player A (experienced): player B (newbe did’nt know any better) heres what happened, player A time ran out, player B (newbe) kept on playing game because experienced higher rated player kept on playing, hitting the clock quickly so newbe player B kept on playing. player B now still has 12 minutes left on the clock, player A time ran out of time 5 minutes ago, now player A says it is a “draw” due to the 3 position repetition rule. player B accepts the draw.
question can player A who has no time left on his clock ever make a “draw offer” the rules mention stop the clock to make an offer during your move, but if your clock is not running because your clock ran out of time (you really are not stopping a clock that is not running), can or should you have the right to make a “draw offer”?
My question is can someone make a “draw offer” after their clock has run out of time? And the opponent still has time left on their clock.
I am not looking to overturn or appeal or change what happened, I accept it as a lesson learned, no hard feelings toward anyone at all.
thanks,
Lee
Under USCF rules, a flag is not considered down until called by one of the players.
I don’t think that’s correct. The proper way is to move, offer, press clock. If the offer is made prior to moving, the opponent has the option of seeing the move before deciding. What rule are you quoting that permits the stopping of the clock to make an offer?
Yes, because it is not out of time under USCF rules until claimed.
You can stop the clock to get a TD to make a draw claim, but not simply to make a draw offer. A draw claim includes an automatic draw offer, but the reverse is not true.
It is perfectly OK for player A to make a draw offer, even though his time is expired. It is also perfectly OK for player B to be dumb enough to accept the draw offer.
Bill Smythe
The fun part comes when neither player A nor B understand what it means when the minute hand goes 15 minutes past the 12 on an analog clock in a G/30 K-3 section and are the last game going, with both first-graders in the under-300 section trying to win and both faithfully hitting the clock with no end in sight even though the player that flagged has a significant material advantage, is spending his time trying to analyze to get a win and the player with the weaker position is playing quickly so that his five minutes is enough for them to play for another hour.
First, the situation you describe is not a draw offer. A draw offer is exactly what the name implies - an offer, which the other player can either accept or decline.
A triple occurrence of a position, however, is a draw claim. The correct procedure is for the player who is on move to write down his next move, if that move is required to complete the triple repetition, and then to stop the clocks and make the claim. The other player can agree or disagree, but if he disagrees, the first player can then appeal to a TD, who will uphold the claim if it is valid.
Note that a TD is not permitted to point out that one player has run out of time, and would therefore not deny the draw claim on that basis. If the other player notices that the first player’s flag has fallen, he can claim a time forfeit win on that basis, but a TD would normally try to determine the order in which the two claims were made, and uphold the time forfeit claim only if he can determine that it was made first.
In the case where a draw offer is made, the situation is: The player receiving the offer can reject it and claim a win on time forfeit, if he notices that the other player has run out of time. But as soon as he accepts the draw offer, the game is a draw, even if he later notices that his opponent had run out of time.
Bob
Draw claim on triple occurrence (or on any other basis) is a draw offer first, which player B accepted. Game over, no need for a TD to rule on the correctness of the claim.
Assuming it’s sudden death, writing the move down before claiming the triple occurrence draw isn’t required if there are impartial witnesses or a TD who can verify the triple.
After the game, does the TD get to give player A a Jethro Gibbs (qv. tv show “NCIS”) smack behind the head for taking advantage of a newbie/“bunny rabbit”? The lack of sportsmanship of not accepting the fact that his flag was down is against chess etiquette. I would imagine he also would kick his golf ball into the fairway to improve his lie and make bad line calls if he played in an amateur tennis tournament.
Not calling one’s own flag is within the rules, even if it may be against someone’s opinion of etiquette and decorum. The golf and tennis examples given are cheating, no less.
All that said, it’s perfectly within the TD’s discretion to give player A the Jethro Gibbs treatment. I’ve given many a Jethro Gibbs “look” at scholastic players who knowingly try to game the system, even within the rules. Smack away 
I respectfully disagree. The opponent should neither be expected nor required to teach their opponent anything during the playing of the game itself. Should the opponent then point out and allow a takeback when the player has missed a mate in 1? Playing tournament chess means knowing what it means for time to run out and when/how to call a flag - or learning so over the board.
Correct. If a player claims a draw on triple occurrence (or any other basis) and the other player agrees, it is to all intent and purpose treated as a draw offer (e.g., if it is later discovered that the draw claim wasn’t valid, the game nevertheless remains a draw because the other player accepted it).
The difference is in what happens if the other player notices that his opponent has run out of time before responding. If a draw offer was made, he can simply reject the offer and then claim a time forfeit. But if a draw claim was made, he can disagree with the claim and claim a time forfeit, but the TD’s proper response will be to try to determine which claim was made first, and if he can establish that the draw claim was made first, to uphold it if it is valid.
Bob
Citation please?
Alex Relyea
Taking into consideration.
13C1. Only players may call flag. … it is considered to have fallen only when either player points this out. …
This to me would mean that the time claim would come after the other issues.
McAdams has an interesting point here on the order of claims, and I don’t have a rulebook w/ me on some business travel.
Ideally, the TD is there to enforce the rules and not have a decisive impact on a game unless expressly directed by the rules. Second, it’s up to the players to know the rules, which would direct them to make claims when they should, rather than waiting to do it. Given the hypothetical situation [Player-A makes triple occurrence claim, then Player-B makes time forfeit claim] and the aforementioned philosophy, a TD should probably rule on claims in the order the claims were made. “He made the claim first, so I’ll rule on that one first,” seems much more logical than making a personal judgement that a time forfeit win claim is somehow more important than a triple occurrence draw claim.
“First in first out” also makes me much more comfortable that I won’t get my certification suspended on a TDCC escalation.
Disagreements certainly welcome. At the moment I can only go with what I’ve learned from my TD mentors.
The tone expressed by both Crume and Tmagchesspgh supports my contention that — electronic digital clocks should freeze and flash (and give one small beep) when a flag falls out of time. Yet digital clocks generally do not Freeze at flag fall: why not?
I wonder whether the reason for NoFreeze is a holdover from the legacy wind-up analog clock days. The wind-up clocks do not Freeze, thus the thinking perhaps went like:
“To gain acceptance, the newfangled digital clocks need to be compatible with wind-up clocks; and compatible with the rules that were unwittingly written to specifically for the limited technology of the day. Wind-ups do not Freeze, so the rules were written that the opponent must notice flag fall; so our newfangled digital clocks should not Freeze or give any reason to relieve the opponent of his burden to monitor the other player’s time remaining.”
But if the first chess clocks ever invented had been electronic digital, then Freeze on flag fall would likely have been standard and codified.
Any rule that needlessly makes the clock any more a part of the game than it has to be, is a questionable rule in my view.
One of the problems with a freeze and flash setting is something that can occur during multiple time controls. If the clock was not hit often enough (either a player forgot or players were blitzing out moves and the clock was hit before the opponent hit the other side) then it could freeze after the time control was already reached. Also, it could freeze while the opponent has a scoresheet nowhere near complete enough to claim a win.
Limiting the freeze/flash to just the SD time control would make the clock behave differently at different times of the game.
Gene, my “tone” has nothing to do whether the clock freezes, beeps, lights up, or dons a sombrero and does a tango beside the board. I don’t care what the clock does when time runs out as long as it’s recognizable.
My “tone” is much more somber concerning clocks that flash or beep. Since the player is supposed to notice the flag fall/time go to zero, any electronic indication is the same as if a spectator called the flag. Most digital clocks have the feature to turn off the sound and not note the end of the game. What I would like to see is that players not try to use gamesmanship on novice players who are uncertain of the rules. When I started to play in tournaments, I noticed that the etiquette of the older experts and masters was different than that of the other players. Maybe it was a regional thing, but they treated the game more like golf and had an honor system and an unwritten set of rules of conduct. So, following the example of my elders and predecessors, I have on occasion called my own flag and resigned lost positions rather than drag them out to absurdity. Once chess was a little more gentlemanly game/sport, at least for some of us. Some “wins” are not worth it.
The 4th edition rulebook called “highly desirable” any indication of expiration of time (such as beeping, flashing, and freezing), and claimed that a clock calling time is not the same as a spectator calling time, because the clock is (supposedly) neutral.
This logic, however, went over like a lead balloon with players and TDs, and the 5th edition actually seems to frown on (but does not go so far as to disallow) a clock with such expiration indicators.
Bill Smythe
The general procedure for claiming triple occurrence of position draws is covered in rule 14C2. Rule 13C1 covers the fact that a flag is only considered to have fallen when one of the players in the game points it out.
I don’t know of any place in the rulebook where it specifically covers the situation in which a player makes a draw claim and then his opponent tries to call a time forfeit, but rules 13A1, 13A2, and 13A3 cover the situation where a checkmate and a time forfeit claim are both made, and the situation is: If the checkmate is played before the time forfeit claim, the checkmate stands. If the time forfeit claim is made before the checkmate, the time forfeit claim stands. If the TD cannot determine whether the time forfeit claim was made before or after the checkmate, the checkmate stands. Since this is the rule when deciding whether a player wins on a checkmate or loses on a time forfeit, it stands to reason that the same procedure should be used to determine whether a player draws or loses on a time forfeit.
Bob