Flag fall comment by spectator with 17 seconds remaining

Running Chess Tournaments
61

I edited the above some, so no nead to requote:

Nor am I interested in converting you. However, I find the logical arguments very convincing. And I’m sorry that you feel this is ridiculous. I’m sure that players who get in this situation and don’t like a ruling would at least like a good reason for it.

What does this mean? A result that doesn’t occur on the board? If so, many draws (probably most) are “unnatural” results. Not sure I see the point here. A win on time counts the same as mate.

But if you believe this statement, why not make it of ALL results, not just “unnatural ones?”

The rules don’t score any more points for perpetual check than a draw by agreement, or for a mate than a flag fall. So you are correct, I don’t grant this hierarchy. It appears to be based upon your feeling, not an actual interpretation of the rules.

Even if it is granted, and even if the above is true, I can say at this point that there was no perpetual check, and no draw agreed, and there is no stalemate or other drawing circumstance. Therefore a draw is eliminated.

And therefore Black wins.

Your argument still fails to produce anything new.

No, what I am doing is noting something specific:

  1. The sufficient conditions for a white win have not been met (exactly as you say.)

I then go on to note:
2. The sufficient conditions for a draw have not been met.
3. The sufficient conditions for a loss have not been met.

Therefore, it is no longer possible to reach a decision based on sufficient conditions. What are the next best observable circumstances? It si the NECESSARY conditions.

  1. White win: Black flag is down.
  2. Draw: None.
  3. Black win: None.

Therefore I rule that White wins based on the next best set of information.

Now, I can be even more detailed: I didn’t list in the necessary conditions:

  1. White win: Black flag is down.
  2. Draw: None.
  3. Black win: Spectator interference.

Since spectator interference was already used to reject White’s claim.

But suppose a different situation where the spectator was White’s best friend, teammate, and had done something similar previously. Then I might have had either a different set of conditions at the sufficient level or now at the necessary level:

  1. White win: Black flag is down.
  2. Draw: None.
  3. Black win: Spectator motivation and prior pattern of behavior.

Now I have a judgement call of the spectator interference versus the observation of the flag fall. That is, there is now a process by which to decide how facts are important and relate them to each other. Here I might well choose that Black wins.

My point is that this involves a process. I agree with you that we can eliminate the sufficient condition for the White win. However, what I see is that we can eliminate ALL the sufficient conditions. That doesn’t (automatically) mean that the game is a draw. There is a second level of conditions that we can use to analyze to pull into the judgement call.

In the particular situation, there is no counter to Black’s flag fall.

I realize this may be unconvincing for you. I hope that out of this last set of comments you better understand my approach and would at least be open to it as a tool in the future. Thanks for a good discussion!

62

A draw, in any of its forms, is not an unnatural result in the same way that a win on time is. A win on time is unnatural to the game, as the clock is merely an ancilliary device and should not be used as the primary reason for ending the game. The clock came along only as a result of the need to finish a game or tournament. Draws, on the other hand, have been a part of the game for a much longer time. So, I reject your claim that a draw is an unnatural result.

Declaring the game, in this case, a draw is an appropriate ruling.

63

Moderators: How about locking this thread, and deleting the last several posts by kbachler and rfeditor? It has become a flame war.

Bill Smythe

64

Bill, I honestly disagree. I’m not trying to flame anyone. I’d object to the post deletion. I think they are useful, and I was seriously debating the logic of the situation.

Actually, I can recall a similar circumstance happening - I believe it was at a Tim Just Winter Open about 12 years ago, and I think Al Chow was one of the participants.

Several of my students had decided to play in the event, and one father was very excited to see a number of masters playing. Al and his opponent (I don’t recall who) got in a time pressure and Al’s opponent flagged in sudden death (as I recall.) The father, who knew better but who was just too excited yelled “FLAG!”

So this stuff does happen. It’s basically a random event.

Compare these situations:

  1. The player’s attention is turned to the clock by a (unknown) spectator yelling flag.

  2. The player’s attention is turned to the flag by a small chip of the ceiling falling next to the clock.

  3. The player’s attention is turned to the flag by a dog barking across the room.

  4. The player’s attention is turned to the flag by the adjacent game, where their clock is back to back with the player’s clock - and in time pressure one of the player’s on that board yells “Flag” and points to their clock.

To some these comparisons seem overly-detailed I suppose. To others their important because they try to sort out the differences in events and the reasons for rulings.

In my case, I see, from the players’ perspectives, all four events as random. I wouldn’t rule a draw for White in cases 2, 3, or 4. Why would I in 1?

65

My personal opinion is that Kevin’s last posts were well written and clear so it would be a shame to lose them. John’s opinion is also well reasoned (I agreed with it). I predict the thread will tail off soon – there’s more than one reasonable result here.

66

I disagree as well, though I tend to agree that this thread has outlived its usefulness. While I am unconvinced by Kevin’s arguments, there has been no “flame war.” (Take a look at some of the past exchanges each of us had with Oldtimer if you want to see the difference.)