Loss on time query

[Matthew Peat]

I noticed in the latest New In Chess magazine that Van Wely makes reference to a situation that arises when someone has lost on time when his opponent has not been recording his moves. He claimed that if your opponent is unable to produce a correct scoresheet up to the time control move then the game just continues. Is this correct?

Its just that I had this very same situation in my last tournament where during the post-mortem my opponent asked for my scoresheet to record the final few moves on his one.

[Sean Hewitt]

I noticed in the latest New In Chess magazine that Van Wely makes reference to a situation that arises when someone has lost on time when his opponent has not been recording his moves. He claimed that if your opponent is unable to produce a correct scoresheet up to the time control move then the game just continues. Is this correct?

Its just that I had this very same situation in my last tournament where during the post-mortem my opponent asked for my scoresheet to record the final few moves on his one.

The arbiter can rely on either scoresheet (or indeed his own if he has been recording the moves) to determine whether the requisite number of moves had been completed when the flag fell.

[Roger de Coverly]

I noticed in the latest New In Chess magazine that Van Wely makes reference to a situation that arises when someone has lost on time when his opponent has not been recording his moves. He claimed that if your opponent is unable to produce a correct scoresheet up to the time control move then the game just continues. Is this correct?

That article in New In Chess is describing Van Wely's American tour. The USCF find the international practice of retiring to another board to complete the score far too difficult to implement and have pages of rules on how incomplete a score can be before a time claim is ruled out.

As Sean says, in a British event you would establish how many moves had been made before the flag fell. Only if both flags are down, does the game continue.

[Stewart Reuben]

This is one of the principle ways in which the US Rules differ from FIDE ones. It is quite incorrect to use them in internationally rated events, but people have been too weak to tackle the problem.
Internationally when a flag is down, if there is no agreement, it is for the arbiter to decide whether a player has lost on time. He is not limited to the evidence of the scoresheet. Thus, if he observes the time scramble, he can silently count off the number of moves played. I often use my fingers behind my back. If he did not observe the time scramble, he can take the last position recorded, compare it with the current position and decide whether it is possible to reach that position in less moves than it would take to get to the time control.
The US Rule may possibly be superior, but they have never sought to get the rule changed. I have sought to get the Law changed so that it is the responsibility solely of the players to call a flag fall, but have been unsuccessful as Geurt Gijssen disagrees with me.

Stewart Reuben