From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Illegal moves during Tournament
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:35:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.050036.21040@raven.alaska.edu> fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage]) writes:
>Kenneth Sloan writes
>> In article <1576@tekgen.bv.tek.com> brucec@tekgen.bv.tek.com (Bruce Cheney)  
>writes:
>> As I said above, I concede your point.  Now...what do you do
>> when a player claims "I mated him on the board *before* my flag fell -
>> so the fact that the flag is down now is irrelevant".  Will you convene
>> a protest committee and ask for witnesses?  Does it make any difference
>> if this is a SD game or a normal time control?
>
>The mate on the board takes precedence whether the move happened before
>or after   
>the clock was punched, because the opponent has to make the claim
>before the game   
>is over.   The clock doesn't cause time forfeitures in itself.  The
>player has to   
>make the claim.

Not entirely clear.  The rule says:

I.12 The Completed Game
    ...
    L. The game is lost by the player who has not completed the
        prescribed number of moves in the allotted time 
        except as in L.3.

I cannot find any reference to the timing of the claim.  They imply that
the claim should first be made to your opponent, and only to the TD is
your opponent rejects the claim.  By now, the intricate timing required
by your interpretation of the rule has passed into history, and we have
a raging dispute - leaving the TD to rule with complete ignorance of the
relevant facts.  If, instead, the flag were to take absolute precedence,
the TD has only to worry about verifying the score sheet, etc.


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."

Player B: "Did not."

Player A: "Did so."

...

My primary quesion is: why should a TD be put in the position of having
to decide the facts in the above situation?  Your interpretation of the
rule puts the TD in an impossible situation.

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. 

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.

The current rules invite trouble by trying to find reasons why the clock
should be ignored, because "the clock is not as important as..."
-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170