In FIDE rated invitational RR event can Arbiter tell player to press the clock if he/she forgot to do so?
Tim Just didn’t know and sent me to Forums!
I can’t find it in the Rules.
I say “yes”.
Perhaps you did not see this rule because it is in “Article 12–The Role of the Arbiter”, not in “Article 6–The Chessclock.”
Thanks. I missed that.
But that seems to contradict other rules that say:
Arbiter can call fallen flags and move violations (without a claim by a player)
Arbiter can call declare the game a draw (without a claim) after 5-fold repetition or the new “75-move rule”
Which are examples of “interfering in the game”.
Leaving a clock in the wrong position could lead to a clock being off in “move count” and so potential problems when moving into the next time control.
As well as, after a while, the wrong player thinking it was his turn to move. (I have seen that situation especially with us older players, or with someone just returning from the restroom.)
I think the arbiter can intervene to correct the move count, but that is only after the opponent has responded to the move, preferably and attempted to press the clock. The opponent should not be deprived of his increment.
Alex Relyea
With some clocks when the opponent attempts to press the clock, he/she might not realize it hadn’t been pushed and increments and movecounts get all messed up.
Regardless of other concerns, I suggest you follow 12.6
Clocks are not determinative of the move count anyway. Score sheets are.
Fair enough, so what if we look for a possible pattern in the rules, or the idea behind them.
All the intervention rules you mention are potential “game-enders” in FIDE. If the game is over, the arbiter is allowed to call it.
Failing to notice your own clock running is not a game-ender, it is part of the conduct of a game still in progress. So, hands off for the arbiter.
That’s probably an oversimplification of FIDE rules, and it’s different in USCF rules, but that’s one possible way to look at it. I’m sure others will jump in here.
Whether the clock is digital or analog, all you have to do is look at the clock to know whose move it is.
That’s what happened, the guy returned from the restroom, saw by the clock that it was his move so he made a move. His opponent claimed he made an illegal move by moving twice… as he was taking advantage of all the extra time.
And to respond to the other answer above that it was all on game-ending situations. … The Arbiter can intervene when a move violation (ie. illegal move) is made, and that may not be a game-ender. He could let the illegal move go one until the players are finally in a legal position (though the game would probably be unplayable if one wanted to review it.)
Something similar happened at the HB Global (USCF rules). The opponent claimed the illegal move before the double mover actually hit the clock, so the position was returned to the completed move and the clock was finally hit with no other penalty applied (well, the double-mover then joked to a friend about what happened and did end up receiving a time penalty - for violating the talking rules).
No, under the competition rules (essentially equivalent to the US Chess rules for regular rated events), the arbiter may not allow an observed illegal move stand.
An arbiter may never remind a player to press the clock, under any circumstances whatsoever.
So, he made his move, forgot to hit his clock, went to the restroom (while his opponent waited patiently, not moving), then returned from the restroom, saw his clock running, and moved again. Then his opponent claimed illegal move.
In USCF that wouldn’t be a huge deal. Worst case is the opponent would get two minutes added. But in FIDE, it’s two minutes to the opponent for the first offense, and a LOSS to the player if it’s the second offense if you’re playing by competition rules. Ouch!
Arbiters, is there some other way – other than an illegal move – that an arbiter would interpret moving on the opponent’s time?
Technically, under the FIDE Laws of Chess, this situation does not constitute an illegal move. Article 3.10.a defines a legal move: “A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1-3.9 have been fulfilled.” Article 3.10.b then states the natural definition of an illegal move, given 3.10.1: A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1-3.9." Articles 3.1 through 3.9 are the rules describing how the pieces move. Article 1.1 documents that the players alternate making moves, so a violation of article 1.1 should not be considered an illegal move.
I personally believe it is unfortunate that, for all the bulk of the Official Rules of Chess, the US Chess rules don’t actually define “illegal move.”
Seems to me it might be difficult to define “illegal move”. What if a piece moves halfway between two squares, with either being a legal move? Or what if only one of the two is legal? Or neither?
What if a player moves several pieces, and only one of these moves is legal? Or what if more than one is legal?
What if a player picks up two pieces, moves both to the same square, and either move alone is legal? e.g. Ra1-a3 and Bc1-a3 (with no pieces or pawns intervening at a2 or b2)?
Or what if a player moves a queen (say from b6) and lays it horizontally across his two rooks at a6 and a7?
Bill Smythe
I assume I should answer these based on the FIDE rules, as the FIDE Laws of Chess define “illegal move” and the US Chess rules do not. Then again, I may be misunderstanding the intention of the question.
Article 3 of the Laws of Chess describes how the pieces move. The language in article 3 mentions pieces moving to “a square” or “the square.” All of the rules are worded such that when a piece is moved , it ends up occupying one square only. If the player has placed the piece in such a way that it is ambiguous which square the piece occupies, then the player has made an illegal move insofar as the player has failed to meet the requirements of articles 3.1 through 3.9.
Here, the question is the order of picking up pieces and putting them down.
Hypothetical: Suppose the game starts 1. d4 d5. Then White picks up the bishop on c1, then the queen on d1, places the bishop on f4, and returns the queen to d1. Technically, this is a legal move. Under the FIDE rules, technically, this is a legal move which also complies with article 4.3 (touch move). However, I will penalize the player (with a warning for a first offense) under article 11.5 (annoying behavior).
If the player instead places the queen on d2 and returns the bishop to c1, this is also technically a legal move but violates article 4.3.
There is an inherent limit to how many pieces most players can pick up at one time. Article 4.1 requires that each move must be made with one hand only. I suppose if Franz Liszt were playing, he could hold many pieces in one hand. 
It is, of course, possible that the player attempts to move two or more pieces such that each move by itself complies with articles 3.1 through 3.9. For instance, after 1. d4 d5, White could then pick up the knight on b1 and the bishop on c1, place the knight on c3, and the bishop on f4. Both moves are legal in that they both comply with articles 3.1 through 3.9. However, the player is in violation of article 4.3 and gets a penalty and a dope slap. 
Placing the second piece on the square occupied by the first piece would indeed be illegal, as it violates article 3.1. Additionally, in your example, the player is constrained by article 4.3. Suppose the player picked up the rook first but then placed the bishop on a3 first. Then the player has made an illegal move (placing the rook on a3 after it is occupied by the bishop) and violated article 4.3 by determining (US Chess term) a move of the second piece touched. If the player somehow manages to pick up the rook and the bishop simultaneously, I lose my patience, apply a dope slap, and penalize the player for annoying behavior.
That is an illegal move as the player has not transferred the queen to a square, violating article 3.4.
In general, with the definition of a legal move being one that complies with articles 3.1 through 3.9 and an illegal move as one that does not, there are still plenty of irregularities that don’t qualify as an illegal move but are still disallowed by other rules.
As I understand it, the only thing that is determinative of the move count under the FLC is the actual number of moves played, regardless of the counter on the clock or the score sheet. In other words, if the score sheets are wrong, they are wrong.
However, without having watched the game and counted the moves, the one thing you have to go on is the score sheet. Now if the score sheet is obviously wrong, one has to figure out what is going on - but you still go to the score sheet and not to the move counter on the clock.
Fair enough, and I know folks around here like to rag on move counters, but the move counter is often the best indicator that something is wrong with the score sheet, particularly if the players can’t answer the question, “How did the move counter get out of line?”
In the last decade, I’ve investigated and properly denied two time forfeit claims where both scoresheets were proved wrong (each missing a move pair) after a thorough review. Both reviews were prompted by the fact that the move counter had reached time control and neither player could explain why.
Move counters are not always wrong just because two players on a top board in the last round of a USATE didn’t properly operate a clock once.
Your examples are interesting. If I understood you correctly, both scoresheets showed time control had not been met but the clock move counter showed it had been met. You investigated, found the clock was right. I wonder how many TDs would have seen that both scoresheets agreed it hadn’t been met and would not have looked further.
This almost seems worth than not defining “illegal move”. If you harm your opponent by starting his clock after some action by you which leaves the opponent unable to legally continue, then it should be considered that what you did was illegal and should be penalized. Whether that’s not moving, moving twice, moving into check, moving in an “inventive” fashion, leaving a pawn on the 8th rank, … (The “by you” is to avoid the situation where A makes an illegal move, B doesn’t notice and plays an otherwise legal move and A then has the chutzpah to call illegal move on B.)
In both instances, the FIDE Laws of Chess were in effect. Under the FLC, the relevant question is neither “What do the scoresheets say?” nor “What does the move counter say?”. The relevant question is “Were sufficient moves made by flag fall?”, and the arbiter is expected to use all available means to reach a correct answer to that question.
Under US Chess rules, it is at least arguably correct that matching scoresheets should be considered valid without investigation. Once again, the FLC are superior.