Rules Question: No-Call Flag-Fall

Running Chess Tournaments
1

A bizarre situation I’ve never heard of before occurred at our small Swiss tournament last weekend that presents some interesting rule questions. The T.D.s in our state have been discussing what should have been done, but have yet to agree on a clear answer, despite many suggestions. I’d like to hear how other T.D.s out there might have handled it. I’ll tell the story and then ask two questions about it:

Two veteran Class A players who are well liked and respected were paired in the last round. I was not the T.D., but was assisting. The last round should have been done by about 7:00pm but they were the last game still going. Then someone comes in to the T.D. room and says that Player A’s flag is down but Player B hasn’t called it yet. (No T.D. was present when the flag fell.) It was an interesting position and apparently Player B was so wrapped up in the play he wasn’t paying attention to the clock. (Player B is well known for not handling the clock very well, so this seemed plausible to me, even though he is an experienced player.) But to make matters worse, Player A’s clock (the one that was down) was running and he was not punching his clock with every move, so Player B’s clock was stuck on 5:44 remaining, and not going down either, while A’s clock was stuck on 00:00. (It was a Chronos clock, set to stop on 00:00 to indicate flag down.) We speculated that perhaps Player A was deliberately not punching his clock in the hopes that B will notice and let him out of his misery. Another theory was that Player A didn’t want to draw attention to his down clock by touching it. In any case, the players were taking their time on the moves, writing them down, and by all other appearances playing a tournament game normally except no time was elapsing off the clock!

Not wanting to interfere, and mindful of rule 16Y that only the players can call a flag fall and that spectators or T.D.s are also not allowed to call attention to it or to the fact a player has not punched his clock, we warned the spectators (in private) not to say or do anything. Surely Player B will soon notice and finally call the flag! But 20 minutes went by … then 40 … then an hour! Finally the man in charge of the venue came in at 8:00pm and said he needs to close up and wants to move the game out to the parking lot! We were discussing our options — some people wanted to say something but I and the T.D. were concerned that interrupting the game in any way would surely break the “spell” Player B was apparently under and cause him to notice the fallen flag, at which point his opponent (who by this time seemed to be close to winning) might be miffed that our action affected the result unfairly and unjustifiably. One idea we had was to not intervene but to “interrupt” the game to ask both players an “innocent” question, such as “Guys, we need to be out of the building in 5 minutes, do you think you will have a result by then?” But again, such an action would seem to directly affect the result in a certain way that one of the players might consider to be unfair.

Mercifully we heard at this point the players had agreed to a draw! But here is the kicker … when we asked the players about the fallen flag we found out that Player A had called the fallen flag on himself a long time ago — over an hour ago in fact — but Player B had inexplicably replied that he, “didn’t want to win the game that way” and offered to keep playing and not count the flag! To which I said exasperatedly, “Oh, that is just not right! Didn’t you realize the tournament was supposed to be over a long time ago, that these dozen spectators were waiting around for this game to finish so that they could be paid their prizes? One of them even had to cancel his plans for the rest of the evening.” After hearing this they were very apologetic, and both of them are very nice people so no one was actually upset with them — it was a ludicrous but funny event.

But it does raise some interesting questions:

(1) In this bizarre situation, what options does a T.D. have, and under what rule might he act? For us it was a fairly minor annoyance, but in other circumstances it could have been a major problem. Rule 16Y “Assisting players with time management prohibited” makes it clear that neither spectators nor T.D.s are allowed to call attention to a flag being down, that an opponent has moved, or not punched his clock. There is rule 14G2 that says that if both players’ flags are down and they are apparently unaware the T.D. can intervene and call it a draw. But that’s not quite what we had here. … It is tempting to say that you could use this rule to intervene “by analogy” (using rule 1A about the director’s ultimate discretion to deal with uncovered situations), but I’m not sure the analogy holds very well, as in 14G2 the game result has essentially already been determined as a draw but the players don’t seem to know it, whereas in our situation the outcome of the game still appears to be in doubt, and intervening would essentially be to choose a particular outcome. In other words — any intervention is effectively equivalent to stopping and adjudicating the game. Our “post-mortem” discussions on this have come up with some interesting alternatives, but I won’t mention them now in order to not prejudice the initial responses from you readers who might want to consider the problem on your own.

(2) An equally interesting question is: What should the official final “result” of this game be? The T.D. decided to call it a draw because that is the result the two players agreed upon. But I thought it should be declared a time forfeit win for Player B because Player A had called the flag on himself, and players are not allowed to just decide to “ignore” the clock during a tournament game, are they? If they were, it would be potential chaos — you could go to a G/30 tournament, and if both players agreed could just ignore the clocks and play at your own pace. Our T.D. thinks that Rule 16S is close enough that it applies here, but that is debatable in my mind since it is only talking about an agreed result that comes before a flag is called down, not after a flag is called down. Is not the act of calling one’s own flag down (in a sudden death time control) essentially the same as saying, “I lose” or “I resign”? That should end the game, regardless of what the players decide later, shouldn’t it? What do you say?

2

My thinking is along the same line as you. Rule 16S is close but doesn’t directly apply to this situation because the acknowledgment of the flag fall had occurred first. Player A called attention to his own flag and his opponent realized it but decided to play on. A player can not choose or change the outcome of the game once it has already been decided. They can not choose to ignore the flag after player A called attention that it had fallen. My decision is based on rules 13C1, 16E, and 13B. Like you said before, if player calls attention to their on flag it’s like their resigning, which in turn, immediately ends the game. Player B should get the win.

– Jabari

3

I should add that the time control was sudden death, G/50+15.
This was a one-day, four-round Swiss System tournament.

4

Well, in that case 13C2 would not apply.

– Jabari

5

By the plain language of Rule 13C, the player must properly claim that his opponent failed to complete the prescribed number of moves. The flagging player is not prohibited from calling attention to his fallen flag, but that’s not a claim, nor is it a resignation. In a traditional control, it’s a prophylactic measure against a claim with an incomplete scoresheet. In a sudden death control, it’s nothing.

The game is drawn by the subsequent agreement, because B never claimed the win under Rule 13C.

Now, under the circumstances, B’s failure to claim the win seems “inconsitent with the principle[] of . . . respect for the rights of others . . . .” USCF Code of Ethics, para. 5. I would be hard pressed not to make a referral to the Ethics Committee in order to make this abundantly clear to B, although I wouldn’t expect the Committee to take an action stronger than a reprimand, if that.

6

And as to what should happen if the game wasn’t finished when the proprietor kicked you out: That’s why Rule 18, adjournment, remains in the rulebook to this day. The player on move seals, and the game is moved.

7

If B weren’t an established, respected player, would people be accusing him of sandbagging for intentionally not taking the win he was entitled to? He seems to be on somewhat shaky ethical grounds there.

I suppose players can’t agree to ignore the rules – playing without a time control – for many reasons, not just the playing site considerations. Once player B admitted he knew A’s time had expired, perhaps the TD shouldn’t allow the drawn result. If B had been ignorant of the time situation, then having agreed to a draw would just be a mistake that costs B the half point – but intentionally ignoring the clock and the rules???

8

If I’d been the TD in that situation I think I’d have probably invoked rule 18G.

I think being kicked out of the playing site qualifies as an emergency situation. Even without that, players shouldn’t be allowed to extend their game long past the scheduled end of the tournament, or past the scheduled end of a round, by simply ignoring the fact that one player’s flag has fallen. In the spirit of 18G1 (player with a poor position gone from the board for 15 minutes) and 14G2 (director may declare a draw if both flags are down and the players are apparently unaware of the situation), I would consider it an emergency if the players continued playing for 15 minutes past the theoretical end of the round by ignoring the clock.

What’s not clear in the rules is whether it’s too late for a player to claim a win a time after the director has announced that he is adjudicating the game. The procedure I would follow would be to pause the clock and tell the players that I am adjudicating the game because it has gone on too long. If there were strong players available to assist with the adjudication I would ask them to help me evaluate the final position. During this period if B claimed the win on time I would award him the win, or if the players agreed to a draw that would be the result. Once I announced the result of the adjudication - presumably a draw in this case - it would be too late for B to claim a win on time, or for the players to agree to a draw after I’d already declared one player to have won.

A complicating factor in this case is that fact that earlier in the game A had called his own flag. The rules here aren’t entirely clear, but as I interpret them, once A calls his own flag he loses on time and the game is over. B doesn’t have the right to continue the game. The key rules here are 13C1 and 13C2 (my emphasis in italics):

Although the title of rule 13C2 makes it sound like it only applies in non-sudden death, I believe it also applies in sudden death. The main purpose of the rule is to protect a player in non-sudden death so his opponent can’t fill in moves on the scoresheet. In a sudden death time control, calling your own flag is in effect a resignation.

9

Wow…just when you think you’ve heard everything… :slight_smile:

For the first question asked by Mr. Braunlich: Given the circumstances (being thrown out of the building), I’d tell the players that the game has to be adjourned. Of course, Rule 18C specifies that games can be adjourned any time after the FIRST time control, which implies that games should not be adjourned when there is a single time control. Since this prohibition is not explicit, however, I would revert to 18A, and tell the players they have to seal a move.

If you record all the information that a USCF sealed-move envelope requires, you could then confirm with both players that all the information, including the clock times you’ve written, are correct before they sign the envelope. I’m pretty sure this would alert Player B to Player A’s loss on time, if he was really unaware of it. However, in this case you’re actually following the rules for sealing, so I think that’s reasonable.

Of course, that was not the case here. Once I discovered Player A called his own flag, that makes Rule 13C2 kick in, and I would at that point change the result to a win for Player B, under Rule 13C.

As to the second question asked by Mr. Braunlich: Without the knowledge that Player A had called his own flag, I would allow the draw to stand, and ask both players to be more mindful of their clocks in the future, for their own sakes as well as those of others at the tournament.

With the knowledge that Player A had called his own flag, I would record the game as a win for Player B. Further, I would formally notify both players (verbally at the time, then reiterated in writing) that, in the future, a director is to be notified immediately whenever either player points out a flag fall, and warn them that any repeat of this behavior will result in at least a loss of game, and possibly an Ethics complaint. Given that both players are well liked and respected, they are likely guilty of no more than poor judgment in this one isolated case. So I would probably not sanction them this time, as it appears to be an honest error borne of a desire to be sporting.

The easy way to avoid this entirely, of course, is to just make all your future tournaments FIDE-rated. :laughing:

10

The problem I have with adjourning the game is that the prizes of other players were dependent on the result of this game. Rather than delaying the payment of prizes to those players I would prefer to adjudicate the game between A and B.

11

But is it really, particularly here? A played on. That is persuasive counterindication of an intent to resign.

In order for B to win, A has to resign, or B has to claim. A’s noting of his flag fall is effective neither as a resignation (because A kept playing) nor a claim (because B kept playing). The main text of 13C predicates the win on a proper claim by the winning player. The flagging player’s actions are simply not an element of the conditions necessary to award a win.

B (prevailing good guy status nothwithstanding) is at least being an inconsiderate fool, and is perhaps being a inconsiderate fool sandbagger. But A doesn’t lose the half point because of this, nor does B gain another. The propriety of B’s actions and any resulting rating adjustment are up to the office and Ethics Committee after a proper report.

The game is drawn, prizes are awarded accordingly, and the referral is made.

12

The problems I have with adjudicating the game are that (1) the position has no dispositive features, per Mr. Braunlich’s description, and (2) Rule 18G says that a game should be adjudicated in case of an emergency. I don’t believe delayed prize distribution falls into the “emergency” category.

Outside of beginner-level scholastics, the only position I’ve ever adjudicated was at the 2008 World Open, when a U2000 player on the wrong side of a K+R+B+5P vs. K+R+B position disappeared for 45 minutes. I felt that was well within the example given in Rule 18G1.

13

It’s a matter of interpretation by the TD, but I would say that A calling his own flag ended the game, assuming both players agreed that this is what happened. It’s analogous to a situation where a player says “I resign” but the players nevertheless continue the game. Resignation immediately ends the game (13B), and whatever happens after that is irrelevant.

14

Rule 13C1 says that either player may call attention to a fallen flag. If a player calls attention to his own flag, Rule 13C2 kicks in, regardless of Player A’s or Player B’s intent.

Ergo, if it is a sudden death control, then I think Mr. Messenger has it right. The moment Player A calls his own flag, time forfeiture procedure controls subsequent events.

I’m as much of a “law and order” director as anyone, but as I said before, I think USCF referral in this situation is a bit harsh, especially for a smaller tournament in a chess community where both players enjoy a good reputation. And, of course, I would not record the game as a draw once both players admitted that Player A had flagged himself. Players’ misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the rules doesn’t obviate the proper application of said rules.

15

I agree with Bob that in sudden death, calling your own flag is equivalent to resigning. Resignations do not have to be accepted in order to be effective, and they immediately end the game (13B). So the two players were essentially engaging in analysis from that point. For tournament and rating purposes, the game was over. Without realizing it, the TD could have intervened at any point after the player called his own flag. The TD might even have suggested some moves, since what was going on was analysis in the playing room, not a tournament game.

Without the “calling his own flag” aspect, the situation was, as Bob says, an “emergency” calling for adjudication.

Even leaving aside the “emergency” aspect, the rules require players to press the clock. This is not only a matter between the two players, but is required in order for games to be completed in the set times and for the tournament to be managed as planned. Players do not have the right simply to omit pressing the clock because they can’t be bothered or because they are absorbed by the game.

If you want to play chess without being bothered about clocks, score-keeping, showing up in time for games, playing at assigned boards against assigned opponents and with the assigned colors, recording results, using standard equipment, observing touch/move, not talking, and all the other issues that arise in tournaments, don’t play in tournaments. Invite an opponent over to your house and play in your living room using whatever rules are agreeable. But if you play in a tournament, you need to follow the rules. Some of those rules cannot be waived by an opponent, especially rules that relate to tournament management, affecting other players.

A TD can place a clock on a game where there is no clock, and it follows from that the TD can require the players to use that clock. Therefore, the TD can also require a player (or both of them) to use the clock he or his opponent has provided, so long as the clock is not defective.

I don’t think it is “assisting the players with time management”, or “intervening” for a TD who observes that a player is not pressing his clock to inform him that this is a requirement, especially if a game is running long, potentially threatening the schedule of the tournament. It is simply requiring the players to comply with the rules. If this results in a player noticing that his opponent’s flag has fallen, that is not the TD’s concern.

Sometimes this “non-intervention” fetish is taken way too far.

16

Yes, but the threat of adjournment may be stronger than the execution - motivating the players to a result.

Also a good solution.

I think what you mean to say is that all resignations are effectively accepted (there is no need for the opponent to make a formal acceptance.)

I agree with you that players cannot agree to intentionally ignore the rules - no matter how gentlemanly it may seem; such an allowance would allow two players to effectively make-up their own rules.

17

I agree with Brian Mottershead and BobMessenger: When the game runs over the legitimate time limit for the tournament round because the players are refusing to call the clock, Rule 18G is appropriate. If player B refuses to claim the time control won over a draw at that point, I’d have to make a judgment based on other factors as to whether an Ethics committee referral is appropriate (starting with: Is player B slightly over a class boundary?) If the players want to play out the game afterwards without a clock for personal reasons, that’s their business–it shouldn’t hold up a tournament and inconvenience other players.

18

If Player B refused to claim a win on time, and Player A agreed to resume play, then Rule 16P Erroneously set clocks should have been invoked to reset the clock to decrement Player B’s time. In effect, reinstating rule 14G2.

Player B would then have only 6 minutes to finish the game, and upon his flag fall the TD could declare a draw.

I would prefer this solution over direct intervention and adjudication.

19

From a tournament director’s viewpoint, it is hard to imagine a TD not being present
for the last game to finish, esp, as there is a crowd waiting to be paid. Secondly, a
present TD, would immediately end the game upon call of flag by either party. Third,
not only does “playing on” show a lack of respect for the game, and fellow players,
and the tournament directors. Fourth, a clock that “stops time” such as this one
did, is an improperly set clock. For it denies the player who is out of time to
possibly get a draw when the time falls on his opponent as well.

Rob Jones

20

There was nothing wrong with the clock. The problem was the players no longer pressed it.