Illegal move claim after claimant's flag already fell

[tsawmiller]

@Harold S.

sloan wrote:

With an analog clock, the physical flag is the only indicator, and it may be physically impossible to set the clock to 5:59 without raising the physical flag. With a digital clock (depending on model and settings) it might be possible to set it to 31:00 remaining in the second time control.

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:

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.

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.

My opinion is, that the rules should allow the TD to take a fallen flag into account. So if a TD is summoned to a board, he/she listens to the complaint first. If it’s not enough to supercede the flag being down, the TD can rule the complaint out of order since the complainant’s flag is down.

[artichoke]

OK at least that sounds like something I could implement. During the time the complaint is being described, a TD would have time to think about what to say and what not to say, and until then the TD would show nothing.

There remains the question of whether the rules should change. Since I think we’ve done it the current way more-or-less forever, I don’t find the current rule ludicrous, any more than I find the current knight move ludicrous.

[Harold_S]

My opinion is, that the rules should allow the TD to take a fallen flag into account. So if a TD is summoned to a board, he/she listens to the complaint first. If it’s not enough to supercede [sic] the flag being down, the TD can rule the complaint out of order since the complainant’s flag is down.

Think of it this way. Under your rule change, the player making the illegal move claim would lose a game to a player who wins on the basis of a claim he never made which was awarded to him by a director who has the responsibility to be impartial.

I can not think of a good reason to change the rule. This change would reward a player making an illegal move and too ignorant to notice the flag with a TD assisted win, even if the illegal move was played before the flag fell.

As a TD, I find it uncomfortable, at best, to have a rule like this. I can image the complaints I’d get for telling the player that asked for 2 minutes when I tell him that his opponent wins. Under this change, an illegal move can win the game.

[tsawmiller]

@Harold S.

My opinion is, that the rules should allow the TD to take a fallen flag into account. So if a TD is summoned to a board, he/she listens to the complaint first. If it’s not enough to supercede [sic] the flag being down, the TD can rule the complaint out of order since the complainant’s flag is down.

Think of it this way. Under your rule change, the player making the illegal move claim would lose a game to a player who wins on the basis of a claim he never made which was awarded to him by a director who has the responsibility to be impartial.

I can not think of a good reason to change the rule. This change would reward a player making an illegal move and too ignorant to notice the flag with a TD assisted win, even if the illegal move was played before the flag fell.

As a TD, I find it uncomfortable, at best, to have a rule like this. I can image the complaints I’d get for telling the player that asked for 2 minutes when I tell him that his opponent wins. Under this change, an illegal move can win the game.

Well obviously if the other player had just completed an illegal move, that is one scenario where the TD would uphold the the claim. If the illegal move had happened five moves ago, then it’s tough toenails for the complaining player.

[sloan]

@tsawmiller

Well obviously if the other player had just completed an illegal move, that is one scenario where the TD would uphold the the claim. If the illegal move had happened five moves ago, then it’s tough toenails for the complaining player.

If the rule is “up to the TD’s discretion”, why is this conclusion “obvious”?

[tsawmiller]

@sloan

@tsawmiller

Well obviously if the other player had just completed an illegal move, that is one scenario where the TD would uphold the the claim. If the illegal move had happened five moves ago, then it’s tough toenails for the complaining player.

If the rule is “up to the TD’s discretion”, why is this conclusion “obvious”?

Who said anything about “discretion”?

[ESchlich]

@Harold S.

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.

Regards, Ernie

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.

Hi Harold:

I know that some if not many TDs will adopt this attitude, but I don’t.

Once I am called to the board, I see and use everything that I see AND ENFORCE ALL APPLICABLE RULES. I’ve had a TD tell me that when called for an illegal move, they won’t remind the players that touch move applies as they were not called for that problem. This can lead to what I consider are very undesirable later problems or unwanted violations of the rules of chess.
Regards, Ernie