Would there be any support for an ADM to provide relief to a player whose flag fall occurred after an illegal move by the opponent (within the current 2-minute time trouble spec, of course)?
The purpose would be to prevent players from making “any old move, legal or not” in order to win on time?
I realize that the con to this may be that a legal move would have had the same affect, and that the player whose time ran out should simply manage their time better. But for me, this could be an area of poor sportsmanship. A person should not win on time by making an illegal move.
So, possible ADM language could be:
“A player whose flag has fallen after an illegal move by the opponent, may stop both clocks, present a counterclaim, and request 2 minutes added to the player’s time as a counterclaim to the fallen flag, nullifying a win on time claim by the opponent”.
A five second delay should be enough time for the opponent to blurt out “illegal move” and press the clock to restart the player’s clock, and a thirty second increment is absolutely plenty of time to do so.
Remember, a flag is considered to have fallen when either player calls attention to it. A TD should attend to claims in the order in which they are made. If in a time scramble the opponent manages to say “illegal move”, then his flag falls, then the opponent says “flag”, the TD should handle the illegal move claim first.
I would also recommend being lenient in what constitutes a claim in a time scramble. Of course, the proper procedure is for the opponent to stop the clock and summon a TD. (Even if the player agrees the move is illegal, there is still the matter of adjusting the clock for the two minute penalty, and players should not be adjusting clocks.) In a time scramble, if the opponent just said “illegal move” and could not stop his clock before his flag fell, I would still consider that a legitimate claim (in the sense that the TD should rule on it).
I don’t agree that there are no cases where claims may be considered out of the order in which they are made. I favor the proposed rule.
I had this exact situation in a game of mine. In the final round of the 1983 U.S. Open (which of course was before there was any such thing as time delay), I was in severe time trouble but confidently blitzing out the final moves of the primary control (which was at move 50). On move 48 we had this position:
I played 48…Qc6 and was shocked when my opponent played 49 Qxf7+, forcing mate. For a few seconds (it could have been more than five) I was in a state of confusion and my flag fell. My opponent immediately claimed a time forfeit. By then I had realized what happened and said, “Wait a minute, that was an illegal move.” I didn’t say so at the time but I was deeply suspicious that he had done it on purpose. When the TD came to make a ruling, I argued that there should be no circumstances under which my opponent should be rewarded for his illegal move. The TD agreed, put about 30 seconds back on my clock and resumed the game, and with the forced queen trade I easily made the final two moves to the time control.
I think the proposed rule is a good idea. Back in 1983 the TD just used common sense to arrive at an equitable ruling but these days it might be a good idea to make it explicit.
I’m not sure what you meant by “tl;dr” because my post wasn’t that long. Maybe you should have read it?
First of all, I don’t see that the rules currently cover this situation. As a matter of fact, in the Blitz rules, it specifically states that an illegal move doesn’t negate a flag fall claim.
I’m not sure anybody can say, definitively, that even 30 seconds is enough time to notice an illegal move due to the shock factor, but I’m willing to say OK to that. But I just have to take the opposite view that 5 seconds is enough time for anything.
As far as the proper order for claims, I agree with your interpretation, but perhaps this is a case where the illegal move should take precedence. Losing a game on time due to an illegal move is bad.
@Terry, He meant that for those that didn’t read his long response, his “tldr /too long; didn’t read” is that the rules already cover this - not that he didn’t read your post.
I agree that there are rules already in place cover this - it isn’t one specific rule but a combination of rules: I listed what I would use as my ruling for your scenario: 1A, 1C, 9G, 10B, 11D, 13C, 16E, and 21F.
I concur that a game should not be won on time with the last move being an illegal move but for the player to be under time pressure - that is their own doing not his/her opponent or the TD affected the player’s time management skills.
I will concede that the rules do, in fact, allude to not allowing an illegal move, particularly 11D since none of the clauses (a-d) mentions a flag fall. Also, 21F1/2/3 is helpful. Based on these rules, I believe we could reinstate the position before the illegal move, and readjust the clocks even if the player had called time before the opponent claimed the illegal move.
I still believe, however, that any illegal move claim should take precedence over any other claim, and should be clearly indicated by the rules. And, Blitz rule 7e should be repealed.
But, since I’m not a delegate, I will have to rely on one to take up this cause if they feel so inclined. I’m just pointing out a potential problem, and hopefully someone will feel the same. If not, well then I can live with it as it is.
