Draw claim vs Clock Forfeit

[Bob_McAdams]

@AsianAcerook

@Bob McAdams

@AsianAcerook

@Bob McAdams

…
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

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, 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

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).

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

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

1. Rule 14C4 says that a player who fails to stop his clock when claiming a draw on 3-fold repetition of position “will lose the time that elapses before a ruling if the claim is not upheld” (emphasis mine). It doesn’t say that he will lose the time if his claim is upheld.

2. While you are correct that, in a Rule 14C claim, the game only ends if the TD upholds the triple occurrence draw, what you seem to be missing is that it doesn’t end when the TD upholds the claim. Rule 14C says that “The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player on the move when the same position is about to appear for at least the third time or has just appeared for at least the third time, the same player being on move each time.” It is drawn “upon a correct claim” - not when the claim is ultimately upheld. I fully agree that if the claim is not upheld, then White’s claim of a time forfeit win will be valid.

Bob