Interesting situation of clock replacement

Running Chess Tournaments
1

The following comment was left on my blog in response to to discussion about a rule dispute. It’s an interesting situation and I’m curious as to how various directors would handle it.

“I had a king and queen vs. a king with very little time left. I was already annoyed because my digital clock had died in the middle of the game, and so I had to use an analog clock. My time delay clock is to avoid exactly this problem, and I felt that my opponent was being a little unfair to make a 2000+ player play this out in this particular circumstance, but fine, I can live with that. To top it off, when, in the Q+K vs. K endgame, I asked if I can have a digital clock, I was told, “Only if you are playing for a draw.” Never mind the fact that the game STARTED with a digital clock. I know the rule, but I felt the situation was a special case.”

I’m assuming that another delay clock was not available at the time his clock died. When one becomes available could the player request that the analog be replaced with a functioning delay clock? It does seem reasonable that since the game started with a delay clock that another delay clock should be put on the game as soon as one becomes available. I think the timing of the request to get another delay clock got interpreted as an ILC claim.

That’s the first part of this strange situation.

Part Two

"[i]But the reason for my complaint, please remember anon, was that my opponent called, “Flag!” when I was getting close to mating him. This totally distracted me, I paused for maybe a few seconds at most, looked over at the clock, and saw it hadn’t fallen. He then says, “No, sorry,” and I rush to make a few moves, but my flag does fall shortly thereafter, with mate in two on the board.

This happened right in front of the TD, and I felt that the TD should have intervened. There are rule-book situations that allow TD intervention or post hoc decision-making. At best, his claim of my flag falling was an illegal claim that would have given me two minutes. At worst, it was an unsportsmanlike attempt to distract me. That I queried about the ruling afterwards is hardly surprising, given that the difference between the infraction and the end of the game was a couple of seconds. That draw cost me a prize, a bunch of rating points, and spoilt a nice game I felt, so certainly I was mad about it."[/i]

This was my response to that part of his post.

It’s easy to play armchair quarterback here, and say you should have stopped the clock and complained when he made the flag claim. The rules don’t require the director to intervene in a situation like this. In fact the director should not be the one deciding on his own whether the player’s action constitutes annoying behavior or is illegal. In fact in a sudden death situation the TD is not allowed to point out an illegal move even if he does witness it.

I think if you claimed that you were distracted and lost time looking to see if you had flagged, the TD would certainly be within his rights to give you back a little time. That’s hard to do on an analog. Whether he would rule this as annoying behavior it’s hard to say. There is nothing in the rulebook specifically cover false flag claims. Even if he did rule that it’s annoying behavior there is a lot of latitude in terms penalties from a warning to time add on or deduction. Giving you back a little time would be my choice. Not having witnessed how he said it I can’t say whether I would have given you two minutes or simply given you back a 1/2 minute.

How would you rule?

2

I think in this circumstance, it might worth worthwhile to officially contest the outcome of the game. (That is, ask for an official ruling by the USCF).

At a bare minimum, it may be declared a draw, since your opponent had no way to win the game, other than by trying to force you to run out on time.

If nothing else, the USCF might give the player a warning that unsportsmanlike conduct can result in sanctions.

3

In both parts, I would have ruled against complainant.

In part 1, I certainly would have allowed a new digital clock to be placed on the game (earlier, when it was first noticed that the original clock became defective), if one could be provided by the contestants - I wouldn’t feel responsible, as a TD, to provide one. As it were, however, it’s simply too late and too bad. The TD should not assist in the win by granting a clock change.

Part 2 is too bad for the claimant too. The rules do not provide for “illegal claims”.

4

  1. This one is a close call, but I would rule that because the player voluntarily replaced the digital with an analog, (never mind that this was because the battery died – it was his clock, and his responsibility to provide one that worked), he could not ask for a time-delay clock except under 14H, which means offering a draw. 14H is about “insufficient losing chances,” not “making sure I get to win.”

  2. I would be reluctant to rule on something like this based on one side’s account – the other player might have quite a different version – but if all the facts were as stated, I would probably rule that the opponent had violated 20G, Annoying behavior prohibited, and give the claimant some extra time. Two minutes might be excessive, but with K+Q v. K, even an extra 15 seconds ought to be plenty.

5

I would have ruled for the claimant under 20G. Annoying Behavior Prohibited. The key for me is that the “illegal claim” was not made correctly. The opponent should have stopped both clocks before making the claim to the td (not leaving the claimant’s clock running and making a non-specific call of “flag”) which would not have cost the claimant any time because of an incorrect claim.

6

Well, the rule states that a player “should” stop both clocks; there is no “must” in there. Therefore, is this really a rule that a player can “violate”?

I’ve always considered this “rule” as a safety net for the claimant, should he/she also run out of time during the claim. If I’m not also in time pressure, I probably wouldn’t bother to stop the clocks.

Of course, I see your point as regards the opponent; he would not have ran out of time if the claimant had stopped both clocks.

Still, though, I don’t see this as an improper claim. In SD, especially, once the flag is down (which is “when it’s pointed out”), anything after that is irrelevant, so I would estimate that most players don’t bother to stop both clocks when making a time forfeit claim. I don’t.

As to the annoying behavior, if, as a TD, I witnessed the action, and believed that the player had done this intentionally (how I’d determine that, I don’t know) to distract the opponent, then YES, I would have upheld a claim. But, only when it happened - not AFTER the game.

Good question though. What other reasons would there be for a player to have an obligation to stop both clocks in a SD control?

7

I’m a bit puzzled by this statement. A fallen flag is a loss - not a draw!

It’s clear that the player needed to stop the clocks and make a claim against his opponent as soon as the false flag fall call was made. If this claim were made, and if I were the TD and had witnessed the incident, I would rule it to be a clear violation of rule 20G, which prohibits distracting behavior. Since I can’t imagine any way a person could be mistaken about seeing a flag fall, I would have considered the behavior to be deliberately distracting.

The rulebook leaves it up to the TD to decide what penalty, if any, to impose. I’d be strongly inclined, in an extreme time pressure situation like this one, to give the claimant a little extra time to compensate for the distraction, and would try to make sure I erred in the direction of overestimating rather than underestimating how much of an adjustment to make, since the distraction was clearly deliberate.

8

That’s generally true because the claimant normally should stop the clocks and make the claim when their clock is running.

As long as they are making the claim while their clock is running, then there can be no damage to the opponent. However, making any claim while your opponent’s clock is running can lead to problems like this.

Certainly, I’m assuming that the complaint had to be made at the time it occurred as discussed by ppwchess in the first post. However, I wouldn’t try to base this on whether it was done intentionally or not. It is likely to be impossible to determine and be unfair to one or the other of the players. It is better to judge their observable behavior and not try to judge the motivation of that behavior.

9

The opponent had only a King left. You can’t win on time with a lone King.

10

False. If there is no sequence of legal moves leading to a player being checkmated, the opponent cannot win on time (it’s a draw).

Doesn’t matter whether it’s deliberate or not. It’s clearly distracting, so the player should have been compensated with extra time.

In this case, though, the player compromised his own situation by not saying anything to the TD when it happened. Many TDs (in most cases wisely) do not want to intervene until asked.

Bill Smythe

11

For time-forfeit? My flag shouldn’t be falling when your clock is running! You may point out a flag-fall as soon as it happens, and that would be when the opponent’s clock is running.

Where is this rule that you must make a claim only when your clock is running?

OK, I can agree with that. Annoying/distracting behavior isn’t permitted whether it’s intentional or not. The fact that the incorrect claim played a part in the claimant’s flag fall justifys adding time back.

Now the question is how much time? It was a significant distraction (it caused a flag-fall), so would two minutes be all that unreasonable?

EDITED: improper quoting

12

First, the player with the delay clock was responsible for ensuring their clock was in working order. After having a clock substituted in (I’m guessing it was the other player’s clock?) I wouldn’t allow another clock substitution just because a delay clock (or any other clock) becomes available. (I would have allowed a replacement delay clock over an analog clock at the time of failure if one could have been found / set up without causing a significant delay of game.) At the very least, if I was contemplating allowing such an action I would inform both players of that at the time of substitution - but again, I wouldn’t do that in the first place.

Second, I would probably rule the incorrect flag claim a distraction and give the player two added minutes.

At first I added: If the claim was made by the player at that time. He had enough time to bang out several moves, so he had time to pause the clocks and make the claim at the time of distraction under 21F1; a single distraction/annoyance claim seem to me to be a situation where a deferred claim is a waived claim.

But this is the reason that I love to read questions like these on the forums, as they get me to get out my rulebook and read. 21D3 does read to me that unliateral TD intervention is allowed to warn or penalize on disruptive / unethical / unsportsman like behavior. I don’t know if this rises to that standard, though. I’m inclined to think not; I’m also inclined to think that, generally, it takes a player claim to bring TD intervention except for situations provided for in the rulebook.

And I’d like to know just what situations other than specified in 21D a TD is permitted to intervene without a player claim. (I’ve seen interventions in scholastic play where two kids are just moving lone kings around the board, more as a practical matter than anything else…)

13

I’m not sure what the player was doing when he yelled “Flag”. He wasn’t claiming a time forfeit since he didn’t go through that procedure properly, and the only other logical reason he’d be talking to his opponent, especially during extreme time pressure, would be to offer a draw. Since he clearly wasn’t doing that, he was attempting to distract the opponent. Since the opponent didn’t make a claim of any sort, he must not have been distracted/annoyed, right? Therefore, no harm, no foul. I think it would set a horrible precedent if the TD were to intervene whenever he thinks that the players might be annoyed/distracted. This is one of those instances where you have to wait for a claim.

Alex Relyea

14

Here we have the first evidence that this player does not “know the rule”. There is no rule that allows a player to “ask for a digital clock”.

If the players are supposed to supply clocks (the most common situation in a US Swiss), then there is simply no “official” way to “request a clock” - of any type. If you don’t have a clock, and your opponent does not have a clock, then it is simply not part of the TDs duties and not the responsibility of the Organizer to find a clock for you.

Now, if you manage to find a kind soul to provide a clock, we might have an interesting question: you started with (your) delay clock…it dies and you substitute your opponent’s non-delay clock…when you finally locate another delay clock, can you swap out your opponent’s clock for the one you have borrowed. I think that the rules are silent on this and there are arguments that could be made either way.

If I were, in fact, actively monitoring the game and heard a player say “Flag!”, I would treat that as a claim. I would step in, stop both clocks, and rule on the claim. In this case, the claim would be denied, and 2 minutes added to the opponent’s remaining time. Note that this is not a situation of a TD stepping in on his own initiative to correct an illegal move, or an incorrect claim, or annoying behavior. The TD steps in (immediately) simply because he hears the magic word “Flag”, which is a claim. A claim by a player should always be handled by a TD standing by watching that game. The fact that the claim turned out to be bogus does not matter at the time the TD decides to intervene. He should step in for false claims, correct claims, and (especially) for claims where he doesn’t yet know whether the claim is true or false.

Since the TD did not do this, if I were playing and my opponent did this, and the TD did not step in to handle the claim, I would stop both clocks, fetch the TD and ask for a ruling.

A TD who actually heard the word “Flag!”, but ignored it should still be competent enough to respond to the player complaint. A TD who did not witness the event would have to depend on witnesses, and might end up merely warning the players to not do it again. Here, the TD would be ruling on an “annoying the opponent/unsportsmanlike behavior” claim - where the standard penalty is still 2 minutes added to the opponent’s remaining time…but might (especially in this position) extend to an immediate forfeit. Of course, if the opponent admitted that he said “Flag”, then it would be proper to consider this a claim - and rule on it. If everyone agrees that the opponent said “Flag”, then it’s not “annoying behavior” - its a (false) claim. If everyone agrees that the opponent said something (but not “Flag”), then it’s an “annoying the opponent” claim by the other player.

Note especially that it is not proper for the TD to add “just a few seconds” because only a few seconds ticked off White’s clock. The main point of adding 2 minutes to a player’s remaining time is to restore the (unknown) amount of time that it took the player to deal with the interruption - but a secondary point is to deal with precisely this kind of problem. This tactic (crying “Wolf”) only works because White has very little time. Give White 2 minutes, and there is no point in trying again - so you don’t really have to worry about being called back to rule on a repetition of this appalling behavior. Two minutes is almost always more time than actually ticked off the clock - the extra time is partly intended as a penalty. So, it is incorrect to try to add back only the precise amount of time lost on the clock.

15

Before you appeal to USCF, you must first file an appeal (in writing, in a timely manner) to the TD, for a ruling by the local appeals committee or a special master available by telephone. If you don’t appeal the TD’s ruling (almost immediately) then your subsequent appeal to USCF will likely fail.

16

Of course they do. A claim should be handled by the TD. The TD can grant the claim, or deny it. If a claim is denied, it is usually appropriate to compensate the opponent (the standard is 2 minutes added to his available time).

The rules also deal with annoying behavior. If calling out “Flag!” while there is still time on the clock is not “annoying”, then I don’t know what is. (of course, I think it’s also a “claim” - see my other post on this topic)

17

The player with time still remaining had only a K. The player with the fallen flag had K+Q.

I usually rule that a draw, but only because the Rule Book tells me that is is a draw.

18

I disagree. If I’m the TD and I hear a player say “Flag!”, I treat it as a claim. That’s the reason that I would immediately step in and rule on the claim. And, if the claim turns out to be false, then I will add to the opponent’s remaining time.

I agree with the statement that a TD should not (in general) step in to stop annoying behavior, unless and until the opponent complains. If the player had said “Watch out! Your flag is about to fall!” - that would be an obvious case of annoying behavior and I would probably not step in to correct it. I would, however, find an opportunity to chat with both players after the game - first to warn the offender that I would not tolerate a repetition, and second to advise the opponent that he should complain.

After a warning, if this player pulls a similar stunt in a subsequent game, I would probably step in and stop it. I would issue an even stronger warning (threatening not only loss of the game but expulsion from the tournament).

My other exception to the “no intervention” policy is the case of a very young player being intimidated by an adult. My ruling might very well be overturned on appeal - but it is more important (to me) to make sure that this behavior simply does not happen. Adults are expected to be able to take care of themselves - but kids need an extra level of protection. Even with adults, I would probably step in if the annoying behavior involved sexual or racial slurs. Again, some things are more important than the USCF Rule Book.

19

Just to clarify, it looks like Ken would do this because of 1C2a (standard penalty under director discretion) rather than because of 13C11 (invalid time-forfeit claim not in sudden death).

20

First of all I was not the player in this game. He had brought up the incident in the course of some comments made on my blog regarding a post I made about not keeping score. The game was ruled a draw. He was ticked off that ending out with a draw instead of a win, cost him money and rating points.