From: jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas)
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Summary: When is the move really completed?
Keywords: checkmate, clock, flag, rules
Organization: engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:24:39 GMT

sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>
>But, granting your interpretation for the purposes of discussion only:
>How is the TD to determine the timing of the claim (as you require)?
>Please rule on this claim: 
>
>Player A: "As Player B made his move, I saw his flag fall, and claimed
>           the win - before he removed his hand from the piece."
>
>Player B: "Did not."
>
>Player A: "Did so."
>
>...

Well, personally, given the way the rules are written now, I'd use the
scoresheets, witnesses, or whatever other info I could obtain to verify
that the checkmating move was legal, and if so, award the game to the
guy with his flag down who played the mate.  (All this assuming that no
disinterested witness came forth to support the claim of one player or
the other as to when the flag fell.)  Absent other evidence, my
reasoning would be that the checkmating move *was* made on the board,
most definitely, while the clock may or may not have expired before the
move was completed.  One fact I can ascertain for myself, the other
"fact" I have only the word of one person--the one who stands to benefit
by it--to attest to.

Of course, this does not protect the person who has not run out of time
(and is in the process of getting mated) from an unscrupulous opponent
who might lie about his own flag falling in order to claim the win.
But, hey, if you're getting mated on the move anyway, you really haven't
earned the win (though neither has the opponent who may have overstepped
the time control before mating...).  And if it's not mate on the move
then you win anyway, since only a move that ends the game (checkmate or
stalemate) is considered complete when the piece is released; other
moves are completed when the clock is pressed.

>The point is - these silly arguments over fractions of seconds and
>disputed orders of events would all go away if the rule simply said:
>"Your flag is down?  You lose."  The number of games which would be
>decided "incorrectly" is infinitessimal - but the number of arguments
>would drop to zero.  Under this interpretation of the rules, the TD has
>all of the information he needs, simply by looking at the clock, and the
>scoresheets. 

The above having been said, I agree with you, Ken.  The rules as written
essentially put the TD in the position of having to take the word of one
player over that of another (hopefully with at least *some*
corroborating evidence, but still one person's word over another).  This
is bound to create controversy and ill feelings...particularly (as is
most often the case) when *both* players are absolutely *certain* that
their version of the chronology of events is correct.

>My point of view is: if you are going to play with a clock, then the
>clock should be recognized more fully by the rules.  This simplest way
>that I can see to do this is to declare that *no* move is complete until
>your clock has been stopped.  None.  No exceptions.  Nada. Nil. Zilch.

I agree wholeheartedly and wish the USCF/FIDE would adopt this rule
forthwith.  (Yes, FIDE too.  Even if an arbiter is present at every
board it may be hard to tell if a piece was released just before or just
after a flag falls.  Baseball umpires, etc. miss obvious (to those of us
at home watching the slow-motion replay) split-second calls all the
time, looking right at the play.  An arbiter of a chess game can miss
one too.  But the flag is either up or down after the move is made.
Plenty of time to study it when the opponent makes the claim.  No
judgement of what happened first; no problems.  Even the guy who loses
knows he lost, and why.  And it wasn't because someone disputed his
word.)

>The current rules invite trouble by trying to find reasons why the clock
>should be ignored, because "the clock is not as important as..."

Agreed.  Maybe we should go with R. Hyatt's "if your flag falls you
lose, period" rule.  My own preference would be for, "if your flag falls
you lose, unless there is *no way*, with worst play by you and optimum
play by your opponent, that he can *ever* mate you."  This would keep
people from winning on time with only a King, or only a King and a minor
piece; other than that, I think the side whose flag is still up deserves
the win (even if they have K + 2 minor pieces against K + multiple Q's.)

But I could live with it either way.  Bob's proposal would be better
than the existing rules.

Joe
-- 
    ---------->  Joe is jdd@engr.ucf.edu (Joseph Dumas) <----------
"How about a nice game of Chess?"
"No, let's play Global Thermonuclear War."
"Fine."