Author: Reynolds Takata
Date: 00:56:38 01/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
> >>I have always thought a director had to >>make a decision on claims based on which came first? If that is the case a >>person might be able to call no losing chances even if their flag has fallen if >>the opponent hasn't called flag(this is yet to be tested:)). > >I disagree (not with the general rule of which claim came first, but with your >example of it). > Well as i said it is yet to be tested. To some degree i agree with you and to some degree i don't. The don't part is because of the spirit of the no losing chances rule. Which was developed so that people wouldn't lose a totally winning or drawing position on time (ex Q+Q+Q+K vs K+P). And the precedent for the clock not always being the judge for instance is when you have a (K+Q vs K) even if the person who had the queens flag falls they don't lose the game because essentially the POSITION is a draw(position dictating as opposed to clock). Until recently in fact there wasn't even this use of the clock, I believe the rule just stated that if the tournament director judges that a C player could force a draw or win with a master, then the TD had the option to declare the game drawn(this rule has been amended to the way described previous). The rule wasn't changed because of the spirit of the rule, but because disputes were always arising people saying "that a C player could or couldn't EASILY force a draw" thus the rule was subjective and brought about disputes as it was. So i still hold that it might be reasonable that a person claims no losing chances before the claim of flag is made, then perhaps the no losing chances should be ruled on and a second given on the clock. Time can be given(in my game i mentioned above i had 3 secs when i called no losing chance. The clock we used didn't have half seconds so i was given 2 secs on the delay. Anyway this is getting away from computer chess >To claim no losing chances, you should (or have to, I'm not sure) stop the clock >to involve the TD. If you stop the clock to make the claim and your flag has >fallen and your opponent doesn't notice that the flag has fallen, it would seem >to me that it would be unfair for the TD to allow the claim. The TD should deny >the claim, regardless of the position since you DO have a losing chance (your >flag fell, you have technically lost, even if your opponent has not yet noticed >it). He should say, "You have a losing chance, play on.". He should not tell why >you have a losing chance, it is up to your opponent to see why. > >This would be the fair thing and would correspond to other rules. For example, >if you mate an opponent and you hit your flag and your flag falls while hitting >it, your opponent can claim that you lose on time, even though it "appears" that >he is mated. The clock takes precedence (as long as your opponent notices it). > >If your flag has fallen and you have to change to a digital clock with delay, >the TD should claim that "You lose.", even if your opponent does not notice the >flag. Why? Because there is no time left, hence, the TD cannot place 0 seconds >on the clock. > >KarinsDad
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.