So, on the one hand, is right and wrong now purely a popularity issue? On the other hand, perhaps folks merely do not think it important enough to raise their objections to such a minor point.
Checkmate is independent from the players’ observation, and ends the game immediately. A clock running out of time is also independent of player observation. It seems logical that a flag fall should end a game immediately with or without a player/TD observation (spectators “don’t count” to enforce rules). TDs enforce rules all of the time, why shouldn’t they be required to point out the independent end of a game if they notice it?
TDs not calling flags is a legislated preference to account for human fallibility. If we all played on DGT boards/clocks, the system would simply mark “1-0” when Black runs out of time, and no longer accept moves. Scorekeeping is another example of a rule that is enforced systematically. I fail to understand why we don’t require TDs to enforce rules that are systematically programmed in other arenas.
A good shift would be TD-calls-flags be the primary rule and the TD-not-call-flags as the variation (announced onsite if used for player expectation). It’s change but still allows for a minor variation for change transition.
The problem with fully-automated systems for handing time controls, including the DGT board, is that they can get out of sync. That’s why claims that a player has lost on time must be initiated and ruled upon, regardless of whether the claim is initiated by a player or the TD/Arbiter.
Then again, isn’t there a story about a US GM playing in an international event when one player’s flag fell. The arbiter was summoned, picked up the clock (turning it around so it was facing him), saw that the flag had indeed fallen on one side (say left), pointed to the player on his left as having lost on time and awarded the win to the other player.
We’re using DGT boards and clocks this weekend, and they don’t work that way. When one player has used her 90 minutes, both clocks add 30:30. This happens if they are on their 30th move or their 42nd move (more common). The clock also displays a flag for a few (?) seconds.
Alex Relyea
99% of all soccer games go fine without a ref too. The need for the ref only comes into play when the result is important.
Is it reasonable to allow more experienced and/or more intimidating players an advantage? What if newbie Joe doesn’t know that his is supposed to call the flag? So, his opponent who has violated the rule now gets extra time. Is this fair? What if Joe is 6 and his opponent is 25 and a jerk? Why does Joe have to make a claim when his opponent cheats and the TD observes the violation of the rules?
I feel that too many are viewing the status quo as something that we arrived at via a consistent rules philosophy. Instead its a compromise set of rules that has evolved from a much different time when we only had analog clocks, the organizer never provided equipment, and large age/size mismatches were very rare. To many times rules changes that would better reflect today’s environment are shot down due to the pain of change.
For example, why do we still allow analog clocks? There is once again no good reason except history. We really need to set a sunset time for their use and stop selling new ones. Obviously, this will never get past the delegates who all grew up playing on analog clocks (BTW, as I did).
Mike
Mike
I appreciate the correction on how DGT system works. Syncing a system and actual functionality are enablers to an automated system.
None of that changes the overall point. The pure, simple, and elegant reality is that a flag fell. Players can initiate a claim to their advantage when they notice, and it seems purely logical for a TD to be required to point out reality. After that the result of the flag fall still has to be worked out given other factors (scorekeeping, mating material, etc.).
It’s worth discussing even if the rule won’t be enacted. It would present a major shift away from the prevailing USA chess philosophy is that a TD is a rules interpreter who responds to player claims. This is only the first collision of the two philosophies: FIDE arbiter-as-active-referee and USCF TD-as-responder.
What if Joe is playing in the Atlantic Open with time control 40/110, SD/30 d10, and he is on move 39 but his scoresheet is only complete up to move 35 when the 25-year-old jerk’s flag falls?
Alex Relyea
I agree, although I think we already have this issue to a certain degree, for example illegal moves in non-sudden death. This would push us farther along the road to interference.
As a delegate, I do not (yet) have strong feelings one way or the other on this ADM.
Alex Relyea
When I am chief TD I have no qualms pointing out checkmate, stalemate, insufficient material to continue and (for non-scholastic events and within the 21D2 limitations) illegal moves. I have even been doing a small annual non-rated scholastic event (grades 5-8) where I make a special announcement that in that tournament I will be stopping any illegal moves that I see (while also announcing that such TD intervention is unusual for scholastic events).
As a TD I do not initiate touch move claims (though after one claim I did rule an immediate loss, per 20A/20K, when somebody flat-out lied and, unbeknownst to him, I happened to have been watching as it occurred). I don’t want to potentially intervene to force a player to make a better move with the first piece touched than the move the player eventually made, and I don’t want my analysis of the position to determine whether or not to intervene.
Note that somebody trying to change a move after pressing the clock (assuming an absent opponent) is not a touch-move violation but rather an illegal move violation (there is the initial move that was completed by pressing the clock, the move back to the original square - additionally illegal if it was a pawn, and the final move - and you are not allowed to make three moves in a row before allowing the opponent to move).
I can see making it a variation to allow a TD to call a flag.
This is, to me at least, a much better argument than the soccer analogy.
NO problem whatsoever. Sometimes the smooth flow of tournaments demands it.
Rob Jones
Age should be totally irrelevant in our rulings as tournament directors. (In non-scholastic events)
I could care less how old Joe is.
If he cannot handle his obligations, he should not be playing–end of story. Joe’s lack of knowledge is not
my problem, nor should it be as a tournament director. If Joe is too shy, ignorant, or whatever to do anything
when his opponent cheats, then quite frankly, seems to me this is a problem for Joe.
As to the unethical opponent, skunks have a certain odor. Their day usually comes. For if one is a jerk to
a 6 year old, he will be a jerk to others as well who are not as tolerant.
Further, it is up to Joe if he has complaints to make, not his momma or daddy. For the most part, a deaf
ear should be turned to them, other than to explain to them the obligations expected of chess players.
Rob Jones
As long as the organizer has allowed a reasonable amount of time between rounds, I haven’t seen a single problem alleged here that my proposed 5 and 75 move rules would not solve.
Alex Relyea
I am in favor of this motion; at least as an allowable variation that doesn’t need to be announced in advance. I agree with the general philosophy that an official should call a violation if and when seen; and I also agree with the movement towards more agreement with FIDE rules. It always struck me as odd that only the players can call flags.
I will urge my delegates to vote in it’s favor. (Ken, Bob, that’s you 
).
-Matt (Non-Delegate from Massachusetts)
Remember, that a “called flag” merely initiates a time forfeit claim. So even if a flag is called by a TD, the players would still responsible for providing appropriate evidence (a complete scoresheet) of a time forfeit.
-Matt
Not if you’re in a final time control… no scoresheet then is necessary to be provided as evidence.
Correct. I just wished to emphasize that the calling of a flag doesn’t necessarily mean that the game is over.
-Matt
It’s one thing to propose that TDs be allowed selectively to use FIDE time forfeit procedure, under which they would step in and declare a forfeit, because (having personally counted the moves) they are certain one has occurred. That’s at least debatable. However, allowing a TD to initiate USCF time forfeit procedure is a very different thing.
What if a player knows his opponent’s flag is down but is delaying the claim for a few seconds in order to fill in some needed move pairs on his scoresheet? If a TD jumps in and starts the process, the player is forbidden to fill in any more moves. This could have the effect of preventing a valid claim from being made, which seems doesn’t seem right.
I’m going to oppose this motion.
– Hal Terrie
That is a valid point.
However, one could argue that if such a player has enough time to do that, he or she should have been keeping score anyway, so your scenario would benefit a player who was not keeping score properly. Allowing a TD to call the flag would, in this case, let the game to continue to the next time control; so that it would be (probably) decided over the board. Surely, that is a better result than determining which player violated the rules more? Also, in your scenario, if there’s no TD present, the player who’s flag has fallen can (and should) call his or her flag so the game can continue! THAT scenario has always struck me as absurd; technically fully correct, but absurd.
Of course, all of this is avoided if the event uses a 30 second increment, thus forcing all players to keep score at all times. I hope more events in the US move in that direction to avoid issues like this one entirely.
Again, I just don’t see why we don’t allow a trained referee (TD) to call violations of the rules when witnessed, instead of relying on the players, most of whom aren’t aware of the proper procedures.
-Matt
This is not technically true because of the 1988 rule near the top of the Issues forum.
Regarding the last paragraph, what do you do when one player clearly wants a draw, but can’t use three-fold repetition correctly?
Alex Relyea