To have a three second delay in a regular rated game, would the organizer have to announce this in advance, or would this be considered a minor enough variation to be announced on site?
Alex Relyea
In my opinion, the variation is pretty trivial and need only be announced at the site. However, unless you are supplying the clocks yourself, you are asking for trouble.
Had a chance to check through the rule book and reread 20E2 (Unsolicited Advice) and the offshoots of it and have come to the conclusion that it is pretty much a TD judgement call to try to come up with a ruling that is as fair as possible for the situation.
I understand the arguments here. I want to pose a question because I really don’t understand a perspective.
The fact is, Black is out of time. Something may or may not have happened with respect to White claiming a flag.
Several people were concerned about not penalizing Black because White “may not have” seen the flag down.
My question is, on what basis does possibility become as important (or more exactly, MORE important) than reality? The flag is REALLY down. It is a necessary cause of a loss. Generally, a verified claim of a flag fall by the opponent is a sufficient cause for a player to win.
In this case, a third party tainted the sufficient cause because chess does not allow outside influences - but the sufficient cause can still occur. The necessary cause has already occured.
No necessary cause or sufficient cause has occurred for any other result.
So I am at a loss - why would any TD ignore the only necessary cause that has occurred, in favor of any one of several other events, NONE of which had occurred?
Black could have avoided this problem by playing faster.
I am reminded of a story from a tournament 30 years ago. A player named Otokar Uhlir was returning to chess after a dozen year layoff. Otokar was expert/master strength at various times in his life.
He played a fine game in the tournament, and on move 40 (on the time control) against a high expert was two moves from mate. He moved a piece, and paused with his finger on the clock button. And in that instant. His flag fell - one move from mate. His first reaction was a pause, and then he slowly looked up and asked “Did I lose?” When we confirmed that he had lost on time, he said simple (and in a wonderful accent) “Well, I guess I should have moved a little faster.”
This is reality. The comment that a valid claim is needed for a loss is correct - but not sufficient to give up the reality that has actually occured.
I don’t quite agree with your interpretation. Part of the reason may be that I still regard SD as an unpleasant necessity rather than a legitimate part of the game – and this particular case is entirely an artifact of sudden-death.
In a game with a “real” time control, a player may attempt to claim a win if his opponent’s flag is down. It’s not automatic. If the player meets all of the requirements (such as having a “reasonably complete and correct” scoresheet), the TD will uphold the claim. If that had been the case in the game under discussion, my ruling would be simple – the claim is denied and the game must continue to the next time control.
With a sudden-death time control, it’s not so easy. I don’t think you can put time back on Black’s clock after his flag is down (though one poster seemed to suggest this). Your position seems to be that SD is fundamentally different from “real” time controls, such that White wins when Black’s flag falls, period. My view, however, is that, even in a sudden-death situation, a player wins on time only when he makes a valid claim that his opponent’s flag has fallen. That’s why, in the case under discussion, I don’t think it’s clear that White deserves the point. Arguable, but not clear.
16E When Flag is considered down. The flag is considered to have fallen when either player points this out.
So the flag may be physically down. The time may say -22 but the Flag isn’t actually down until one of the players points it out.
For this to be true, you would have to either be arguing that Black is not out of time (a fact that can be observed) or that some event that has not yet occurred has in fact occurred (another fact that can be observed.)
This is where I get stuck on other “interpretations.” In fact, I don’t think I’m interpreting at all. I think I’m just observing what has actually happened.
I haven’t debated any of this. In fact, I stipulated it in my argument.
I don’t think putting time back on the clock makes sense.
Then as I thought, you don’t understand my position. What you just stated IS NOT my position.
I’ll state it again:
My position is that a fallen flag is NECESSARY to win on time. It is not, however, sufficient to do so. I think I stated this previously, and it is in clear contradiction to how you are reading my position.
A fallen flag AND a valid claim (combined) are SUFFICIENT to claim a win.
My position is that the sufficient condition can occur but is tainted by outside influence (so under the rules there is some preference to discard it.)
The necessary condition has already occurred.
However, NO necessary NOR sufficient conditions have occured to support ANY OTHER result.
The reality is that the result that has “most occured” is a win by White. To IGNORE this, and to award another result based on events that may or may not happen, but that have not actually happened, seems to me to be utterly absurd since the reality is that Black’s flag is down. The necessary condition has occured.
Although I am not an attorney, if I understand it correctly this is similar to the concepts of proximate cause versus cause in fact.
Suppose Mr. X shoots Mr. Y. Mr. Y’s injury is severe but treatable. However, on the way to the hospital in an ambulance, the ambulance driver has a minor accident. The additional delay causes Mr. Y to die from his injury.
The accident is a cause-in-fact. But for the accident, Mr. Y would not have died. There is a limitation on the legal liability here, however, in that the shooting by Mr. X is the PROXIMATE cause and is legally recognizable as the cause for death.
In this situation, I am arguing that the player can claim a win on time and the opponent’s flag is down. Unfortunately, the claim is tainted because of 3rd party interference. But for the third party interference, the claim would be upheld.
Are there any causes that exist that support a draw? No
Are there any causes that exist that support a Black win? No
Are there any causes that exist that support a White win? Yes. Black’s flag is down.
Why would we ignore this and rule for a draw or any type of split decision?
Unfortunately your view ignores two factors:
- The game must end and have a result.
- There is no evidence for supporting a win for Black or a draw.
That’s why I think it’s clear. Your view is arguably unclear ONLY if you take it as a potential result out of context. If you put it in context with all other potential results, I think its abundantly clear that it is - in this case - the best answer.
Otherwise, if your view were correct, a third party could always change the result of a time forfeit by pointing out the potential result before the player has a chance to make a claim.
The rules are the way they are because AN OBSERVATION is required to effect ANY result, and in USCF events an arbiter is not available at every game to do so. That doesn’t mean we should reject an observable fact (Black’s flag is down) just because the wrong person did the oberving! The fact is more important than the observer.
If there exist necessary but not sufficient conditions for awarding a win on time, the win on time should not be awarded. This is clearly true for a “normal” (non-sudden-death) time control. With SD, the problem is complicated by the fact that the game cannot continue. Your argument is that therefore White must be awarded the win. My position is that a) White should be penalized for receiving the (unsolicited) advice, b) the only meaningful penalty possible is to disallow his claim of a win on time, and c) therefore the game should be ruled a draw.
(And, by the way, I absolutely reject your last point (“The fact is more important than the observer.”) But, since I don’t want to get bogged down in endless debates on whether various analogies apply (e.g. spectator says “Play Nb4, it’s mate,” spectator says “You’ve made 40 moves”), I’ll leave that for another day.)
Seeing as we are allowing the clocks to beep when they are out of time (5G, 42B), this is in essence informing the players as such. How would you all compare this audible beep to this spectator interference?
Because of this, I’d definitely rule that White get a win and Black a loss, if it can not be proved that the spectator has an allegiance or a stake in the outcome.
A large part of the ruling decision probably hinges on the spectator. If it was someone new who just didn’t know the proper behavior I would really be hesitant to punish White.
You lost me there. I fail to see the logic in punishing the player more severly simply because the spectator should have known better. The only important factor relevant to the spectator is his relationship to the either of the two players. If he was a friend, teammate, or in the running for the same prize as either player would impact on an appropriate action.
Hmmn that came out wrong.
What I was trying to say was that if the spectator was a newbie so to speak it would be pretty evident that there was no intent to help White so I would be hesitant to take the win away from White.
Whereas if the spectator was obviously someone that should know better I would have to dwelve deeper into the relationship issue.
Such signaling devices were suggested in the 4th edition, but, as Bill Smythe pointed out, they never caught on. Are they even mentioned in the 5th?
Yes – same rule number as in the 4th. But the wording has changed drastically.
4th edition:
5th edition:
Bill Smythe
Some players might consider a 3-second delay (instead of 5-) to be a major departure. For example, they may be in the habit of using the 5 seconds to write down the opponent’s last move.
Also, as has been pointed out in another thread, there exist clocks with a 5-second delay capability, but without a 3-second capability (nor 2- nor 4- nor 6- nor 7-, etc, for that matter).
To be safe, I’d suggest announcing this variation in all pre-tournament publicity.
Bill Smythe
This isn’t my argument. It never has been, although you’ve stated this twice now.
My argument is this:
1: Conditions present to rule that Black should win: NONE.
2: Conditions present to rule that the game should be drawn: NONE.
3: Conditions present to rule that White should win: One necessary condition and one tainted sufficient condition (which perhaps should be discarded.)
Your argument above that we should ignore three is the same argument you have given previously. As I noted previously, this is an argument in a vacuum. We must have a result. To argue AGAINST 3 does not argue FOR 1 or 2.
My point is that of all three possibilities, ruling that White wins has the most conditions for it. NONE of the possibilities has met the sufficient conditions to be chosen. But to reject the third possibility when it at least has a necessary condition (and none of the other possibilities has even that) makes no sense to me.
Why? The advice was unsolicited. That makes no sense.
And this is a another logical flaw. EVEN IF we penalize White by disallowing his claim, there is still no condition IN FAVOR of a draw, while a necessary condition exists in favor of a White win.
That is, even if we buy your argument, your conclusion is incorrect. Based on your argument, White wins.
Kevin,
I really don’t think the rest of us care whether rfeditor understands your arguments or not. There is no reason you need to bore the rest of us by trying to win your little private debate on these forums.
Instead of talking about “proximate cause”, “cause-in-fact”, “logical flaw”, etc, why can’t we all just accept the fact that spectator interference is a difficult problem, with different solutions appropriate to different individual situations? Even the rulebook, after three pages (80-82) of various non-binding advice, concludes that “there is sometimes no good solution”.
Bill Smythe
I’m not going to argue about whether I have misstated your position (though I don’t think I did). Given the above, I still reject your argument.
- A win on time should be awarded only if the claimant mets all the requirements without exception.
- One of those requirements is that the player call the flag without outside assistance.
- That condition was not met in the game under consideration.
The question them becomes, how should the TD resolve the situation? The game can’t continue. Obviously Black can’t win, since his flag is down. So, you can either award the game to White, despite his tainted time claim. Or you can reject the time claim, in which case the only possible result is a draw. I agree that the former is a legitimate ruling. You seem unable to grasp that it is not the only legitimate ruling.
This is the same logic flaw again. We can’t eliminate all the possibilities but one, and that must be the solution. That’s the logic error.
If we consider the possibilities in a different order, we would eliminate draw first. Let’s stick with your argument:
- The requirements for a draw are not met, so we eliminate that.
- You can reject the time claim.
Therefore Black wins.
OR another order:
- Black’s flag is down, so we eliminate that.
- You can reject the time claim.
Therefore draw.
OR a third order:
- Black’s flag is down, so we eliminate that.
- The requirements for a draw are not met, so we eliminate that.
Therefore white wins.
The rulebook doesn’t provide any guidance for one order being any better than another order here. NO ORDER of consideration is given. Nor does general fairness indicate an order.
One can argue that a win on time should be awarded only if ALL the requirements are met.
One can similarly argue that a draw can be awarded only if all the requirements are met or one can argue that White should lose (due to interference) only if all the requirements should be met. There is no hierarchy to the preference.
Therefore all your approach does is argue in an endless circle. What the approach I suggest does is accept this as not providing a solution, and then add:
But, one circumstance stands out above all the others, because at least a necessary condition has been met (i.e. there is an additional observable bit of important reality. Namely, the flag is still down.) Therefore white wins.
That is, once it is clear that none of the results are possible based on sufficient conditions, it makes the next best choice (based on reality) and goes to necessary conditions.
If you really believe this approach is incorrect, then you would need to show why there is a hierarchy to the order you propose and why that demonstrates that only the time claim should be rejected, rather than a loss for white or a draw, since those requirements are also not met (there are no sufficient conditions for either.) Then you would also have to show why the necessary condition would also need to be rejected. To date you’ve shown none of this. You’ve focused on one of the three possible results, rather than on all three.
Bill,
I am not trying to bore anyone. I suppose if you find the discussion boring, you could make the easy choice of not reading it.
Nor is is a private little debate. I note, by you being able to quote from it, that you seem to have read a significant amount of it, so that it must have been of some interest and kept your attention to some degree. So I really don’t understand the need to lash out.
Sometimes there are no good solutions, and I agree with the rulebook on that. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a BEST solution. (The least of all evils.) What I am interested in is in trying to find a means toward the best solution (given that no solution is good.) Otherwise, why not just use rock, paper, scissors to choose from among the bad solutions?
What I am proposing here is a very useful tool in analyzing to find the best solution, because it structures a hierarchy of facts and analyzes the actual situation. I would think you would appreciate that.
In the end, in this particular circumstance, we can use logical notions to eliminate all the possibilities based on sufficient conditions, and then heirarchically choose the one that scores best on necessary conditions.
In the interest of fairness (for the players), I find that an important tool, and therefore of interest.
This is getting ridiculous. I’m not interested in converting you. Nor do I find your logical arguments even remotely convincing. If you want to rule that way (in the unlikely event this situation arises again), fine. I won’t.
The short answer to your demand that I “demonstrate hierarchy,” however, is that a win on time is an unnatural result. It should be awarded only if every condition is met without exception. If this is granted (I suspect you would not), then the option of giving White the point on the basis of his time claim is eliminated. It may be necessary to award White the win for some other reason (such as there being no better equitable solution), which is what I think you’re doing.