I acknowledge that stand alone was not the best choice of words.
I second dennisk’s motion to move these last 20 or so posts to the thread on blitz rules. Unfortunately, this could require a ton of work for the moderators.
One big problem with blitz rules is that, historically, there have been many versions, some of which contradict each other. In fact, in some cases you may be able to find two rules that seem to contradict each other within the same version.
And different organizers use different rule sets, according to their own personal preferences.
For example, one recent version of the U.S. Chess blitz rules has stated that, if a player makes an illegal move by leaving his king in check, the other can claim the illegal move by capturing the king.
Another rule set, the old WBCA rules, have explicitly stated that capturing the king is illegal, and is itself penalizable.
Many blitz rule sets also say that a player who completes an illegal move immediately loses the game. By contrast, in another rule set (the most recent FIDE version – somebody finally woke up), an illegal move is penalized by a one-minute clock adjustment. Only the second illegal move (by the same player in the same game) results in an immediate loss.
What happens if an organizer chooses a rule set that combines “illegal move loses” with “capturing the king is illegal”? Player A makes an illegal move by accidentally leaving his king in check. Player B captures the king. Now player A wins by claiming B’s illegal move. Really??
One thing is clear: Any blitz event run as a side event to a significant weekend tournament should have a one-page explanation of the organizer’s specific blitz rules posted prominently at the site. And it should also be available as a handout given to each player at the start of the blitz event.
This handout should certainly include every rule which may reasonably vary from one organizer’s blitz event to another. It should also include any rule which is the same as classical OTB but which some players likely may believe is different – things like touch-move (if you touch a piece, you must move it), determined move (if you release a piece after you move it, the move is determined) – none of this atrocious “clock-move” idea that some players believe in.
Bill Smythe
Contradictions in the rules? Oh, that NEVER happens!
Actually, it was scottrparker’s motion. I was just commenting on it, or seconding it, if you will. That means that you’re thirding it. 
OK. Can I fourth it too?
Bill Smythe
If you want the fourth to be with you then we may be drifting to a very different type of thread.
Under the scholastic blitz rules, can the game end in a draw due to a “triple occurrence of position” that isn’t perpetual check? In the section of the scholastic blitz rules titled “Defining a draw” it mentions “perpetual check”, which is one special case of “triple occurrence of position”, but don’t mention anything about other cases of “triple occurrence of position”.
That sounds like a case of a rule being written by a scholastic coach who may not be fully qualified to write rules, even scholastic rules.
Or, it could be a case of “well, let’s just keep it simple, so that the 6-year-olds will understand”.
I have some sympathy (just a teeny bit, maybe) for people trying to write scholastic rules. They always have to balance complete accuracy against simplicity.
Bill Smythe
I’ve moved the last several posts here from No clock available for the game.
Actually, not really. It’s as likely to be a special case of the fifty move rule. An indefinite reoccurance of position is likely to be an agreed draw, but a position where White is chasing Black’s king all over the board with no idea of how to mate is likely to go on until one or the other flag falls, be it twenty or a hundred moves. Perhaps it should be considered a special case of the FIDE concept of making no progress, without necessarily repeating or being able to survive fifty (or seventy five) moves before flag fall, which can always be a dubious proposition. If Black has twenty seconds left, there can be an argument that White shouldn’t be allowed to win after, say, thirty moves if he’s showing no intention of being able or willing to win by normal chess means.
Alex Relyea
The scholastic blitz rules don’t state anything about the fifty move rule in the “Defining a draw” section either.
If players are not keeping score, it is difficult to verify a claim for the fifty-move rule (and usually even three-fold repetition of position.)
Perpetual check is something that can be demonstrated. Lack of progress is something that can be observed. So IMHO they are a valid part of the blitz rules.
True, but the regular rules allow a way for these claims to be made in sudden death with less than five minutes and without keeping score so I don’t see why blitz should be different here.
But you make Mr. Priest’s point for him.
Alex Relyea
The difference is that in blitz you might have 100 games where the players are in “sudden death with less than five minutes” from the time the clocks start. In addition, you most likely have d0 or at most d2, while in a standard tournament, you’re likely at least d5 (which at least makes possible a player picking up their scorekeeping to validate a claim). You would need way more floor TD’s if the standard “call the director over and ask for help” (with either triple occurrence or 50 move rules) was in use.
While it’s possible to have an easily observable triple occurrence for reasons other than the claimant giving perpetual check, that will often depend upon the opponent being rather compliant. Think for instance about the Philidor position with the pawn still on the fifth. The superior side can dodge and weave for quite a while, moving the rook to different files, switching the King to the other side of the pawn, etc. The superior side is making no progress, but no floor TD could possibly have time to watch that for a triple occurrence. In a d2 game, a dead drawn game like that should end up being agreed drawn eventually. At d0, well, part of the strategy of playing d0 is not getting seriously behind on time in the first place.
The scholastic blitz rules doesn’t state anything about “lack of progress”.
The regular blitz rules are unclear on “perpetual check” and “lack of progress”. First the regular blitz rules say “draw claims allowed under the regular rules are also allowed under the blitz rules” which would imply that draws by “perpetual check” and “lack of progress” do exist under the regular blitz rules. However, then it goes on to say “A game is a draw: 8a.) If one of the kings is stalemated. 8b.) By agreement between the players. 8c.) If the flag of one player falls after the flag of the other player has already fallen and a win has not been claimed, unless either side mates before noticing that both flags are down. 8d.) If one player has insufficient mating material when the opponent’s flag falls or makes an illegal move. “Insufficient Losing Chances” (ILC) claims are not allowed.” This would imply that “perpetual check” and “lack of progress” do not exist under the regular blitz rules.
How so?
For example, see Mr. Doan’s post above. I would assume any TD who had worked a national scholastic event would have thoroughly understood that intuitively.
Alex Relyea
Are you arguing that “triple occurrence of position” and “the 50-move rule” shouldn’t be allowed in blitz? It’s currently allowed under the regular blitz rules.
No. Just that logistically, in practice it is almost impossible to verify those claims (over the opponent’s objection) in a blitz tournament. Note that
- All draw claims are draw offers, and the opponent can accept it (which they might do, particularly if they are not up on time).
- If the opponent doesn’t contest the claim (there actually are opponents who will acknowledge the truth), the game is drawn.
The issue is what to do if the opponent does not agree to the draw and contests the claim. Clearly, there is nothing a TD can do if the claim is based upon the now-unobservable past. If the claimant can force a triple occurrence with the TD observing, they can get the draw. If the position will inevitably repeat, but there is no way to force it, probably not. (Remember that it’s the job of the player to point out the repetition, not the TD, which is what the scholastic blitz rules are asking the player to do.)
Note that the players are not required to keep score, but they are allowed to, and can start keeping score whenever they want to back up a triple occurrence claim.