Draw claim vs Clock Forfeit

Running Chess Tournaments
1

This past Monday, 2 days ago, I was asked to run an impromptu quick tournament at the weekly club. It was g10/d5 and was run as a RR.

Black had a won position (a higher rated player), and white found a perpetual check. They repeated the position 3 or 4 times, a fact that both plays do not dispute.

It was Black’s move and Black’s clock was running.

Taken from an email I received from Black:
Black said to white, “We have repeated the position at least three times”. Repetition was his only way of avoiding a loss so I (Black) was just acknowledging that he had succeeded. Anything else…and he loses. He knew that my clock was running so he(White) said “Are you offering me a draw” which sort of confused me and I reiterated that we had repeated the position at least 3-4 times, a fact that he immediately (White claims he did not acknowledge until afterward) acknowledged to both you and me (I was standing near by but not wholly focused on the game at this point). ‎He(White) then used the fact that my clock ran down while this was going on to claim a time forfeit. (By saying I decline the draw as your time is up, or something to that effect)

In summary, Is a game drawn when a player claims it or when it is agreed or when a director upholds the claim?

Clearly it would have been best for Black to pause the clock, which he is aware of now, however as of now I upheld the time forfeit but now have my doubts.

2

Here are the rules:

  1. The Drawn Game
    All draw claims are also draw offers (14B). The player by making any draw claim (for example: triple occurrence of position (14C), insufficient material to continue (14D), insufficient material to win on time (14E), the 50-move rule (14F), both flags down in sudden death (14G), insufficient losing chances (14H), …) is also making an implied offer of a draw to the opponent. If the opponent accepts the implied draw offer, the game is over.

  2. The opponent may immediately accept the draw offer and end the game (14B), or instead

  3. The opponent may ask the director to rule on the claim. If the director upholds the draw claim, the game is over.

  4. If the director does not uphold the claim (does not declare the game a draw), the game continues. The implied draw offer is still in effect, and the opponent may accept it or reject it (14B).

TD TIP: When a draw claim is made, the director should inform the opponent of the draw offer. The opponent need not immediately accept the draw offer. Instead, the opponent may first wait and see what the director rules. The director’s ruling might or might not end the game in a draw. If the claim is denied, then the director restarts the game. In restarting the game, the director assesses penalties, if appropriate according to the rules, and starts the clock. The draw claim becomes a 14B draw offer. The director should remind both players of this draw offer when starting the clock.

14B. Agreement.
The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players. This immediately ends the game. See also 15H, Reporting of results; 16S, Priority of agreed result over time-forfeit claim; 19G1, Agreed draw and invalid move and 19J, Agreed result of adjourned game.

14B4. Flag fall during pending draw offer.
A player who offers a draw may claim a win on time (13C) if the opponent oversteps the time limit while considering the proposal unless the offer is accepted before the flag fall (5G) is claimed. See also 14, The Drawn Game.

3

So the draw claim does not count for (more than/other than) a draw offer.

4

Not that all. But it does constitute a draw offer, meaning that rather than asking if he was offering a draw the opponent could have accepted the implicit draw offer.

However, to constitute a draw claim, don’t you have to make the claim to a TD? Making it to the opponent without summoning a TD doesn’t make a draw claim.

5

The rules say to “state the claim” but not to whom. Does it have to be made to a TD or only if contested?

Are claims only made to TDs?

6

My interpretation of the scenario is that it ahould be a draw.

When the player stated that it was a three fold repetition, at least, of the position, it was a claim.

The game was over at that time.

The opponent just confused the situation and the player by asking if it was a draw offer.

In the USCF the game is between the opponents with the TD having minimal interference if any. The rules also do not specify to whom the claim should be made.

I would say the opponent is enough and the TD does not need to be brought in, normally.

7

A draw claim is first a draw offer and only if the offer is refused does a TD deal with the claim. That would support upholding the flag.

In this particular case there is a wrinkle. There was a TD standing near and thus the claim might also be presumed to have been made to that nearby TD who happened to be concentrating on something else. If the claim was made when there was time remaining then the TD needs to decide whether or not the TD’s failure to ask the player to stop the clock should invalidate the claim. That could (not necessarily would) support ruling it a draw.

The type of clock might also be significant. Some clocks will reset if you are at all clumsy while stopping it, so players using those clocks are sometimes reluctant to stop the clock unless absolutely necessary (with different people have different opinions on which situations are absolutely necessary).

Since it is a round robin there were no pairings affected by the result of the game, but if prizes were awarded then other players may have modified their play based on the result of that game. If the result is changed and a prize is involved then the TD may choose the option of changing it for ratings only (15-I).

8

I tend to be liberal and to give players a lot of leeway with respect to what constitutes making a claim. In general, if the player’s actions show a clearly discernible intent to make a claim, I treat it as a claim. I especially tend to apply this philosophy when there is time pressure, as seems to have been the case for Black in this example. Especially in time pressure, the subtleties of how to make a proper claim can easily vanish from the player’s mind, and the player is just scrambling to get any coherent words out.

First, just to review the proper procedure: Black should have stopped the clock, summoned a TD to the board, and stated that he is claiming a draw by triple occurrence of position (“three-fold repetition”). Once the director hears Black’s claim, the TD should then inform White that all draw claims are also draw offers, and then ask White whether he accepts the draw offer. White has three choices; he may accept the offer (game over, drawn, TD moves on), decline the offer, or ask the director to rule on the claim first. In the latter two cases, the director determines whether the claim is correct. If it is, the game is drawn; if it is not, White is awarded two minutes (penalty for an incorrect claim). If White specifically asked the director to rule on the claim first, the draw offer is still in effect, just as though the opponent had said “I offer a draw.”

Many TDs forget about asking whether the opponent accepts the implicit draw offer and just race ahead to rule on the draw claim.

Now, the question is what actually happened in this game. Based on the e-mail you cite, I will assume the following sequence of events.

  1. As Black’s flag fell, his clock was running at the time he mentioned the repetition. Thus, he was still on the move for purposes of making claims, and a draw claim would be in order at this point.
  2. White seems to have understood something about a draw was happening at this point, and asked whether Black was offering a draw (14B). Black repeats the words about repetition.
  3. White points out that Black’s flag has fallen. Under the rules, the flag is considered to have fallen when either player notices this fact. So, regardless of when Black actually ran out of time, Black’s flag is considered to have fallen at this point, after Black has said words twice about repetition.

It would be best if there had been an independent, unbiased witness or a director to corroborate this sequence of events. But, if this was the actual sequence of events, I would rule that Black was clearly trying to make a claim of a draw under rule 14C (triple occurrence of position) and that the claim had been made before Black’s flag fell. If Black’s claim were correct, I would rule the game drawn. If Black’s claim were wrong, I would then handle White’s claim of Black’s flag having fallen and rule that White had won the game provided it was a sudden death time control (reasonably complete score sheet not required) or provided White had a reasonably complete score sheet if the current time control segment was not sudden death.

I would also try to take a few moments and explain to both players the correct procedure for claiming a draw after the game ends. Education never hurts.

9

It was extremely clever of White to muddle the water while the clock was running and ask if a draw was being offered. That cost precious seconds while Black was trying to make a claim. I would not be inclined to reward that trickiness while a claim is being made.

The Chronos clock is the only clock I know that might reset itself if one is attempting to pause the clock. On the Game Timer, a switch in the center can be clicked to freeze the time. The DGT NA has a center button that is pushed to freeze the time and is pressed again to restart the time.

In the case in question, Black, like most players is unfamiliar with the rules on making a claim. Players expect the TD to know the rules and apply them equitably. The TD should stop the clock if the players have not already done so. Relate to the players that a draw offer is on the table and that a claim of repetition is being made. White can accept the offer and the claim becomes moot. White can also sit silently while the claim is being determined. If the claim is correct, the game is a draw and over. What makes this case hard is the falling of the flag. I would ignore that as Black was trying to make a claim to the opponent and the TD. At that point the clock should be paused. I would not punish Black for being confused. It is not a simple rule or procedure. Making such a ruling takes time. Black should have time put back on the clock; at the very most, the time he had when making the claim.

My tendency is not to punish players for being confused or unfamiliar with complex rules. So many changes have been made to the Rulebook over the last decade that everyone, both players and TDs have struggled to keep up with it. It is going to take at least two years for the changes in the 6th edition of the Rulebook to filter down. In earlier Rulebooks, players were not supposed to stop or pause the clock. That was only a TD prerogative. That was changed because it seemed unfair to allow the clock to run and even run out while a hard ruling was being made. Players have struggled with clock rules and the setting of the chess clocks, especially with the addition of increment timing.

10

It seems that the consensus is that I should have ruled on the draw claim, as it was made to the opponent first.

If the draw claim was upheld the game ends in a draw. If not since fall of the flag was then claimed that would be the end of the game.

Since the game is now rated, and I believe I was wrong to award white the win on time what should I do?

Should I correct the report, should I advise the player to make an appeal directly to USCF?

11

While it may feel unfair, do nothing (but learn from the mistake for the next time). You made your ruling as best as you knew how at the time, the players accepted the ruling, agreed on the result of the game, and did not appeal the ruling. The game is over, and life (and chess) continues.

Director mistakes happen.

12

Are you sure that you would have ruled it a draw?

Since it was Game/10, I’m assuming that there was no scoresheet to confirm the repetition of position. Since you were not previously focused on that game, I’m assuming that you could not confirm that a repetition of position had occurred. Since it was Black who was forcing the perpetual check, White could not demonstrate the ability to force a repetition of position. If those conditions hold, you would have to deny the draw and then award the win to Black based on his claim.

13

The description of the situation indicated that White agreed that a 3-fold repetition of the board position had occurred, but claimed a win on time based on the fact that the flag had fallen (due to Black’s failure to stop his clock). So there was no need for a scoresheet to confirm a 3-fold repetition of position, since the players were not in disagreement about this.

The two players also appear to have been in agreement that Black claimed a draw based on 3-fold repetition of position before White claimed a win on time, but they disagree about when White acknowledged that this draw claim was correct. Rule 14C4 indicates that a player who claims a draw based on 3-fold repetition of position but does not pause the clock (in accordance with Rule 14C2) will lose the time that elapses on his clock while the claim is being discussed (presumably with any consequent flag fall) “if the claim is not upheld.” But this implies that if the claim is upheld, the elapsed time (with its consequent flag fall) is irrelevant. I’d also suspect that White may have noticed that Black was nearly out of time and had failed to pause the clock, and may have been stalling for time by pretending to misunderstand Black’s claim in the hope that Black’s flag would fall.

Note that the claim does not need to be made to a TD unless the opponent of the player making the claim disputes the claim, which does not appear to have been the case here.

Note also that Rule 14A3 (regarding stalemate with flag fall) indicates that, if it is impossible to determine the sequence in which events happened, the TD should deny the time claim and uphold the draw. The same principle would favor upholding the draw claim in this case.

Bob

14

The players were probably under time pressure towards the end and I thought your ruling was correct for the game, though I can’t wait to be corrected by my fellow TDs.

Rule 14C is the triple occurrence of position draw rule. Black claimed a draw due to 14C. Do note that the beginning of Chapter 14, it states the following: “All draw claims are also draw offers (14B). The player by making any draw claim (for example: triple occurence of position [14C],…) is also making an implied offer of a draw to the opponent.”

14C3 states player must be on the move, and 14C4 states claim made after moving without pressing the clock. Black was both on the move and was able to make a claim if he made a move but did not press the clock. It states, “The player who moves and allows the clock to run will lose the time that elapses before a ruling if the claim is not upheld. It is preferred that the player stops both clocks in order to retain the right to claim a draw under 14C.”

Which leads to rule 14C5 - Claimant’s clock continues to run - If a player who claims a draw under 14C fails to stop the clocks, the director should instruct the player to stop them. Though this director was not at the board to tell them to stop the clocks, it is ultimately the player’s responsibility to stop the clock in order to summon a director under rule 21F - Player requests for rulings.

Because the 14C was an also implied draw offer (14B), it follows the rule 14B and its subsections. Then I would use 14B3 - draw offer before moving, 14B4 - Flag fall during pending draw offer and 1A Scope, to say that Black is down on time and therefore, White wins due to time forfeiture.

If both of the players had agreed that they had repeated the position 5 or more times since it is one of those special 14C perpetual check situations, then I would have ruled the game a draw using the new rule 14K: If one or both of the following occur(s) then the TD may declare the game drawn: 1. The same position has appeared, as in 14C, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by each player.

I suggest what “wilecoyote” or Mr. Ballou’s advice about the result of the game, but ignore “Director mistakes happen,” as I do not believe you made a mistake in your ruling.

Thanks for the exercise,
Acerook

15

Bolded by this poster.

How I interpreted the situation, White was confused whether or not Black was making a three-fold repetition claim or a draw offer. In either case, White, :smiling_imp: devilishly did not accept either / disputed both since black’s clock was running and close to being flagged.

I wanted to point out that your interpretation of 14A3 is a stretch, if not wrong, since a stalemate draw (14A) is different from a triple occurrence of position draw (14C). This critical difference is that the after the opponent’s previous move was determined to produce the stalemate position, that move immediately ends the game. Contrast with a 14C draw claim, the position is still alive and players may continue to make moves if the 14C draw claim was denied.

Best,
Acerook

16

You seem to be missing two points here:

  1. Rule 14B4 is dealing with the situation in which a player’s flag falls while he is considering a draw offer. But this situation is exactly the opposite: Black’s flag fell while White was considering Black’s draw claim/offer.

  2. Rule 14C4 specifically says that a player who makes a claim of 3-fold repetition of position but allows his clock to continue running “will lose the time that elapses before a ruling if the claim is not upheld.” The implication is clear: It is irrelevant whether he loses the time if his claim is upheld, because the game had already ended before the time elapsed.

Bob

17

That isn’t clear to me from the original description. Black claimed that White acknowledged the draw, but White says he did not acknowledge it until “afterwards”. What was it after? As long as it was after the claim to the td, then Black would still have had to fulfill his requirements to have the claim upheld.

18

I used 14B3, 14B4 and 1A Scope to determine that while White was considering Black’s draw offer, Black’s flag fallen and White claimed a win due to time forfeiture, not just 14B4 by itself.

I disagree with that interpretation of 14C4. For example, if White had 2 minutes and Black had 6 minutes left but let the clock run on his time during the claim process. Black now has 30 seconds and the TD did not uphold the claim, so White now has 4 minutes and Black has 30 seconds. If black had stopped the clock to claim, Black would have his 6 minutes.

HOWEVER, if Black time has elapsed to 0:00 or “Black’s flag has fallen / has flagged”, then White may claim a win on time due to 13Cb.

Best,
Acerook

19

What you seem to be missing, once again, is that if the claim of 3-fold repetition of position is upheld, the game was over at the point where it occurred.

I gather that the two players were in agreement that the sequence of events was:

  • Black claimed a 3-fold repetition of position.

  • White gave a peculiar response which made it unclear whether he understood that Black was claiming a draw, rather than offering a draw (though it is unclear what White meant, since a draw claim is, by definition, also a draw offer).

  • Black repeated that he was making a draw claim based on 3-fold repetition of position.

  • White acknowledged that Black’s claim was valid but claimed a win based on the fact that Black’s flag had fallen (though the players disagree about the order in which White did these two things).

Since no additional moves were made after Black made his original claim, White ultimately acknowledged that Black’s original claim had been valid, which means that the game had been over at that point. This means that White’s claim of a win on time forfeit came too late. Note that this would be true even if Black’s flag had already fallen when he made his original draw claim, since White had not claimed a win on time when Black made his draw claim (see Rule 13C1).

The only case White could try to make at this point would be to claim that Black had originally only made a draw offer, and didn’t make a draw claim until after White claimed a win on time forfeit. But since Black would dispute this, then in the absence of impartial witnesses, the TD should rule it a draw based on the principle behind Rule 14A3.

Bob

20

Obviously, if the 14C triple occurrence of position was upheld by the TD and Black’s clock fallen later, it doesn’t matter since the TD has ruled it a draw. However, this isn’t the case as the TD was not at the board, and White was asking if Black was offering a draw and/or claiming a triple occurrence of position and thus the game is not over. Black loses all the time for his failure to properly summon a TD under rule 21F, and in this case, loses the game since he has no time left for the game.

Also, the TD should not “rule it a draw based on the principle behind Rule 14A3.” You seem to be missing the point that stalemate move immediately ends the game while 14C, the game only ends if the TD upholds the triple occurrence draw. See post #298614.

Best,
Acerook