Time Forfeit Claim... What Would You Do?

[jwiewel]

@tsawmiller

…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.

You have the scoresheet move counts reversed. It stated that black was claiming with 38 moves on his scoresheet while white only had 34 moves written. At that point it becomes a question of whether black omitted two move pairs (one repetition of position). White made a claim of something that possibly could have happened. Unfortunately, White does not have enough evidence for a TD to rule that it actually happened that way.

[rfeditor]

@jwiewel

@tsawmiller

…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.

You have the scoresheet move counts reversed. It stated that black was claiming with 38 moves on his scoresheet while white only had 34 moves written. At that point it becomes a question of whether black omitted two move pairs (one repetition of position). White made a claim of something that possibly could have happened. Unfortunately, White does not have enough evidence for a TD to rule that it actually happened that way.

That’s correct. If there were such evidence – e.g., a spectator said that he though maybe he’d seen a repetition, or Black’s scoresheet had a couple of moves scratched out at around the time the repetition had taken place – then the move counter would be one of the factors the TD would have to weigh in reaching a decision. How much weight would it get? That’s a judgment call for the TD on the scene.

[Steve_Immitt]

@tanstaafl

@Joe Lux

While move counters can’t be the only evidence, can it be ANY evidence? I suspect not.

All the best, Joe Lux

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.

Move counters could indeed come in handy as a piece of corroborating evidence.
For example, White’s flag is down, and Black’s scoresheet shows 39 moves completed, while White’s scoresheet shows 41 moves completed, including two moves which repeat the same position. Black is screaming and cursing at White, accusing him of writing down two moves which never occured in order to sleaze out of losing on time. White is screaming and cursing at Black, accusing him of not writing down the two repeated moves played in order to sleaze into a win on time. While both players are screaming and yelling at each other, the move counter might be a critical piece of evidence.

[tsawmiller]

@jwiewel

@tsawmiller

…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.

You have the scoresheet move counts reversed. It stated that black was claiming with 38 moves on his scoresheet while white only had 34 moves written. At that point it becomes a question of whether black omitted two move pairs (one repetition of position). White made a claim of something that possibly could have happened. Unfortunately, White does not have enough evidence for a TD to rule that it actually happened that way.

You are correct, I did read that sentence in reverse. Nevertheless, the principle still holds. It will need to be possible to reconstruct the game from Black’s scoresheet before upholding his claim of a time forfeit.

[Joe_Lux]

@Steve_Immitt

@tanstaafl

@Joe Lux

While move counters can’t be the only evidence, can it be ANY evidence? I suspect not.

All the best, Joe Lux

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.

Move counters could indeed come in handy as a piece of corroborating evidence.
For example, White’s flag is down, and Black’s scoresheet shows 39 moves completed, while White’s scoresheet shows 41 moves completed, including two moves which repeat the same position. Black is screaming and cursing at White, accusing him of writing down two moves which never occured in order to sleaze out of losing on time. White is screaming and cursing at Black, accusing him of not writing down the two repeated moves played in order to sleaze into a win on time. While both players are screaming and yelling at each other, the move counter might be a critical piece of evidence.

“…might be a critical peice of evidence.” Judgement on the reliability of the counter is crucial. Electronic: yes. Mechanical: no. Unusual activity by the players during time pressure might eliminate the use of the counter.

All the best, Joe Lux

[brennanprice]

OK, I’m going to eat crow here.

42B1. Signalling devices. Timers with move counters and flag fall indicators are legal. Move counters, however, should not be relied upon in cases of a time forfeiture claim( only the scoresheets of the players may be used to validate or repudiate the claim.
42B2. Move counters. Clocks with move counters are legal. The counter offers impartial assistance to both players, but its count may not be used to support or defend against a time-forfeit claim and can sometimes be inaccurate. Players rely on the count at their own risk. . . .

I don’t think this should be the case, but it is. Chris and Ken, you were right.

[Bob_McAdams]

@tanstaafl

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.

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the possibility that while Black was away from the board, White could have toggled the switches a couple of times, inflating the move counter.

[tsawmiller]

@Bob McAdams

@tanstaafl

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.

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the possibility that while Black was away from the board, White could have toggled the switches a couple of times, inflating the move counter.

Good point.
For me, this possibliity is implicit in not trusting the move counter to be infallible.