While I’m here TDing at Foxwoods, I figured I would throw this one at everyone.
Black claims that White has overstepped the time limit in a 40/2, SD/1 time control. The clocks, when stopped by black to make the claim, show that white has 57 minutes and black has 2 hours, 22 minutes (his excuse for not stopping the clock immediately was he was not at the board when white overstepped). Black’s scoresheet ends at move 38 whereas white’s ends at move 34.
White claims that there was an additional move pair played a few moves ago but the “double” moves were not recorded by either player, hence they are at move 40. The chronos clock in use shows the move counter at move 40, which is why it appears that each player received one additional hour on their clock. Black claims his scoresheet is accurate and up to date.
That’s not really the point. Obviously, if Black’s scoresheet is incomplete or incorrect, you reject the claim. The question is whether there is sufficient evidence (the move counter) to entertain White’s claim that moves were repeated. I would have to say no, though if there were additional evidence, like a disinterested witness or something screwy about Black’s scoresheet, I might reconsider.
Even if the claimant (Black) is missing two move pairs, he still has a valid claim:
13C. Time Forfeit.
a. Non-Sudden Death: The player...and a reasonably complete scoresheet (13C7)
13C7. Definition of a reasonably complete scoresheet. Unless…is one that has no more than three missing or incomplete move pairs.
So, lets say that White did make 40 moves. His clock now reads 57 minutes, right? It is Black’s turn…
9F. Last move of the time control. When determining… Except for 9E (checkmate or stalemate) there should never be a dispute about whether the final move of a time control or a flag fall occurred first, because a player’s task is to press the clock in time to prevent the flag fall. If the flag is down, the player has not accomplished this task, and the director must rule that the move was not completed in time…
So, unless I am missing something here, or read through this too fast, I am not sure what the problem is…
Obviously this was posted as a real life example and I know TDs (and non-TDs) of all levels read this and so it sometimes is a useful exercise.
I thought there were a couple of strange things about the whole scenario though. Firstly, the move counter being at 40 and neither player had reason to complain about the counter being off during the game. The Chronos was on a setting that showed the counter. Secondly, the player with the black pieces leaving the board when his opponent was in very serious time trouble and coming back 3 minutes later to claim the win on time. The Chronos also showed the move counter for each player at 40-40 (obviously if it added the hour). That means it was white’s move. Did black make a move, hit the clock, walk away and come back 3 minutes later after thinking things through to claim the win on time? White, in theory, could have used that time to get his scoresheet back up to 40 moves and when Black came back the claim would probably not have been upheld.
As it was, all we had was black’s scoresheet and the fallen white flag to rule by and so going by the rules, the time forfeit claim was upheld.
Just because both clocks went into the second time control does not mean that it is White’s move. A counter can have the same number of moves, with Black on the move, if White’s clock is not started first, as it often happens! But, the original scenario said that Black’s objection was that he made 40 moves, as a couple pair of moves were missing. It did not say that White objected because he (or she) claimed it was his or her move!
You ask: “Whose move is it?” If White says: “It is his move, but I have made 40 moves.”, then he is done (if Black has a reasonably completed scoresheet). He admits to making “only” 40 moves not realizing that he or she must make them and hit the clock in time to prevent the flag fall (even if his opponent is not present). In fact, his opponent does not need to be present because the clock is the evidence! Hey, a “smart” player, at move 39 and with his opponent in real time trouble may be tempted to leave the table. The opponent may think that he has extra time to make his move since the other player is not watching!
Now, if he or she says: “It is my move.” then that is a totally different story. Or if he says: “I have made 41 moves.” or more, of course…
Sometimes clock counters are off, causing the second time control to kick in for both players, if they make illegal moves and punch the clock, only to have the clock be punched back (advancing the counter). Yes, I know, the player can make an illegal move claim and get two minutes. But, I would not assume that they always do that. Personally, I try to stick to the verifiable or admitted facts: Who is on the move? How many moves have been made? Is the scoresheet reasonably complete as defined in the Rule Book?
I would not try to “guess” Black’s motivation for leaving when it was White’s turn, regardless of how many moves had been made. Again, after making move 39, a real “smart” player may want to do just that! Or maybe he had to go to the bathroom and couldn’t wait… Actually, in my opinion, that has no bearing in the decision.
What other point is there? The move counter means nothing beyond the fact that each player pressed the clock at least 40 times. It proves nothing about moves having been made. If the 40th move has really been achieved, then White should be busy bringing his scoresheet up to date.
It’s evidence in support of White’s claim. It is not, by itself, sufficient evidence, but it would be a contributing factor if there were enough reason to take that claim seriously. In the case described, there isn’t, but treating it as you seem to want to is a good way to get your decision appealed and maybe overturned. I find that unacceptable. You should consider and refute all the possible objections to your ruling before you open your mouth.
Insisting that accurate scoresheets are necessary in order to uphold or deny a time forfeit claim is an appealable decision? I must have have missed that rule change…
Surely, by now, you know better than to hope that players will call your attention to clock problems (move counter wrong, delay not set, etc) when it is still early enough to resolve the situation amicably! They prefer to wait, and then start a heated argument, when they can put the TD on the spot. It’s much more fun that way.
A scoresheet may be incomplete by up to 2 move pairs, without creating grounds to deny a time forfeit claim. However, the scoresheet must also be accurate enough to support the claim. It’s possible, therefore, that a scoresheet might be insufficiently accurate, even if only 1 move pair (or 0) is missing.
I’n not second guessing you–you were there, and I was in Hartford. And I agree that the move counter is not necessarily definitive.
However, the fact that the move counter shows both sides at 40 and the clock shows both players with time left, coupled with the fact that the claimant just came back to the board, would make me skeptical of the claim. In making a ruling, I would ask the claimant, “Why is the move counter at 40?”
If the claimant immediately responds, “My opponent and/or I made illegal moves twice during the game, and we needed to correct them,” or provides another credible narrative as to why each player punched the clock two extra times, I’ll continue.
However, if the claimant replies something like, “Uhhhhhh …,” then I believe the machinery before I believe either player’s scoresheet, and I deny the claim.
If the claimant has a score sheet that (perhaps with an acceptable number of errors) that supports the claim, and the opponent does NOT have a score sheet that refutes the claim, then the claim should be granted. Period.
The only time I would even consider the move counter is if I cannot otherwise determine which of the scoresheets is correct.
It seems to me that in this case there is more than enough evidence to make a ruling without considering the move counter.
Insisting that accurate scoresheets are necessary in order to uphold or deny a time forfeit claim is an appealable decision? I must have have missed that rule change…
[/quote]
In the first place, from the account given it was not obvious that Black had an “accurate” scoresheet. Presumably he had one [i]accurate to within three move pairs[i], which is not the same thing. That’s a quibble, however. The point is that White’s claim was a question of fact (moves were repeated), and questions of fact are almost always appealable unless the TD rules them frivolous.
Should a TD entertain claim of that kind? Generally no. Should such a claim always be rejected? No. I can think of a number of scenarios in which the claim would be marginally plausible, and the TD would have to weigh the evidence. Is this case one of them? Given the facts presented, no.
Oh really? How, then, does White have a fallen flag? His clock reads 55 minutes. 55 >> 0.
And I don’t buy that move counters are inaccurate. I can count on one hand the times my counter has been off in ten years of playing with digital clocks. The counter conclusively shows that both players have punched the clock 40 times. Absent somebody explaining at the outset why they punched the clock too many times, I find the counter highly probative of 40 moves having been made with the flag up.
13C. Time forfeit.
a. Non-Sudden Death: The player who properly claims that the opponent has not completed the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time wins the game, provided that the claimant has mating material (14E) and a reasonably complete scoresheet (13C7) when the flag falls (5G). Move counters, on clocks equipped with them, may not be used as the only evidence in claiming that the prescribed number of moves were not completed in the allotted time.
In the first place, from the account given it was not obvious that Black had an “accurate” scoresheet. Presumably he had one [i]accurate to within three move pairs[i], which is not the same thing. That’s a quibble, however. The point is that White’s claim was a question of fact (moves were repeated), and questions of fact are almost always appealable unless the TD rules them frivolous.
Should a TD entertain claim of that kind? Generally no. Should such a claim always be rejected? No. I can think of a number of scenarios in which the claim would be marginally plausible, and the TD would have to weigh the evidence. Is this case one of them? Given the facts presented, no.
[/quote]
You presume too much. The account provided stated that Black’s scoresheet ended at move 34. White’s claim here is pointless and unecessary unless we can get past Black’s scoresheet problem, since it is Black that made the time forfeit claim.
Then you’d be mistaken. If the rule had meant that, it wouldn’t have made a point of saying they couldn’t be the ONLY evidence to support a forfeit claim.
In fact, it seems to me that the door was left open for using the move counter as the only evidence to DENY a claim.
I don’t think the move counter has been off by even a single move pair since I switched to a digital clock. If it did get off, I’d correct it, but it’s not happened.
