside at 5 then when the one set at 5 falls the game would continue with the clock corrected.

Yes, I think I have personally interfered in such cases without even thinking about the letter of the Laws. For instance my club sometimes runs G60 and G90 competitions such that the tournaments overlap, and a player who has some G90 games left may start in the G60 tournament if their opponent from the G90 is not present.

Sometimes a player will get confused about whether they are playing the G90 or the G60 and will set their clock for G60 in what is meant to be a G90 game. In such cases I've stepped in and said "no, your clock should have started on the six but you put it on the twelve" and wound both clocks back half an hour.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 12:32 AM
Can someone tell me why Sandler,Baron and Sales were on the appeals committee?:hmm:

They were playing in the tournament and potentially could have benefitted from the final decision made.

Is this a normal practise?:hmm: Or just something thrown together for this tournament?:hmm:

It's normal for an appeals committee to include players from the tournament.

It's ideal that if possible they be players who do not have an interest in the outcome, but this cannot always be arranged.

Sometimes an appeals committee is appointed in advance, sometimes not.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 12:55 AM
Why doesn't your mysterious source aka Starter speak for himself???

What makes you so sure I have only one mysterious source, let alone that any of my comments come from starter? :lol:

(Of course I will not be commenting on who my source(s) is/are, not even when claims are obviously wrong.)

Based on what I know about all this now, my current view is:

* The arbiter's decision was one of a number of options open to him in a very difficult situation that is poorly covered in the Laws.

* The appeal committee's decision to let the arbiter's decision stand was clearly correct as the arbiter's decision was not clearly wrong.

Of course, I may change that view if more info is presented to me (not necessarily publicly!)

MichaelBaron
08-01-2007, 01:07 AM
1. Once again: As far as being "apologetic" is concerned - I feel for Hacche. Whatever happend to him is simply sad. However, If i am to sit on the Appeals committee once again, I would still insist that once the game is finished, it is finished!
2) Lets consider his opponents prospective: a)Shee Lee wins a game on time. then b) the arbiter confirms the result due to c) Fide Rules of Chess and then suddenly d) He is asked by the appeals committee to continue the game.

If i would be playing Hacche and the same incident would happen and the arbiter would ask me if i would rather continue the game than claim a win on time, I would obviously chose to continue the game because i do not want to win like this (not that Geoff was right to ask Shee Lee whether he wanted to continue or not, I feel the decision should rest fully with the arbiter). However, Hacche's opponent felt that he has won the game already and did nto want to continue. He had every right to do so. I would not accuse him of poor sportsmanship. He did not cheat, he did not change the time settings on purpose and btw, he was also getting no increment!

Finally, as far as accusation of "appeals commitee removing Hacche from the race because he is too dangerous" and "arbiter making him lose" is concerned - Hacche's opponent had a Fide rating of 2254 and ACF rating of 2237. In fact he finished the tournament 1st equal. Thus, he was also a very able contender :).

Lets accept the reality no mater how disappointing it may be.
A) The arbiter made his decision based on the Fide Rules of Chess.
b) The appeals commitee (while trying to find ways to make Hacche feel better (e.g. requesting organisers to give him his entry fee back) also took Rules of Chess into the account.

Whether the organisers are really "morally responsible" or not for what has happened is debatable. I am not sure who is responsible for setting of the clocks (The clock was not faulty but it was set incorrectly).

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 01:14 AM
He did not cheat, he did not change the time settings on purpose and btw, he was also getting no increment!

Early in the thread macavity said the problem was they were getting an incorrect increment (25 secs instead of 30) but you're saying they were getting no increment at all.

Which is correct? It would be good to be clear on that.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 02:36 AM
I now understand that the problem was that they were getting no increment at all, not an insufficient increment as stated by macavity earlier.

MichaelBaron
08-01-2007, 08:08 AM
Early in the thread macavity said the problem was they were getting an incorrect increment (25 secs instead of 30) but you're saying they were getting no increment at all.

Which is correct? It would be good to be clear on that.

As far as I understand there was no increment at all. This is why I found it so amazing that both players failed to notice the problem.

Desmond
08-01-2007, 08:21 AM
I am not sure who is responsible for setting of the clocks I don't need to study the laws of chess to know that it is the arbiter's responsibility to set the clocks. If the arbiter should delegate that duty to other people (sometimes including players) then those people would share some blame for an incorrectly set clock, but the ultimate responsibility always rests with the arbiter.


This could be yet another backflip in this complex case but is it true that the arbiter specifically warned players earlier in the tournament to beware of incorrectly set clocks?Oh dear. This is the same as saying "I am incompetent, please be aware that I am incompetent, and since you are aware any consequences of my incompetence are now your fault not mine." So the arbiter knew of the potential for this scenario to occur, and did not do round the hall at an appropriate time to check the clocks?

Desmond
08-01-2007, 08:22 AM
As far as I understand there was no increment at all. This is why I found it so amazing that both players failed to notice the problem.Why did the arbiter fail to notice this problem?

MichaelBaron
08-01-2007, 09:46 AM
Why did the arbiter fail to notice this problem?

I think this question should be directed at the arbiter, not me!

My guess is, he was not following that particular game closely enough. But again, with 38 games in the tourney, should the arbiter be expected to spot such problems without players bringing it to his attention?

zigzag
08-01-2007, 09:56 AM
It's normal for an appeals committee to include players from the tournament.

It's ideal that if possible they be players who do not have an interest in the outcome, but this cannot always be arranged.

Sometimes an appeals committee is appointed in advance, sometimes not.

If this was the Australian Open and there was a time dispute in a game between someone like Johansen and Zhong Zhao,I would be extremely surprised to see Rogers and Antic on an appeals committe.:eek:

Having tournament contenders on such a committee may have reinforced Hacche's sense of perceived bias.

I guess the moral of this story is if Geoff Saw is the arbiter,make sure his clock setting skills are in order.:uhoh:

Mischa
08-01-2007, 10:02 AM
In all fairness to the arbiter....Hacche has just informed me that the clock was working at the start of the game.
Indeed on his score sheet he has recorded a +2 minutes after about 4 moves.
So let us re examine the issue with this new information.
The clock was defective..
The arbiter knew it to be so at some point and failed to rectify the problem.
The arbiter is then allowed to vote on an appeal against his own decision.

zigzag
08-01-2007, 10:04 AM
I think this question should be directed at the arbiter, not me!

My guess is, he was not following that particular game closely enough. But again, with 38 games in the tourney, should the arbiter be expected to spot such problems without players bringing it to his attention?

It is the job of the arbiter to make sure the clock is set to the correct time controls. Remember he is being paid. If the size of the field exceeds 25 boards then maybe they should have an assistant who knows how to set the correct time controls.

Imagine what would have happened Michael if 4 clocks were set at incorrect time controls rather than just one. The whole tournament could become chaotic. Players would quickly lose faith in the arbiter and their decisions.
This would lead to a very unhappy tournament indeed.

zigzag
08-01-2007, 10:08 AM
The clock was defective..
The arbiter knew it to be so at some point and failed to rectify the problem.


Do you know this for certain?:hmm:

If this is the case surely the arbiter should have intervened before the end of the game.:doh:

Mischa
08-01-2007, 10:14 AM
I am sure of this
Hacche records his time on his tme sheet.It makes note of a 2 minute increment after 4or 5 moves.
A spectator...Marcus Raine...informed the arbiter.
What is unknown is the amount of time lapsing between this information being received and being acted upon.

pax
08-01-2007, 11:10 AM
In all fairness to the arbiter....Hacche has just informed me that the clock was working at the start of the game.
Indeed on his score sheet he has recorded a +2 minutes after about 4 moves.

But given that the clock only records whole minutes (not seconds) over 20 minutes, how can he be certain that 30 seconds is being added and not 25? It seems extremely unlikely that there was an actual fault with the clock.

Mischa
08-01-2007, 11:22 AM
It records 30 seconds...that is why you have 30 second increments

Denis_Jessop
08-01-2007, 11:45 AM
But given that the clock only records whole minutes (not seconds) over 20 minutes, how can he be certain that 30 seconds is being added and not 25? It seems extremely unlikely that there was an actual fault with the clock.

I've only just seen this thread and, in view of its length and other aspects, I haven't read it in detail.

But one aspect is quite apparent to me, namely, as Pax says, this is not a case of a defective clock but of a clock incorrectly set (that is, human error).

If I assume correctly, what happened was that the clock (a DGT?) was manually set without increments when there should have been a 30 second per move increment for each player. With a DGT clock this is very easy to do if the setter is not familiar with the process. It happened to me a few years ago when I was Arbiter for the ACT Championship.

As has been pointed out such a wrong setting is not immediately apparent as the addition of increments cannot be observed until the remaining time on a player's clock falls below 20 minutes. But it can be surmised after not too long by looking at the total of the time remaining on both clocks and taking into account the time that has elapsed since the game began.

Ideally the Arbiter should keep an eye on this especially if he is not certain that he set all the clocks. (It is not inconceivable at all that the arbiter may have set all the clocks correctly but then some @$&*% player "checked" his clock.) Moreover, it may be impracticable, depending on the circumstances, for the arbiter to observe all the clocks.

There is some responsibility on the players in this regard just as there is to make sure they don't run out of time.

In my view, if the game proceeds to the stage when, under the Laws of Chess something has happened that "immediately ends the game" that also ends any disputes about defective clocks, defective settings and other such things. (In any case, if both players were playing under the same handicap of a clock not adding increments, then neither player had an advantage over the other - contrast the case where increments were added to one side but not the other, or where an analogue clock was clearly defective in one movement but not the other.)


DJ

Mischa
08-01-2007, 11:51 AM
How is this apparent that it was NOT a defective clock?
If the clock was recording increments at the start of the game and not at the end?
I think that saying both players were operating under the same handicap is irrelevant.
I am sure that the style of play would have been quite different were they aware time issues.

Mischa
08-01-2007, 12:24 PM
I am illversed in chess law and etiquette...:)
Is it normal for an arbiter to vote on an appeal against his decision?

Watto
08-01-2007, 12:25 PM
But given that the clock only records whole minutes (not seconds) over 20 minutes, how can he be certain that 30 seconds is being added and not 25? It seems extremely unlikely that there was an actual fault with the clock.
pax, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say but from reading this whole thread 25 sec vs 30 sec isn’t the issue? From what I can gather, the general understanding is that the clock was not adding any increments at all by the time the problem was picked up. But it did start out adding increments according to Hacche, as Mischa points out.
Anyway, if it started out adding 30 sec (or 25) and no longer did, it’s not so surprising that the players didn’t pick it up.
Guy had similar clock problems occur twice in the one tournament at the same venue, in crucial games – one was when Rujevic's clock stuffed up see post 36, 37 and 38 from http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4685&page=3. In the other, Guy and his opponent had no increments from the start and the resulting time scramble resulted in errors and by the time the problem was discovered, the extra time added didn’t make up for that. There are either faulty clocks in circulation or the clock setters need to be more vigilant.

gbekker
08-01-2007, 12:55 PM
This incident has obviously generated a lot of discussion, particularly about the relevant Laws of Chess which relate to it. I would like to state why I, as a member of the appeals committee, voted in favour of having the game result (ie loss on time by David Hacche) stand.

1. The game had already ended without protest.
Claims and corrections of irregularities can be made while a game is still in progress. Once a game has concluded, however, the result stands. Neither player noticed the incorrect clock setting until after the game had concluded. Both players had played under the same clock conditions and it was only after the game had finished that the dispute arose.

2. The arbiter did not have conclusive evidence of a clock defect before the end of the game.
Mischa previously asked "Then give me your opinion of an arbiter that KNOWS the clock is not working properly but lets the game continue?". The arbiter did not know that the clock was incorrectly set, although he had just begun investigating this possibility, before the game had ended. As reported by Michael Baron, the incorrect clock behaviour was only uncovered immediately after the game finished. In the absence of any knowledge of an "evident defect", indications given by the clock are assumed to be correct.

3. The arbiter reminded players to check the clock settings but the players did not do so.
In a large Swiss tournament, the arbiter does not always have time to double check the settings on each and every clock and board in the tournament hall. The arbiter had, at least once during the tournament, reminded all players to check that their clocks had been set correctly before the start of play. The players must share at least some responsibility for failing to do so.

One report made to the appeals committee indicated that David Hacche himself had set the clock at the start of the game. If this is the case, then he must share an even greater responsibility for the incorrect clock setting.

The players appeals committee was appointed at the start of the tournament and was made up of a number of players, including David Hacche, who were considered to be knowledgeable about the Laws of Chess. This is standard tournament practice.

Had anybody reported the clock irregularity to the arbiter sooner, such that the problem could have been confirmed by the arbiter before the game had ended, then I think it would have been reasonable to add the additional 12.5 minutes or so to each players clock and to continue play. Given this was not the case, it is my opinion that the arbiter made the correct decision in ruling that the loss on time should stand.

Yours sincerely,

International Arbiter Gary Bekker,
Canterbury Summer Swiss Appeals Committee

Mischa
08-01-2007, 01:00 PM
It is continually being said by Hacche that the clock was working correctly at the START of the game.
The problem WAS reported to the arbiter before the end of play.
The arbiter was allowed to vote on an appeal against his own decision.
Gary...It is my understanding that you were no longer at the venue?

Mischa
08-01-2007, 01:02 PM
It is ridiculous to blame the players for the clock!
Isn't this part of an arbiter's job?

pax
08-01-2007, 01:13 PM
pax, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say but from reading this whole thread 25 sec vs 30 sec isn’t the issue? From what I can gather, the general understanding is that the clock was not adding any increments at all by the time the problem was picked up. But it did start out adding increments according to Hacche, as Mischa points out.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. I assumed that the clock was adding 25 seconds instead of 30 seconds according to macavity's post #13.

It seems that the appeals committee members (M Baron and gbekker at least) believe that the clock was incorrectly set, rather than faulty. Was the appeals committee mistaken in this regard?

pax
08-01-2007, 01:15 PM
It is ridiculous to blame the players for the clock!
Isn't this part of an arbiter's job?

Don't blame the arbiter. I have never seen an arbiter personally check every single clock prior to every round in a large Swiss. The setting of the clock has always been a player's responsibility. If the clock was actually faulty, this is a different matter.

MichaelBaron
08-01-2007, 01:18 PM
It is continually being said by Hacche that the clock was working correctly at the START of the game.
The problem WAS reported to the arbiter before the end of play.
The arbiter was allowed to vote on an appeal against his own decision.
Gary...It is my understanding that you were no longer at the venue?

The arbiter was not on the appeals committee! The appeals committee comprised of 5 people: Sandler, Bekker, myself, Sales and Hacche. Given that Hacche was one of the parties in the dispute, he was substituted by Trevor Stanning.

JGB
08-01-2007, 01:25 PM
The arbiter was not on the appeals committee! The appeals committee comprised of 5 people: Sandler, Bekker, myself, Sales and Hacche. Given that Hacche was one of the parties in the dispute, he was substituted by Trevor Stanning.

Personally if the details are correct I am totally happy with Arbiter Gary Bekker's response. I am not sure about you all, however, I am personally interested in seeing the game! If anyone has access to the notes and is able to post it in the tournament thread please do so.

Mischa
08-01-2007, 01:35 PM
I still would like to know why the arbiter didn't stop the game right away...ie:when he was informed of the defective clocks?

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2007, 02:15 PM
I don't need to study the laws of chess to know that it is the arbiter's responsibility to set the clocks. If the arbiter should delegate that duty to other people (sometimes including players) then those people would share some blame for an incorrectly set clock, but the ultimate responsibility always rests with the arbiter.It is my understanding that after the arbiter had set all the clocks prior to the start of the round that the player himself then set the clock. Therefore the incorrect setting of the clock was not due to any error by the arbiter but due to actions by the player himself.

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2007, 02:25 PM
I'm informed that the arbiter was not informed that the clock was not adding the increment but only that it may not be adding the increment.

However lets look at the hypothetical where the clock was not in erro and the arbiter had intervened before Hacche lost on time with mere seconds left on his clock.

In that situtaion if the arbiter had stopped the clock immediately he arrived at the board and on checking the clock found it was in fact adding the increment, then restarted the clock and Hacche then lost on time you would no doubt all be criticising the arbiter for causing Hacche to lose on time because the abiter had interrupted his train of thought on the mere say so of a spectator who was also a competitor in the event.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 02:26 PM
If this was the Australian Open and there was a time dispute in a game between someone like Johansen and Zhong Zhao,I would be extremely surprised to see Rogers and Antic on an appeals committe.:eek:

Yes, ideally the appeals committee should not be comprised of fellow outright contenders for a case like this. However before the event the organisers appointed the appeal committee and it just happened that those they considered to be best versed in the Laws also happened to be outright contenders. Did any player object to these appointments?

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 02:30 PM
I still would like to know why the arbiter didn't stop the game right away...ie:when he was informed of the defective clocks?

I understand that he simply found it beyond belief that the players would not have noticed and that only one spectator would have noticed, and therefore assumed in error that the spectator was most likely incorrect, although he intended to check the increment was being added once Hacche pressed his clock (which as it turned out never happened in time.)


In that situtaion if the arbiter had stopped the clock immediately he arrived at the board and on checking the clock found it was in fact adding the increment, then restarted the clock and Hacche then lost on time you would no doubt all be criticising the arbiter for causing Hacche to lose on time because the abiter had interuppted his train of thought on the mere say so of a spectator who was also a competitor in the event.

Had the arbiter decided to intervene immediately he could have awarded both players extra time for the disturbance to the game. (13.5). I assume an intervention by an arbiter counts as "external disturbance".

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2007, 02:32 PM
It records 30 seconds...that is why you have 30 second incrementsAs was stated earlier in the thread it is only after the clock time reaches 20 minutes remaining that the clock displays minutes and seconds. At the start of the game the clock only shows hours and minutes thus it is impossible to see if the correct number of seconds are being added or not.

gbekker
08-01-2007, 02:57 PM
It is continually being said by Hacche that the clock was working correctly at the START of the game.
The problem WAS reported to the arbiter before the end of play.
The arbiter was allowed to vote on an appeal against his own decision.
Gary...It is my understanding that you were no longer at the venue?

Responding to each of your points:
1. Then even more difficult for the Arbiter to determine whether there is a problem with the clock or not.
2. Yes, reported to the arbiter only moments before the end of the game, and the flag fell before he was able to determine that the clock was not incrementing.
3. No the arbiter is never a member of the appeals committee, but was asked to provide his recollection of events.
4. Yes, I had already left the venue, but was contacted by telephone.

To me, your second sentence seems the most relevant to the decision, because it implies that perhaps the arbiter could have intervened more promptly and determined whether or not the clock was incorrect before the game had ended. Given the circumstances though, I stand by my reasons for voting the way I did in relation to the appeal.

Warm regards,

Gary

Mischa
08-01-2007, 03:02 PM
I have no argument with your voting...:)
I will have to try and convince DH to post here and argue in his own defence...
My knowledge of chess and rules is, as is well known, rather limited...:)
(also I am only reporting second hand, I wasn't there)

MichaelBaron
08-01-2007, 03:03 PM
Personally if the details are correct I am totally happy with Arbiter Gary Bekker's response. I am not sure about you all, however, I am personally interested in seeing the game! If anyone has access to the notes and is able to post it in the tournament thread please do so.


I do not have access to the game but i have seen the final position. I think Hacche's position was better.

ElevatorEscapee
08-01-2007, 07:09 PM
Having just come upon this thread today, it certainly makes a longish read. :)

The only point I would consider that doesn't seem to have been covered is: does flagfall immediately end a chess game? (eg in the same way as checkmate or stalemate)?

I know it wasn't always the case, for instance under the old 40 moves in 90 minutes style time limits with time increments added manually after a certain number of moves, an arbiter may step in once a flag had fallen but had to determine whether or not the player had completed the allocated number of moves within the given time.

(Which was extra fun if both players had been under extreme time pressure and had stopped recording for the past 10 moves and you had to get them to reconstruct!).

Namely, it was not the act of clock flagfall (or a claim being made by a player) that determined the end of the game but the arbiter had to be satisfied that the player who's flag had fallen had not completed the required number of moves in the allotted time.

Some people have suggested with this case that the irregularity with the clock was discovered by the arbiter "immediately after" the game. Could the arbiter then have used his discretion (eg by checking the clock settings and or basic calculations based on starting time, number of moves and so on, etc) to determine whether or not the player had completed his moves in the allotted time?

If this was the case, then would the appeals committee feel that they were being asked to rule on a "completed" game, or simply being asked to determine whether or not the game had actually been completed? :)

antichrist
08-01-2007, 07:22 PM
I don't have time to absurb all of this, but surely the arbiter would not set the clock wrongly because they are very experienced at it, so can we guess that it must have been the player therefore he has to wear it?

Just like Gubb or Gobb (the GErman) should have been made to wear it when he set up board incorrectly when Agulto knocked pieces over in time trouble.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 08:01 PM
The only point I would consider that doesn't seem to have been covered is: does flagfall immediately end a chess game? (eg in the same way as checkmate or stalemate)?

I did try to cover that to a degree. You are right - it does not immediately end the game in the way checkmate, stalemate, resignation, dead position and draw by agreement all do.


Namely, it was not the act of clock flagfall (or a claim being made by a player) that determined the end of the game but the arbiter had to be satisfied that the player who's flag had fallen had not completed the required number of moves in the allotted time.

This is still the case. (see 6.3 and 6.2a). However 6.11 requires that in applying 6.2a the arbiter consider the clock's indication to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. (that expression again). So what the arbiter is really checking in the flagfall case you refer to is most likely not the clock but the scoresheet, to see if a number of moves needed prior to flagfall have been completed.


Could the arbiter then have used his discretion (eg by checking the clock settings and or basic calculations based on starting time, number of moves and so on, etc) to determine whether or not the player had completed his moves in the allotted time?

That depends on the arbiter's interpretation of "evident defect", or the arbiter's willingness to declare the situation not precisely covered.


If this was the case, then would the appeals committee feel that they were being asked to rule on a "completed" game, or simply being asked to determine whether or not the game had actually been completed? :)

The arbiter ruled the game was over. The appeals committee could have overturned that decision and ordered the game be replayed or recommenced from a given point if they wished to. However the appeals committee should only do this if they think the arbiter's decision is clearly or at least most likely wrong.

Axiom
08-01-2007, 08:12 PM
one thing is for certain, had the arbiter wisely instructed the following to both players concerned ,-"due to false reading of the clocks i instruct both players to continue the game with clocks fixed", then no distress,consternation or dispute would have arisen,...........it is this x factor of wisdom that no arbiter can be trained for.

Garvinator
08-01-2007, 08:14 PM
I think we have now identified two 'ordinary' descriptions in the laws of chess:

1) evident defect
2) normal means

dHeadbanger
08-01-2007, 08:53 PM
Headbanger here, for the record,
I set the clock correctly at the start of the game,how do I know this?.Because for the first five moves I record the clock times on my scoresheet,ON MY CARBON COPY SCORESHEET on move four is clearly marked +2 indicating an increment of two minutes therefore the clock was working correcting at the start of the game.Fact, the clock was adding the increment but clearly malfunctioned later in the game

Denis_Jessop
08-01-2007, 08:54 PM
I think we have now identified two 'ordinary' descriptions in the laws of chess:

1) evident defect
2) normal means

I don'e see anything wrong with "evident defect".

The point I made earlier in the day is that this is not a case of a defective clock but intereference in the settings by a player after the clock had been set by the arbiter.

If we want to get really technical, that could well be in breach of the Laws. There is a well-established legal principle that a person is not entitled to benefit from his own wrongdoing.

But for me, the critical thing is that the Arbiter made a decision and it was upheld by an Appeals Committee. That is the end of the matter.

Yet as a last thought, I might mention that there is also a question whether a spectator should become involved in situations like this and whether the arbiter should take any notice if he does. I recently saw a comment by Geurt Gijssen in his "Arbiters Notebook" that it is not proper for spectators become involved in this way though I cannot now find it. I thought it was a recent comment but at the time I was skimming all of his notebooks from no. 1 so it might be anyhere. In principle, I think that that view is right.

DJ

dHeadbanger
08-01-2007, 08:56 PM
See above

dHeadbanger
08-01-2007, 09:09 PM
Lets get something straight dj the clockwas on setting no.1 which is five minutes per player the arbiter had not set the clock so I set the clock on the correct setting of one hour plus 30 sec increment being an experienced digital clock setter I had no problem with this see previous posting.

Axiom
08-01-2007, 10:09 PM
Lets get something straight dj the clockwas on setting no.1 which is five minutes per player the arbiter had not set the clock so I set the clock on the correct setting of one hour plus 30 sec increment being an experienced digital clock setter I had no problem with this see previous posting.
so (1) the arbiter set the clocks before the start of play
(2) you also set the clocks prior to start of play
(3) the clocks started correctly for some moves,then became defective.

do i understand this correctly?

Mischa
08-01-2007, 10:17 PM
I think it is unsure who set the clocks to start with but I think DH is saying he had to reset it as it was set incorrectly to begin with (probably some kids playing blitz)

eclectic
08-01-2007, 10:22 PM
Catch those pesky little blitzers who wreak havoc in the tourney hall! :P

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 10:33 PM
Was a scoresheet submitted to either the arbiter or the appeals committee as evidence that the clock was defective?

Axiom
08-01-2007, 10:40 PM
can clocks work correctly one moment,then disfunction the next? i'd like forensics done on the clock........the truth lies therein i believe.

Mischa
08-01-2007, 10:45 PM
:)
didn"t Watto say the same thing had happenend to Guy?

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 10:51 PM
:)
didn"t Watto say the same thing had happenend to Guy?

No. In that case according to the thread Watto linked to, Rujevic's clock would not stop when Rujevic pressed it. In that case the clock was clearly defective (meaning broken, not just incorrectly set) and there is no debate about that.

Mischa
08-01-2007, 10:55 PM
oh ok
sorry

Axiom
08-01-2007, 11:00 PM
dheadb-can you be absolutely certain that the clock was working correctly for a period of time? ........did you leave the table ,where clock tampering may have taken place?

Basil
08-01-2007, 11:03 PM
where clock tampering may have taken place?

:P

Is N/O/T/H/I/N/G sacred from an Axiom conspiracy theory!?

eclectic
08-01-2007, 11:05 PM
I can't wait for the judicial enquiry on this matter and its terms of reference ... :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 11:19 PM
I can't wait for the judicial enquiry on this matter and its terms of reference ... :rolleyes:

Never mind them, bring in the Drudge Report! I have seen a little something that seems rather fatal to the claim that Hacche was +2 after four minutes, and hence to the idea that the clock was defective.

I do hope this is the real David Hacche we have with us this time though. When someone popped up posting as him on the old ACF BB it was most likely an impersonator. :eek:

Axiom
08-01-2007, 11:23 PM
:P

Is N/O/T/H/I/N/G sacred from an Axiom conspiracy theory!?
AS WE ARE OFT TO SAY IN OUR LINE OF BUSINESS......"LIFE IS A CONSPIRACY" :cool:

Mischa
08-01-2007, 11:25 PM
I can verify that dheadbangert is him...Rincewind may be able to back me up
I think we must all keep in mind when we are looking at the evidence ...who has forwarded this information and what may their motivation be?

Axiom
08-01-2007, 11:30 PM
Unless dheadbanger speaks in his defence, we on the council have little choice under article 31B subsection 1326/15v-MZ4 OF THE DISPUTES ACT1976 to find the defendant GUILTY AS CHARGED!

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 11:31 PM
Unless dheadbanger speaks in his defence, we on the council have little choice under article 31B subsection 1326/15v-MZ4 OF THE DISPUTES ACT1976 to find the defendant GUILTY AS CHARGED!

That's a bit harsh. It hasn't been tabled yet. :P

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2007, 11:38 PM
I think we must all keep in mind when we are looking at the evidence ...who has forwarded this information and what may their motivation be?

I find facts rather more interesting. To twist a great saying by former US Senator Moynihan (now deceased), everyone is entitled to their own motivations, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.

Garvinator
08-01-2007, 11:43 PM
If the player realized that he wasn't receiving any increments, the player should have made a 10.2 claim in the last two minutes :P ;)

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2007, 12:04 AM
These have been sent to me by a person associated with the event and are purported to be scans of some scoresheets of some games played on it, including the game in question. The others are another scoresheet by each player for comparison. The person who sends me the scoresheets asserts that the one of Hacche-Lee is the original of Hacche's.

I have examined the files very carefully, blowing them up several times in search of any evidence of digital manipulation. I can find none. I was especially careful to check this because on the claimed scoresheet of Hacche-Lee, there is no number after the disputed move 4 (not that this matters if the zeroes on the previous numbers are correct.)

Please note that there is no prohibition on me posting these on chesschat as a scoresheet is not a communication, but is a record of the game that is the property of the organisers and not the player.

Assuming these scoresheets are all genuine, Hacche had in fact used two minutes (not added two minutes) on move 5. Of move 4 we can say little, but there is no evidence of any gain of time by either player at any stage.

Axiom
09-01-2007, 12:08 AM
That's a bit harsh. It hasn't been tabled yet. :P
PERHAPS I MEANT THE JUDGE DREAD REPORT!?. :)

antichrist
09-01-2007, 11:02 AM
If the player realized that he wasn't receiving any increments, the player should have made a 10.2 claim in the last two minutes :P ;)

They should have just switched to guillotine and no problems man. Guillotine finish is the man's game.

WhiteElephant
09-01-2007, 11:15 AM
They should have just switched to guillotine and no problems man. Guillotine finish is the man's game.

You and I are of a like mind AC, but I don't think many others would agree with us.

antichrist
09-01-2007, 11:19 AM
You and I are of a like mind AC, but I don't think many others would agree with us.

Increment is for wusses like Fisher who did not even defend his title.

eclectic
09-01-2007, 11:47 AM
Increment is for wusses like Fisher who did not even defend his title.

Guillotine afficionados wuss out too by conveniently not having to write moves once their clock is under 5 minutes.

Basil
09-01-2007, 11:48 AM
Hang on! I love a blood curdling finish. Garvin tells me its an arbiter's nightmare.

I appreciate Bobby (the bloke who knew considerably more about chess than life) declared that one shouldn't lose a well-crafted game because of a few seconds. But also true is that war isn't "hang on, can I have some more time please, I've rather bodged my time management" - ah thank you, now I win with that little leg up".

It always struck me a bit 'girly' to have someone with beads of sweat running down their face while the executioner's chop got ready only to have:
- a little bit more time added to find
- that little extra resource to avoid
- that little bit of pressure to save that
- little bit of face

when in the real world it would have been 'game over' buster.

OK, I'm going to have a lie down now. I am happy playing both BTW.

antichrist
09-01-2007, 11:53 AM
As well it is a rules nightmare with minus and plus time etc, they should have vibrator clocks that lock when guillotine time is up - times up and that is it, not even a way out for those who seen whose flag fall first.

eclectic
09-01-2007, 12:46 PM
As well it is a rules nightmare with minus and plus time etc, they should have vibrator clocks that lock when guillotine time is up - times up and that is it, not even a way out for those who seen whose flag fall first.


A/C,

Please don't talk about "vibrator clocks"; doesn't chess give us enough excitement as it is? :owned:

antichrist
09-01-2007, 02:05 PM
A/C,

Please don't talk about "vibrator clocks"; doesn't chess give us enough excitement as it is? :owned:

they would do the shakes without the alarm noise so as not to disturb other players - I could draw many interesting off-colour parodies but am on notice

Garvinator
09-01-2007, 05:38 PM
Comments from an appeal committee member.

The last loose-end from the Summer OPEN seems to be resolved by a chesschat posting of some .jpg files.
The evidence indicates that the clock was incorrectly set at 1 hour and 30 seconds, and zero increment. Thus the clock was incorrectly set rather than evidently defective. The flag-fall thus finished the game, and appeals afterwards are thus difficult to uphold, according to the Laws of Chess.
The two players were in effect playing a guillotine finish, and as we all have experienced this is much less satisfying chess than the increments_chess now possible with digital clocks.

antichrist
09-01-2007, 06:32 PM
Much less satisfying finish my back protrusiion, I find increment time the most ridiculous concept ever, you must remember that yourself and Starter's job becomes much easier so you have a vested interest. But Jason Lyons summed it up properly, chess ceased been a sport when they guillotined guillotine finish. In his own words it took the excitement out of the game - as a player, spectator and arbitar.

Axiom
09-01-2007, 07:42 PM
Much less satisfying finish my back protrusiion, I find increment time the most ridiculous concept ever, you must remember that yourself and Starter's job becomes much easier so you have a vested interest. But Jason Lyons summed it up properly, chess ceased been a sport when they guillotined guillotine finish. In his own words it took the excitement out of the game - as a player, spectator and arbitar.
BRAVO :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Doctor Chess
09-01-2007, 11:41 PM
Never mind them, bring in the Drudge Report! I have seen a little something that seems rather fatal to the claim that Hacche was +2 after four minutes, and hence to the idea that the clock was defective.

I do hope this is the real David Hacche we have with us this time though. When someone popped up posting as him on the old ACF BB it was most likely an impersonator. :eek:

So do I.

There is something that is nagging away at me in this whole debate. If I understand correctly, Mr. Hacche forfeited his next game in protest at losing on time and then losing the appeal.

Let us accept that Mr. Hacche was given at the minimum an ethically bad umpiring decision, even if the rules were strictly adhered to.

Now how can I best illustrate my point?

I will use the example of Adam Gilchrist, who at a vital stage of Australia's second innings in the fifth test was given out caught behind when he was 62 and looking set for a century. Everyone knows Gilchrist walks when he snicks the ball and is caught without waiting for the umpire's decision in the hope that the umpire erroneously says "not out." The umpire waited, saw Gilchrist stand his ground, then raised his finger and gave him out.

Of course TV replays clearly showed Gilchrist's bat hit the ground and was nowhere near the ball.

Did Gilchrist protest that terrible umpiring decision by refusing to play the game? Did Gilchrist protest that terrible umpiring decision by refusing to keep wickets when England went out to bat in their second innings?

Of course not.

He copped a bad decision but got on with the game. When next required to play that's exactly what he did. That's cricket. Let's hope that's also chess.

:clap:

Basil
09-01-2007, 11:47 PM
:clap:

four four two
10-01-2007, 09:17 AM
They should have just switched to guillotine and no problems man. Guillotine finish is the man's game.

No problems?:hmm: Geez your memory must be getting short.

In the old days their were a few shifty players who used to cheat by fiddling with the clock to give themselves extra time...not so easy to get away with nowadays.

antichrist
10-01-2007, 11:22 AM
No problems?:hmm: Geez your memory must be getting short.

In the old days their were a few shifty players who used to cheat by fiddling with the clock to give themselves extra time...not so easy to get away with nowadays.

I think a very minor problem and very easily detectable. Let them try. It is just a matter of educating players what procedures to adhere to also their opponents will be well up on any funny business. It would only take one or two punishments to prevent recurrence.

Another advantage of guillotine is that you can concentrate more on your game as your own time and opponents is less variable and you just keep it in back of mind without having to check often. With mechanical flagfall one can see the flag get lifted and stretched out ready to drop, so not even necessary to look or concentrate closely. You don't have to think of actual minutes just whose flag is more lifted.

Ian Rout
10-01-2007, 03:47 PM
Increment is for wusses like Fisher who did not even defend his title.
I am unclear as to why chessplayers who want to play chess are "wusses" whereas people who want to shuffle pieces back and forth (yawn) until someone's flag drops are real men. I would have thought you woold need to be playing some sort of exciting or dangerous sport to make that claim.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I think the lesson is that use of tournament clocks for social games should be outlawed. Entry to the tournament include the organsiers providing you with sets and clocks for tournament games and, generally, sets for analysis. People shouldn't be creating work for officials and incidents of the type described here by buggering up the clock settings. The kiddies aren't allowed to go and run round on the pitch at the MCG between sessions.

Rincewind
10-01-2007, 04:11 PM
I think the lesson is that use of tournament clocks for social games should be outlawed.

I completely agree.

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2007, 05:24 PM
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I think the lesson is that use of tournament clocks for social games should be outlawed.

With digital clocks this is a very good idea. With analogue clocks it was not so much of a problem.

antichrist
10-01-2007, 06:57 PM
So who buggered up the clock settings? Was it Hacche?

Surely they have had plenty of opportunity since then to check the "faulty"clock??

Recherché
10-01-2007, 10:35 PM
Well, it's certainly good to see the tradition of spirited debate here at the bulletin board is alive and well. ;)

A little less cheery is the continued tradition of aggrieved parties and/or people with an axe to grind posting loaded questions to the bulletin board without any background information (or indeed serious argument), in the hope a lack of context will help prop them up for a while. This thread could have been started in a significantly more constructive manner.

There are questions here not just of whether the rules of chess were followed, but also of fairness. Here's my take on it all. Plenty has been said already, but I'm one of a minority in the discussion who were actually present, so hopefully it's still a useful contribution.

(I was not involved in the running of the tournament, or on the appeals committee, for the record.)

Issue 1: Was the clock faulty?

Answer is clearly no. It was set incorrectly to 1:00.30 (a frequent sort of mistake with DGTs), instead of 1:00 with .30 increment. This was discovered when the arbiter checked the clock after the game had finished.

Issue 2: Who set the clock?

Reports on the day indicated that Mr Hacche set the clock himself. I don't know if this is fact or not, but I have not seen it disputed anywhere thus far. It is not clear what it was set to prior to him doing this, but I'm not certain that's relevant. Is this something Mr Hacche disputes, or denies doing?

Issue 3: Was the clock unfairly set[I]?

The clock was set to the same time for both players. Mr Hacche was not disadvantaged in any sense [I]relative to his opponent.

Issue 4: Should the arbiter have stopped the clock?

The circumstances have been covered already. A suspicion of incorrect increment was raised with the arbiter, who subsequently arrived with Mr Hacche to move, and about 20 seconds on Mr Hacche's clock. He waited for the clock to be pressed so the increment could be seen (or not) and thus checked. Mr Hacche lost on time before pressing his clock.

Stopping the clock would have involved pushing through a group of spectators and reaching over the board (probably; I don't know where in relation to the clock the arbiter was), in the middle of a very sensitive part of the game, where Mr Hacche had just seconds to choose his move, and his opponent, conversely, had reason to hope for a win on time. Was the suspicion (not reported by either player) of an incorrect clock setting enough justification for such a disruptive action? Clearly the arbiter didn't think so at the time.

Waiting to confirm the situation first seems more sensible to me, but the situation is certainly open to different points of view. We must remember that the arbiter himself had about 10 seconds to make his decision, without the benefit of the hindsight you're all gifted with.

Issue 5: Whose job is it to notice (and report) that the clock is wrong?

In my time playing chess, it has always been my impression (I can't speak to the rules) that it's largely up to the players to notice and report problems with the clocks (or other things). In a large swiss tournament, it's not possible to verify that all the clocks are working properly as the games are in progress, especially for something as subtle as a missing increment. Similarly, it isn't really possible to prevent players from messing around with the clock settings after they've been set.

Related to this, I was once told by an experienced club member that if the pieces are incorrectly placed on the board, and the players fail to notice before a certain number of moves have elapsed, the arrangement is kept for the remainder of the game. Assuming this is correct, the spirit of this rule would seem to imply that things like clocks are the responsibility of the players as well, at least in part. And neither played noticed the clocks were incorrectly set while the game was in progress. In fact, if the arbiter had not stepped in to check the clock settings immediately after the game had finished, Mr Hacche may never have known they were incorrect.

That's pretty much all I have to say. It's a sad result, but I don't personally see that there has been any poor judgement on the part of either the arbiter or the appeals committee.

Mischa
10-01-2007, 10:40 PM
If you were not involved in anyway...are you not just another person posting on hearsay?

Recherché
10-01-2007, 10:43 PM
If you were not involved in anyway...are you not just another person posting on hearsay?

Aren't you? It's not even clear (to me, at least) who you are.

My hearsay is better informed than some. :)

Also, I can bear direct witness to things such as the fact that arbiter warned players to be careful about missing increments at the beginning of round 2.

Mischa
10-01-2007, 10:45 PM
and just a question from a lay person...why was the pairing for the last round changed?
I have an independant source tells me that it was posted and then changed after DH forfeited..is this true?

Mischa
10-01-2007, 10:46 PM
why did he warn players?

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2007, 01:09 AM
Well, it's certainly good to see the tradition of spirited debate here at the bulletin board is alive and well. ;)

Welcome back!


Issue 2: Who set the clock?

Reports on the day indicated that Mr Hacche set the clock himself. I don't know if this is fact or not, but I have not seen it disputed anywhere thus far. It is not clear what it was set to prior to him doing this, but I'm not certain that's relevant. Is this something Mr Hacche disputes, or denies doing?

No, he doesn't deny it at all. In post 136 he says that he set the clock. All parties seem to agree he was the last to adjust it before the game. The arbiter says that he set all the clocks too, and Hacche says that the clock was on blitz setting prior to him (Hacche) setting it. I guess both these things could be true if someone used the clock to play blitz after the arbiter set it.


and just a question from a lay person...why was the pairing for the last round changed?
I have an independant source tells me that it was posted and then changed after DH forfeited..is this true?

Extremely unlikely it would be changed specifically for that reason, because if the arbiters were changing it because Hacche was known to be not playing his final game (in advance of finalising the draw) then they would have changed it by removing Hacche from the draw altogether. For instance, that was what was done in the Australian Open when it was known that Smirnov would not be able to play the last round. A player known in advance not to be playing a round isn't paired for that round.

Desmond
11-01-2007, 07:44 AM
In fact, if the arbiter had not stepped in to check the clock settings immediately after the game had finished, Mr Hacche may never have known they were incorrect.If the question whether Hacche was receiving increments or not was ultimately irrelevant to the arbiter's decision of how to award the game, why did he bother to check it at all? Morbid fascination?

pax
11-01-2007, 08:14 AM
It's actually pretty surprising that both players managed to get all the way through the game without noticing the lack of increment. Especially the last 40 minutes or so, when the increments should be immediately apparent.

Rincewind
11-01-2007, 08:42 AM
Issue 1: Was the clock faulty?

Answer is clearly no. It was set incorrectly to 1:00.30 (a frequent sort of mistake with DGTs), instead of 1:00 with .30 increment. This was discovered when the arbiter checked the clock after the game had finished.

This would depend on your definition of faulty. If a clock is meant to add an increment and doesn't then is that incorrectly set or fault. It could be either. I mean a faulty clock could be set to add an increment and doesn't or a working clock could be set incorrectly and therefore the same behaviour eventuates. Now the question as to the laws of chess and which to apply comes down to what laws to apply. An incorrectly set clock is not specifically catered for in the rules and therefore to my mind the laws relating to faulty (which could cause the clock to behave in the same manner) seems appropriate.


Issue 3: Was the clock unfairly set[I]?

The clock was set to the same time for both players. Mr Hacche was not disadvantaged in any sense [I]relative to his opponent.

I understand the argument but it is not really valid. David was working under the assumption that the clock was incrementing. If it wasn't it was not his time management that was faulty it was the time recording. The fact that he and not his opponent got into time trouble is therefore not material. Had the clock been operating as it should have he would not have lost on time.


Stopping the clock would have involved pushing through a group of spectators and reaching over the board (probably; I don't know where in relation to the clock the arbiter was), in the middle of a very sensitive part of the game, where Mr Hacche had just seconds to choose his move, and his opponent, conversely, had reason to hope for a win on time. Was the suspicion (not reported by either player) of an incorrect clock setting enough justification for such a disruptive action? Clearly the arbiter didn't think so at the time.

Waiting to confirm the situation first seems more sensible to me, but the situation is certainly open to different points of view. We must remember that the arbiter himself had about 10 seconds to make his decision, without the benefit of the hindsight you're all gifted with.

My understanding is that the arbiter suspected that incementents were not being added while the game was in progress. This matter could have been confirmed by carefully watching one clock press.

The arbiter should not be timid about gaining access to a board or any of the equipment.


Issue 5: Whose job is it to notice (and report) that the clock is wrong?

In my time playing chess, it has always been my impression (I can't speak to the rules) that it's largely up to the players to notice and report problems with the clocks (or other things). In a large swiss tournament, it's not possible to verify that all the clocks are working properly as the games are in progress, especially for something as subtle as a missing increment. Similarly, it isn't really possible to prevent players from messing around with the clock settings after they've been set.

This is a very weird question. Obviously people must make their claims as they are vying for the arbiters attention. However the arbiter has a job to do as well. Generally in classical chess (as opposed to rapid or blitz) the arbiter plays a more active role (in terms of noting flag falls and incorrect moving of the pieces).


Related to this, I was once told by an experienced club member that if the pieces are incorrectly placed on the board, and the players fail to notice before a certain number of moves have elapsed, the arrangement is kept for the remainder of the game. Assuming this is correct, the spirit of this rule would seem to imply that things like clocks are the responsibility of the players as well, at least in part.

This is not correct for classical chess. (S)He is no doubt thinking of law B4 which only applies in rapid and blitz. The number is 3 moves each. But it is important to note (as mentioned above) that the role of the arbiter in rapid is substantially different to classical chess. For example. The arbiter shoud only make a decision on Rule 4 unless requested by one or both players. In classical chess, if the arbiter sees something amiss in the movement of the pieces he should rule immediately. Also in rapid the arbiter must refrain from signalling a flagfall. In classical chess a flagfall occurs if an arbiter notices it.

It seems to me that in classical chess, if the arbiter suspects or notices that a clock is not functioning properly then he should do something about it. Firstly confirm the situation and if the clock is not incrementing then stop the game and fix the situation. I don't think it requires a player to notice and report a problem.

This is less clear for rapid and in fact I would say that the arbiter behaved in a way appropriate for rapid. Were the laws like B4 indicate that the arbiter takes a more laidback approach.

Mischa
11-01-2007, 08:58 AM
So it is allowed to change the draw after it has been possted?

ER
11-01-2007, 09:23 AM
he he I will never become an arbiter!
Cheers and good luck!

MichaelBaron
11-01-2007, 12:00 PM
and just a question from a lay person...why was the pairing for the last round changed?
I have an independant source tells me that it was posted and then changed after DH forfeited..is this true?

It was not related to the "Hacchegate". The original pairing was changed because in the light of all those appeals hearings, the arbiter forgot to enter "last round" condition in to the swiss perfect but he immidiately changed the draw once he spotted the descrepancy. It was nothing like the Elwood Open saga.

Btw, did the organisers offer David his entry back?

Garvinator
11-01-2007, 12:03 PM
Btw, did the organisers offer David his entry back?Why should they?

Garvinator
11-01-2007, 12:09 PM
The arbiter should not be timid about gaining access to a board or any of the equipment.
While this is true, at the time of when Geoff was 'around the board' he was only there on the say so of a spectator. No player had made a claim and the arbiter hadnt noticed a voilation of the laws of chess.

If the arbiter had just barged in, then he would be interfering in the game based on possible information from a spectator.

I feel that his actions to wait to see if the clock was adding increments or not is entirely appropriate and proper. It is just unfortunate that in this situation that the player's flag fell before another move was made.

If the arbiter had just barged in and stopped the clocks and the reports were wrong about the increment, I can just see another thread on here complaining about excessive arbiting and someone wanting to hog the limelight or accusations of trying to make one player lose.

Mischa
11-01-2007, 12:34 PM
Thanks for clearing it up Michael...I had understood that once a pairing was published it had to stand.
My mistake.:)

MichaelBaron
11-01-2007, 01:54 PM
Thanks for clearing it up Michael...I had understood that once a pairing was published it had to stand.
My mistake.:)

Actually it did have to stand...:hmm:

Mischa
11-01-2007, 02:05 PM
Ok now I am confused

Rincewind
11-01-2007, 03:07 PM
While this is true, at the time of when Geoff was 'around the board' he was only there on the say so of a spectator. No player had made a claim and the arbiter hadnt noticed a voilation of the laws of chess.

If the arbiter had just barged in, then he would be interfering in the game based on possible information from a spectator.

Not sure why you say "barged". If a spectator had noticed the clock was not recording the time correctly and reported this to the arbiter. Therefore the arbiter had reason to think that the time recording was not working according to the published time control. The arbiter is well within his rights to investigate the situation including getting access to the board and witness the operation of the clock personally. After all the laws say " A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced." It does not say that a player needs to make a claim on this point. I would say if the arbiter sees that an increment is not added then the clock has an evident defect.


I feel that his actions to wait to see if the clock was adding increments or not is entirely appropriate and proper. It is just unfortunate that in this situation that the player's flag fell before another move was made.

Why do you feel it is not entirely appriate and proper? After all a arbiter can witness a flagfall in classical chess. The arbiter can also correct an illegal move without a claim from either player.


If the arbiter had just barged in and stopped the clocks and the reports were wrong about the increment, I can just see another thread on here complaining about excessive arbiting and someone wanting to hog the limelight or accusations of trying to make one player lose.

Again with "barged"? All that should have happened is the arbiter goes and investigates the situation by witnessing one clock press by each players. If an increment does not occur, the they could stop the clock and make the necessary adjustements. At a minimum, 30 seconds times the number of moves thus far should have been added to both clocks and the +30 increment programmed into the clock. At the arbiter's discretion, an additional amount of time could be added for the interruption and play resume. All right and proper and with no "barging" required.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2007, 04:06 PM
If the question whether Hacche was receiving increments or not was ultimately irrelevant to the arbiter's decision of how to award the game, why did he bother to check it at all? Morbid fascination?

I'm assuming that he checked it, expecting that it would be working, making his decision a no-brainer. On finding the clock had not been working, he would then have to consider the situation more carefully. I doubt he had a predetermined decision for such a difficult scenario in mind.


Thanks for clearing it up Michael...I had understood that once a pairing was published it had to stand.

Technically, it should stand unless it violates the absolute pairing criteria or unless it is indicated somehow as merely provisional.


Not sure why you say "barged". If a spectator had noticed the clock was not recording the time correctly and reported this to the arbiter. Therefore the arbiter had reason to think that the time recording was not working according to the published time control. The arbiter is well within his rights to investigate the situation including getting access to the board and witness the operation of the clock personally. After all the laws say " A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced." It does not say that a player needs to make a claim on this point. I would say if the arbiter sees that an increment is not added then the clock has an evident defect.

I would not rely upon that rather dubious (and much discussed on the thread) phrase "evident defect" in dealing with such a situation. Article 13.2 entitles the arbiter to intervene in such a case whether the clock has an "evident defect" or not.

What happened is that the arbiter received a report to this effect, had only a limited amount of time to assess it before the flag fell, and on the basis of the information available to him incorrectly assumed the clock was OK.

I am reminded of the situation in the top division of the Aus Champs some years ago in which one of the players made an illegal move. It was reported to the arbiter by a spectator, and the arbiter dismissed it, saying that surely players in the top division of the Aus Champs wouldn't do that, or would notice. After the game was finished it was indeed found an illegal move had been played with neither player noticing.

A general rule is that one cannot assume, and one needs to investigate any situation immediately to prevent unintended consequences. Again that is all very well to say in hindsight, as anyone can make mistakes when they have to make a decision under pressure in 10-20 seconds.



Did Ian Rogers have a pairing changed a few years ago?

That is not quite fair on Ian Rogers. There was a case where Ian raised a concern and the arbiters incorrectly upheld it. But any player is entitled to raise such concerns - players should not be expected to have a faultless understanding of the system - and if a concern is incorrectly upheld that is the arbiters' fault, not the players.

Rincewind
11-01-2007, 04:15 PM
I would not rely upon that rather dubious (and much discussed on the thread) phrase "evident defect" in dealing with such a situation. Article 13.2 entitles the arbiter to intervene in such a case whether the clock has an "evident defect" or not.

I was not intending to wholy rely on that wording alone but it is clear that if an evident defect existed no claim by either player is necessary.

In addition I would add that without regardless of whether you consider a incorrectly programmed clock has "defective" or not, once the fact that the increment was not being applied was apparent to the arbiter, the only way to determine that the clock was not programmed correctly or defective in some other way would be to stop the game and examine the clock in question.

pax
11-01-2007, 04:20 PM
Not sure why you say "barged". If a spectator had noticed the clock was not recording the time correctly and reported this to the arbiter. Therefore the arbiter had reason to think that the time recording was not working according to the published time control. The arbiter is well within his rights to investigate the situation including getting access to the board and witness the operation of the clock personally. After all the laws say " A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced." It does not say that a player needs to make a claim on this point. I would say if the arbiter sees that an increment is not added then the clock has an evident defect.

This is the crux of the matter. The arbiter did not see that the increment was missing until after the game had concluded. At that point, there are other matters to consider - such as the player who has claimed a win on time.

Rincewind
11-01-2007, 04:32 PM
This is the crux of the matter. The arbiter did not see that the increment was missing until after the game had concluded. At that point, there are other matters to consider - such as the player who has claimed a win on time.

I agree and I believe a lot depends on the resources available to the arbiter at the time and when the arbiter became await that a problem might have existed with the clock in question.

Of course there were other games in progress and other demands on the arbiter's time. However since time was getting short in that game then one could argue that an arbiter should have been taking a particular interest in that game according to the "role of the abiter" law 13.3.

Basil
11-01-2007, 04:33 PM
This is the crux of the matter.
The crux pax? :eek:
So did he make a Hacche of it? :lol:

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2007, 05:04 PM
Pairings discussion moved to Round 11 Australian Championships thread.

Recherché
11-01-2007, 07:31 PM
An incorrectly set clock is not specifically catered for in the rules and therefore to my mind the laws relating to faulty (which could cause the clock to behave in the same manner) seems appropriate.
The clock was in working order, and was initially set correctly. I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that player interference with the clock constitutes a faulty clock.

Open question: Do the Laws of Chess have anything to say on the matter of players who interfere with equipment such as clocks without contacting the arbiter or seeking permission?


David was working under the assumption that the clock was incrementing. If it wasn't it was not his time management that was faulty it was the time recording. The fact that he and not his opponent got into time trouble is therefore not material.
He was unaware of the lack of increments, but he was perfectly aware of the time he had left. It's not as though he thought he had 15 extra minutes (or whatever it would have been). The scoresheet makes that much plain.


My understanding is that the arbiter suspected that incementents were not being added while the game was in progress. This matter could have been confirmed by carefully watching one clock press.
Your suggested course of action is exactly what the arbiter did. When notified by the spectator that there was a possibility the players were not getting their increments, he went to the board himself to check. Before that one clock press ever happened, Mr Hacche lost on time.


This is not correct for classical chess. (S)He is no doubt thinking of law B4 which only applies in rapid and blitz. The number is 3 moves each.
Thank you for the information. This makes sense, as I was playing Blitz against him at the time.


It seems to me that in classical chess, if the arbiter suspects or notices that a clock is not functioning properly then he should do something about it. Firstly confirm the situation and if the clock is not incrementing then stop the game and fix the situation.
Once again, you have described the actions of the arbiter in this case.

The tone of your post seems to suggest you think the arbiter acted incorrectly, but it would appear instead that your impression of the actual situation was in error.

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2007, 07:59 PM
Open question: Do the Laws of Chess have anything to say on the matter of players who interfere with equipment such as clocks without contacting the arbiter or seeking permission?

This is covered for cases occurring during a game (eg a player cannot pick up the clock) but nothing explicit to directly cover resetting a clock before the game.

Recherché
11-01-2007, 08:12 PM
This is covered for cases occurring during a game (eg a player cannot pick up the clock) but nothing explicit to directly cover resetting a clock before the game.
Thanks. One of the problems with the Laws of Chess is that they seem to assume the presence of professional tournament conditions, and fail to account for some of the things that can happen in amateur and semi-pro tournaments.

Do you think there's any mileage in having a small set of additional tournament rules to cover a few of these gaps? What do the Laws have to say on the subject of supplemental rules?

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2007, 09:21 PM
Do you think there's any mileage in having a small set of additional tournament rules to cover a few of these gaps? What do the Laws have to say on the subject of supplemental rules?

They have to say that member federations can add more detailed rules provided that those rules do not conflict with the FIDE Laws and are not valid for any "FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament."

I don't really see a need for new short-term local rules in this case as the circumstances described are very unusual. In particular the combination of a player failing to notice he was not getting such a large increment, and the arbiter being advised of this just seconds before the flag is to fall, seems an unlikely one. However I think it is worth asking FIDE to clarify the status of an incorrectly set clock in the 2008-9 revisions.

Rincewind
11-01-2007, 11:01 PM
The clock was in working order, and was initially set correctly. I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that player interference with the clock constitutes a faulty clock.

If the clock is not adding increments then it constitutes a faulty clock in my eyes. In fact you are assuming the clock was correctly set by the arbiter before the start of play but that is unprovable. Also if the clock is not adding increments then it is impossible to determine whether the clock is suffering from an electronic malfunction or just hasn't been programmed correctly without examining the clock.


Open question: Do the Laws of Chess have anything to say on the matter of players who interfere with equipment such as clocks without contacting the arbiter or seeking permission?

Kevin answered this and the answer would seem to be no. If the arbiter is allowing players to use the clocks before the start of the round then I guess he should be prepared to ensure they are reprogrammed correctly.


He was unaware of the lack of increments, but he was perfectly aware of the time he had left. It's not as though he thought he had 15 extra minutes (or whatever it would have been). The scoresheet makes that much plain.

In the heat of a game it is easy to forget about things like checking for increments. Yes he was aware he was short on time but he should not have been. Also he should have been able to play himself out of trouble with the increment however as there was no increment, he was not able to.


Your suggested course of action is exactly what the arbiter did. When notified by the spectator that there was a possibility the players were not getting their increments, he went to the board himself to check. Before that one clock press ever happened, Mr Hacche lost on time.

Do we know the timeframes of exactly when the arbiter began to suspect the clock was faulty and when the game was lost on time?


Thank you for the information. This makes sense, as I was playing Blitz against him at the time.

Well the rules are somewhat different in blitz.


Once again, you have described the actions of the arbiter in this case.

He stopped the game and fixed the situation? Go him!


The tone of your post seems to suggest you think the arbiter acted incorrectly, but it would appear instead that your impression of the actual situation was in error.

No not in error. My understanding of the situation is the same as everyone else's, incomplete (including yours my friend). But the details are being filled in all the time.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 02:51 AM
I have changed the thread title to "clock not adding increment" in fairness to all sides as the original thread title asserting the clock was defective has not been substantiated by the subsequent debate (neither has the view that the clock was incorrectly set been proven beyond absolutely all possible doubt, although it looks incredibly likely.)


If the clock is not adding increments then it constitutes a faulty clock in my eyes.

That should not be the case if it is because it was incorrectly set. A faulty item is an item which does not perform as it is supposed to when correctly used. If an item is not performing as it is expected to because it is incorrectly set, then that does not mean it is faulty.


In fact you are assuming the clock was correctly set by the arbiter before the start of play but that is unprovable.

That is indeed unprovable but no reason to doubt it has been presented either. All parties agree that the last person to set this particular clock was the player.


Also if the clock is not adding increments then it is impossible to determine whether the clock is suffering from an electronic malfunction or just hasn't been programmed correctly without examining the clock.

The clock was used without problem in a subsequent round and the claims by the player that the clock was adding time earlier in the game have apparently been debunked by the score sheet. The clock was investigated after the game and found to be set to 60:30 /+0 rather than 60/+30.

The only available indication that the clock may have been faulty as opposed to incorrectly set, is that the player has claimed that he set the clock correctly before the game. However with the player's claim about the clock adding time being incompatible with the claimed scoresheet, I am not inclined to assume his claim to have set the clock correctly prior to the game is correct. The most likely explanation is simply that the player made an error when resetting the clock.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 07:47 AM
That should not be the case if it is because it was incorrectly set. A faulty item is an item which does not perform as it is supposed to when correctly used. If an item is not performing as it is expected to because it is incorrectly set, then that does not mean it is faulty.

The correct use of the clock as per the laws of chess is to press it when you have completed the move. This was being done and therefore the clock was being correctly used. (Obviously a player has no recourse if he is not pressing the clock). However, if it was not incrementing the time then the clock was not performing as it should. So by your definition the clock is faulty.

The other point is that the laws of chess make no distinction of an incorrectly set clock however I cannot see how an incorrectly set clock is any different to a faulty clock from the perspective of the player as per the paragraph above. Also I cannot see how an arbiter might determine the difference between an incorrectly set clock and one with an electronic malfunction without examining the clock (ie stopping a game in progress).

Therefore if a game is in progress and a clock is not increment as it should then the arbiter should at least stop the game and examine the clock. I would argue that the clock is considered faulty and the clock replaced with one that does increment.

Desmond
12-01-2007, 08:16 AM
Why do these debates always seem to get reduced to some tiny detail like whether an incorrectly set clock is "defective" or not.

The issue is simple.

A guy's flag fell. The arbiter established that he had not been given enough time on the clock, and his flag should not have yet fallen. He therefore did not lose on time.

All the rest - who set the clock, who notified the arbiter, whether or not the clock was "defective", whether the player should get a refund, whether the arbiter should be reprimanded - this is all background noise. The issue is that a guy lost on time when he shouldn't have. The arbiter should never have upheld the win on time claim by the opponent. End of story.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 08:20 AM
I have changed the thread title to "clock not adding increment" in fairness to all sides as the original thread title asserting the clock was defective has not been substantiated by the subsequent debate (neither has the view that the clock was incorrectly set been proven beyond absolutely all possible doubt, although it looks incredibly likely.)

I have no particular aversion to the present title of the thread (except using increment as a verb might have been less clumsy) but would argue that the the clock was faulty according to the laws of chess. The laws of chess are not written to cater for the nuances and increasing complexity of chess clocks. From the perspective of the laws of chess you press the button and the clock does what it supposed to. If a clock does not increment then it is not performing as it should and is therefore faulty. Whether the root cause of the fault lay with the electronic components, mechanical components, power source or programming of the firmware or software is irrelevent. The button is being pressed and the clock is not incrementing the time. That is a fault and the end of the story from the laws of chess.

1min_grandmaster
12-01-2007, 11:54 AM
I would like to add a minor point that has been missed. The DGT 2000 clock (the red/black clock with white lever on top) will often reset its setting to 1 (i.e. 5+0) even though it was most previously set to another setting (such as 23, which is used for 90+30, 60+30, etc), and it will do this even though no one has used the clock to play blitz, the batteries have not been taken out, etc. All you have to do is turn the clock off for a few minutes, which is what people usually do after a game (even arbiters do it). Test this for yourself next time if you don't believe me.

So in a tournament with many boards, and some clocks being turned off to save batteries, many DGTs will reset their setting to 1 even though no one has used them to play blitz, and therefore it is inevitable for the arbiter, his assistants, or the players themselves to reset the clocks and ensure the correct setting.

I am not sure if this problem occurs with the newer DGT XL model (grey clock with larger LCD display), but I would not be surprised if it does.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 03:28 PM
The correct use of the clock as per the laws of chess is to press it when you have completed the move. This was being done and therefore the clock was being correctly used.(Obviously a player has no recourse if he is not pressing the clock). However, if it was not incrementing the time then the clock was not performing as it should. So by your definition the clock is faulty. [and post 211 to similar effect]

"Correctly used" does not just include the actions of the players under the Laws during the game but also includes the actions of whoever sets the clock prior to the game. These are not explicitly spelled out in the Laws because they are too obvious to need to be, just as it is also nowhere explicitly spelled out that the clock needs to be turned on before the game, nor that it is forbidden for the arbiter to place the clock on the other side of the room and make the players run to it, Le Mans start style, between moves.


The other point is that the laws of chess make no distinction of an incorrectly set clock however I cannot see how an incorrectly set clock is any different to a faulty clock from the perspective of the player as per the paragraph above.

The most likely difference is that a setting fault will be systematically apparent throughout the game while a fault may develop suddenly without warning. In an incorrect increment case like this, a player who is paying attention to their clock will typically notice the problem and address it and hence is not likely to lose on time as a result before having a chance to get the problem fixed by the arbiter - whereas a player whose clock runs OK for a while then suddenly docks them an hour because of an electronic problem has no such resort. I can think of cases where an incorrect setting would have the same dramatic effect (eg a clock is supposed to add a large amount of time after move X and does not do so) but they are exceptions.

I don't personally believe FIDE intends the cases to be treated differently. But it is not a clearcut matter, and therefore the arbiter has discretion.


Also I cannot see how an arbiter might determine the difference between an incorrectly set clock and one with an electronic malfunction without examining the clock (ie stopping a game in progress).

If a difference between these is intended by the Laws then the arbiter should ideally still stop the clock promptly and rectify the matter while a clock is running in either case. The difference may lie in what to do if a flag actually falls. If the clock has an electronic malfunction then a loss on time indicated by it is clearly not binding. If the clock was incorrectly set then that is not clearly specified.


Therefore if a game is in progress and a clock is not increment as it should then the arbiter should at least stop the game and examine the clock. I would argue that the clock is considered faulty and the clock replaced with one that does increment.

I would agree with the former, but if the problem is an incorrect setting then the clock should simply be adjusted to the correct settings (with any time adjustments deemed necessary) as is standard and widespread practice in such cases. There is no need to replace a clock that has nothing evident wrong with it and that will work if correctly set.

Basil
12-01-2007, 04:02 PM
Barry, let's do this. I'll get my microwave oven and heat my two minute noodles for 10 seconds. I'll find that they are cold and not cooked.

Will you please accompany me to retravision and explain that the microwave oven is faulty because my noodles are aren't being cooked.

Recherché
12-01-2007, 04:11 PM
Do we know the timeframes of exactly when the arbiter began to suspect the clock was faulty and when the game was lost on time?

To a point, yes. We couldn't narrow it down to microseconds, but the amount of time was about 20-25 seconds, plus whatever time it took the arbiter to walk over to the board, and whatever time the conversation with the spectator who reported the suspicion took. So two minutes at most, I would think.

We could just as easily say, and more accurately, "when the arbiter began to suspect that the clock had been interfered with (by Mr Hacche)". The term "faulty" is a loaded one, especially as used by you here.


I...would argue that the the clock was faulty according to the laws of chess. From the perspective of the laws of chess you press the button and the clock does what it supposed to. If a clock does not increment then it is not performing as it should and is therefore faulty.

You're not addressing the issue of player tampering, which is important here. The fact that Mr Hacche caused the problem himself pretty much removes any claim to disadvantage through faulty equipment.

I think it's easier to argue that he should be given a forfeit loss for removing his opponent's increments than that he should be given extra time for removing his own.

Garvinator
12-01-2007, 04:42 PM
Barry, let's do this. I'll get my microwave oven and heat my two minute noodles for 10 seconds. I'll find that they are cold and not cooked.

Will you please accompany me to retravision and explain that the microwave oven is faulty because my noodles are aren't being cooked.
Did you remember to set the microwave to allow increments?

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 04:46 PM
"Correctly used" does not just include the actions of the players under the Laws during the game but also includes the actions of whoever sets the clock prior to the game. These are not explicitly spelled out in the Laws because they are too obvious to need to be, just as it is also nowhere explicitly spelled out that the clock needs to be turned on before the game, nor that it is forbidden for the arbiter to place the clock on the other side of the room and make the players run to it, Le Mans start style, between moves.

It would seems to me that it is not the role of the player the set the clock or determine it is correctly programmed or free of other defects before the start of the game. It is up to the organiser/arbiter to provide the equipment and therefore the onus is on those parties to ensure the clock is working correctly. From the players point of view if a clock is being used as they should (ie make move and press button) and it is not functioning correctly (ir increment is not being applied) then it is faulty. Whether you have recourse to the manufacturer of the clock depends on an entirely different sense of the word "faulty".


The most likely difference is that a setting fault will be systematically apparent throughout the game while a fault may develop suddenly without warning. In an incorrect increment case like this, a player who is paying attention to their clock will typically notice the problem and address it and hence is not likely to lose on time as a result before having a chance to get the problem fixed by the arbiter - whereas a player whose clock runs OK for a while then suddenly docks them an hour because of an electronic problem has no such resort. I can think of cases where an incorrect setting would have the same dramatic effect (eg a clock is supposed to add a large amount of time after move X and does not do so) but they are exceptions.

I don't personally believe FIDE intends the cases to be treated differently. But it is not a clearcut matter, and therefore the arbiter has discretion.

What is likely in different sort of root causes of the fault is a moot point. As 1min GM points out sometimes programmings can be lost. Faults which might result from the batteries running out could be apparent from the start.

Increments of less than one minute not being applied correctly are not readily apparent from the beginning of the game because the clock normally shows minutes and not seconds at that stage. When the clock gets down to less than 20 minutes (from memory) then a seconds display kicks in. But by that time the player is well into the game and not thinking of checking the time increment being applied.


If a difference between these is intended by the Laws then the arbiter should ideally still stop the clock promptly and rectify the matter while a clock is running in either case. The difference may lie in what to do if a flag actually falls. If the clock has an electronic malfunction then a loss on time indicated by it is clearly not binding. If the clock was incorrectly set then that is not clearly specified.

Well if we agree on the point that both situations should be handled in the same way then we can progress on to the next point. What to do when time runs out in this case. I'll make a post on this shortly.


I would agree with the former, but if the problem is an incorrect setting then the clock should simply be adjusted to the correct settings (with any time adjustments deemed necessary) as is standard and widespread practice in such cases. There is no need to replace a clock that has nothing evident wrong with it and that will work if correctly set.

I agree and infact I would say the wording of the rule is fine. The faulty clock was replaced with the same physical clock but one free from the fault (i.e. programmed correctly).

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 04:48 PM
Barry, let's do this. I'll get my microwave oven and heat my two minute noodles for 10 seconds. I'll find that they are cold and not cooked.

Will you please accompany me to retravision and explain that the microwave oven is faulty because my noodles are aren't being cooked.

Howard,

In expression there is a concept called "context". A local primary school can probably recommend some basic texts on English if you continue to have difficulty.

Warm regards, Barry

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 04:56 PM
To a point, yes. We couldn't narrow it down to microseconds, but the amount of time was about 20-25 seconds, plus whatever time it took the arbiter to walk over to the board, and whatever time the conversation with the spectator who reported the suspicion took. So two minutes at most, I would think.

We could just as easily say, and more accurately, "when the arbiter began to suspect that the clock had been interfered with (by Mr Hacche)". The term "faulty" is a loaded one, especially as used by you here.

If you have a problem with the term faulty then I am afraid you will have to take that up with those that drafted the rules of chess. I am just trying to interpret those laws to a particular situation.

The situation is we have a game where the clock is meant to be adding 30 secnods per move to the clock and it was evidently not doing so. From the perspective of the laws of chess I contend that this constitutes a clock which is not performing the function intended and is therefore faulty.


You're not addressing the issue of player tampering, which is important here. The fact that Mr Hacche caused the problem himself pretty much removes any claim to disadvantage through faulty equipment.

I think it's easier to argue that he should be given a forfeit loss for removing his opponent's increments than that he should be given extra time for removing his own.

So you have a problem with the term "fault" but not with the term "tampering". :)

Whoever set the clock is immaterial in my view. It is up to the arbiter and organisor to provide the equipment for the game, including the setting of the clock. The view that Hacche was the last to set the clock and therefore somehow deserves to lose on time is just those parties avoiding responsibility.

Garvinator
12-01-2007, 05:01 PM
I dont really see why this thread should continue. People have now moved from trying to work out what happened and what the laws actually say to trying to justify their own opinion on the matter.

We have seen alot of these threads occur on here, where debate moves from points of facts and trying to discover what happened to point scoring and justification for ones own opinion.

Basil
12-01-2007, 05:04 PM
Whoever set the clock is immaterial in my view. It is up to the arbiter and organisor to provide the equipment for the game, including the setting of the clock. The view that Hacche was the last to set the clock and therefore somehow deserves to lose on time is just those parties avoiding responsibility.
OK, developing seriously, if Hacche (any player) incorrectly set the clock and his opponent blundered a piece in the opening and resigned on move 10, would the opponent be permitted (after the game) to bring this matter to the attention of the arbiter and claim a result (you chose) other than the loss on the board?

Their claim would be, as you suggest, based on faulty equipment. This is in keeping with your interpretation, is it not?

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 05:05 PM
I dont really see why this thread should continue. People have now moved from trying to work out what happened and what the laws actually say to trying to justify their own opinion on the matter.

We have seen alot of these threads occur on here, where debate moves from points of facts and trying to discover what happened to point scoring and justification for ones own opinion.

Garvin,

What I am doing is arguing as to the intent of the Laws of Chess. Therefore I don't see that your post is even accurate of the state of the discussion.

Anyway participation is optional. So if you are not interested, don't read, don't post. The choice is all yours, my friend.

Barry

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 05:42 PM
It would seems to me that it is not the role of the player the set the clock or determine it is correctly programmed or free of other defects before the start of the game. It is up to the organiser/arbiter to provide the equipment and therefore the onus is on those parties to ensure the clock is working correctly. From the players point of view if a clock is being used as they should (ie make move and press button) and it is not functioning correctly (ir increment is not being applied) then it is faulty. Whether you have recourse to the manufacturer of the clock depends on an entirely different sense of the word "faulty".

The laws say nothing about point of view. They don't even mention the word "fault" in discussing the matter. They say that a clock with an "evident defect" should be treated in a certain manner, and that manner implies strongly that "evident defect" means the thing is busted.


What is likely in different sort of root causes of the fault is a moot point. As 1min GM points out sometimes programmings can be lost.

If the clock is set for the start of the game then switches to a different time control during the game then it is faulty. However there is no evidence this happened after the player reset the clock at the start of the game.


Faults which might result from the batteries running out could be apparent from the start.

Possibly. However, flat batteries are another example of how the Laws simply do not cover electronic clocks properly. A flat battery is an evident defect. However a flat battery can be addressed by replacing the battery without needing to replace the clock.


Increments of less than one minute not being applied correctly are not readily apparent from the beginning of the game because the clock normally shows minutes and not seconds at that stage. When the clock gets down to less than 20 minutes (from memory) then a seconds display kicks in. But by that time the player is well into the game and not thinking of checking the time increment being applied.

Unless you are thinking a lot in the first few moves the lack of a 30 second increment will normally become quickly apparent because you will fail to gain time on the clock. Of course, players vary.


I agree and infact I would say the wording of the rule is fine. The faulty clock was replaced with the same physical clock but one free from the fault (i.e. programmed correctly).

That (replacing something with itself) is not a usage of the word "replace" with which I am at all familiar.

If I encounter it from anyone else in the next twenty years I shall be sure to let you know. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 05:53 PM
Why do these debates always seem to get reduced to some tiny detail like whether an incorrectly set clock is "defective" or not.

The issue is simple.

Let me put the case that it is "simple" from the other perspective:

A player adjusted the clock prior to the game when he should have got the arbiter to do it.

The player adjusted the clock incorrectly.

The player failed to notice he had adjusted the clock incorrectly (thus depriving his opponent of an increment).

The player's flag fell. The arbiter established that he had set the clock incorrectly, and his flag had fallen as a result of the player's own error. He therefore lost on time.

All the rest .... End of story!

The reason for the pecking over the fine details is that intuitions operate in different directions and therefore we need to consider in detail what the Laws actually say.

At this point we tend to discover that the Laws are a dog's breakfast and there are many situations in which an arbiter can defensibly go whichever way they wish. Saying "this is what I would have done" and saying "the arbiter was wrong" are two different things in such circumstances. I can certainly say the former in at least two aspects (firstly I would have intervened before the clock could hit zero, secondly even if I couldn't have done that I would not have awarded the game on flagfall) but those are just my opinions.

Basil
12-01-2007, 05:57 PM
OK, developing seriously, if Hacche (any player) incorrectly set the clock and his opponent blundered a piece in the opening and resigned on move 10, would the opponent be permitted (after the game) to bring this matter to the attention of the arbiter and claim a result (you chose) other than the loss on the board?

Their claim would be, as you suggest, based on faulty equipment. This is in keeping with your interpretation, is it not?

Now, arguing against myself (which is always fun). Player sets the clock incorrectly. Player B is disadvantaged. Now what!?!?!?!

Time for a Bex!

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 05:59 PM
Garvin,

What I am doing is arguing as to the intent of the Laws of Chess. Therefore I don't see that your post is even accurate of the state of the discussion.

Anyway participation is optional. So if you are not interested, don't read, don't post. The choice is all yours, my friend.

Seconded. Heaven forbid that people should attempt to justify their opinions!

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 06:01 PM
OK, developing seriously, if Hacche (any player) incorrectly set the clock and his opponent blundered a piece in the opening and resigned on move 10, would the opponent be permitted (after the game) to bring this matter to the attention of the arbiter and claim a result (you chose) other than the loss on the board?

Sorry Howard, but this is not a relevant example because resignation immediately ends the game giving the player no recourse to further complaint.

(Except for resignations made at gunpoint or following forcible abduction and drugging of course. :lol: )

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 06:03 PM
If I encounter it from anyone else in the next twenty years I shall be sure to let you know. :lol:

Have you never replaced or upgraded software? :owned:

Basil
12-01-2007, 06:05 PM
Sorry Howard, but this is not a relevant example because resignation immediately ends the game giving the player no recourse to further complaint.

(Except for resignations made at gunpoint or following forcible abduction and drugging of course. :lol: )
Noted. Q.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 06:05 PM
Sorry, "evident defect" is the term I should be using. Please replace "faulty" with "evidently defective" in all my previous posts in this thread. The arguments remain unchanged.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 06:07 PM
Have you never replaced or upgraded software? :owned:

Not quite sure what you think you're owning here.

Upgrading and replacing are not the same thing.

If I replace a copy of a program with a different program or another copy of the same program then I am not replacing a thing with itself.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 06:09 PM
OK, developing seriously, if Hacche (any player) incorrectly set the clock and his opponent blundered a piece in the opening and resigned on move 10, would the opponent be permitted (after the game) to bring this matter to the attention of the arbiter and claim a result (you chose) other than the loss on the board?

Their claim would be, as you suggest, based on faulty equipment. This is in keeping with your interpretation, is it not?

The players could appeal that the clock was defective and the arbiter could replace it and adjust time accordingly. I don;t see how this would make much difference to the outcome of the game though.

Also as Kevin points out the player resigned the game and so has less recourse than a player who suffers a flag fall before the allotted time and imcrement had expired.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 06:11 PM
If I replace a copy of a program with a different program or another copy of the same program then I am not replacing a thing with itself.

Ok. The clock settings are the software. You are replacing the 1:30:30 + 00 program with the 1:30:00 + 30 program.

In the same sense you might say, I replaced Abobe Acrobat Reader (TM) version 4 with Adobe Acrobat Reader (TM) version 7.

Desmond
12-01-2007, 06:16 PM
The player's flag fell. The arbiter established that he had set the clock incorrectly, and his flag had fallen as a result of the player's own error. He therefore lost on time. Here, your argument falls down.
Firstly, I don't believe from what is written in this thread that the arbiter did establish who set the clock. Secondly, even if the arbiter did establish that the player whose flag fell was the one to set the clock, so what? Is that the price of incorrectly setting a clock - one point per clock? If so, watch the tumbleweeds roll past next time the arbiter calls for help doing this task. Geez, if I'm quick, I can be on -15 before the first round begins. What if the player set the clock to 1 second each, and lost on time before picking up his d-pawn.*

Let me put it in another way:
1. Player B makes a claim to the arbiter that Player A lost on time.
2. The arbiter establishes that Player A was not initially given enough time.
**Now comes the Choose-Your-Own-Adventure part**
3a. The arbiter fixes the clock, rejects the claim and the game continues.
3b. The arbiter says to the Player A, "well, you haven;t used all your time, but guess what: you lose on time."


*other moves, and he is clearly asking for trouble, and the loss is just a matter of time**.
**albeit usually more than one second.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 06:16 PM
The laws say nothing about point of view. They don't even mention the word "fault" in discussing the matter. They say that a clock with an "evident defect" should be treated in a certain manner, and that manner implies strongly that "evident defect" means the thing is busted.

The electronic chess clock is composed of may parts. Mechanical, electronic and programmatical (firmware and software). In this case it would appear that the fault most likely occurred in the software. he software is still a part of the clock and not separate from it.

Garvinator
12-01-2007, 06:19 PM
At this point we tend to discover that the Laws are a dog's breakfast and there are many situations in which an arbiter can defensibly go whichever way they wish. Saying "this is what I would have done" and saying "the arbiter was wrong" are two different things in such circumstances. I can certainly say the former in at least two aspects (firstly I would have intervened before the clock could hit zero, secondly even if I couldn't have done that I would not have awarded the game on flagfall) but those are just my opinions.And I disagree with your possible actions ;)

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 06:24 PM
Ok. The clock settings are the software. You are replacing the 1:30:30 + 00 program with the 1:30:00 + 30 program.

In the same sense you might say, I replaced Abobe Acrobat Reader (TM) version 4 with Adobe Acrobat Reader (TM) version 7.

Nope. When you reset the clock, you are not giving it new software options it never had before and hence permanently changing what it can do, but rather altering settings available within its existing software. It is just like changing the time settings on a chess computer program prior to a given game.

In any case the Laws refer to replacing a clock, not its programming.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 06:27 PM
Let me put the case that it is "simple" from the other perspective:

A player adjusted the clock prior to the game when he should have got the arbiter to do it.

The player adjusted the clock incorrectly.

The player failed to notice he had adjusted the clock incorrectly (thus depriving his opponent of an increment).

The player's flag fell. The arbiter established that he had set the clock incorrectly, and his flag had fallen as a result of the player's own error. He therefore lost on time.

All the rest .... End of story!

The fact that the player that lost on time who set the clock incorrectly should not be at an issue. The arbiter should ensure the clocks are set correctly before the game commences. Once the game begins the laws of chess take over and if the clock has an evident defect with its operation then 6.11 applies.

It appears that the arbiter at least suspected the clock was faulty before the win on time claim was made and I believe the arbiter should have established that the allotted time plus increment had indeed been used by the other player before deciding on this claim.

The arbiter should have checked the clock, discovered the defect corrected it. The flag falling doesn't immediately end anything and the result is not established until the arbiter decides on the win on time claim.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 06:34 PM
Here, your argument falls down.
Firstly, I don't believe from what is written in this thread that the arbiter did establish who set the clock.

But the player himself has said on this thread that he reset the clock! (Post 139). It's not under dispute.


Secondly, even if the arbiter did establish that the player whose flag fell was the one to set the clock, so what? Is that the price of incorrectly setting a clock - one point per clock?

Not in isolation. But it wasn't in isolation.


If so, watch the tumbleweeds roll past next time the arbiter calls for help doing this task.

Not relevant since in this case you would be acting as an authorised assistant of the arbiter, rather than a player taking matters into their own hands.


1. Player B makes a claim to the arbiter that Player A lost on time.
2. The arbiter establishes that Player A was not initially given enough time.
**Now comes the Choose-Your-Own-Adventure part**
3a. The arbiter fixes the clock, rejects the claim and the game continues.
3b. The arbiter says to the Player A, "well, you haven;t used all your time, but guess what: you lose on time."

Again, all this is giving some of the information but not all of it. To me, the arbiter is entitled to take into account the fact that the player reset the clock without authorisation, and from all available evidence incorrectly, at the start of the game.

(However, as heaviestknight notes, if the clock was really showing 5 0, that could have been because the clock was switched off after the arbiter had initially set it.)

Also a lot of the technical debate above is about whether or not the Laws prevent the arbiter from taking action 3a. in this case.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 06:35 PM
Nope. When you reset the clock, you are not giving it new software options it never had before and hence permanently changing what it can do, but rather altering settings available within its existing software. It is just like changing the time settings on a chess computer program prior to a given game.

In any case the Laws refer to replacing a clock, not its programming.

There is no requirement to permenantly change what it can do. When you replace software you are not necessarily changing what it can do either.

You seem to be claiming that a change of settings (ie data) is somehow different from a change of program (ie software). However in Von Neumann computing there is no intrinsic difference between software and data.

In any regards...

Whether you call it a program or a list of settings is irrelevent. They are a part of the clock and if the clock is not applying the increment as it should then the fault is with the clock and it therefore has a defect. The defect is evident by examining the settings and seeing that the clock was not programmed to apply an increment.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 06:41 PM
The fact that the player that lost on time who set the clock incorrectly should not be at an issue. The arbiter should ensure the clocks are set correctly before the game commences.

I agree that this is the arbiter's responsibility, but the arbiter should not be expected to anticipate a player incorrectly and unilaterally resetting the clock. Even if a clock is showing an incorrect setting when it arrives, I think a player who chooses to reset it and gets it wrong then doesn't notice he got it wrong until it is too late bears some responsibility for his fate.


It appears that the arbiter at least suspected the clock was faulty before the win on time claim was made and I believe the arbiter should have established that the allotted time plus increment had indeed been used by the other player before deciding on this claim.

The arbiter should have checked the clock, discovered the defect corrected it. The flag falling doesn't immediately end anything and the result is not established until the arbiter decides on the win on time claim.

This is all what I would have done but in defending such action it is necessary, in my view, to resort to the Preface as the case is not precisely covered.

Cases that need to be resolved by resort to the Preface, except for silly hypotheticals, are generally subjective.

Bill Gletsos
12-01-2007, 06:45 PM
Whether you call it a program or a list of settings is irrelevent. They are a part of the clock and if the clock is not applying the increment as it should then the fault is with the clock and it therefore has a defect. The defect is evident by examining the settings and seeing that the clock was not programmed to apply an increment.Incorrectly setting the clock isnt a software, hardware or firmware error with the clock.
It is simply user error. :hand:

Axiom
12-01-2007, 06:51 PM
Incorrectly setting the clock isnt a software, hardware or firmware error with the clock.
It is simply user error. :hand:
user pays?

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 06:53 PM
There is no requirement to permenantly change what it can do. When you replace software you are not necessarily changing what it can do either.

True but your example (an upgrade) involved changes.


You seem to be claiming that a change of settings (ie data) is somehow different from a change of program (ie software). However in Von Neumann computing there is no intrinsic difference between software and data.

Von Neumann will need to exhume himself and convince me, which since he died fifty years ago when computers were in nappies could be something of a struggle. :D


Whether you call it a program or a list of settings is irrelevent. They are a part of the clock and if the clock is not applying the increment as it should then the fault is with the clock and it therefore has a defect. The defect is evident by examining the settings and seeing that the clock was not programmed to apply an increment.

Which is not the fault of the clock but the fault of the carbon-based lifeform misusing it, hence the fault is not with the clock. I have addressed this before, and am about to petition the Attorney-General asking him to grant inanimate objects the right to sue for defamation. :lol:

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 07:05 PM
Which is not the fault of the clock but the fault of the carbon-based lifeform misusing it, hence the fault is not with the clock. I have addressed this before, and am about to petition the Attorney-General asking him to grant inanimate objects the right to sue for defamation. :lol:

Now you are trying to imply that I said that it was the clocks fault. Having fault is a completely different thing to a piece of equipment being faulty. So you should try to address the holes ni your argument and not throw in red herrings.

Do you agree the settings are a part of the clock?

Do you agree that the setting were incorrect?

How do you defend therefore the interpretation that the clock had a defect. That is, that the settings were not correct?

Whether Hacche or someone else modified these settings last is irrelevent as previously noted. Players often need to adjust the settnigs of clocks and the arbiters are often not available to perform this task in a timely manner. Players are not expected to be experts in clock settings and honest mistakes do happen. The outcome of a game of chess skill should not hinge on the ability of one of the participants to perform an arbitorial function.

You can blame Hacche for settnig the clock incorrectly. However, there is no basis in the rules or any of the arguments put forward in this thread thus far to support that this should affect the outcome of the win on time claim.

Axiom
12-01-2007, 07:05 PM
skaro, no doubt would appreciate the link between the 2 related thread titles, ie, this one, and the 'unauthorised withdrawal' one! :eek: :D :rolleyes: :doh: :eh: :uhoh: :)

Desmond
12-01-2007, 07:26 PM
But the player himself has said on this thread that he reset the clock! (Post 139). It's not under dispute.Yes, well we all know that now, but your argument seems to assume that the arbiter knew it at the time. This is something different entirely.


Not relevant since in this case you would be acting as an authorised assistant of the arbiter, rather than a player taking matters into their own hands.Again, has it been demostrated that the arbiter knew who set the clock at the time of his ruling?


Again, all this is giving some of the information but not all of it. To me, the arbiter is entitled to take into account the fact that the player reset the clock without authorisation, and from all available evidence incorrectly, at the start of the game. Again, has it been demostrated that the arbiter knew who set the clock at the time of his ruling?


Also a lot of the technical debate above is about whether or not the Laws prevent the arbiter from taking action 3a. in this case.Surely the arbiter has the right to reject a flag fall claim? He also has the right to check and if required correct the setting of a clock.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 07:59 PM
Now you are trying to imply that I said that it was the clocks fault. Having fault is a completely different thing to a piece of equipment being faulty. So you should try to address the holes ni your argument and not throw in red herrings.

Since I regard your concept of replacing something with itself (not to mention other curious interpretations) as being not so much a red herring as a red basking shark, I'll throw in whatever I like. :lol:


Do you agree the settings are a part of the clock?

No. They are data entered into it.


Do you agree that the setting were incorrect?

Yes.


How do you defend therefore the interpretation that the clock had a defect.

I don't. That's your interpretation.


That is, that the settings were not correct?

This is going round in circles - I have explained my evidence for the clock being incorrectly set before.


Players often need to adjust the settnigs of clocks and the arbiters are often not available to perform this task in a timely manner.

Irrelevant. Players are entitled to stop the clock while seeking the arbiter's assistance.


The outcome of a game of chess skill should not hinge on the ability of one of the participants to perform an arbitorial function.

A player shouldn't be performing such a function at all unless directed. If he insists on performing it he should get it right.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 08:11 PM
Yes, well we all know that now, but your argument seems to assume that the arbiter knew it at the time. This is something different entirely.

He had good reason to assume it. After all he did examine the clock and ascertain that it was incorrectly showing 60:30 rather than 60/+30.


Again, has it been demostrated that the arbiter knew who set the clock at the time of his ruling?

I'm not (yet) familiar with the minutae of exactly what was said by whom in the process of the arbiter making his decision. However I'd be very surprised if the matter wasn't discussed.


Surely the arbiter has the right to reject a flag fall claim?

This is what we have been discussing. I think the arbiter does, where there are valid reasons to do so, but except for "evident defect" (whatever that means) which is clearly covered, whether to do so or not seems to be a subjective matter.


He also has the right to check and if required correct the setting of a clock.

Agreed.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 08:20 PM
Since I regard your concept of replacing something with itself (not to mention other curious interpretations) as being not so much a red herring as a red basking shark, I'll throw in whatever I like. :lol:

It is hardly curious at all. It is analogious to a clock with flat batteries. The clock is faulty and the clock is replaced with a non faulty one (ie one with fresh batteries). The physical clock could be the same or different it does not matter provided the device it is being replaced with doesn'it suffer from the defect.


No. They are data entered into it.
Yes.
I don't. That's your interpretation.

They are contained in the clock and incorrect causing the clock to not function as required.


This is going round in circles - I have explained my evidence for the clock being incorrectly set before.

It is not gonig around in ciircle you are just trying to dance around in circles. The clock was not functioning as it should and the arbiter had every reason to believe this was the case before deciding on the win on time claim.


Irrelevant. Players are entitled to stop the clock while seeking the arbiter's assistance.

A player shouldn't be performing such a function at all unless directed. If he insists on performing it he should get it right.

Not irrelevent as it is normal practice in tournaments in this country for players to perform this function. Therefore Hacche doing so is not tampering but rather behavnig in a very normal way in the circumstances he found himself. (IE at a boad with the clock patently incorrectly set).

The fact that he made a mistake should not affect the decision and if the arbiter had not determined who set the clock at the time of his decision could not have affetced the decision in this case.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 08:36 PM
It is hardly curious at all. It is analogious to a clock with flat batteries. The clock is faulty and the clock is replaced with a non faulty one (ie one with fresh batteries). The physical clock could be the same or different it does not matter provided the device it is being replaced with doesn'it suffer from the defect.

I don't think the current wording of the laws even takes flat batteries into account. As Bill mentions, it hasn't changed since the analogue clock days. With an analogue clock, if the clock's not working properly, it's busted, unless it has wound down, and nobody's going to lose on time because their clock has wound down (since that causes the clock to slow or stop).


Not irrelevent as it is normal practice in tournaments in this country for players to perform this function.

Excluding short time controls I have not played in any event where this was the case. (However most of my events are played in one state). Can arbiters of other long time control events comment?



It is not gonig around in ciircle you are just trying to dance around in circles.

Not at all. I simply find that points are being raised that I believe I had already covered - particularly in those sections of the thread where those raising them were not posting heavily.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 08:48 PM
I don't think the current wording of the laws even takes flat batteries into account. As Bill mentions, it hasn't changed since the analogue clock days. With an analogue clock, if the clock's not working properly, it's busted, unless it has wound down, and nobody's going to lose on time because their clock has wound down (since that causes the clock to slow or stop).

I agree but the point is replacing a defective clock with a non-defective clock could involve the same physical clock (or parts therefore) to be involved in the replacement. The same could occur with an analogue clock. For example if it was noticed that a clock had wound down and was not ticking (or ticknig slowly) the arbiter would remove the defective clock and replacing it with a non-defective clock. This might have involved simply winding up the spring of the offending device.


Excluding short time controls I have not played in any event where this was the case. (However most of my events are played in one state). Can arbiters of other long time control events comment?

Perhaps even players can comment.

At our club it is common pratice for the arbiter to ONLY set the clock if requested to do so by a player. Many do request it, particularly older players but around 50% of clocks are set by players and it causes very few problems.


Not at all. I simply find that points are being raised that I believe I had already covered - particularly in those sections of the thread where those raising them were not posting heavily.

A lack of posting does not mean I did not read the thread. I preferred to refrain frmo posting until more of the details were agreed on. It prevents having to do 5 backflips on the decision. ;)

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 09:05 PM
I agree but the point is replacing a defective clock with a non-defective clock could involve the same physical clock (or parts therefore) to be involved in the replacement. The same could occur with an analogue clock. For example if it was noticed that a clock had wound down and was not ticking (or ticknig slowly) the arbiter would remove the defective clock and replacing it with a non-defective clock. This might have involved simply winding up the spring of the offending device.

Winding up the spring is resetting not replacement.

There's no argument that the arbiter can (and must, once it is clear there is a problem) reset a clock in this manner while both flags are still up.


Perhaps even players can comment.

At our club it is common pratice for the arbiter to ONLY set the clock if requested to do so by a player. Many do request it, particularly older players but around 50% of clocks are set by players and it causes very few problems.

Actually at my club this happens too, so I should have been more accurate and limited my comment to weekend tournaments, where I cannot recall any event played with a digital clock where the arbiters did not perform or at least supervise the resetting of clocks. Club games at my club often start at varying times over half an hour or so rather than all at once.


It prevents having to do 5 backflips on the decision. ;)

That doesn't bother me. There is nothing wrong with expressing a provisional position, nor with changing one's mind when provided with new information. It is probably something people are generally too reluctant to do.

In fact I only changed my position (at all) three times, and the second and third of these both only affected a scenario that actually turned out not to apply. The only effective change of mind on my part was from that the decision appeared to be wrong to that the decision was one of a range of possible options, and that was brought about by simply carefully reading and considering the relevant passage in the Laws.