Arbiter allowed to indicate clock not pressed

Here’s a way to look at it: If the consequence for making an illegal move is immediate loss of the game, “illegal move” better be well-defined.

As Ken pointed out above, it doesn’t have to be defined as an illegal move to earn a penalty; arbiters have the option of giving penalties in other situations. In fact, arbiters have a wide array of penalty options available to them:

I don’t see “dope slap” on the list, that must be a specialty of the house. :smiling_imp:

What is the meaning of (d) and (e)? Adjusting points scored? Different fro 1-0, 0-1, or 1/2-1/2?

I agree that if the consequences may be dire, it’s important to have a solid definition. However, from what I’m reading above in Ken’s interpretation, if a player plays Nc3-b1, forgets to punch his clock, comes back from the loo and, seeing his clock running, plays Nb1-d2 without the opponent having made an intervening move, that would be an “illegal move”, but if instead of Nb1-d2, he played Kg1-h1, that wouldn’t be an illegal move—it might be penalized for under some other rule, but not the illegal move rule. That’s a distinction that’s a bit too subtle for my taste.

I’m not entirely certain how Mr. Doan reached the conclusion that Nb1-d2 would be an illegal move in the sense of failure to comply with articles 3.1-3.9 of the Laws of Chess. In his hypothetical, both Nb1-d2 and Kg1-h1 comply with articles 3.1 through 3.9 are legal moves in the sense that they comply with articles 3.6 and 3.8, respectively. (I am of course assuming that the king on g1 is not in check, in which case Nc3-b1 would in fact have been an illegal move, and that the king is not in check on h1.) However, in both cases, the player is not on the move and has violated the rules. A penalty is appropriate in both cases.

However, the key point is that under the competition rules, a second illegal move results in loss of the game. If the player had committed an illegal move earlier in the game (meaning that the move did not comply with articles 3.1 through 3.9), then I would not declare the game lost for the player who moved when he was not on the move.

What’s the practical difference between Nc3-d2 (which I assume meets the definition of illegal move), and Nc3-b1-d2 without an intervening move of the opponent. That’s why I’m saying this is a bit too subtle for my taste.

As best as I can explain it, the difference is that picking up a knight from the c3 square and placing it on the d2 square violates article 3.6: “The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal.” Picking up a knight from the c3 square and placing it on the b1 square complies with article 3.6. Picking the knight up from the b1 square and placing it on the d2 square complies with article 3.6. In the hypothetical, it does not comply with article 1.1. Regardless of one’s personal feelings about the matter, article 3.10.b of the Laws of Chess defines an illegal move as one that fails to meet the requirements of articles 3.1 through 3.9. A violation of article 1.1 does not imply a violation of articles 3.1 through 3.9.

Essentially. For example, the arbiter can adjust the a player’s score for a cell phone violation, thus reducing the “points” score for the game.

:open_mouth: perhaps even split results?! :laughing: Reference

I suppose FIDE allows split results. Is that true?

Alex Relyea

Actually, the cell phone rule (article 11.3.b) is one case where the penalty is loss of the game and a win for the opponent regardless of whether there is a sequence of legal moves by which the opponent could checkmate the player. However, the Laws of Chess do allow a split result. For instance, article 11.7: “Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent.”

If it weren’t for the black letter rule that forfeits a player for two “illegal moves”, it wouldn’t matter so much. To me, a touch move violation, or making two moves in a row, are more serious offenses than (say) moving the king into check, but apparently not under FIDE rules.