I agree with your last paragraph, but this falls under 20G, not the flag-fall rules. It is also fact-based, and in most cases it will be very difficult to determine cause and effect.
I do not agree with your second paragraph, as I do not believe that “flag has fallen” in 13C13 should be construed in the same way as in 13C1. Note that 13C13 references 5B and 16F, which concern only the “actual” (not “legal”) flag fall. Note also that (physical) flag fall is not the same thing as a time claim; a player whose opponent’s flag falls in SD could, in theory, decline to call the flag and continue pay until the games ends over the board or his own flag falls (14G2). Of course, he probably won’t, but the opponent should have thought of that before stopping the clocks and summoning the director.
Oh, and the answer to Artichoke’s question is “no.” This is an example of why it’s impossible to come up with a complete set of rules. Someone will always find a way to weasel.
I believe that words have meaning that do not change to suit our convenience.
16E defines what the rule mean by “flag has fallen”. In my opinion, it should be respected everywhere else in the rules, unless specifically contradicted.
Those that are using 13C1 to show that a TD should never call attention to a flag being down, need to explain why that rule explicitedly just points out one use of the rule and thus may be implying that the rule should only be used for that use.
13C1 ends with “A director must never initiate a time forfeit claim.” I agree; but this leaves open the fact that a TD may consider the flag being down for other purposes.
That’s a nice sound bite, but I doubt you really mean it. Does the 2nd Amendment really prohibit only compulsory amputation? Does the prohibition against double jeopardy apply only when the penalty is death or dismemberment?
Would you have preferred that I call you a fool? I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person could seriously assert that, e.g., the word “conjunction” means that same thing when used by an astronomer, a biologist, a grammarian, and a logician. Or that “division” would have the same meaning to a math teacher and a military historian. Context governs. Perhaps you didn’t really mean what you appeared to say – but if so that’s your own fault for failing to articulate your point properly.
And this my dear sir, is the obvious flaw. For purposes of allowing the players to decide when the game is concluded with no outside involvement, this rule is fine. However, once the player or players invite that outside involvement (i.e the TD), it becomes ludicrous to ignore the the obvious fact that a flag is down.
And yes, I am an IT professional. But here, I am functioning as a “user”. I have stated the problem as I see it. If enough “users” agree with me, then please go ye therefore and fix it.
In my long-ago experience (and I confess that at the time, the most difficult thing about TDing was thought to be pairing with pairing cards) I recall approaching the table to make a ruling in a dispute. It was very helpful to me to have clear rules about how I should act. One of those rules, that was easy to follow once it became habit, was to ignore the flag down unless it was called. The “poker-face” rule, as I thought of it.
If the rule were not so clear, it would have been harder for me and I might have given improper hints to the players as I was trying to act natural. Ludicrous it may have been, but it was something I could implement reliably.
In any rewrite of this rule, I think it’s important to consider the possible use-cases and make sure the TD has at most a simple short checklist, so that he does not tip off players improperly by his hesitations or confusion. And it should be something that a new director can do in a reasonably OK way.
JH may have such a checklist in his head for how he does it, but at this point I don’t feel there’s enough information for another to implement his approach. Is it simply that once the TD is called, all flags are considered called? Only the flag of the player who called the TD? Does the TD always know who called him?
One is reminded of the 2 week discussion in Philosophy 123 on the meaning of “or”. Some students accept the Truth Table as the definition and are ready to move on. Others have a deep seated desire to consider the implications of their observation that the Truth Table conflicts with some usages in English. Or not.
Repeat after me: “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.”
The last game in the penultimate round of a 150-player, Game/30 tournament is still going on long after the other games have all finished. Both players are deeply engrossed in their complicated middlegame, completely oblivious to the fact that both flags are down. Even though they’re at move 28, they’re not really feeling any time pressure, and neither player is moving too quickly, because they both have set their clocks to the time control of 40/2, SD/1, and they each have used up about 45 minutes.
The next round is scheduled to begin in 15 minutes.
Try a G/30 scholastic tournament where the last game in round 3 (of a 140-player 5-round K-3 section on an ASAP schedule) is between low-rated opponents where one player (as black) has used 40 minutes on a properly set analog clock and the opponent (in a greatly inferior position as white) has used 20 minutes. White knows that the time control is G/30, knows that black has used 40 minutes, knows black has another 50 minutes to go before flagging, and both players are taking their time and playing for a win (considering the ratings of the players the game really could be decided over the board with either player winning even though black has the huge edge of the initiative, a better pawn structure, a safer king, an extra rook, an extra knight, a couple of extra pawns and no queens on the board to complicate things).
Why wasn’t the director checking to see if clocks were set properly at the start of the round (rule 16P)? Failure to do this could lead to problems later.
I know of at least one director used by CCNY, CCA, LICN, NSCF, ACTA, and Nassau Chess Club that considers this to be part of the TD’s job.
Rule 13C1 “it is considered to have fallen only when either player points this out”.
It should be obvious to the TD that the flag is not considered down because it hasn’t been called by either player. The TD would be violating rule 16Y if he called the flag!
Nowhere in the rulebook could I find where inviting “outside involvement” allows the TD ignore rules such as 16Y without advance notice.
I see that you are continuing to ignore the fact that these statements are being made to advocate rule changes.
These statements are not advocating a different interpretation of existing rules.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re suggesting here. It is my understanding that in non sudden death time controls there is no such thing as adding 2 minutes for an illegal move. As you mention a “second time control”, the first could not be sudden death.
tsawmiller wrote:
Perhaps we’re just talking past each other. As best I can tell, we seem to have a different definition of what a fallen flag is, or you want to have the definition changed.
Are you advocating that the USCF let the TD bring attention to fallen flags? If so, I believe that you are advocating more problems than you’re solving.
Let’s say we take the example Polly gave in the post that started this topic.
A player makes an illegal move claim against his opponent and the director arrives to notice that the claimant’s flag is down but no time claim has made. If the director points out the fallen flag, he has given assistance to one of the players to the point where that player wins because of director assistance.
How does the director know that the flag fell before the illegal move was made? In large tournaments, it’s not reasonable to expect a director to be present at every board which has time pressure. Not only could the director be helping a player to win, he could also be doing so ignorant of which occurred first.
I can’t think of a good way to find out which occurred first without bringing attention, unless there are unbiased witnesses, and that discussion takes place away from the players. That very act could bring attention to the flag.
If there are no witnesses, and the TD tries to find out from the players, one will be ignorant, and the other will be placed in a situation of being asked to give information that would lead directly to his own defeat. Currently, there are rules prohibiting the use of an opponent’s score sheet to claim a win on time in non sudden death controls. Your proposed change would lead to players helping themselves lose if they’re honest. Do you want to penalize honesty?
Furthermore, it would appear that the player who made the illegal move is actually benefiting from it, in that a neutral TD is now giving him winning assistance. Chess is supposed to be one against one. Two against one isn’t fair.
Why is it “ludicrous” to not bring attention to a flag a player wasn’t alert enough to notice on his own, but perfectly acceptable to reward a player that made an illegal move with a win? This is not a rule change I want.
I was discussing the general issue of flag falls and adding 2 minutes (the standard adjustment). This happens (or other reasons, true) in multiple time-control games.
In sudden death time controls, it’s too obvious for words that if you have time on your clock then your flag is UP.
Actually, a major flaw in the curent rules is the constant mention of “the flag”. The flag is not a first-class concept - the correct idea to concentrate on is “insufficient time to continue playing”. Not quite as good might be “time has expired”. In the cases where time has been added, some literalist might argue that “time has expired” when the flag fell - even though there is NOW sufficient time to continue.
But your meaning is 