.
If it were not for complications with chess clocks, Geurt Gijssen’s ChessCafe.com column would be far shorter than it typically is.
This month’s column contains another one of those questions when a player did not notice her opponent’s flag had fallen until a second after he checkmated her. The FIDE rules’ answer is tuff luck, you need to devote attention to both clocks. Checkmate ends the game, regardless of anything else and everything else.
Yet Geurt’s column also says that in FIDE a stalemate does Not immediately end the game the same way that checkmate does. That seems like an odd rule distinction. USCF rule 14A implies USCF vs. FIDE rules differ on this: the USCF seems to say that stalemate immediately ends a game just as checkmate does. Do I have this right?
In any case, it should be the job of the modern electronic chess clock to freeze both clocks when either flag falls. A player should not have her hard earned victory morphed to a loss because the clock is too subtle about communicating flag falls. If it ain’t gonna freeze, then it should bellow (whether that bothers other games or not).
.
You are misinterpreting Gijssens’s answer, which in any case concerned a blitz game. Aside from some extra verbiage, the USCF and FIDE rules are identical.
The “clock should give notice” argument has come up before, but I don’t think you’ll find many people who agree with you. Certainly I do not. If the player can’t manage his time properly, he should pay the price.
I don’t feel like going through and finding all of the previous discussions on this, but one practical issue that came up before has to do with multiple time controls.
If the clock had not been hit every move then it may not yet have registered that the first time control is finished and the second should be started. Freezing would cause a disruption in the game until it could be unfrozen (and if it isn’t unfrozen then the second time control has been adversely impacted). Bellowing could be a distraction to other games when no player actually overstepped the time control.
If the above situations are countered by setting the clock to NOT count moves, but to rather automatically move to the next time control once all the time is used up in the first time control, then the clock still has to be watched.
When I was at the FIDE Technical Commission meeting in June of 2006, the commission members voted in favor of banning ANY move-counter mechanisms from FIDE-certified clocks, which means that any time such a clock goes to a secondary time control it will require resetting by the arbiter.
This does not follow. A clock can “(go) to a secondary time control” without counting moves. Many current clocks do this. You simply wait until time goes to zero - at which point you add the time for the next time control AND indicate that you are in the secondary time. It is still up to the players/arbiter to decide how many moves have been made.
Having to repeatedly re-eyeball your opponent’s clock has nothing to do with a player properly managing his own time. It is just error prone tedium.
In my opinion, the chess clock should not add unnecessary burdens to the player. The way many clocks meekly or silently and subtley signal a flag fall resembles a human who mumbles, or what Seinfeld might call a “low talker”.
In my judgment it is unrealistic to say that a couple of quick flag-fall beeps, occuring once in each of a small percentage of the games, will disturb the playing hall to an excessive degree, or even to any degree.
By not automatically freezing at flag fall, we make create an environment for emotional disputes, and we make life harder for TDs and arbiters. We are compelled to deal with extra verbiage in the rules to handle the odd cases that could not otherwise arise. For instance:
Suppose both players’ flags have fallen but neither player has yet noticed. The FIDE arbiter walks by and notices White’s flag has fallen; and two seconds later he also notices that Black’s flag has fallen.
According to a literal reading of the FIDE rules, the honest arbiter must declare White the loser, because in the terminology of the rules White’s flag fell first. To me this outcome seems arbitrary and unfair:
If you think [i]that's[/i] unfair, you'll never believe what happens to you under FIDE Rules if your flag falls and your opponent has only King and Knight.
You have neatly isolated the major reason for many of the differences between FIDE rules and USCF rules. Very roughly, FIDE rules were written under the assumption that an arbiter can see everything of importance that happens in every game. When the rules were written, this was largely true - it is becoming less and less so. USCF rules tend to assume that there simply aren’t enough TDs to go around, and some responsibility has been shifted to the players. At an event where you have to go to another room to find a TD, this is a NECESSARY assumption!
that doesn’t mean that you can throw technology at the problem and have the clock solve things. the problem is harder than that. Ask any TD who has handled at least 1000 time forfeit claims.
That’s precisely why you are not allowed to use FIDE time forfeit procedure in USCF tournaments unless there will be an arbiter present at each game in time pressure to call the flag.
Now I wonder about something the English Chess Federation (formerly BCF) president said about the chess rules used by the ECF.
I mentioned how the USCF has itself in a mess with its McKay publishing contract for its own chess rules. I asked how the ECF handles its rules.
The fellow replied that the ECF does not bother having its own rules, that it just defers to FIDE’s rules.
Now I wonder how that could be? Maybe the ECF solves these problems with common sense, rather than formalized written rules? Naw, there must be a better explanation.
.
Much of the elaboration in the USCF rules is probably unnecessary – e.g., the FIDE rule about “no mate possible even with very bad defense” covers all those concrete examples the USCF rules use instead. However, the largest part of the USCF Rulebook is Swiss pairing rules. Perhaps the BCF uses the FIDE pairing rules, but frankly, they’re not very good. Like it or not, the U.S. is far ahead of the rest of the world in organizing and running large Swiss tournaments.
No. FIDE Rules appear to permit helpmate positions (“mate IS possible (but ONLY) with the most unskilled defense”) to qualify as “mating material sufficient to win on time.” Under FIDE Rules if you have a lone King and your opponent has a King and Knight, the game is a draw when your flag falls, because you cannot get mated no matter how unskilled you are. But if you have a King AND Rook and your opponent once again only has a King and Knight, you LOSE when your flag falls, because it is possible for you to play much more unskillfully with that extra Rook than without it. USCF Rules don’t allow that-- precisely because of their elaboration of this point (e.g., King + Knight or Bishop is not sufficient mating material, regardless of what material the opponent has).
Just because something is easy to understand doesn’t mean that it makes sense.
Can you document this claim? I don’t believe it’s correct. 14E (Insufficient material to win on time) mentions only lone K, K+B or K+N, and K+2Ns. Only the last would not be covered by the FIDE rule.
14E. Insufficient material to win on time. The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit if one of the folowing conditions exists:
14E2. King and bishop or king and knight. Opponent has only king and bishop or king and knight, and does not have a forced win.
This actually was from the other thread about this issue, under Chess Life Articles. When Josh Friedel’s flag fell in a recent tournament in Europe, according to the article, he had King and Rook and his opponent had King and Knight. Under USCF Rule 14E2, the result would be a draw. Under FIDE Rules, because it is possible to helpmate oneself with the Rook and King in the corner, Friedel lost.
Okay, that seems to be correct. I think it’s a bad rule, though. For one thing, it’s illogical. Suppose a player has K+Q vs. K+N. The first player’s flag falls. The game is drawn. Suppose instead we have K+Q vs. K+P on it’s original square. The second player wins on time. The FIDE rule is simpler and better. If you have mating material (defined as material with which mate is possible, you can win on time. Otherwise not. There are a number fo things I dislike about the FIDE rules (such as the excessive latitude given to arbiters in “insufficient losing chances” situations), but this is not one of them.
Later: Another problem I have with the USCF rule is the (necessary) inclusion of “unless there is a forced win.” This was presumably intended to cover a situation like: W: Kh6, Rg8, Bg6; B: Kh6. Rb7, Nd6. Black plays 1. … Rh7+ and after 2. Bxh7 White’s flag falls. Obviously you can’t rule this a draw (or White would simply let his flag fall instead of getting mated). This is bad because a) TDs shouldn’t be engaging in adjudication, period, and b) why stop arbitrarily at one move? Why not two, three, four?