During an OTB chess duel (games are more entertainment oriented) white makes a move and proceeds to record on his log without hitting the clock. Black then makes a move (do not know how long), but white is outraged and stops the clock and calls the TD over. White states black made an illegal move on his time. The floor TD assessed black a penalty adding two minutes to white’s clock.
One thought is that there are matches where a dueler forgets to hit the clock and the engagement proceeds a few to many moves while one side’s clock continues to run. How would the rulebook be applied to these situations?
Another scenario is where side B sits there deliberating, sighing, staring at the board, and looking at me to the point of being comical. Whereas side A gets a flash that side B is eating up his time and hits the clock. Both the last two scenes are typical of my chess, usually after much time has expired and the battle is heated.
Well, if Black’s move was illegal, then the TD was correct in adding the time to White’s clock, though I don’t understand why White would be outraged over an illegal move. If White’s claim is just that Black moved on White’s time, that’s another story. Rule 9 pretty clearly points out the differences between determining and completing a move. Really, the only reason you’d want to wait after determining a move to complete it is to offer a draw. In any case, Guert Gjissen says that the FIDE rule is that the player is always allowed to press his clock, so that if White moves, then Black moves, White is allowed to press his clock without moving, that is he can complete his move even after Black has determined his following move. I think that’s reasonable.
Black made a move after White determined a move, but before he completed it. The rules don’t cover this situation, so far as I can find, including mentioning any penalties for doing it. It is interesting to consider whether Black’s touching pieces when White is technically “on move” is subject to the touch-move rule, since that applies only to touching a piece when the player is on move. I suppose if a player regularly moved when it was not his turn yet (after determination, but not completion) it could be deemed an illegal annoyance.
Interesting…since Black was not yet on-move…and not entitled to touch any pieces (even to adjust)…then I could see how any Black move could be considered illegal.
Where in the rules do you find a rule that states that the player not on move is not entitled to touch or adjust pieces? The adjustment rule only says that if the player on move wishes to adjust pieces he may do so, first announcing his intention of doing so by saying “I adjust”. This does not rule out the player not on move adjusting pieces.
Of course, in the scenario under discussion, Black did more than merely “adjust” a piece.
When I first read the rulebook, I remember being very surprised that it doesn’t cover this situation. Having coached a chess team for 9 years, I knew that it’s fairly common for a player to move and forget to hit his button, and for the other player fail to notice this and to go ahead and make his own move.
It could be considered a violation of Rule 20G (distracting or annoying behavior). Adjusting a piece when the other player is on move could interfere with that player executing his move, costing him time on his clock. I could imagine this being a very effective strategy when your opponent is down to the last few seconds on his clock.
The question is what penaties, if any, would apply. Rule 11D stipulates a 2 minute penalty only if the player making the illegal move has completed it by pressing his button (the rationale, I gather, is that if the error is recognized before the player hits his button, it did not cost the other player any time, but if it isn’t recognized until after he hits his button, it has caused the other player an indeterminate amount of time, so the other player deserves 2 extra minutes to make up for it). But in this case, Black couldn’t have pressed his button, since it was already down.
Assuming that White paused the clock before calling me over, I’d require Black to take back his move and wait until White hit his button before making it. And I’d restart the clock on White’s time, allowing him to offer a draw if he so chose.
There is also no rule saying that a player can’t place a piece of cardboard between his opponent and the board when his opponent is on-move. There is also no rule saying that a player can’t pick up his king and twirl it when his opponent is on-move. Do you really think that we need a specific rule/clarification in the rulebook for everything that a player can’t do? Touching the pieces while off-move would certainly fall under annoying behavior. But I wouldn’t think that even that is necessary. Nowhere does it say that a person off-move is allowed to adjust, so why would anyone think they are allowed to do something when the equivalent action for a player on-move is given detailed rules?
In earlier editions of the rulebook a clarification was given: “As stated in Article 8.1. it is only the player whose turn it is to move who may adjust pieces on their squares” where Article 8.1 just said “Providing that he first warns his opponent, the player whose turn it is to move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.” Given that they believed the rule then did not allow an off-move player to adjust, the current rule also wouldn’t.
Judging from what some posters are saying, I’d say a change in the wording of the rule is in order. It is ridiculous to consider penalizing a player when his opponent neglects to press his clock – especially when neither player has noticed the lapse.
The rule could simply be, “A player must be given a reasonable opportunity to press the clock after moving.” This could be followed by a TD Tip: “A TD who wishes a more precise definition of ‘reasonable opportunity’ may use the following guideline: 5 seconds regular, 3 seconds quick, 2 seconds blitz.”
In other words, if your opponent has not pressed his clock within 5 seconds after determining his move, you should feel free to go ahead and make your move (or adjust a piece, etc).
I know that blitz and regular chess are different, but there was something similar that happened in the 2005 Supernationals blitz. Some players made their first move, did not hit their clock, and then tried to claim an illegal move win (per the blitz rules) when their opponents responded. That attempt didn’t fly that far.
Also in blitz, the rule is that the moving player has a chance to hit the clock even though moves often end up overlapping (such as in the US Women’s play-off a little while back).
If the opponent in this particular situation was responding almost immediately I can see giving a warning the first time (just as in the scholastic blitz rules), and then raising the penalty for later occurences.
If it was a case of white forgetting to hit the clock (or taking some time to decide on whether or not to offer a draw) then Bob McAdams came up with one of the possible reasonable options.
Any possible action by black can be interpreted as a problem. It could be seen as distracting white by pointing to or mentioning the clock while white is deciding on whether or not to offer a draw. It could be seen as taking advantage of white’s oversight by saying and doing nothing and letting the clock run down (a number of areas may see that perfectly legal inaction as impolite or ruthless or unethical). Bill Smythe has mentioned letting his opponent know the first time the clock is unhit, and that bit of politeness could theoretically leave Bill open to a complaint of distraction.
Rather than give a definitive answer as to exactly what the TD’s action should be, I’d rather give the TD a chance to decide whether or not there was any intent to distract an opponent, and if not then whether or not it is reasonable to decide that an unintentional distraction occurred or if there was nothing that happened to deserve a penalty.
Keep in mind that these so-called distractions are occurring after a player has already determined a move. At worst, the “distracted” player could claim that he was distracted from his musings about offering a draw or making some kind of claim. Otherwise, it is hard to see what he is being distracted from. Finding the clock, perhaps?
One rationale for the player’s anger may be, “I make my move, record it, then hit my clock, and I don’t want the other player moving until I’ve recorded my move and then completed it as it distracts my train of thought.” I know that I used to be confused sometimes as I make a move and as I record it my opponent has already moved. It doesn’t happen to me anymore, but it’s a possibility.
When I play, I am usually OK with quietly letting my opponent know once or twice that they need to press the clock, I’ll glance significantly at the clock on the second or third time, then I’ll just sit there and let my opponent’s clock run. But that’s me.
What I’m a little confused by is if the claim about an illegal move was because the other player’s move was, in fact, an impossible move, or if the claim was the move was illegal because the other player was not on the move.
If it’s the latter, I’d be far less inclined to assess a penalty the first go around (thinking more a warning that the player must wait until the other’s move is completed would be in order on a regular time control…) It is far more common to have players forget to hit their clocks (and play should proceed if both sides are willing) than it is to have a player who insists on the other player not moving until the move is completed.
At any rate, I’d agree that this is something that should be left to the TD’s judgment. The notion of editing the rulebook to say “a reasonable amount of time” would do exactly the same thing - place the ball in the court of the TD as to what “reasonable” is. It would also require an independent witness in practice. There is a reason for Rule 1A.
I clicked the “quote” button a half-hour ago, planning to respond in suitable fashion, once I grasped the meaning of the quoted material.
My fingers fail me—plus it would be too easy to get snide here, to put it politely. So let me ask: How did the TDs handle this situation? Was this still in the WBCA era or were these games Quick-rated?
They were quick-rated using the scholastic council’s blitz variations (referenced in the pre-event publicity) that includes a loss for an illegal move (capturing the opponent’s hanging king is treated as identifying the opponent’s illegal move).
I had a flight delay so I arrived after the event, but I heard that the claims were summarily dismissed and the games allowed to continue. I don’t know if any warnings were issued and, if they were, to which players they were issued.
Solution is to simplify rule 5H. Rephrase the rule that describes when you are allowed to stop your own clock, as:
"Any player may stop either his clock or his opponent’s clock whenever his opponent must make the next move on the board. No player is ever obliged to press his own clock.
Typically a player with common sense will stop his clock immediately after his hand leaves the piece he just moved on the board. When interacting with the clock, needless actions that distract the opponent can be penalized.
When you are the player who must make the next move on the board, you can make your move at any time regardless of whose clock is ticking."
This utterly discredits the move counter on the clock; which is already not be to taken seriously.
. .
