I’m sort of embarrassed to post this because the Massachusetts Blitz Championship only had nine players this year, compared to 23 last year. Still, I’ll pass this on for what it’s worth.
At the Blitz Championship I handed out a survey to try to get a sense of what rules the players would prefer. A couple of past MACA board members also took the survey, for a total of 10 (one person in the tournament didn’t take the survey). Here are the results.
Time control
Game in 5 minutes: 6
Other: 4
“Other” responses were: G/7 (2 people), G/3, G/3 with a 1 second increment
Time delay
None: 7
2 seconds: 1
Other: 2
“Other” responses were: 1 second, 5 second increment
Touch move or clock move?
Touch move: 8
Clock move: 2
What should the penalty be for making an illegal move?
Loss of the game: 3
Add two minutes to the opponent’s remaining time: 6
Other: 1
“Other” response was: “1 min. off opp. clock”
Should a player be allowed to promote a pawn and leave the pawn on the board instead of replacing it with the new piece?
Yes: 5
No: 5
If not, what should the penalty be for a player who does this?
Loss of the game: 0
The opponent can restart the player’s clock without moving: 5
Other: 2
“Other” responses: “tell the opponent he must choose a piece” and “stop clock - change piece”
What I found surprising was that most players surveyed did not think an illegal move should lose the game but instead thought the opponent should get two additional minutes. Of course the sample size was very small, but if this result holds up when larger number of players are surveyed I’ll have consider changing the rules for the blitz tournaments I direct (at least where I have a choice; I’m not the chief TD at the World Open Blitz). I’ve always said “touch move, illegal move loses”.
It is telling that, even at a tournament where illegal-move-loses was the rule, the majority of players preferred something else. Usually, if a survey is conducted at a tournament, the survey results come out highly biased in favor of whatever rules were in effect at the tournament. That’s because players who disliked the tournament rules probably, in large part, didn’t come to the tournament in the first place.
So I am happy to finally see common sense breaking through in the illegal-move department.
However, I think better answers are possible than adding two minutes to the opponent’s time. Two minutes, out of a five-minute control, seems extreme. How about, for a first infraction (per game), adding one minute? For each subsequent infraction, subtract one minute from the offender’s time. There should be no need to add another minute to the opponent’s time, since the original minute added is plenty to compensate for six illegal moves, the maximum number possible if the offender loses one minute each time.
That way, an illegal move would lose the game only upon (at least) a second infraction, and then only if the offender has less than one minute remaining.
As a practical matter, it might be necessary to adopt, also, a procedure along the following lines: “If a player makes an illegal move, and the opponent wants a time adjustment, the opponent should stop the clock and summon a TD. Any time adjustment should be done in the presence of a TD. The opponent must either (a) know how to make the time adjustment on the clock being used, or (b) be able to furnish a substitute clock and know how to make the time adjustment on it. If the opponent lacks this knowledge, or chooses not to request a time adjustment, the game shall proceed without a time adjustment.”
Here, too, I think better ideas are available. Best would be for the opponent to stop the clock, summon the TD, and ask for a one-minute time adjustment (same as for illegal move), in addition to having the pawn physically replaced by the promotion piece. Or, the opponent should also have the option of simply restarting the offender’s clock without moving.
That sounds like a possibility. I’ll add that as an option the next time I give the survey. A simpler rule would be to subtract one minute for each offense and never add time.
That could cause the offender to win on time. Imagine a situation where the offender, despite the subtracted minute, still has plenty of time, and the opponent is down to his last second or two.
For this reason, I think it is important to add time to the opponent, at least for the first offense.
Bob and Bill,
I suggest that you go to a tournament like the Eastern Open and World Open and survey players that have played lots of Blitz under WBCA Rules and ask if they want all these changes made. I’ll bet they do not. Please leave those that have never played Blitz out of the discussion and survey.
I’ll most likely be the floor TD at the World Open Blitz again this year, and I do hope to survey the players there. I’ll talk to the overall chief TD (Bill Goichberg) and the section chief for the blitz (it’s been Harold Stenzel for the last couple of years) about it first.
I’ve played a few games of blitz and I always felt the “illegal move loses” rules are just plain silly. I’ve won money in a tournament because I had an opponent leave his king in check. Nobody plays that way in either casual games or long time control serious games. Only in blitz tournaments do we see that kind of weird rule.
I agree that one minute is a more appropriate penalty for blitz than two minutes.
I directed the World Open Blitz under WBCA rules from 1997-2003 and it worked smoothly and generally without problems, had more complaints and problems at Arlington CC where players knew each other and had ego involvement. The first time the WO Blitz was USCF rated was July 2004 and Bob - you helped me with that tournament. I was divided on which rule system to use and wanted WBCA, but Bill kept insisting on USCF blitz rules, which were just modified quick rules and, IMO, absurd for blitz because of the penalty for illegal moves - adding 40% of your entire time. This would be the equivalent of add a 48 minute penalty to a 2 hour time control! I did manage to get Bill to change this to 1 minute and even that on the floor seemed to cause chaos compared to past events. We went back to pure WBCA rules in 2005 and it was much smoother and had fewer complaints.
Your statement above should probably be “Touch move, illegal move loses if claimed correctly”
I remember that. I may have screwed up by assessing penalties the wrong way, subtracting a minute from the offender instead of adding a minute to the opponent, or maybe some players misunderstood our instructions. I think the regular players in the blitz tournament are mostly used to “illegal move loses” and it would take a while for them to get used to a new rule.
I usually spend a minute or so explaining the touch move and illegal move rules, i.e. that you can take back an illegal move if you haven’t pressed the clock yet, but you then have to make another move with the piece you touched as long as it can be moved legally.
Boyd Reed must have set a record for long announcements the year he directed the event and read the WBCA rules out loud before the first round.
Yes. Boyd and I disagreed about what it means. To me, with kings at e6 and e8, if Black plays Ke7, White doesn’t notice and moves somewhere else, and Black plays Kxe6, White wins because “this cheap shot will not be tolerated!”. According to Boyd White should have claimed the win after Ke7. If White moves somewhere else and doesn’t get out of check, White has made an illegal move and Black can claim the win. Boyd’s interprepretation makes the “cheap shot” rule superfluous - it’s the same as the regular illegal move rule.
As far as I can remember, the “cheap shot” rule hasn’t come up in actual play in any blitz tournament that I’ve directed.
If both players insisted that their opponent played K on K, it might only be possible to “not tolerate” that cheap shot by requiring that the player on move move his King away. In fact, doesn’t the first part of the WBCA rule say “… neither player may play King takes King!” or something similar?
True. In a situation where it’s not possible to determine the facts the TD should make a ruling that will allow the game to continue.
The WBCA rule is:
The USCF rule is worded differently but I think the effect is the same:
The WBCA wording is ambiguous, and could be interpreted to mean that with a White king on e6 and a Black king on e8, if Black plays Ke7 and White plays Kxe7, Black wins because “neither player can play king takes king.” I think the USCF rule explains it better. The player who moves his king next to the opponent’s king in order to capture it on the next move (if not caught) loses, assuming this can be proved.
