Claiming a win on time

[Malcolm Clarke]

Yesterday reminded me of an experience I had 15 years ago in a chess match.

The captain of the team we were playing against claimed a win for one of his players on time saying he was entitled to claim wins on time on behalf of his players. As it was clear that his flag had fallen, it is very likely that his opponent would have noticed this, the player whose flag had fallen did not kick up a fuss, we wanted to maintain harmony, and we pointed out clearly to the captain that he should not intervene in this way in future, the result stood without any further debate.

However as some people on this forum are tournament arbiters, I wonder whether they have come across similar instances to this. I looked up the FIDE Laws of Chess, but I could not find anything that clearly defines the course of action in such situations, with the question asked more for future reference than anything else.

[Sean Hewitt]

Depends on the rule of the competition. Some allow the captains to call flag fall (e.g. the Leicestershire league) and some don't (such as the Coventry league).

[Roger de Coverly]

The captain of the team we were playing against claimed a win for one of his players on time saying he was entitled to claim wins on time on behalf of his players.

Fide rules state that the fall of a flag happens when claimed by one of the players or observed by the arbiter (if present). League rules vary as to whether the match captains are considered to be arbiters for this and other purposes.

[Alex Holowczak]

Commenting on the ethics of this, I'd be vary wary of allowing any interested parties from pointing out the flag fall. If no arbiter is present, I think the rapidplay rule where the player has to call the flag fall, but the arbiter (or captain) can point it out if both flags have fallen, is the better route to go down. I think this (FIDE) rule is particularly relevant:

Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of chess
1.1: The game of chess is played between two opponents...

So just two people play chess. Not two people and their captains.

As far as I'm aware, the FIDE Tournament Rules don't allow for captains to point this out, although they're really only designed for situations where an arbiter is present.

[David Gilbert]

Playing in a rapidply event my opponent had just seconds on the clock – I played a ridiciously bad move which lost a piece. Shocked by my own stupidily I failed to notce that his flag had fallen. Whilst concentrating on my next move a spectator – playing his first ever competition - shouted to my opponent “you’re flag has fallen!” My opponent claimed he was winning – indeed he was a whole piece up - and claimed an extra two minutes. What should happen next?

[Richard Bates]

Playing in a rapidply event my opponent had just seconds on the clock – I played a ridiciously bad move which lost a piece. Shocked by my own stupidily I failed to notce that his flag had fallen. Whilst concentrating on my next move a spectator – playing his first ever competition - shouled to my opponent “you’re flag has fallen!” My opponent claimed he was winning – indeed he was a whole piece up - and claimed an extra two minutes. What should happen next?

You should be given a win. Assuming the spectator has no known connection with you then the intervention is irrelevant IMO. If the opponent feels aggrieved, that's just bad luck.

[Alex Holowczak]

Playing in a rapidply event my opponent had just seconds on the clock – I played a ridiciously bad move which lost a piece. Shocked by my own stupidily I failed to notce that his flag had fallen. Whilst concentrating on my next move a spectator – playing his first ever competition - shouled to my opponent “you’re flag has fallen!” My opponent claimed he was winning – indeed he was a whole piece up - and claimed an extra two minutes. What should happen next?

The first thing that happen is that the spectator - which the player has now become - should be asked to leave the playing area, taken to one side, and be told never to do that again.

A.4d1)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, but he may do so if both flags have fallen.

From what you've said here, you haven't actually claimed a win, and he has presumably claimed two minutes for the distraction. This would have happened before the arbiter noticed the flag had fallen, and you hadn't made a valid claim to that effect anyway. So the flag hasn't fallen, so he hasn't lost on time. Since the distraction was to the game as a whole, you could add two minutes to both players' clocks (i.e. the player whose flag had fallen goes back to 2 minutes), and the game continues from where it left off.

[Sean Hewitt]

Playing in a rapidply event my opponent had just seconds on the clock – I played a ridiciously bad move which lost a piece. Shocked by my own stupidily I failed to notce that his flag had fallen. Whilst concentrating on my next move a spectator – playing his first ever competition - shouled to my opponent “you’re flag has fallen!” My opponent claimed he was winning – indeed he was a whole piece up - and claimed an extra two minutes. What should happen next?

You should claim a win based on your opponent's flag having fallen, and you should be awarded that win. In the unlikely event that you don't claim flag fall, your opponents claim for 2 minutes should be dismissed and play should continue. Should that happen the arbiter may award both players some extra time due to the external disturbance.

Either way, the spectator should be taken outside and dealt with.

[Alex Holowczak]

In the unlikely event that you don't claim flag fall, your opponents claim for 2 minutes should be dismissed and play should continue.

Why? Isn't this an example of an outsider interfering with the game in progress, and thus causing a distraction?

[Sean Hewitt]

In the unlikely event that you don't claim flag fall, your opponents claim for 2 minutes should be dismissed and play should continue.

Why? Isn't this an example of an outsider interfering with the game in progress, and thus causing a distraction?

It certainly is. But in such a case you would not award 2 minutes to just one player.

[Alex Holowczak]

In the unlikely event that you don't claim flag fall, your opponents claim for 2 minutes should be dismissed and play should continue.

Why? Isn't this an example of an outsider interfering with the game in progress, and thus causing a distraction?

It certainly is. But in such a case you would not award 2 minutes to just one player.

Agreed. But since the claim of disturbance to the game came before the claim of a flag fall - in this description, there was no claim at all - surely you need to go chronologically, and say that the disturbance claim gives both players an extra 2 minutes, and any subsequent claim about the flag falling should be dismissed, because now both players have x minutes and 2 minutes remaining on their clocks?

[Sean Hewitt]

... since the claim of disturbance to the game came before the claim of a flag fall - in this description, there was no claim at all - surely you need to go chronologically, and say that the disturbance claim gives both players an extra 2 minutes, and any subsequent claim about the flag falling should be dismissed, because now both players have x minutes and 2 minutes remaining on their clocks?

There is no requirement to give extra time to players in the event of an external disturbance. The laws simply allow that the arbiter may award either or both players additional time in the event of external disturbance of the game. I think in the scenario described and I would decide not to award such extra time and therefore allow the claim of a win on time (assuming that at this point the claim had been made).

[David Gilbert]

The first thing that happen is that the spectator - which the player has now become - should be asked to leave the playing area, taken to one side, and be told never to do that again.

The player concerned was taken outside and summarily executed. I was awarded the game - without cause to consult the arbiter. I am amazed that about five minutes after posting there were five replies - don't you boys have chess events to run!!

[Alex Holowczak]

... since the claim of disturbance to the game came before the claim of a flag fall - in this description, there was no claim at all - surely you need to go chronologically, and say that the disturbance claim gives both players an extra 2 minutes, and any subsequent claim about the flag falling should be dismissed, because now both players have x minutes and 2 minutes remaining on their clocks?

There is no requirement to give extra time to players in the event of an external disturbance. The laws simply allow that the arbiter may award either or both players additional time in the event of external disturbance of the game. I think in the scenario described and I would decide not to award such extra time and therefore allow the claim of a win on time (assuming that at this point the claim had been made).

Fair enough. I would deem this disturbance worthy of awarding both players some extra time, if not perhaps 2 minutes. Since the impact on thinking time was probably minimal, maybe 1 minute would suffice. I'm not comfortable with the idea that a player could have the result of his game determined by some external party. Particularly from a keeping-the-peace viewpoint...

[Alex McFarlane]

There is merit in what is being said by both Sean and Alex H. Basically the amount of time added by an arbiter determines the result of the game. If both players are informed of this fact before the arbiter makes his decision and agree to draw then the problem is solved.