I had a similar situation at a local club quick tournament a few weeks back. Both players has only seconds on their clocks, Player A made an illegal move (left his King in check), Player B, instead of claiming the illegal move, captured Player A’s King (ah, the funs of Scholastic chess…), at which point the Player B-stunned-watched the last few seconds tick off his clock. Player A claimed a win on time, but asked for a rules clarification on illegal moves, at which point Player B made the illegal move claim (they were High School players, after all).
My initial inclination was to give each player their two minutes and let the game continue {I really like to see the games decided OTB instead of by rulings}, but as neither player made an illegal move claim until after the time-forfeiture was initiated and agreed upon (and yes, I was observing the game–it was the last of the round–so I was certain of the chain of events), I checked the trusty Rulebook & I could find no justification to overrule the flag fall, so the game was awarded to Player A on time. Player B was obviously quite distressed by this, contending ‘He took my King! Am I really supposed to play on in that position?!’ A learning experience for both, I explained that three things: 1) Player A should have stopped the clock and let the TD correct the first illegal move by Player B {since he obviously noticed it, as he captured the King} & receive his time bonus {taking him out of Critical Time Pressure, letting the game continue}, 2) Player B should have stopped the clock as soon as Player A made the illegal move {to prevent running out of time} while a ruling is made to give both players their time or neither {most likely, I would have awarded both players the two minutes–as it could almost be construed as the K-capture being a deliberate illegal move}, & 3) Players must make claims before the flag falls-or often times the claim is rendered void.
Now, I want to say that I don’t believe that anyone should win on time via an illegal move. But in this case, where the illegal move didn’t really cause the flag to fall (apparently the player had enough time to stop both clocks and claim: he was shocked and watched his time tick down), I think we can appropriately uphold the flag fall claim.
On the other hand, a player who makes an illegal move, and by pressing the clock causes an immediate flag fall, is guilty in my opinion of winning via an illegal move (the player has no time to make a claim). But, I find no rule that would justify my emotional belief. No claims available for player with fallen flag.
This has been discussed before (it’s in the archives I guess), and most everyone agreed that the flag fall was correct, despite my not liking it. It is the current rule, unfortunately.
I cannot find a rule that describes how to handle this situation, so I tend to rule that “no claims are available for a player with a fallen flag”, other than "no mating material draw claim).
It is most unfortunate that, in the situation posted by KJKormick, he used A and B for the player names. It would have been much better to use C and D. In subsequent posts, there is potential for great confusion with two sets of A and B.
Also, in KJKormick’s situation, I find the sequence of events puzzling. First, if B (D) captured A’s (C’s) king, then why would B (D) have been “stunned”? Isn’t it more likely that B (D) let his clock run out because he thought he had already won by capturing A’s (C’s) king?
Apologies for the confusion, all. I decided to use J & M for the players (and no, there’s no particular reason). Also, I did correct the mistake from earlier (the player whose K was captured was the one who ran out of time). Good call on the split topic, Terry. gives a nod
Thanks for the clarification. I hope in your explanation to the players you were stern – I would have warned them that it’s not five-minute chess.
This would have been a good decision. And the OTB part is a good sentiment.
It seems that J did not agree.
The rulebook doesn’t spell everything out. It’s your job as TD to decide how to handle competing claims. I find your reasoning shaky. But if I were on the appeals committed, I would probably uphold your decision.
It would be nice if you could cite the rule, because I was unable to find this language in my rulebook. Maybe it is not in the 4th edition?
Anyway, we’re talking illegal moves here! J was stunned. Maybe he was expecting the TD to intervene, and that just added to his confusion? I think upholding the illegal move claim would also have been a valid decision. It’s a judgment call, that’s why TDs get the big bucks.
I think your ruling was sound. As I read the situation, an illegal move was not claimed until after the flag-fall claim; is that correct? If so, then the flag-fall claim was correct.
That’s taken from 14H4, and even though specific to ILC claims, I think TD discretion can widen it to other cases not specifically addressed by the rules (such as those in which an illegal move causes a flag fall).
If you aren’t convinced yet, then consider 13Cb, where it says that the player who claims the flag fall wins the game. In this case, the player has won, and the game is over, and anything that occurs after that is irrelevant. A subsequent illegal move claim would be irrelevant.
Oh, it’s pretty difficult to convince me of anything.
I don’t see “no claims are available for a player with a fallen flag” in 14H4 in the 4th edition. And in the 4th edition, 14H4 is about “Resolution: The director has four possible ways to resolve the claim …” Could you please double-check your citation? If the 5th edition renumbered (or relettered) the rules, that would be pretty awful.
Also, there is no rule “13Cb” in the 4th edition. Would that be located before 13C1? There’s a 13C6 but that’s clearly not what you are referring to. It’s probably time for me to get the “latest” edition of the rulebook, repulsive as that thought is.
I agree that the TD has discretion. However, I don’t think it is necessary for the TD to extrapolate rules in order to exercise that discretion. “No claims are available for a player with a fallen flag” strikes me as the sort of rule that might be okay in a very narrow context, but a disaster if widely applied. Speaking generally and not in regard to a specific situation, I thought checkmate (or stalemate) took priority over the clock, and illegal moves took priority over checkmate. ceteris paribus
That’s a pretty questionable widening! ILC was specifically designed for time pressure situations (i.e., “we both know there’s no way for me to checkmate you in this position, but you’ve only got __ seconds on your clock, and I’ll bet you can’t make 50 moves in that amount of time”). So it makes sense to say that you can’t wait until after your flag has actually fallen to make the claim.
If the illegal move claim is actually made after the ruling has been made on the win on time (as apparently was true here), then I agree. But if I were called over and one player said “His flag fell,” while the other exclaimed “But he took my King!” then I’d consider that the claims were being made simultaneously, and I’d have to try to determine the sequence of events before making a ruling on either claim. And in this case, it would be clear that the illegal moves were completed before the flag fell.
I disagree. If a player makes an illegal move then presses his clock, his opponent is due time for the disruption. The player is due additional time at the point the clock was pressed by his opponent and thus the player’s time hasn’t elapsed at the point the flag “falls”. This shouldn’t be a race to see who claims first.
While there is justification for not allowing an ILC after flag fall I fail to see how this somehow relates to illegal move claims. While there can be some confusion in the case of a checkmate with flag fall, in the case of an illegal move the order of events can be verified and there isn’t an issue with which occurs first. There are several other reasons to not declare the game over simply because a flag fall occurs. The first one that comes to mind is the case of a defective clock. With such a broad application of 13(C)(b) the flag fall claim would take priority over the defective clock claim. I fail to see where that is the intent of 13(C)(b).
