At a recent blitz even there was a game with both players down to their last seconds. Player A claims the win on time, but does not stop his clock and his flag has fallen as well. The TD queries independent witnesses in order to determine whose flag fell first. Witnesses say Player B’s flag fell first. TD gives the win to player A. Player B complained that the game should be a draw, but was denied.
On the surface this seems reasonable. If Player B truly did flag first, Player A wins, right? However, according to the rules, this seems incorrect. Although this was in G/5;d0 blitz game, the corresponding rules for both blitz and regular are essentially same. The player must stop his clock in order to make the claim. There is no mention of allowing independent witnesses to verify the claim.
How would you handle this? Note that I am not criticizing the TD. I ask this only for my own edification to improve my TD skills. I was not a TD at this event nor did I witness this game first hand, but this is an interesting case.
FIDE and USCF rules differ substantially on this. In FIDE, the arbiter is supposed to do everything he can to determine whose time expired first, and rule accordingly. In USCF, the player’s time is not regarded as expired until the opponent calls it, and if both players’ times expire before anybody calls it, the game is drawn. (Or, if the time control was not the final one, e.g. 40/90 rather than G/90, then the game continues.)
These differences are going to present more and more problems for organizers and players, especially with the larger number of FIDE-rated events being run in the USA.
For USCF events it isn’t about who’s flag fell first, it’s about when the flag fall was claimed. 16E. The flag is considered to have fallen when either player points this out.
The TD in a blitz event very likely has no time to do a clean investigation and seek out impartial witnesses. Witnesses have been known to lie or see things that did not happen. Hard to find an unbiased witness who does not have something at stake or an axe to grind. Have seen arguments start this way just because a player and an “unbiased” spectator did not like each other. Unless I as the TD saw the result occur, if both flags are down, the players get the result they deserve, a draw marked on the pairing sheet, and move on to the next round.
If you have a situation where the players are not going to admit when their flag fell, then you have a bigger problem as the chess culture is backward, unfriendly, and too ruthless. People in that environment will then believe that cheating is an acceptable strategy, too. When people are willing to behave like that, then the TD needs to come down hard on any and every infraction. Blitz events that have problems usually end up dying out as a lot of players don’t like to deal with an atmosphere like that. When I see places where people call their own flag in a tournament, I know that place is a good spot to play chess.
In this particular case, it was USCF only, so FIDE rules do not apply. I understand there is a difference and it may be this difference where I am wondering if the ruling was correct. By querying independent witnesses it seemed the FIDE rule was followed rather than the USCF rule. I’m not saying this is the wrong approach. Having the correct result would seem to be the most desirable outcome. Perhaps the FIDE rule is better here (or some combination of the two). But, strictly according to the current USCF rules, was the course of action correct?
One thing I don’t know is if the claim was made before his time ran out as well or not. The claimant couldn’t have had more than 2 seconds and easily may have been less. It was very close. In asking about it I was told that the decision was based on whose flag fell first. Unfortunately I didn’t think to ask if the claim was made before his own flag fell. I believe there was some dispute about which flag fell first, which was why independent witnesses were asked.
The one thing I am clear on is that both player’s time had expired. What I’m unsure on based on the wording of the rules is that even if Player A did make the claim before his own time had expired, but did not pause his clock in time, is the claim still valid? Seems to me it is not.
Relevant rules:
14G. … If a player whose flag is still up claims a win on time but does not stop the clock in time to prevent the flag from falling, the game is drawn.
Blitz 7c. [A game is won by the player:] Whose opponent’s flag falls first, at any time before the game is otherwise ended by stopping the clock prior to the player’s own clock’s flag fall, and who has mating material.
I hear you. Most of the time people accept their fate and the games continue without issue. In this particular case, since both players were down to their last seconds, there was even some dispute about who flagged first. I don’t think either side was cheating or being less than honest. It was just too close and the TD had to make a ruling.
I was at a tournament where one of the games had a mad time scramble between a minister and another player. The minister’s flag fell, but his opponent did not notice in the rush to make moves. The reverend’s flushed face was enough to see that he knew his flag was down. Then the other player’s flag fell. The minister called out, “Flags!” and a draw was registered. One of the players patted the lucky holy man on the back and said, “Oh yeah, you’re going straight to h-e-l-l.”
I believe the ruling was in error if the TD relied on who’s flag fell first. The ruling had to be based on whether or not the claimant pointed out the flag fall before his/her own flag fell.
Absent any corroborating witness testimony, we have to assume that the claimant did not point it out before his own flag fell (or at least, he didn’t stop the clocks in time), and therefore the game should have been ruled a draw based upon 16O, which states that “every indication given by a clock is considered to be conclusive in the absence of evident defects…”
If and only if FIDE rules were in effect, the ruling is supported, and probably correct.
If USCF rules were in effect, the decision is simply not correct, directly contravening the plain language of at least three portions of the rulebook directly on point:
This approach is codified for blitz at blitz rules 7c (requiring the winning player to stop his clock before his flag falls for a valid claim) and 8c (game is drawn if both flags are down without a claim as defined in 7c).
If the facts given are correct and USCF rules applied, the TD kicked it and kicked it badly, and the player should appeal.
For the USCF to be the entity an appeal goes to (probably to Rules in this case), it would have to have been USCF-rated. USCF rules can be applied to events that are not USCF rated and there has not been a definite statement from the OP that it was USCF-rated. There is a filing fee for an appeal and that is probably $25.
Absolutely not. Once both players’ times have expired, it’s over – draw. If the player claiming a win on time does not have time (or simply fails) to neutralize the clock before his own time expires, it’s a draw.
It was USCF rated (blitz rated) and only USCF rated. FIDE does not apply. I doubt it’s worth appealing especially since it probably wouldn’t have affected prizes and it is only blitz rated. Maybe if it was regular rated…
I asked mainly so that if I face a similar situation, I can respond correctly. The action taken here was different than my understanding, so I asked for clarification. Thanks.
There is zero question USCF has this rule right. For if a player is inattentive enough to notice his opponents flag fall, then quite frankly he does not deserve to win on time.
The situation is clearly addressed in USCF blitz rule 8c: The game is drawn “if the flag of one player falls after the flag of the other player has already fallen and a win has not been claimed, unless either side mates before noticing that both flags are down.”
In spite of being written in execrable “sentence factoring style” where a sentence fragment is labeled as a rule, the rule seems explicit and clear to me.
Does the phrase “and a win has not been claimed” require that the win be claimed “properly” (i.e. by stopping the clock)? Or in the OP, does the fact that White did claim the win trigger that fragment? It is not clear to me whether you are saying this game is a clear draw or not. One could argue that white claimed the win and thus the TD is justified in conducting his investigation.
The USCF procedure can also take the win away from an attentive player. Opponent moves just as his flag falls and starts player’s clock. Player’s flag falls before player can reach and stop the clock.
There’s a simple fix for this. Change the time claim procedure to allow making a win claim if either (1) the clocks are stopped and your flag is up and your opponent’s flag is down, or (2) both flags are down and your clock is running.
This should always allow an attentive player to get the win if his opponent’s flag fell first. If his opponent has not moved, the player can stop the clocks and claim under case (1). If the opponent has moved, the attentive player can stop the clocks and claim under case (1) if he thinks he can get the clocks stopped before his own flag falls, or he can leave his clock running and claim under case (2).
