Arbiter Question

[Roger de Coverly]

That the player whose flag has fallen has not made the requisite number of moves.

That wasn't really the question.

In a quick-play finish or rapid-play you observe that your opponent's flag has fallen. What are you expected to do to make a valid claim within the meaning of the FIDE laws of chess?

We've had two versions so far. EMW has said it should be enough to make a verbal assertion, whilst I have suggested that the clock needs to be stopped by the claimant to preserve its status of one flag standing, the other down.

[E Michael White]

That the player whose flag has fallen has not made the requisite number of moves.

That wasn't really the question.

Sean - many of your recent posts seem to wrongly attribute inaccurate views to players and then answer a different question. You're standing for election as an ECF non-exec not as an MP in parliament. Of course the “answer a mischievous attribution" technique was perfected over the years by your arbiter colleague Stewart Reuben.

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean - many of your recent posts seem to wrongly attribute inaccurate views to players and then answer a different question.

Michael - You have made an mistaken assumption. You were wrong to do that but it's no surprise as it is a common trait of yours. To bring you back to reality, the question Richard actually asked was

And how is a 'valid claim' defined?

to which my answer

That the player whose flag has fallen has not made the requisite number of moves.

is perfectly correct. If Roger wants to ask a different question that's fine, but don't confuse that with the question that was actually asked.

[Sean Hewitt]

In a quick-play finish or rapid-play you observe that your opponent's flag has fallen. What are you expected to do to make a valid claim within the meaning of the FIDE laws of chess?

We've had two versions so far. EMW has said it should be enough to make a verbal assertion, whilst I have suggested that the clock needs to be stopped by the claimant to preserve its status of one flag standing, the other down.

I think that a verbal assertion is all that is required, but that stopping the clock is good practice for the reasons that you outline.

[E Michael White]

Michael - You have made an mistaken assumption........

That the player whose flag has fallen has not made the requisite number of moves.

is perfectly correct. If Roger wants to ask a different question that's fine, but don't confuse that with the question that was actually asked.

Several recent posts in different threads, from others apart from me, suggest you answered different questions from those posed.

The answer you have given here even to R Bates's question above is not always correct as the player may not be claiming the moves have not been made but wishes to point out a flag fall.

Players often know the right answers and arbiters often think they know the right questions but in this instance the case rests.

[Roger de Coverly]

In a quick-play finish or rapid-play you observe that your opponent's flag has fallen. What are you expected to do to make a valid claim within the meaning of the FIDE laws of chess?

We've had two versions so far. EMW has said it should be enough to make a verbal assertion, whilst I have suggested that the clock needs to be stopped by the claimant to preserve its status of one flag standing, the other down.

The question was about what FIDE calls the final phase of the game, when there are no additional requirements to make a required number of moves. There are perhaps sub questions depending on whose clock face is running at the time the fall of flag is noticed. If the opponent's clock is running, there's no real need to stop it and a verbal claim should suffice. If it's your clock, possibly because the fall of flag took place as the move was being made, stopping your clock seems wise if you are short of time as well.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I have deleted the last few posts in the interests of turning this thread back into a reasonably civil discussion. Let's have a nice cup of tea and calm down a bit, shall we?

[Richard Bates]

Would it help if i restated the question slightly?

And how is a "valid claim" defined?

[Sean Hewitt]

Players often know the right answers and arbiters often think they know the right questions but in this instance the case rests.

You are neither a player, nor an arbiter. What should we infer from that about your knowledge?

See the above post for further details

[IanDavis]

A 'valid claim' is not defined within the rules, as can be observed. (It presumably means factually accurate, rather than reasonable but inaccurate.)

It is a strange drafting, that the arbiter is able to observe the fact that playing time has expired for either player, but that the players do not observe such facts, instead they make valid, or invalid, claims.

[Stewart Reuben]

Bolstered by the fact that somebody thinks I have done something perfectly, albeit not one of the most reliable of observers:

6.8. A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.
6.11. 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 if it happns in that period of the game, in which all the remaining moves must be made.

There was no arbiter present. There is no suggestion in the Laws that any spectator has any status.
Thus the game, if it was in the final stage, was DRAWN.

Valid: I think the definition 'legally sound' was meant. I think 'valid' could be replaced by 'correct' in this context. I don't remember whether that was in place before 1997.
Clearly it is not sufficient for a player to claim 'your flag is down!' He might be incorrect.

Richard Bates: Does that answer your query? It didn't occur to me to define valid in the new Glossary for the Laws.
Ian Davis: in the absence of an arbiter, if neither player makes a claim, then the flag is deemed not to have fallen. Bishop Berkeley commented on this about trees falling.

If your opponent's flag falls and you are very short of time, then it is an obvious precaution to make the claim and stop the clock before your own time runs out. Indeed for Rapidplay A.4.d2 makes it clear that this is essential. I found it invaluable in the World Rapiplay where Karpov's flag fell, Seirawan claimed but failed to stop his clock before his own time expired. Thus it was a draw. I would not have been able to say with certainty whether or not Yasser had made the claim before his flag fell.

[Roger de Coverly]

I found it invaluable in the World Rapiplay where Karpov's flag fell, Seirawan claimed but failed to stop his clock before his own time expired. Thus it was a draw. I would not have been able to say with certainty whether or not Yasser had made the claim before his flag fell.

That's the reasoning which a league using mechanical clocks might have to employ. But technology moves on. Does it make a difference if the clock remembers which flag fell first or if the arbiter has access to a video recording of the game?

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger. >'But technology moves on. Does it make a difference if the clock remembers which flag fell first or if the arbiter has access to a video recording of the game?<

Certainly not in a rapidplay game. The act of making the claim requires conscious thought and, if you can't make the claim in time, it is a draw. Just as, if your only legal move is mate, but your flag falls, it is a draw.

In a standardplay game Article 6.14 applies: Making a precis
Additional equipment is allowed in the playing hall. However, the player may not make a claim relying solely on infomation shown in this manner.
I have put on a video camera at Hastings where there was more than one time scramble before the days of increments and I was the only arbiter around. I would have used that to help with disputes such as touch move.
But could the arbiter use it for flag fall? I have never thought about that. Certainly the players can't. If the arbiter announced his intention before the event, then it would certainly be OK. My main objective when introducing 6.14 was the scenario where the push counter on a clock is used. Now Black completes move 39 and the clock adds the extra time. The clock was pushed 40 times. Either player thinks and his flag falls. He loses, although it could possibly be overruled by an Appeal Committee.

That is why I call it a push counter, not a move counter. It is also why many arbiters don't use that option.

[IanDavis]

Valid: I think the definition 'legally sound' was meant. I think 'valid' could be replaced by 'correct' in this context. I don't remember whether that was in place before 1997.
Clearly it is not sufficient for a player to claim 'your flag is down!' He might be incorrect.

Richard Bates: Does that answer your query? It didn't occur to me to define valid in the new Glossary for the Laws.
Ian Davis: in the absence of an arbiter, if neither player makes a claim, then the flag is deemed not to have fallen. Bishop Berkeley commented on this about trees falling.

The definition of valid in this context seems obvious, but why use the wording 'valid claim'?
I don't really see why it should be necessary to invoke the Bishop. To make an extreme example, if you checkmate your opponent, but don't observe the fact, it is fairly obvious that play will continue. If a flag falls, and nobody observes the fact, isn't it obvious that the same will happen. Why introduce a distinction in the wording that is not especially beneficial? Overall it's not terribly important, but I think it was the point originally being made by Richard.

[Stewart Reuben]

Ian >The definition of valid in this context seems obvious, but why use the wording 'valid claim'?
I don't really see why it should be necessary to invoke the Bishop. To make an extreme example, if you checkmate your opponent, but don't observe the fact, it is fairly obvious that play will continue. If a flag falls, and nobody observes the fact, isn't it obvious that the same will happen. Why introduce a distinction in the wording that is not especially beneficial? Overall it's not terribly important, but I think it was the point originally being made by Richard.<

If you mean that the word valid could simply be deleted, that is a view. It doesn' really matter. Claim also appears in 10.2. There a person may claim a draw.
I have no idea what you mean by 'invoke the Bishop'.

You are quite wrong to say 'if you checkmate your opponent, but don't observe the fact, it is fairly obvious that play will continue.'
The opponent may notice. The arbiter may notice. In both cases the game will not continue. Moreover, if it should continue, and then attention is drawn to the illegality, while play is still in progress, then the checkmate will stand. It may even stand after the game is finished with a different result.