What follows are the findings of the appeals comittee regarding a dispute in a rapid play game (20 minutes each) played on 2nd March 2017 at Newport. The game was played between Olusegun Ilesanmi and Munroe Morrison. The result was first adjudicated by the rapidplay league controller (Chris Lewis) with an appeal subsequently made against the controllers decision.
Background
Whites (Ile's) king has just taken blacks final pawn on h5. Before Ile pressed his clock his flag fell and Munroe claimed a win on time following his interpretation of rule 6.2a that a move is not completed until the clock is pressed. A dispute resulted with Francis Best (Shrewsbury Captain) conceding a loss following his understanding of the rules. Ile never accepted this result subsequently lodging an official request for arbitration.
The league controller reviewed the submitted appeals and concluded the result should have been a draw. This decision was then appealed by Priorslee.
An appeals panel consisting of Alf Evans, Nick Rutter and Andrew Davies were asked by the General Secretary to the SCA, Glyn Pugh to resolve the appeal. What follows are details of the appeal and the appeal committees ruling.
Appendix 1 contains details of the original appeal to the league controller and the league controllers initial ruling
Appendix 2 contains the subsequent appeal by Priorslee Chess Club
Appendix 3 contains the findings of the appeals committee
Appendix 4 Other technical points on FIDE rules
Appendix 1 - Original Appeal to the league controller
Email from Ile 03/03/17
Dear Chris,
I was playing white. M.Morris was playing black.
I had pawns on f4, f3, h4.
White king on h5 having just captured a black pawn.
Black king on e7.
Black then claimed a win on time almost simultaneously as I captured the last pawn. Please note that he claimed by throwing his hands up in the air, not by stopping the clocks and definitely not on his own as he had several prompts from his team mates who had gathered around us and were already constituting significant interference.
I then said he had no mating material but he insisted that I hadn't completed my move since I hadn't pressed the clock! The position at the point of his claim was as described above.
I have looked at FIDE rule 4.6 as evidence for what I believe stands as a completed move.
- When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is then considered to have been made:
- in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand.
Thanks very much.
Ille
Email from Munro 04/03/17
Hi Chris,
I will keep my 'version of events' as factual as possible.
The game had a very tense finish, but as it wound to a conclusion, I had around a minute left while Mr Ilesanmi was clearly running out of time.
In essence, Mr Ilesanmi did not complete his final move - which may have been a draw due to lack mating material - before his flag fell. To me, the final position is irrelevant, since my opponent did not complete his move before he lost on time. His claim for a draw would have to be made after pressing his clock with his flag still intact.
The actual sequence of events was this:
As Mr Ilesanmi was grabbing my final pawn, I looked at the clock and saw his flag had fallen. He knocked a pawn on the floor as he was taking it, and made no attempt to press his clock. He then claimed the draw. I told him that his flag had fallen, therefore he had lost. Mr Ilesanmi replied that I had no mating material left, so it had to be a drawn position. His claim for a draw would have to be made after pressing his clock with his flag still intact. This episode was clearly witnessed by Mr Francis Best (a neutral voice) and Gary White from my team, both very experienced players. I do not feel this is a 'my word against his' situation, since these facts are not in dispute.
Please note that I had no 'outside help' from team mates or anyone else, it was clear his flag had fallen, and I was expecting it to happen. That event stopped the game, as I was well aware of how short he was on time. Mr Ilesanmi did not attempt to claim (or offer) a draw in anticipation of a final position with no mating material.
Mr Ilesanmi protested to Mr Best in quite a forceful manner over the what I believed to be the correct match result. For this reason, I walked over to the other side of the playing hall specifically to avoid any sort of confrontation since I knew that Mr Best and Mr White had seen the events first hand, and they had a 'clear head' away from the emotion of the situation the players clearly felt. I tried to behave in as professional way as possible in a heated situation. Mr Ilesanmi carried on protesting for some time afterward until eventually, the Shrewsbury team left. The win was given to Priorslee Lions and the overall match score was a draw. This is the correct result.
I hope this helps, and if you have any further questions please get back to me,
Munroe
Email from Gary White 04/03/17
Chris,
I have forwarded the e-mail onto Munroe.
I was watching the last moments of this game along with a number of other spectators. I must strongly refute that there were any "prompts from his team mates" and there was most certainly not any "significant interference".
As I saw it:-
Ile played Kxh5 - Munroe's last pawn - the pawn ended up on the floor and as Ile was positioning his king on the square, Munroe said "you're flag has fallen". It was then that Ile claimed a draw due to no mating material.
BUT - Ile had not pressed his clock to complete the move. Even if he had pressed the clock, the claim for loss on time supersedes any other claim as the time control finishes the game.
Francis Best was also watching and attempted to defuse the situation. As the result of a win for Munroe was submitted, we assumed that Francis had succeeded in explaining the rule to Ile and that all was ok.
Regards
Gary
League Controllers Decision
The League controller believed the following FIDE Rules to be relevant to his decision:
4.7 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is considered to have been made in the case of:
- a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand.
5.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
6.2 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
- the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c, 9.6a, 9.6b and 9.7),
League Controllers Interpretation of Rules:
Under rule 6.2a the move is considered completed if the move ends the game as per 5.2a. 5.2a states the game is draw if a position is released if the position is such that neither player can checkmate the opponents king with any series of legal moves. The move must have been made in accordance with 4.7. 4.7 states the move is considered made in the case of a capture when the piece is removed from the chessboard and the opponents piece is placed on the new square with the hand released. A piece "knocked on the floor" still qualifies as being removed from the board.
League Controllers interpretation of the events on the night:
"In making my decision I relied most heavily on the following statement in MM's email:
'As Mr Ilesanmi was grabbing my final pawn, I looked at the clock and saw his flag had fallen. He knocked a pawn on the floor as he was taking it, and made no attempt to press his clock. He then claimed the draw. I told him that his flag had fallen, therefore he had lost. '
From this I interpreted that it was strongly implied that the winning claim was not made until after the pawn was taken. This is because I considered it highly unlikely that Ile would have made his draw offer until after he had made his move and even more unlikely his hand would not have been released from the piece as he was making his draw offer. I felt, short of any independent witnesses which I've been unable to find willing to testify (there were observers but none were watching closely enough to know exactly what happened when), that this statement is the most reliable account of what happened.
I also took into account what I considered to be "fair" in the position. And I felt that claiming a win on a mere technicality when positionally you're 3 pawns down wasn't a fair result. As no hard evidence of what happened was available I did consider fairness in my decision.
I know Priorslee are likely to claim that because Francis accepted the loss on Ile's behalf, the loss should stand contrary to conflicting evidence. I was present on the night albeit at a distance, and Ile was very agitated as he had a few Priorslee players all trying to claim the win on a technicality he disagreed with. The situation was becoming quite heated so Francis accepted the loss on the teams behalf in an attempt to defuse the situation and because Francis believed at the time that pressing the clock was a requirement for the position to be drawn. Clearly Francis error'd here but I felt that because Ile never conceded the result, he had a right to an appeal."
League Controllers Decision:
The game to be declared a draw with the result adjusted on the Shropshire site.
Appendix 2 - Priorslees Appeal
Email from Gary White dated 17th May 2017 to Appeals Panel
Dear all,
Attached is the official appeal submitted to the Shropshire Chess Association by Priorslee Lions Chess Club. The entire crux of this matter is about the timing and sequence of events; the game result ultimately comes down to which came first - one side will say that Munroe claimed the flag-fall first to win the game, whilst one side will say that Ile's 'king takes pawn' created a 'no mating material' position and so the game is drawn. However, there are two unquestionable facts:-
1) The game result on the night was accepted by Shrewsbury as a loss.
2) The official match result of 2-2 was submitted (by Newport, as they were hosts) onto the Shropshire website.
The entire basis of the Priorslee appeal is this:-
For the official match result to be changed should have required 100% proof from Shrewsbury that Ile had completed his King x Pawn move BEFORE Munroe claimed the win on time. As this is impossible without video evidence means that the change of result is unsound and should be reversed.
Regards,
Gary White
Secretary
Priorslee Lions Chess Club
Appeal submitted by Priorslee Lions
The initial protest or appeal should have been officially instigated from Shrewsbury Chess Club, and not directly from an individual player.
Their appeal should have to be proved conclusively before the game result was changed; also taking into account evidence from Priorslee Lions Chess Club and any other witnesses at the same time, otherwise the Shrewsbury appeal should be rejected.
On the night, there were a number of other players watching the end of this game. A Priorslee player, Tony Preece, noticed that Olusegun Ilesanmi’s flag had fallen a few seconds before the final moves had been played and even had time to quietly mention this fact to the Shrewsbury captain, Francis Best, who was also watching. This supports the reasoning that Shrewsbury accepted the result of a win for Munroe Morrison and it was that result which was entered on the score sheet, based on the fact that Olusegun Ilesanmi’s flag had fallen and so had lost on time. This result was also entered into the Shropshire Chess website and is therefore the official result of the game.
Priorslee Lions wish to appeal this decision based on the following:-
- A protest from an individual player should not be accepted.
- As Olusegun played king takes pawn (the pawn ended up on the floor) Munroe claimed “your flag has fallen” BEFORE the king was released, so that move was not completed before the loss on time was claimed.
- It was only after the flag-fall claim that Olusegun claimed the game to be a draw.
- This excerpt from Olusegun’s Ilesanmi’s original e-mail to Chris Lewis clearly demonstrates that the flag-fall was claimed BEFORE the draw was claimed:-“Black then claimed a win on time almost simultaneously as I captured the last pawn….I then said he had no mating material but he insisted that I hadn't completed my move”
- It should be for Shrewsbury to 100% prove their case that the draw claim was made first and NOT for Priorslee to have to prove that the flag-fall claim was made first.
- The loss on time was accepted on the night by the Shrewsbury team
Without video evidence to prove 100% the exact timing of events, how can the official game result be overturned, as the protest cannot be proven. It is impossible for Olusegun Ilesanmi to prove that he claimed the draw before Munroe Morrison claimed the flag-fall. Just because the final position on the board after Kxh5 leaves Munroe Morrison with “no means to win” does NOT automatically make this position a draw.
Priorslee Lions believe that the original official result should stand and hope that the appeal committee will reach the same conclusion.
Appendix 3 - Findings of the Appeals Committee
What follows is the appeals committee's comment to each of the points raised in Priorslees appeal (Priorslees statements are in blue).
"A protest from an individual player should not be accepted."
The league rules allow appeals and do not state that this must be from the club rather than an individual player. Francis Best for Shrewsbury in any case has stated in his recent Email that the club supports the players case.
"As Olusegun played king take pawn (the pawn ended up on the floor) Munroe claimed, "your flag has fallen" BEFORE the king was released, so that move was not completed before the loss on time was claimed."
The panel believe that the statement from Munroe suggests the move had been completed.
"It was only after the flag-fall claim that Olusegun claimed the game to be a draw."
It is not important when the draw claim is made, only when the last pawn is taken. However, the commentary from Munroe says “The actual sequence of events was……then he claimed the draw. I told him that his flag had fallen therefore he had lost..”.
"This excerpt from Olusegun Ilesanmi's original e-mail to Chris Lewis clearly demonstrates that the flag-fall was claimed BEFORE the draw was claimed:-
'Black then claimed a win on time almost simultaneously as I captured the last pawn...I then said he had no mating material but he insisted that I hadn't completed my move' "
Munroes’s commentary gave the sequence as: Ile plays his move, Ile claims a draw, Munroe claims a flag fall, Ile states there is insufficient mating material. So, Ile's statement is consistent with this and does not demonstrate that the flag fall was claimed first.
"It should be for Shrewsbury to 100% prove their case that the draw claim was made first and NOT for Priorslee to have to prove that the flag-fall claim was made first."
The League rules state that it is for the League Controller to decide on any appeal and for a panel to then decide on any appeals to his decision. It is a matter for those making these decisions to decide on the level of proof required. It is the case that the captains are there at the time and therefore their opinions and decisions should be given due weight. However, it is clear that in this case they were mistaken in believing the clock needed to be pressed before the move was complete.
"The loss on time was accepted on the night by the Shrewsbury team."
Shrewsbury conceded on the night because they thought that the game was lost because Ile had not pressed his clock after his final move. But the right of appeal exists, so this is not relevant.
Other Points
Priorslee Lions have made a number of other points in their submission, which we have considered and commented on.
Issues of timing
A key issue for the Panel to consider is whether the “flag fall” claim was made before or after the move Kxh5 was completed.
In the Email by MM of 4/3/2017 he states:
'The actual sequence of events was this:
As Mr Ilesanmi was grabbing my final pawn, I looked at the clock and saw his flag had fallen. He knocked a pawn on the floor as he was taking it, and made no attempt to press his clock. He then claimed the draw. I told him that his flag had fallen, therefore he had lost. Mr Ilesanmi replied that I had no mating material left, so it had to be a drawn position. His claim for a draw would have to be made after pressing his clock with his flag still intact.'
The order of the events, as stated, supports the conclusion that the move had been completed before the “flag fall” claim.
The king can only move one square at a time, so moving to h5 would have been from an adjacent square. This would be carried out very quickly, particularly in time trouble.
The Panel is of the view that this move would only take around one second to play and whilst it is possible, we believe it would be unlikely, that the Flag fall claim would have occurred between the move commencing and finishing. Whilst this is not in itself conclusive, when taken together with our other comments leads us to believe that the move was completed before the flag fall claim.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined in this report, taking account of the representations from the players and the clubs, it is the conclusion of the Appeals Panel that the decision of the Rapidplay League Controller should stand and the game should be considered drawn.
Appendix 4 - Other technical points
The panel have a few technical points to make regarding which FIDE rules are relevant, although these did not have an impact on the decision of the Panel.
Completion of Moves and Claiming of the win on time
The league controller referred to FIDE 6.2 as part of his decision.
"6.2 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
- the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c, 9.6a, 9.6b and 9.7), "
6.2 applies to standard-play games. FIDE appendix A applies to rapid-play games and, because of the situation, appendix A4 rather than A3. FIDE A4c then seems most relevant to what happened:
"To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop the clock and notify the arbiter." (there was no arbiter present). "For the claim to be successful, the claimant must have time remaining on his own clock after the chess clock has been stopped. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves."
Allowing for there being no arbiter, in a sense, this seems to give a clearer guide for situations like this. It says both that the winner needs to have time remaining, and winning material on the board.
Drawn positions
The league controller also made reference to FIDE 5.2b, but that does not apply to this position.
"The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which 'neither' player can give checkmate to the opponent's king 'with any series of legal moves'. The game is said to end in a "dead position. This immediately ends the game provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 - 4.7."
Firstly, this rule assumes both players still have time on their clock.
Secondly, this only applies if 'neither' player could give checkmate. The key phrase in the wording being "with any series of legal moves." It does not say "against best opposition." Starting from the position before Kxh5. If either player makes a series of legal moves, simply taking their king to a1, the opponent could capture the opposing pawns, promote and give checkmate.