Rapidplay game: both digital clocks reach 00:00

[JustinHorton]

I was a spectator at a one-day tournament today, fifteen-minute chess, and in one game, both players came down to the last few seconds with White having perhaps one second more than Black - and Black ran out of time. Immediately after, White ran out of time so both clocks read 00:00.

Black's side, however, actually read -00:00, presumably as a result of his clock being the first to run out. I assumed the game would be awarded to White but in fact the arbiter, who's very experienced, awarded the draw. She was asked why, afterwards, and if I understood her right - and my Spanish comprehension is still far from reliable - she said that in a normal game, White would indeed have been the winner but in a rapid game this was not so.

I wonder:

a) is this right?
b) if it's right, why is the rule as it is?

[Alex Holowczak]

With analogue clocks, if both flags fall, then it is a draw when someone notices/makes a claim. No one external is allowed to point it out. I don't see why digital clocks would be any different?

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't see why digital clocks would be any different?

Digital clocks can act as "assistant arbiters" by doing useful things like counting moves and remembering flag falls. Human arbiters may dislike them for this reason.

On the latest DGTs there's a pretty graphic of a flag waving. This was 90 30 though so the signals may be different for non increment rates.

[JustinHorton]

With analogue clocks, if both flags fall, then it is a draw when someone notices/makes a claim. No one external is allowed to point it out. I don't see why digital clocks would be any different?

Because (as Roger says) the clock itself points it out. With analogue clocks, nobody could ever prove which clock went down first, so the result had to be a draw. But the digital clock tells us with great certainty who should be the loser.

[Alex Holowczak]

I suppose that makes sense. On a personal level, I'd rather see the game played between the two players, rather than arbiters and clocks pointing out falling flags.

[JustinHorton]

For my part, I think when it's down to about a second apiece I think it's highly useful to have the clock tell you what otherwise we wouldn't know for sure: after all, would we do without a photo-finish in a hundred-metre race?

Anyway, I would be grateful if one of our resident arbiters could advise.

[Sean Hewitt]

The side with the "-" showing (the "-" is in fact the clocks signal of a flag) should have been declared lost.

The reason for this is law 6.12 which says

6.12 If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first, then

a.the game shall continue if it happens in any period of the game except the last period.

b.the game is drawn in case it happens in the period of a game, in which all remaining moves must be completed.

I have highlighted the relevant part of the text. With an analogue clock it would be impossible to establish which flag fell first, so the game is a draw (as per para. b). But with a digital clock, the clock knows which flag fell first, and tells us! So knowing which flag fell first, that player has lost.

[E Michael White]

This is the way I look at it.

As this was a 15-15 game, the Rapidplay rules should apply.

Under the current rules for Rapidplay (valid until 30 Jun 09), to claim a win on time a player must do so while his own flag is still up. This is covered under rule B8. The best way to show this is to stop the clock; with only a second or two left this is difficult.

Under longplay rules or the quickfinish part of a longplay game, the player does not in theory need to claim the game as the flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or a claimant points it out. This is stated in rule 6.9 and it does not change if the claimant’s flag subsequently falls.

The arbiter was probably right as regards her decision in this game unless there are factors you do not state. However she may be incorrect as regards her statement about longplay if she believes that observing the which-flag-dropped-first-indicator after the event, is the same as observing a flag fall in person.

The above is what is written in the rules. Many arbiters believe they can follow their own interpretations which are different. After 1 Jul 2009 there will be more opportunities for uncertainty around this particular rule.

[Mike Gunn]

Part of article 6.1 of the FIDE Laws of chess states:

"Flag fall' means the expiration of the allotted time for a player.

The Laws contans an appendix (B) which specifies where procedures are different in Rapidplay games. This includes:

B7. The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall.

B8. To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his opponent's flag down after the clocks have been stopped.

B9. If both flags have fallen, the game is drawn.

Notwithstanding the fact that the digital clock shows a symbol on the side where the time elapsed first, according to the Laws both flags have fallen and therefore the game is a draw, so the Spanish arbiter was correct. However, this would not have been the case in a standard play game where the part of the Laws that Sean cited applies.

[JustinHorton]

Thanks for all replies, most instructive.

Am I alone in finding it a little silly that in a situation where a clock will actually tell us who ran out of time first, that we can or need to disregard that? Didn't all the other rules rise because it frequently occurred that both flags were down and so the truth couldn't be established - and is there, therefore, where digital clocks are used, any further need for any of it?

[Roger de Coverly]

Am I alone in finding it a little silly that in a situation where a clock will actually tell us who ran out of time first, that we can or need to disregard that?

No - but arbiters like their bit of power. It would be simple enough to formulate a rule which applied only where digital clocks are in use - increment timing is a case in point. If an event was using digital clocks on all boards there is eminent sense in applying a "local" rule that first flag fall would be indicated by the clock and the "both flags down" rule is set aside.

[Sean Hewitt]

B8. To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his opponent's flag down after the clocks have been stopped.

B9. If both flags have fallen, the game is drawn.

Notwithstanding the fact that the digital clock shows a symbol on the side where the time elapsed first, according to the Laws both flags have fallen and therefore the game is a draw, so the Spanish arbiter was correct. However, this would not have been the case in a standard play game where the part of the Laws that Sean cited applies.

Mike, unless I've misunderstood the scenario (eminently possible) I dont think that both flags are down. The "-" indicates the flag. Justin indicated that only one side showed a "-". Therefore one flag is down and the other is still up.

Most digital clocks are designed so that when one flag falls in a guillotine time period, the clock stops working as it considers the game to be over. The fact that the other clock showed zero time is simply (I suspect) down to the display. For example, a DGT (DGT 2000 use "-" as a flag) would display 0.49 seconds as 0.00 but with no flag.

[JustinHorton]

But if that were so the game would have been declared a win, surely?

My recollection is that though Black's clock ran out of time first, White's continued to run, thus reaching zero about a second after Black's did.

[Sean Hewitt]

But if that were so the game would have been declared a win, surely?

My recollection is that though Black's clock ran out of time first, White's continued to run, thus reaching zero about a second after Black's did.

Hi Justin - That's my point ; the game should have been declared a win in this scenario. However, if the clock continued to run (and I dont know of a digital clock in regular use in UK which does that) that complicates things. But I would say that if one side shows "-" (ie flag down) and one side does not (ie flag up) then the game should still be awarded as a win on time. However, it may be the local convention with these clocks to consider the clock showing 0 as also being flag down in which case a draw is the correct decision.

[Ian Thompson]

Mike, unless I've misunderstood the scenario (eminently possible) I dont think that both flags are down. The "-" indicates the flag. Justin indicated that only one side showed a "-". Therefore one flag is down and the other is still up.

But the definition of flag fall is "expiration of the allotted time for a player." That, in my opinion, means that the time display is what matters and the flag indicator is secondary to it. If it is possible for both clocks to be at 0, but only one shows the "-" indicator, both flags have fallen, using the flag fall definition in the FIDE Laws.

Most digital clocks are designed so that when one flag falls in a guillotine time period, the clock stops working as it considers the game to be over.

If that is so, then that's a design fault with the clock. In rapidplay games the FIDE Laws (B7, B8 and B9) are clear that both clocks should continue running until one player makes a claim that his opponent has run out of time, or both players have run out of time.