In general, when two players agree to a result, that’s the result. Second thoughts and mind changes don’t count. In the game in question, if Black agreed that his flag fell in that position, then he loses, regardless of any subsequent draw offers. If the flag fall was in dispute, that’s a different situation. If the only dispute was about whether or not the clock was set correctly, I will stick with my ruling that flag fall makes that a moot point. I would rule it a win for White, but caution both players to be more observant of the clock in subsequent rounds. Personally, I always watch the clock for a few moves at the beginning of each time control to make sure that it’s set correctly, and I think this would be a good habit for all players.
Now suppose that White’s side of the clock had delay and Black’s side didn’t, and this was discovered and brought to my attention while the game was still in progress. My ruling would then be to go into the settings and make it so that both sides had the proper delay, and add two minutes to Black’s time (as a penalty for White setting the clock incorrectly to his advantage – whether or not that was intentional), and have play resume from there. And in that position, Black would then win easily – even if I (a Class C player) were Black and Magnus Carlsen were White.
So, not to be pedantic here, but (0) you had four people on site acting as TDs or there were four people in the building at the start of the round whose TD certification is currently active.
(0) I’m appalled by the TD’s actions (or inactions) and comments. First, it is fairly easy to see on any clock that displays seconds if the delay is turned on or not. If Mr. Hong had, at any point where White was on move, less than 5 seconds, than Bronstein delay isn’t turned on. It then remains, again on any clock, to determine if Mr. Hong’s time begins to decrease before five seconds have passed. If delay is not set, the TD should interrupt the game as soon as he realizes this to place a properly set clock on the game. In US Chess events, TDs don’t call flags. When White made a claim of time forfeit the game wasn’t over. The game is over when Black agrees that his time has expired or that the claim is upheld. This is rarely an issue in sudden death time controls. So did Mr. Hong agree that his time had expired? I think it makes a huge difference, as well as the actions of the TD. Did the TD act as though the game was over or did he suggest that there was some doubt about the claim? If Black had agreed, even implicitly, with the claim or if the TD had, even tacitly, upheld the game then the game is over. If the TD had said something like “Hang on a second, we need to investigate this!” then the draw result is likely appropriate.
I know of no conceivable situation in which White should be forfeited for either setting his clock incorrectly or claiming a time forfeit with an incorrectly set clock. The whole idea is just bizarre to me. Especially if the TD noticed (though it sounds as though he more suspected) a clock problem before the claim. I just don’t understand how any certified TD could possibly think that was appropriate, especially without evidence of shenanigans.
Regarding (3), it is likely that White felt more browbeaten by the TD than Mr. Hong. After all, Mr. Hong had no ability to forfeit White. We have no idea what the TD said, but it sounds as though White’s “win” was challenged by his expert opponent AND the TD. Probably pretty vociferously. I’d have been scared that my win was going to be taken from me and turned into a loss and latched on to what he could get.
In any event, I still have no understanding of any rule that would allow a result to be changed up to, but only up to, the beginning of the following round.
Bottom line is that if the draw offer was accepted before the claim was adjudicated then the result should be a draw. If the claim had been adjudicated, White wins. There is no indication that there was any thought of adjudicating the claim in the way that Mr. Kosterman suggested (a time adjustment and the game continues). In any event, the backroom TD should be the one to make any corrections.
Actually it is quite plausible that both players were pressing the clock after their moves (as they are entitled to do) and the delay was getting reset. The timing of the presses (when somebody is moving instantaneously) becomes critical. As long as the instantaneous Black pressed the clock AFTER White pressed it then that press was inside the delay time and the time did not tick down. If Black ever pressed the clock BEFORE White pressed it then when White finally pressed the clock (after White moved and only once for that move) the board position would be White to move and the clock would have Black’s time running.
In the times I’ve seen this happen it was both players pressing the clock but the timing sometimes had one player both responding to a move and pressing the clock before the other player finished pressing the clock after moving. That can be done with correctly set clocks and a correctly set delay and with Black responding instantaneously after EACH and EVERY move.
That would be a sequence of <1> White’s on move with the White clock running <2> White moves <3> White reaches for the clock (White has moved and White’s clock is still running with Black to move next) <4> Black moves instantaneously <5> Black immediately presses the clock (White and Black have both moved and White’s clock is still running with White to move next) <6> White finishes pressing the clock from the move in step 2 (it is still White to move next but now Black’s clock is finally running - if Black is paying attention Black can press the clock). Since it is White to move the players may quite plausibly be focusing on the White clock and not noticing that the Black clock is the one that is running with White on the move.
Apparently the “additional question” you are referring to is the following:
I tend to be less aghast than most people are, about things like (1) a TD nullifying an agreement between the players and declaring a different result, or (2) a TD overruling himself, changing his mind based on new information, or (3) a TD making a ruling, after a flag fall, based on the situation just before the flag fall, or (4) etc. etc. etc. There is, after all, some value in getting it right.
In this case, the TD wasn’t even around to either accept or reject the draw agreement, and there is plenty of potential new information just below the surface. For example:
Perhaps this bystander TD could be pressed into answering another important question. Did black appear (scenario A) to be attempting to game the system by making each move before his opponent had a reasonable chance to press his clock, or did it appear (scenario B) that the clock had been set incorrectly without the delay, and black was simply moving quickly in a desperate attempt to avoid a flag fall?
Or this:
This is highly suspicious behavior on the part of white. About the only way you could “fiddle” with the clock to make times show on both sides, would be to reset the clock correctly, as if for a new game, then start it briefly, then make a “mid-game” time adjustment so that it would show whatever white wanted it to show.
At this point I find scenario B far more likely than scenario A, even though I initially proposed scenario A.
Accordingly, I would feel comfortable if the actual TD (not present during the latter stages of the game) would overrule both the draw agreement and the flag fall, reset the position to where white still had one pawn left, set both clocks to G/2 d5 (game in 2 minutes with a 5-second delay), and continue the game from there. Then make next round’s pairings based on whatever result occurs in the continued game.
As I recall, I said I would feel uncomfortable about a player coming to me just before I paired the next round asking me to change the scoring of his last game, especially if it was a higher rated player wanting to go from a win to a draw or a draw to a loss.
Even though the request may be for sincere reasons, it has a slight odor of ‘swiss gambit’ maneuvering.
Under my suggestion, the requestor would almost certainly win the game, or if he drew or lost, the “slight” odor of swiss gambit maneuvering would become a stench.
Bill, the “new” question was essentially the old question divorced from the specifics of the actual case. For all practical purposes, a hypothetical. You’ve brought the present case back into the discussion.
Mike anticipated the new question before it was asked.
From my non-TD vantage point, the philosophical questions is whether the “swiss gambit” overtone of asking to shed a half-point outweigh the question as to whether the claim that the result should actually be changed. If the recorded result isn’t clearly wrong, then you don’t change it. But suppose Black is playing over the game and discovers he was actually checkmated two moves earlier and neither player noticed it. Surely in that case, once verified, you’d ignore swiss gambit stench and change the result, right? So the absolute of not changing the result seems too absolute.
Now in this case, it was a fallen flag, with the question being whether the claimed win on time should be allowed to stand in the absence of proof that the clock was defective. That’s a little more gray.
Separated from the scenario, the additional question by itself is not even interesting. Asking for a loss would be tantamount to either a blatant attempt at a Swiss gambit or part of a longer-term sandbagging plan.
Put the context back, and the plot thickens considerably. If it can be reasonably established that the clock was not set properly, because the secondary control included no main time and/or no delay time, or because there was no secondary control at all, then obviously the only correct ruling would have been to award the game to the player who almost certainly would have won if the clock had been set correctly. Or, for an essentially equivalent but slightly more technically correct ruling, the TD could say that the game must continue from the point where white still had a pawn remaining, but with the delay turned on and the clock set for something reasonable like G/2 d5.
On the other side of the coin, if it could be reasonably established that the clock had been set correctly, and that black was attempting to game the system by making each move before white had a chance to press the clock from his previous move, then the TD could allow the punishment to be inherent in the crime by allowing the time forfeit to stand.
Surely this second non-participating spectator / TD could be talked into providing enough useful information to settle this dispute properly.
I thought I was pretty clear in explaining that I know of no rule which allows a result to be changed up to, but only up to, the beginning of the following round.
Yes, but I interpreted that to be a focus on the timing of the result change without speaking to whether a result change is possible at all. I would certainly agree that a result change theoretically is possible after the next round too, but then the players would have been paired differently. That isn’t necessarily bad - the player who requested the change didn’t get the swiss gambit benefit.
I ignored your statement mostly because I didn’t understand it enough to parse it. Of course any result could be changed in isolation. I was trying to remedy one result before it impacts pairings of the next round (this coming Thursday) and compounds errors (I think the British use the phrase “knock on effects”) in a money tournament. Is this where we misunderstood each other?
I can see a more generic “scenario” where asking for a loss is reasonable:
Players A and B have a dispute about their game.
The tournament director makes a (reasonable but uncertain) ruling that A wins based on the available evidence.
Later that night, A realizes that A was mistaken and should have been ruled the loser of the game.
The next morning, A tries to get the result corrected.
Whether the result should stand is one matter. Whether it is reasonable in this sort of scenario to request the change is another. While healthy skepticism as to motive is probably warranted, I don’t think such an act is guaranteed to be of ill intent.
I’m sorry. That was directed at Mr. Mulford. Yes, I completely understand the virtues of correct pairings, but see no reason that after round time Thursday that the result somehow becomes “final”.
My tl;dr is that if the time forfeit claim had been resolved in your opponent’s favor (you acknowledged that you lost or the backroom TD indicated that your flag had fallen) before you accepted his draw offer, you lose. Otherwise it is a draw. In any event, by accepting his draw you did nothing wrong.
I see. Perhaps. As we all know, there is a time limit as to when an appeal can be filed against a ruling. I interpreted Mr. Hong’s question in that vein.
You can always imagine situations where it is best for everyone if a result is changed, before the next round or even after pairing subsequent rounds, which is why I qualified my initial answer to be separate from the specific situation posed by the OP. I’ve even seen situations in which the chief TD stopped play on a few boards to repair them shortly after the round started.
As someone noted, it is best if that’s done before the next round, to avoid having the pairings affected.
I’ve seen plenty of situations in which players assumed they knew who their next round opponent would be, only to be upset if not angry when the pairings came out differently. Sometimes it is because a result has been changed from what was initially reported, or because players have withdrawn or are taking a round off, but sometimes it’s just because players don’t always make the same pairing assumptions that the TD (or the pairing program) does.