In a SD G/30 game it is white’s move with his clock ticking down at 17 seconds left. Black’s flag fell and white hasn’t noticed. A new tournament player watching the game informs white of the flag fall. Black stops the clock and notifies the TD of an interference claim. Black has a clearly superior position on the board. White did not solicit the advice and had no relationship with the offender.
The spectator was warned and no doubt learned a lesson that won’t be forgotten. That was the easy part.
This is covered under 20E2. It takes up almost three pages, but can be summed up by two sentences in the first paragraph: “The director’s task is to prevent a player from benefiting from advice but also not unduly penalize the player for another’s offense. There is sometimes no good solution to this problem.”
In the case you describe, I would be inclined to rule that the game is drawn. This is a little hard on White (since he might have noticed the flag fall himself). However, there is really no other way to penalize White, since you can’t very well put time back on Black’s clock. So the only other choice is to say that White wins because Black’s flag is down. That ruling is not “wrong,” but it seems inequitable.
I was inclined to award the game to White (since he didn’t solicit the comment; spectators are like natural obstacles in a race) but I like John’s suggestion better. It captures the utter undecidability of the situation.
The proper ruling depends on the circumstances of the players’ relations. You indicate there is no relation between the player with the white pieces and the over anxious spectator.
The seriousness of the offense must be explained to the offending spectator, of course. Since white now knows that black has lost on time, and white did nothing wrong, it seems clear that white wins. A draw punishes white and rewards black, so that is not the best ruling. White did nothing wrong, and his opponent’s flag fell.
Saying black is being punished for the what the offender did is not entirely correct…black is being punished for having his flag fall!
White wins and the spectator gets an explanation of the rules, and their seriousness.
That’s a legitimate ruling, but let’s ask what would have happened if the spectator had not spoken. There is a significant probability that White would not have noticed the flag fall until after his own flag was down, in which case the game is drawn. Giving him the point on the basis of third-party assistance bothers me. Unfortunately, we have a binary solution set, unless you want to award White 3/4 of a point. As it says in the book, “There is sometimes no good solution.”
But that’s another thing that’s usually un-knowable. How do we know that the spectator isn’t a friend of White, or just wants White to win.
Suppose the spectator’s tiebreaks or prize position is improved if White wins?
Well you could make the same argument in reverse too: if the spectator expects you’ll rule the game a draw, maybe he was trying to help Black that way. But that’s a bit more convoluted.
And besides, I guess “draw” is a bit closer to the statistically expected outcome if there had been no spectator comment, hence by awarding that result you give less incentive for intentional manipulation by a spectator.
17 seconds is quite a long time. It is not possible to guess what would have happened if the spectator said nothing, but I do not see the relevance of pondering that instance. Declaring the game a draw would not occur to me as a possible ruling (until I read this forum).
More importantly, the USCF has precedent for awarding a player 3/4 of a point, so maybe that is a fine idea! Also, to keep in line with the past, white will be awarded an EXTRA $2000 prize.
Ben Finegold
P.S. I am referring to Alburt-Browne, US Open 1987, Portland, OR.
Well if you were using pairing cards [i.e. doing pairing by hand] you could give Black a draw & White a win. How this would work in the ratings [at the USCF office] would be another problem. Of course with the various computer programs such an action is probably impossible.
The different point awards would be so neither player is punished by the spectator interferrence. Whether or not White is getting a benefit [i.e. an award from/for the outside help] is the real question here.
Also, hasn’t this come up in one of the TD quizzes that were in the old paper supplements? Does the USCF have an archieve of these [quizzes] that could be looked at and studied?
I think the opponent of the player who stands to lose the game on time should generally be given some benefit of the doubt that he will be able to call the player's flag down if given a reasonable amount of time to do so. The more time a player has, the greater the likelihood is that he will be able to claim a win on time. The more time White has, the more chance he would have to look at Black's clock and call the flag. I think 17 seconds is quite a lot of time, and during that time White has accrued a significant benefit of the doubt that he will call the flag. I think the most likely result, without any spectator interference, is that White will have been able to call Black's flag within 17 seconds. Therefore, I think the ruling should try to mirror the most likely natural result-- a time forfeit claim against Black.
Because Black's flag is down, I think the burden of proof should be on Black to prove that White would not have called the flag in 17 seconds. White has earned an easier burden of proof-- that his opponent has lost on time.
Black would have a better case if White had only a couple of seconds left himself to call the flag.
IM Finegold and NTD Immitt seem to agree. I do too. In my opinion, the decision should come down to whether white has enough time to make approximately 5 moves. I say 5 moves because most reasonably experienced speed chess players will glance at the clock at least every 5 moves (some more frequently) even in a mad time scramble.
As such, I would rule that 17 seconds is more than enough time to make 5 moves and would rule the game won. I would consider a draw only if the time remaining was under 5 seconds on a digital clock.
How does one prove this, Steve? This seems an awkward burden to me. No, I don’t think anyone can prove what another’s reactions will be in 17 seconds. This isn’t an area for generalizations.
The 1/2 to Black, and W for white would be my preferred solution, and I’ve used this scoring method for other cases in the past. Never tried it with a pairing program, tho. Otherwise, I’d agree that the flag fall is valid. That’s unfortunate, but any other ruling could allow manipulation.
Terry,
WinTD has always had the capability of handling split results. The DOS version of SwissSys also had that capability, and I would expect that it still does.
The original statement was that white had not noticed that black’s flag was down, but it didn’t say how long white had not noticed. If it had already been down for a minute then it is more likely that white would continue to not notice. If it had only been down for a few seconds then it is less likely that white has not been paying attention, and thus white would have noticed on his own.
I know that in speed chess I have mated opponents 15-30 seconds after I flagged (sometimes a spectator has had to point out to both of us that the flag fell).
In speed chess tournaments I’ve done all three options (win, draw, split result) depending on the situation. So far my only occurence in a regular tournament was ruled a draw (the player with the lost position didn’t understand that his opponent’s analog clock had flagged until it was pointed out - and for that matter, the opponent didn’t understand it either - this was a K-3 section).
As far as the newbie spectator goes, a warning seems to be the minimum that should be done. For a newbie that’s reasonable enough. For an experienced player, other penalties might be applied (the high end of such penalties would be loss of the interferer’s current game, a zero point bye in the next round, or ejection).
Giving a total of more than 1 point for the game should be considered only if the spectator can be punished. I don’t know how to rate the punishment for a newbie vs. a known player, but otherwise one leaves the possibility that a spectator has the incentive to interfere.
Like Ben, I didn’t even think of awarding a draw (to both players) until John said it. A couple people make a good point that in 17 seconds is a fairly long time (and even longer because the opponent will take some time too).
So can we use a general principle like: an accident happened (spectator opened his mouth), so give the most likely result as of right before the accident.
I don’t think calling the game a draw is fair at all, especially if no link between the player and the observer can be made. Heck, in FIDE tournaments, the arbiter can call the flag fall.
I know if I’m down to 17 seconds, I’m looking at the clock after every move I make. Aren’t most players like that?
And you certainly shouldn’t take into account that the player whose flag has fallen had a winning position. That is a moot point.
Given that exact scenario, I would agree with John’s ruling with sympathies for white. Not that there’s any precedent to this kind of action, but I have half an inclination to try this:
Put a delay clock with 1-2 minutes and five seconds delay or their current amount of time (whichever is greater) for both sides, and have them play on with the stipulation that a Black win here = a draw, and a white win or draw = a white win, for pairing and rating purposes. It would be refreshing to let chess decide the outcome, and not the spectator. White gets a chance at earning his point, but Black is not totally penalized when White did nothing to earn the win.
I assume delay was not on the original game, so it makes no sense to add delay to this sort of decider. Besides, in a G/29 event time between rounds may not permit this sort of thing. If I were white, however, I’d be very upset with anything other than a win. To say White did nothing to earn the win isn’t really true - he did, after all, compete his moves within the time control.
My practice in a time scramble where I have the worst of it is to play as fast as I can, and then look at the clock when I’m about to be mated. The fact that I hadn’t called the flag yet doesn’t give any reason to believe I’d fail to do so this time.
Ben,
Are there any rules that allow for such an action? You’d certainly want to avoid White challenging a decision that is almost certainly to be overruled. You scenario is still too harsh on White IMHO. Unfortunately, this situation is a drawback of allowing spectators to crowd around a board.
There are no rules describing what I proposed, but since I think you have to grudgingly rate the game a draw as per what John described in his initial post - this seems to make things a little fairer for White, who is now not automatically deducted a half-point that he thought he merited. At least white gets a chance to get his win, instead of being denied such by what would be my (or it seems, John’s) ruling.
Any idea that makes things fairer for an aggrieved party should merit further discussion.
Just out of curiosity if the game was scored as 3/4 and 1/2 how would that rate out?
Or say you had a different situation and you gave both players a full point, not sure why you would do this but say it happened, how would that rate out?
