My understanding is that the flag falling does not count until it’s claimed. If it’s claimed before the Queen takes Pawn move is completed, wouldn’t that be a win (out of time)?
The position has not changed. It only can be changed by a move (and not by a touch).
So the position stands. KQ-KP and a fallen flag.
That was the general opinion from the arbiters' discussion that I read.
The argument against being that once the pawn has been touched, the only allowed move is one that turns the position into K+Q vs K, and so no sequence of allowed moves can lead to checkmate.
But the general arbiter opinion was that a move other than QxP would be legal (even if forbidden by the touch move rule) and so there would still be a sequence of legal moves that led to checkmate, hence a loss for the K+Q side.
@piscatorox where does one find 'arbitration puzzles'? that is digging in deep
So if there is 5 seconds left on the clock, and a player creates a checkmate win, but for some unclear reason fails to stop the clock, then they could be flagged even with a physical checkmate on the board, correct?
No, no, no.
-opponent has the move
-stalemate, insufficient material, stalemate, the position count; furthermore no need to press the clock
Move completed meaning pressed the clock:
-necessary to pass the time-control
PS: #13, imagine touching a piece would lead to a forced mate in 10 moves . You think you can claim the full point in case of a time-out having the touched the right piece before?
If a stalemate and insufficient material, checkmate or insufficient material all constitute the end of the game, without having to press the clock to signify that the game was completed on time, then I do not understand the inconsistency in the arbitration.
1. Doesn't it make everything MUCH easier if it's simply stipulated that you need to finish your move and press the clock to prove that it was finished on time, instead of having an arbiter make a decision on a split-second finish?
(Why not just have the clock prove it?)
2. If it is the case that a game is complete the second that there is a physical checkmate on the board, and there is no further need to press the clock, then simply touching your opponent's piece, if it's an 'only-move-checkmate', should likewise end the game.
It makes WAY more sense to simply say:
"Every chess player shall officially signify his turn as 'complete' by stopping the clock. Until such action is taken, no move shall be deemed present or legitimate."
Or simply put:
"Regardless of the position on the board, until you stop the clock, your turn is not complete and it is not official."
At first, the rules define play without clocks, that's the basics. The clock comes later.
As mentioned before, if a move has been made the opponent has the move and is allowed to move even if the move has not been completed by pressing the clock. This is somewhat weird but legal. However, everyone has the right to complete every move even if the opponent has moved meanwhile.
@Onyx_Chess It would be a defensible and reasonable position for the rules to state that regardless of position (including checkmate), you need to press the clock for the move to count.
However these aren't the rules, and it is also defensible (as the rules do) to hold that once checkmate occurs, the game is immediately over, there is no need to press the clock and no further moves can count.
This also holds for e.g. 5-fold repetition; which also immediately ends the game (in contrast to 3-fold repetition which has to be claimed). There have been occasional high-level games where a 5-fold repetition was followed by a later checkmate, and the checkmate was subsequently held to be invalid as the game immediately ended once 5-fold repetition occurred.
@sparowe14 You can find these sorts of arbitration questions through eg the FIDE arbiters magazine, or similar national ones. A recent high-profile one was Carlsen- Firouzja, in which Firzouja lost on time in a K+B+pawns vs K+B endgame (as there was a sequence of legal moves that led to checkmate).
Firstly, thank you for the clarification and information. I was not aware of that instance, nor the 5-move resignation.
So with 0.01 seconds left on the clock, it's actually up to the arbiter who won? Wow. (I thought that I misread that.)
How is this process of any advantage compared to letting the clock tell the objective truth?
Simply put, what is the upside to having the arbiter make the spit-second call?
I fully understand how my point is defensible, but I'm unclear what the argument is for having a fallible arbiter try to keep his eye on the clock like an umpire trying to call a close play at 1st?
Would you elaborate on their rationale for this?
What is their argument?