How would one apply this concept if the clock is set to stop recording usage after flagfall? Corollary question - what do the rules say about setting your clock that way?
Please clarify…if the illegal move claim is made more than 2 minutes after the flag fall, then the “illegal mover” can still claim the win on time, correct? Presuming that it can be established that the player with the fallen flag has used 2+ minutes since the flag fall…
A digital clock is going to read 00:00, so how would one know if 2+ minutes have expired? It seems like this interpretation only works if there was an analog clock where one could tell roughly how long the flag has been down.
Depends on how the clock is set (or incorrectly set.) If a clock continues to count down a non-existent next period, there you are - you have the elapsed time since fall. Though I don’t know of a digital clock, offhand, that this wouldn’t require incorrect settings.
But does that mean, in the absence of evidence, that the flag still “raises”? (And it doesn’t answer if the “flag raise,” if one accepts that, shouldn’t raise the clock to 2:00 remaining…) Analog or digital, the process and principle should be consistently applied - whatever that is.
I don’t know if this reasoning works or not… But I’ve been thinking about increment. If a flag falls with increment, and another pair of moves is made, the increment is not applied to raise the flag - the flag still stays fallen. For that matter, in delay, failing to notice the flag fall hasn’t earned the opposite player a fresh delay period. Not quite on all fours - but may speak to whether a fallen flag can be raised at all.
But the flip side is… a failure to call a fallen flag doesn’t inherently allow actions which call for a penalty, does it?
I suspect I am in a small minority here, but once called to the board, I take everything I see into account and strongly believe this should be the correct procedure. If a player whose flag is down tries to get additional time due to his opponents illegal move, I will not add time as I will rule that the game is over. The player can either not call the TD and hope his opponent does not see the flag down or suffer my ruling.
Your ruling would be in direct conflict with 13C1: “Only the players in a game may call attention to the fall of a flag (5G); it is considered to have fallen only when either player points this out. A director must never initiate a time-forfeit claim.”
There is nothing wrong with noticing that the flag has fallen, but when you call the flag, you are giving advice to one of the players that leads directly to his winning the game. Directors are forbidden from giving unsolicited advice to the players.
Just to get your position straight, if you (the TD) are called to a board where one flag has been down for 45 seconds, but neither player mentions it, and instead the player whose flag is down claims (and establishes) that his opponent just made an illegal move, then you would restore that player’s time to 1 minute 15 seconds, correct?
It depends on the clock. If the clock shows :00:00, as many of the digital clocks do no matter how long ago the time expired, then I’d set it to :02:00.
If the clock provides evidence that 45 seconds have expired since the flag fell and the rule book clearly states that “1C2a. Standard penalty. Except where specifically noted in the rules, the standard penalty assessed by the director is to add two unused minutes to the remaining time of the opponent of the player not following the rules” I don’t see another option under the rules.
Unless announced in advance, for a TD to do as Ernie suggests, crosses the line from enforcing the rules to writing the rules. I would think that any player who is victimized by a TD calling the flag, has a valid complaint against the TD that helped his opponent.
If someone feels the rule is unfair as presently worded, the proper method is to submit a suggested rule change to the rules committee and have them review and change it, if that is their decision.
Another possibility is to follow rule 1B1: “Notification. Any variations from these published rules, including variations discussed in this rulebook, should be posted and/or announced at the tournament prior to their use, preferably before the first round.”
I am not comfortable with playing in a tournament in which a TD decides the result of a game by making up a rule contrary to an existing one, unless announced in advance. I think if you polled the players, most would agree.
The flag is considered to have fallen when either player calls it. (Technically “calls it to the attention of the director,” but in practice “You’re down” will do.)
Flag fall in SD ends the game.
An illegal move claim before the end of the game is valid. A claim made after the end of the game is not.
A player whose own flag has fallen may not win the game on time during that time control. (13C14).
Questions:
In a sudden-death time control, does “own flag has fallen” in 13C14 mean “flag has fallen” or “flag fall has been called to the attention of the TD”? I lean towards the first, but let’s assume the second for the sake of argument, since otherwise there’s nothing further to discuss.
When a player whose flag has fallen (but has not yet been called) summons the director to make an illegal-move claim, is he “calling the attention” of the TD to the fact that his flag has fallen? “I want two minutes added to my clock, but I don’t want you to notice that my flag is down”? Once again, a “yes” answer ends the discussion, so let’s assume “no” (even though I think it’s a stretch).
If a player makes an illegal-move claim under these circumstances, unless the opponent is a cretin he will notice that the flag is down and make a claim of a win on time. The question then becomes, should the illegal-move claim be processed first because the claimant spoke first, or should the time-forfeit be done first because it is a “higher level” claim? I think the answer is “b,” but apparently there are some who disagree.
Bottom line: It is possible to justify allowing an illegal-move claim after the claimant’s flag has fallen (and “unfalling” the flag), but it requires making at least three very dubious decisions. I certainly wouldn’t do so, and I would overrule any assistant who did. I suppose the Rules Committee should come up with some language to remove the ambiguity. I just hope they don’t follow last year’s example, with pages of dense and obscure verbiage. A one-sentence clarification somewhere should be plenty.
I remain uncomfortable with a rule which allows a player, on move N, to play an illegal move, hope the opponent doesn’t notice, and then play a stalemating (or worse yet, checkmating) move on move N+1 – and forces the TD to ignore the illegal move and let the stalemate/checkmate stand. Your arguments regarding what the present rule requires are impeccable – all the more reason to change the rule.
Bill I think you’re begging the question Ken asked. That is, how? What is a good rule change?
I don’t have an answer. We like the finality of the game being over when it’s over. We don’t like the possibility of cheating right before the end that could work because the game is over. Solution? I don’t know.
Now lets say you are chief TD of an event and you call a flag for a player who didn’t notice. How do you defend yourself when it is appealed by the opponent who correctly claims that you violated 13C1 and 13C14? Unless you made an announcement prior to the start of the tournament that you would allow TDs to call flags, I don’t think you have a valid defense.
The TD should not initiate a flag-fall claim. However, the director also should not allow a player to win on time in violation of 13C14. Example: Player A’s flag falls. Player B, being an imbecile, says nothing. Player B’s flag falls. Player A claims a win on time. Player B is still a moron and still says nothing. Are you really going to rule that Player A wins on time – that Player A’s flag hasn’t fallen because Player B hasn’t pointed it out to the director? I think the case of a player who claims an illegal move after his flag is down (physically, even if not legally) is similar, though not identical.
The simplest way for the Rules Committee to resolve this would be to change 11D1 to match 10J – “… a player must do so before deliberately touching a piece.”) Until that (or something else) is done, the TD will have to exercise discretion and try to determine the spirit of the rules, since the letter is ambiguous. In my view, the spirit of sudden-death time controls strongly favors finality, which can be overcome only by exceptional circumstances which lead to an unfair result. A player who sees an illegal move, makes at least one more move, and then has his flag fall, is not losing unfairly.
Now, if the last move made before the flag fell was illegal, I would disallow the time claim and grant the illegal move calim, but only under 20G (“… forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.”)
Would it be possible to create a rule similar to the following:
“13C2. If a player makes any claim of a TD while that player’s flag is down, the TD may take note of the flag fall as if the player had called attention to it.” And then editorial changes to the surrounding rules. Maybe a very hefty TD TIP to clarify, dunno.
And would that be desirable? I’m not trying to rewrite that the TD can call the flag - I like the concept that only players may do so. But players being able to make claims in a fallen condition doesn’t seem equitable to me.
IMO, summoning a TD has invited him/her into the situation, as the summoner’s peril if you will. I would think a down flag should supercede most other claims, an illegal move as the last move having been made by the player with time remaining being one obvious exception.
But only the summoner’s peril? Does the TD so summoned have to be careful not to reduce any of the rights of the opponent of the summoner?
If so it could be quite a burden on the TD to remember the different status of the two players with respect to calling a flag, all the while doing it very smoothly with perfect poker-face. And if the TD asks to be reminded who called him, that’s a tell so he can’t ask.
Taking semantic lessons from Louis? I didn’t say ANYTHING about reducing the rights of the other player. I am only pointing out, that a player with his/her flag down, that summons a TD for some other potentially dubious reason, should be doing so at his/her own risk.
I don’t recall whether the TD was summoned in this situation or not, but often I’ve seen players handle the illegal move and subsequent adjustment of the clock themselves. It’s pretty typical in many of the tournaments that I’ve played in for players not even get the TD involved. I’ve had illegal moves come up in my games. My opponent and I have simply stopped the clock, made the time adjustment, continued the game with a legal move. I can’t recall an instance when we’ve done this ourselves that it’s become necessary to have the TD intervene. TD intervention might become necessary if the players have a touch move dispute because the piece moved could stop the check.
So unless it’s an absolute requirement that the TD be called for an illegal move the flagged player may not call the TD over if he can just add the time himself with no argument from the opponent. Knowing the person involved in this situation that’s probably what he would do.
But your statement had implications about the rights of the other player. The summoning player loses his right to have the TD ignore his flag if it’s fallen (and maybe other rights too, if “peril” involves other rights.) Does the non-summoning player also lose those rights?
If the opponent does lose those rights, it’s unfair for him to lose his rights because of something his opponent does? This really is a problem: call the TD over, and he’ll call a flag for you that you didn’t notice. So I believe this is not what you intended.
And if the opponent doesn’t lose those rights, isn’t it quite a burden for the TD to keep it straight in the classic situation where the TD must keep a poker face?
So this is something you appear not to have thought of, otherwise you would have answered in your last post. If it is a problem, it should be analyzed before making a change to the rules.
That’s why I suggested a hefty TD Tip may need to be in order. A player making a claim could have his or her flag called by the TD, but not the other player. And a TD would have to have a poker face. (“Hmm… White called me over to rule, and Black is lost on time… Can’t mention that - gotta let White see it.”) But, OTOH, if the resolution of the claim is to add time to the opposite player and the opposite player’s flag is down… same problem, different day?
An alternative would be that either player calling over a TD / requesting a ruling means the TD can notice the condition of either clock. I don’t like that nearly as well, but can’t analyze why at the moment…