47 times? As one who has trouble with a VCR and a DVD player, I’m glad I didn’t get a Chronos. The Excalibur is at least comprehensible.
To get back to the original discussion –
Apparently the TD attempted to invoke 14J:
But this option does not seem suitable here. I think it was intended for situations where (a) one or more important facts cannot be determined, or (b) there are circumstances beyond the players’ control, such as third-party kibitzing or flag-calling.
About the only relevant fact here is that black played a checkmating move without a prior time-forfeit claim by white.
By ruling a draw, the TD missed a golden opportunity to teach white an important lesson which would have helped him in the future: Don’t get your information from unofficial sources such as your opponent. Instead, rely on the rulebook, or at the very least on the TD.
Two specific comments, and a minor question:
Given the behavior of both players, and the fact that the TD witnessed the whole thing, there was obviously a meeting of the players’ minds that the pawn was really a queen.
The checkmated player doesn’t have to agree he was checkmated. As long as the mate is there, that’s all that matters. Whether the mate was there (in view of the unpromoted queen) is for the TD, not the opponent, to decide.
Just out of curiosity, did he come back for the next round? Was he surprised to see he had been credited with a draw?
Bill Smythe
Does the Excalibur make it look like you have some time left when it displays 0:00 ? 
I agree with you. My point is that a pawn sitting some squares away from the king on a diagonal is not check, no matter how many previous illegal moves the player has played with the pawn, so it can’t be mate. If White agrees that he was mated, however, then it counts as a resignation.
Alex Relyea
To address some additional questions or comments from above:
-
White did not return for any future rounds. He withdrew from the event, not due to the outcome of the game (he said he couldn’t care less who won), but rather because he was offended that a mature adult would (as he believed) lie about the functioning of the clock in order to gain an unfair advantage.
-
White most assuredly did not resign, or “accept” the checkmate. He protested immediately.
-
I awarded a draw since I felt there were strong factors in favor of each player, and I was unable to determine which factor(s) were definitive.
-
A player whose opponent made an illegal move certainly is not required to notice it immediately. It would have been legitimate for White to say, at any point after the faulty promotion, “Hey TD, doesn’t a promotion require replacing the pawn immediately with another piece?” Then by the letter of the law, they have to go back to the last legal position, etc. Now, it might be more fair and equitable just to replace the offending pawn with a queen, but there’s an argument to be made for enforcing the rule exactly as written.
-
Rule 1A speaks to situations which are not specifically covered under the rules; in those situations, the TD must rely on common sense and good judgment. In the present mess, however, the promotion was unequivocally improper, and the final position (taken literally) was assuredly not checkmate. Which is to say that White had reasonable standing to protest – though I’m still not sure about the correct final ruling.
Up until a few moments ago, I had held the view that the TD is required to treat the improperly promoted pawn under the rules governing illegal moves. That is, if White (victim of the questionable checkmate under said pawn) had made a claim under 11B or 11D, I would have felt obliged to disallow the checkmate, and restore the position to the last legal move (or let the position stand – with the pawn being a bona fide pawn). There is obviously something not quite right about this approach, as both players had been playing on under the tacit agreement that the pawn had been promoted to a queen, but still I thought a rule is a rule.
However, I have just read the TD tip following 16D1, which reads in part “No player should gain unfair advantage for…illegal moves…deliberately not pointed out.” That clearly gives the TD the leverage to deny White such a claim, and permit the checkmate to stand, however improperly executed. That takes the illegal move issue off the table.
On that basis I now come down on the side of Black, who I believe should have been awarded the win.
Whatever the legalities, I have much personal sympathy for White in this case.
There can also be arguments made that there are no illegal moves in this case. Even though the book says the pawn must be exchanged, it goes on to say that an upside-down rook is somewhat acceptable, and in the absence of clear indication, that it should be considered a queen. This makes me think that the rule would make any undeclared promotion that doesn’t replace with a proper intended piece a queen. The book also allows for leaving the pawn on the board: it says the opponent MAY restart the player’s clock, leaving other possibilities to the imagination.
In my mind, illegal moves are moves that would change the consideration of how to play if the illegal move had not been allowed, requiring resetting a board’s position. In this case, it would just require a piece swap, not really giving both players a second chance to rethink their strategy. It would be very hard to convince me that a player who allowed a pawn/queen to remain on the board forgot that the piece was a queen and thought that it was a pawn.
I wish the book were clearer on this. Maybe Tim or any future editors should take this into consideration. In the meantime, we do have 1A. 
Yes, I think the best rule would be that, in the event of an upside-down rook OR an unpromoted pawn, the TD would have the right to rule that it is a queen.
He should also have the right to rule some other way. Each situation is different, and the TD needs latitude here.
Bill Smythe
Uh, Mulfish, I think wilecoyote had his tongue in his cheek.
Steve: Inquiring minds STILL want to know:
-
What brand of clock is this? And what mode?
-
How do you know there is still time left when it displays “0:00”? Is there some other indicator, such as a light or a beep, that indicates a forfeit on this clock?
-
If yes, what is this indicator, and how much time (approximately) elapses between the display of “0:00” and the onset of this other indication? One second? Several seconds? A fraction of a second?
-
Is it possible to press your side of the clock after the “0:00” display but before the indicator starts indicating? If so, will the indicator start indicating on the next move, after your opponent makes his move and presses the clock?
If I were the TD and your opponent claimed a time-forfeit win with a display of “0:00”, I’d probably give it to him. The only exception might be if the operation of the clock had been THOROUGHLY explained to both your opponent and the TD before the game started.
It’s just possible that this clock, unlike all other clocks I have seen, rounds its display downward, instead of upward, to the next full second. In this case, you MIGHT have one second remaining when the display goes to “0:00”. I would be tempted to check out this possibility, by restarting the clock from the beginning of the game, with a time control of game in 4 minutes and no delay. Then I could see if there seems to be a full second between the moment the clock is started and the moment it goes from “4:00” to “3:59”. With most clocks, there is such an initial second. If, with yours, there is not, that would be an indication that your clock rounds seconds down, rather than up, and that might lend credence to your theory.
Bill Smythe
That’s probably why people complain I mumble! 
Yes, my comment was strictly tongue in cheek. I was going to write that “it helps to be hopping on one foot while setting the clock,” but I just wanted to see if I could snag someone into believing my tall tale. Looks like I did!
But …
I’m not sure, but I think Steve Immitt may be grinning and thinking “gotcha” in much the same way as I did!
All in good fun (or should that be 
?)
Or maybe you’re trying to lure Steve Immitt in, in which case you definitely earn !
Steve Immitt being sarcastic??? Nooooo, he’s never sarcastic.
Actually, it’s likely Mulfish knew all along, and has thus pulled a BIG gotcha on both of us.
In which case three of us have red faces.
But I think I’ve heard this claim before, from other sources, so there could still be some coarse grains in this “gotcha” sand.
Bill Smythe
Hey I don’t have a tongue or a cheek. 
All I want to know is, which should I buy, the Chronos or the Excalibur? Which one gives me more time (but not the opponent!)