Player A has 20 minutes. Player B has 1 second left.
Player B executed move 20, offered a draw, and punched his clock before his time ran out. Player A executed move 21 and punched his clock. Player B responded instantly and punched his clock. Player B’s time then ran out.
Player B alleges that Player A continued to tap the clock (Chronos touch sensor) after Player B executed his 21st move and punched the clock for that move, causing Player B’s clock to run and his time to elapse to zero.
Player denies tapping the touch sensor repeatedly.
No witnesses came forward to confirm or deny either allegation.
What is the correct ruling? Should the 1 second be reinstated and the game continue, or should Player B lose by time forfeit here?
Any rationale or USCF Rulebook passages referenced would be appreciated with your response.
If there are no impartial witnesses, and assuming the players were not under direct TD observation at the time of the claim, the only thing you have to rely on is the clock reading at the board. Absent some other compelling evidence, Player B loses on time.
The rule book doesn’t cover this specific situation, but pretty much every similar situation discussed therein states that a witness (preferably impartial) is usually necessary for corroboration. That’s certainly the standard I’d want to verify Player B’s claim.
If there is no disagreement that indeed “player B executed move 20 … and punched his clock before his time ran out” and that, after player A executed his move, “player B responded instantly and punched his clock” on his 21st move, then there is no way player B’s time could have expired (given that a 5-second delay was in effect) unless player A did, in fact, tap the touch sensor again, as B alleges, after B had completed his move and pressed the clock.
Thus, with the important caveat that the facts inside the two quoted passages in the above paragraph are not in dispute, there is strong (even irrefutable) evidence that B’s allegation of multiple clock-tapping is correct. So I would disallow the time forfeit claim, restore the lost second, and resume the game.
Even so, isn’t Player B responsible for his own clock and when it is running? Was it not incumbent upon him to call attention to the procedural error (multiple tapping) by Player A before his time ran out?
I think that puts too much of an onus on the non-offender.
It is true, though, that given the 5-second delay, B had 5 seconds to notice that his own clock was running, and to mimic A’s behavior by pressing his own clock a second time.
I do not believe there is irrefutable evidence of Player B’s allegations. So, I will not override the only impartial evidence I have. YMMV.
That said, how do we know the exact move numbers? If both players agree that they are on a certain move number, and the clock says something different (say, 1-2 moves more than it should have) then I would consider that pretty strong evidence. I’ve never asked the players about their move number in a blitz dispute.
This was not blitz, it was G/30 d/5. So the players probably had a scoresheet, and/or the clock may have been counting moves.
In any case, the exact move count seems irrelevant. If we accept the OP’s accounts, including
Player B made his move and pressed his clock before his time ran out, and
Player A then made his move and pressed his clock, and
Player B responded instantly and pressed his clock
– then how on earth could B’s time be expired at this point? It would not have expired for at least another 5 seconds, barring some kind of malfunction, either human or clock.
If it wasn’t the multiple-tapping theory, then maybe the clock was not, after all, set for a 5-second delay. Or there was some kind of other malfunction. In any of these cases, disallowing the time forfeit claim seems perfectly in order to me.
I’ve seen a few multiple-clock-tappers in my tournament life. They invariably deny they were doing it, or claim there’s nothing wrong with it. But it causes serious problems, as it denies the opponent the ability to press his clock effectively for the duration of the multiple tapping.
We were told what the time control was. No one has definitively stated that delay was actually set on this clock. If it was, we have could have a clock malfunction for which black might be entitled to relief if that could be verified. If, however, delay wasn’t set, it’s probably too late to correct that. Especially if it was black’s clock and he set it.
The clock had a delay that was functioning properly for the duration of the game, although I can’t speak for that move specifically.
The move numbers were fictional, for illustrative and discussion purposes only.
It seems that the discussion has come to a bit of a divide between logic and the human element (fallibility of memory, execution, etc.). This is great, even if it makes it harder to come to a consensus on the best decision.
This is what I get for trying to post from my phone. I got confused with another thread started by the same OP dealing with blitz.
I think using a move count a more sound basis for taking action in this case than simply relying on a player’s individual perception. Barring some impartial observer who can confirm the claim of multiple taps, I would have to rely on the clock.
I’ve seen a blitz game with a fast expert against a slow B-player where the expert with seconds left made a move and hit the clock, the B-player responded and started to hit the clock, the expert responded and hit the clock, and then the B-player finally finished his arm motion to hit the clock (finally completing his move). At that point the B-player began figuring out his next move and then the expert’s time ran out.
I ruled it a valid flag and let the expert know that his problem was that he didn’t wait until the B-player completed his move (by hitting the clock) before hitting the clock after his move.
If the expert was actually trying to deprive his opponent of the opportunity to hit the clock then he would have been aware that what did happen could have happened. The expert was simply caught up in the blitz scramble and didn’t realize he’d reacted as fast as he did. Once the clock fell he was as certain as the player in the OP that he’d reacted immediately and his opponent must have hit the clock again. My having seen and related what had happened immediately defused his anger and transformed it into chagrin.
I have witnessed many games where people “play tunes” when they press the button on digital clocks. At one venue, where the clocks are severely abused, the players claim multiple taps are necessary. With a properly functioning digital clock the first tap is necessary and the remaining taps are stealing time from the opponent. This is a hustler’s trick.
It is well to find out that hitting the clock completes the move. All these years I thought the move was complete when the hand released the piece. Does hitting the clock supersede mate on the board now? I would look in the latest Official Rules of Chess but it keeps getting stolen from the library I visit.
Yep. Mate ends the game – what the clock does after that is immaterial.
Thought experiment: Player A releases a piece checkmating player B. They shake hands, and leave the board. Player B notices that player A has not pushed his clock button, and that player A’s clock is still running. 1 hour and 20 minutes later, player A’s flag falls. Did that (SHOULD that) supersede the checkmate?