Clock adds time too early

Running Chess Tournaments
41

If you’re curious about a respondent’s credentials, you can always use the USCF ID number attached to a post they’ve made to look them up in MSA. However, if I was asking for general feedback, I would focus on what was being said (especially if it was being repeated ad nauseam), rather than who said it.

BTW, I’m not sure who’s in the “in” crowd, but I am sure that I am not.

Alex Relyea, Harold Stenzel, Richard White, Tom Doan, Bill Smythe, Franc Guadalupe and I all told you that Severina lost because she obviously didn’t make 40 moves in the allotted time.

Tom Martinak and Franc Guadalupe explained why Severina couldn’t seek relief because her opponent didn’t report the clock malfunction until the time forfeit was claimed.

I told you that you would get reversed on appeal every time if you denied the claim and were appealed.

Franc Guadalupe told you that you would never lose an appeal for granting the win on time, and explained why.

The only thing you weren’t explicitly given was the FLC 6.1 citation. Of course, since you’d quoted from the FLC earlier in the thread, one could be forgiven for thinking you were familiar with the rules.

It should also be noted that this has happened before.

No one who answered your questions was thinking about “actual mechanical flag fall, beeps, flashing lights, or a bunch of zeros on the clock”. You get X amount of time to make 40 moves. Severina obviously used more than that, and didn’t even make it to move 40 in the bargain. Ergo, she loses on time. QED.

Please note that, in an event played under FIDE rules, an arbiter does not have to wait for a claim - he could declare the loss on time (see FLC 6.8 for the governing rule).

42

I think the OP should be forgiven if he had difficulty finding the correct answer among all the responses. Among the wheat there was a lot of chaff. Such as –

So you have to go by the clock, even if it adds time before it’s supposed to?? She still had 20 minutes on her clock at move 33 when the clock improperly added 30 minutes. So there is certainly no time forfeit at this point.

How could the primary time control have expired if she still had 20 minutes before the 30 minutes was added?

Nope. She still had 20 minutes at that point.

Bill Smythe

43

Mr. Scheible,

The only reason I listed titles or positions of those who had answered is because your initial post said “…I ask the more experienced TD’s how they would have handled this situation…” With that in mind, if I had asked the question, I would have also been curious enough to find out who was answering. As Boyd mentioned, it is very easy to find out the TD level, and experience, of those who are posting. Sure, it is not as easy to find out who are the members of the TDCC who are posting here (two of us, I think), or who has a FIDE position, although it is still easy enough.

When I was a Club or Local TD, I probably would have been worried about making a decision that could have been appealed. I understand that and I suspect that the other NTDs in this discussion may have felt the same way. With experience, we worry less about what could be appealed and we concentrate on making the right decision, even if difficult one, as long as we can justify it. That said, we are always learning. For me, even now as I attend the FIDE Congresses (as does Sevan, another poster here) and sit around discussing the FIDE Laws of Chess with members of the FIDE Rules and Tournament Regulations Commission, I am still learning from those who are more experienced.

44

It would be even easier if folks put that sort of info it their signatures. I do that so that people will know I speak from ignorance and inexperience, and thus they should take my opinions with a large dose of salt, and also that explanations are the cure for ignorance. :slight_smile:

That is never concern. I realize that I am inexperienced an fallible, and I do not wish any player to be harmed by my inexperience and fallibility. As such, my guiding principle is to lean toward decisions that CAN be appealed AND have a proper result applied if my decision is overturned. If a game is stopped in error, then it is very difficult to provide just relief to the injured player, because there is no alternate outcome. Similarly, referees in American Football should be very cautious in ruling “down by contact” when the ball is loose – let the play run its course, THEN rule on whether the ball carrier was down by contact. That allows the coaches to challenge and have a just result applied if the call on the field is in error.

45

Jack,
The problem is that most players don’t know about the whole appeal process. TDs need to make what they believe is the correct ruling and not make a ruling assuming the player’s will appeal. Player’s assume that the TD knows what they are doing (as we should). Ruling on a time forfeit is pretty clear and not something that should hardly ever result in an appeal.
Mike

46

May I suggest an alternate approach to rulings? Just focus on making the correct decision, whatever its consequences. It’s true that sometimes, strictly applying the rules will have irreversible effects. That, much like being appealed, is not something you can control. All we can do as directors, when asked to make a ruling, is use all the available evidence we have to make the best decision we can within the rules.

As for fallibility…I’ve been directing USCF events since 1988. I have yet to run across a director who hasn’t made a good-sized mistake at some point. Only those who never try, never fail. The best directors, IMHO, are those who (1) don’t repeat their mistakes, and (2) always make a good-faith effort to get it right. That’s really about all anyone can reasonably ask.

47

This is not football…

If you (erroneously) allow the game to continue, in spite of the claim, and the player who failed to make the 40th move in the specified amount of time goes on to win, you could still end up with an appeal by the other player! (No such appeal in football – once the game is over, it is over!) It will be just as difficult to provide relief to the (real) injured player, who should have won on time…

If there is no appeal and the player later finds out that you ruled incorrectly and he should have won, it will be just as bad…

Just make the best decision you can, without considering possible appeals. If you are not sure, ask for help…

48

But making the wrong decision because it can be appealed may also injure players. They may not know how to appeal or just accept that the td decision must be correct (you would essentially punish those who follow the rules instead of those that don’t!). Even if they do know and do appeal, you are costing them time and effort whose loss could hurt their results in later games that day. You’ll make enough incorrect decisions (don’t we all) without doing so on purpose!

49

That’s because move counters work properly and are helpful to players when clocks are operated properly. Which I am capable of doing 100 percent of the time.

Here, and at USATE, and at Foxwoods a few years back, players failed to notice the clock operating improerly and suffered the consequences. So far as I’m concerned, good. Particularly at Foxwoods and USATE, where the clocks were provided by the players and the setting was entirely under their control.

Don’t tell me I can’t use something that’s helpful because some idiots in Parsippany misused it on a high board two years back.

50

FYI Appeals:

See pages 91-96 in the 5th edition of the rulebook.

The short version…

  1. An on-site appeals committee. Comment: Hardly used now days. It is hard to find committee members with a level of certification = or higher than the on site TD. And, it is hard to find individuals to serve that don’t have a vested interest in the decision. The process is very disruptive and time consuming.

  2. Special Referees: A pone call away and it takes the place of the on site appeals committee. The list of special referees is at: http://www.uschess.org/content/view/11939/668/. Comment: Not every TD has internet access or at least a copy of this list readily available.

  3. Appeal to USCF: The person filing the appeal has to deposit $25 as a good faith fee (refunded if the appeal is not trivial–like appealing legal pairings for a “better” set of pairings). All documentation and investigations must be made by and submitted with the $25–the USCF has no staff to do investigations. The person the appeal is filed against has time to respond to the complaint/appeal. All documents are passed along to the proper committee(s). The committee(s) can take a long or short time to make a report/decision on the appeal. After the committee process is done, either party may appeal to the Board/Delegates. Comment: A long and a tedious process.

51

On the other hand many people are inimidated by such a signature and will not provide what may be valuable input. I’ve always been willing to put in my two cents regardless of who the other people in the discussion are, but not everybody is as overconfident.
Some people even get the impression that people with all-inclusive signatures are trying to over-awe other people and intimidate them into silence.
My signature references my MSA record so that anybody interested can see at least some of what is below.

Jeff Wiewel
President Saint Charles Chess Club
West Division Chair Chicago Industrial Chess League
ICA Tournament Bid Committee Member
Vice Chair USCF Tournament Directors Certification Committee
National Tournament Director
Peak USCF rating of 2137

52

You forgot the Spelling Bee Championships stuff! Never mind, Steve is the one who does that. :smiley:

On a serious note, in my opinion, you are absolutely right about signatures.

53

That is quite different than LEANING toward decisions that can be corrected upon a successful appealed.

54

In this case, it does not sound to me like you were just “leaning” towards that decision. Earlier, you also stated this:

“I would not accept her claim either. It goes both ways. There is still time on both clocks, so continue the game. The result can be reversed on appeal.”

It seems to me that you would rely on the appeal process to get the correct decision.

When ruling on claims, you need more than to be leaning toward decisions – you need to make a decision based on the facts presented, and you already had those…

55

I make the best decision I can. If two choices are closely balanced and I think there is a good change that either choice will be in error, I will choose the one that does the least permanent harm to the players. If you stop a game erroneously, it is nearly impossible to properly correct the error. If you allow the game to continue, then a clearly proper result can be applied retroactively.

And based on the RULES. The FIDE rule on what defines a “flag fall” was the missing piece in my understanding. The FACT was that she still had time on her clock. (If it had been an analog clock, the flag would still be up.) The RULE says that her flag had fallen.

56

How are you going to, retroactively, award the win to the player who should have won on time if you allow the game to continue and maybe the player who should have lost ends up winning? And, what if there is no appeal?

I think I know the rule, and several of us in this discussion have stated, several times, that she lost because she did not make the 40th move in the required amount of time…

Sigh…

57

You have overlooked 21H1. In this particular case that would have meant that you could (or the chief TD if it isn’t you) rule the time forfeit, the opponent could appeal, and then you could: (1) reserve ruling on the appeal; (2) direct play to continue; (3) make a ruling only in the event the player who would have won on time did not win the game anyway.

It is not an option I would use here (it is clearly a time forfeit and there is no reason to force the players to spend more hours on a game that won’t change the result) but if a TD is that uncertain of the rules in this or some other case then it is an option that can be used.

58

I don’t feel that it’s appropriate to call a player who makes an assumption that the “clock press counter” is correct an idiot. As the director that made the 2011 USATE ruling and having 37 years of TD experience I can give numerous examples of players making mistakes not related to bad moves which cost them games. I think we all have made these types of mistakes at some point in our chess careers. I wouldn’t be critical of those players unless they don’t learn from their errors. If someone wants to rely on the counter, then they won’t get sympathy from me if it leads to a loss on time. There is at least one true risk on certain models when an hour is added as the quantity of seconds remaining is no longer visible. That means that a player with move(s) remaining won’t know if it’s 1:00:59 or 1:00:00.

I don’t put my titles on my signature. Some might take it as bragging. As it’s easy to look up, those that want to know will spend a minute looking on MSA. I can state from experience as a player and TD that there are some NTDs who are less proficient than other Senior TDs.

59

WRT signature files: at every job I’ve had, I have been expected to have a .sig file for my work email account, with title and basic contact info. So, my signature for Forums use is mainly out of habit.

Besides, I don’t mind saying I’m a NTD. I figure it’s the only real benefit for no longer being a STD. :laughing:

60

I’m getting bored again. This thread has wandered far in a direction that doesn’t interest me. The discussion of making a ruling based on the probability of an appeal is one that is doomed to lead nowhere, with everybody chiming in ad nauseum without really saying anything.

Yet, the original topic has played itself out, too. Many of us agree that the technically correct ruling was to award the time forfeit claim.

So, I’d like to bring this thread back to the original topic, so that I can derail it yet again, in a completely new direction.

The original incident brings up a host of questions beyond just what the ruling should have been. Issues involving stupidity, ignorance, and ethical gray areas play a role here.

First, why did (a) the player low on time, (b) her opponent, and (c) the arbiter, all fail to do anything when the clock added 30 minutes prematurely?

It is generally the philosophy of USCF tournament directing that the arbiter should not intervene in a game unless requested to do so by one of the players. FIDE has a different philosophy, preferring that arbiters be more pro-active.

Regardless of USCF philosophy, it seems to me that an arbiter ought to intervene, even without prompting, when there is a problem with the clock. Another clock could have been substituted, or the existing one reset, soon after the 30-minute addition. A little prevention early is worth a ton of attempted cure later.

So why didn’t the arbiter intervene early? Didn’t he notice? Was he supposed to notice? Did he remain at his TD desk, away from the games throughout the round, because of USCF’s (real or perceived) anti-intervention philosophy? I’m asking these questions because they don’t have easy answers. Opinions will vary, I’m sure.

And what about the player in time trouble? Why didn’t she say something when the clock prematurely advanced? Did she feel this was the arbiter’s job? Was she afraid to speak out? Did she think the problem could be solved later? Was she accustomed to FIDE procedures in her previous tournaments?

What about the opponent? Did he remain silent on purpose, anticipating a later benefit for himself? Did he, too, feel it should be the arbiter’s job? Did he simply prefer to concentrate on the game?

The erroneous 30-minute addition occurred with about 20 minutes still remaining in the first control, so the clock now showed about 50 minutes. During the course of the next 20 minutes, as the clock gradually wound down from 50 minutes to 30, did it show running seconds (mm:ss) or only minutes (h:mm)? If it was a DGT, it displayed only minutes. (The DGT doesn’t display seconds until the displayed time gets down to 19:59.) So, if the clock showed 30 minutes with an unknown number of seconds, did the opponent prepare himself to pounce, like a cat stalking a mouse, for a full minute waiting for the 30 to become 29? Was it even ethical to claim a win by time forfeit when the clock was not displaying seconds? Or would it have been better sportsmanship to simply let it go, and continue the game?

Many questions, few obvious answers. In circumstances like these, perhaps the rest of us ought to be a little more forgiving when somebody suggests a ruling other than the “technically correct” one.

Bill Smythe