Now that the USCF is rating 5min blitz. Will we have a standardized set of rules?
It is very difficult to get players to not knock pieces all over the board during intense time scrambles. What will the penalties be? Additional time?
Just curious to here. I do believe that blitz chess will make chess more watchable for the masses. But they might witness some unsportsmanlike conduct.
There are blitz rules in the USCF rule book (catalog number BR940CP). The book sells for $14.95 for members. Every player, whether a tournament director or player, should be familiar with the rules.
Chesspic: To answer your question regarding the knocking over of pieces in a time scramble, USCFâs rulebook addresses this in itâs non-Blitz section. This rule, even though not listed in the Blitz section, may be applied to Blitz controls as well.
USCF Rule 11C (p. 24, 5th edition). Accidental piece displacement. If, during a game, one or more pieces have been accidently displaced and incorrectly replaced, then the displacement shall be treated as an illegal move. If, during the course of a move, a player inadvertently knocks over one or more pieces, that player must not press the clock until the position has been reestablished. The opponent may press the clock without moving, if necessary, to force the player who knocked over the piece(s) to restore the position on his or her own time. If possible, clocks with move counters should be readjusted.
The above says that the TD may treat this situation as an illegal move.
In the Blitz section, chapter 11 (p. 290-292), specifically rule 3.
Illegal move penalty. A player who makes an illegal move in Blitz and presses the clock does not forfeit. Instead, two minutes are added to the opponentâs remaining time.
So, rules are available for these situations. Affirming what Alan said, the rulebook is a must read for all players, directors and organizers.
Hope this helps,
Terry -
USCF Sr. Level TD
Terry, we have discussed this but Iâm asking here to see comments. What if your opponent makes an illegal move which runs you out of time? I think that 2 minutes should be added to the out of time clock.
Regarding the thought that blitz chess might lead to more unsportsmanlike conduct, that shouldnât be a factor. There are blitz tournaments right now throughout the country and there isnât a major problem with that. I guess any time greater prize money is offered, the chances are increased that unsportsmanship can arise. But, I am unaware of any major problem in this area.
Hi - I donât have my copy of the rulebook with me, but Iâm pretty sure that, in blitz chess, per the 5th edition, an illegal move pointed out by the opponent results in immediate loss of game for the player making the illegal move.
The special situation that arises with this rule is the case where Player A makes a move that doesnât address a check against his king. If Player B responds by taking Player Aâs king (very common in blitz, of course), and Player A points out that Player B made an illegal move, the TD would award the game to Player A. One could make an argument that taking the king is tantamount to claiming an illegal move by Player A, but since Player B did not verbally claim the illegal move, his claim is invalid. (Any comments on this by rulebook mavens would be welcome.)
Having said all that, I had a situation in a blitz tournament maybe a month or so ago where I missed a check against me, and my opponent took my king. I knew I could technically claim a win, but that felt cheesy, so I took the loss instead. 
I think that the USCFâs blitz rules are good, and that the only problem will be getting directors and organizations to standardize on them. I know weâve run two blitz tournaments this year under the new rules, and both were well attended and well received.
-bmr-
Thatâs âVariation 3Aâ to Rule 3 (the two-minute add-on). Which you prefer is a matter of taste, but the TD should announce which one heâs using at the start.
A little of the subject butâŚ
Maybe Iâm not a very good reader, but I canât seem to find a direct answer to this question in the USCF rulebook.
Blitz game, Black is under time pressure. He makes a move, capturing a Pawn with a Rook. He hits his clock. White looks up, notices Blackâs clock is at 0:00 and claims a time forfeit victory. Black verbally agrees and concedes. After about 20 seconds, with both players still at the board, an onlooker notices that Blackâs capture of the Pawn has resulted in Checkmate.
So who wins?
This requires a judgement call by the TD. Checkmate ends the game, even if the playerâs flag falls before he can stop his clock. If Black gave mate before his flag fell, he should be given the point. If his flag fell before he completed the checkmating move (by releasing the piece on the square), he loses on time. If the TD cannot determine which is the case, he must exercise his discretion. In the case you describe, I think that Iâd rule the time forfeit stands, on the grounds that the players implicitly conceded that the second case was what happened, by shaking hands and agreeing to the time forfeit. But Iâll admit that another TD might make a plausible argument the other way.
Not an exact quote, as I donât have my rulebook with me, but âresignation also immediately ends the gameâ. If a player agrees to a result, the game is over, and anything that has happened prior to the agreement is irrelevant.
-Terry
Thatâs not an accurate statement of the rule. There are several things which âimmediately end the gameâ â checkmate, resignation, stalemate, loss on time (if valid). It is the first one to occur that governs. You cannot resign a game (or agree to a draw) after having given checkmate. The grey area arises whan two (or more) of these has taken place, and it cannot be readily detemined which happened first.
Thanks everyone.
It is not âthe first one to occurâ that governs, but rather âwhich claim came firstâ. Yes, checkmate immediately ends the game, but so too does a resignation, draw agreement, etc. If a player erroneously agrees to a draw after having delivered (an apparently overlooked) checkmate, the draw stands valid. Checkmate immediately ends the game, BUT, it is up to the players to make a claim to that effect. For example, a TD observing such a situation cannot, under USCF rules, intervene and declare the game over. The players, alone, have this duty. Therefore, if a player resigns, even though his opponentâs flag is down, the resignation is valid.
Again, it is not which occurence happened first, but rather, which claim came first.
-Terry
I do not agree that that is a correct interpretation of the rules. Paragraph 13A (Checkmate) says, âThe player who checkmates his opponentâs King, providing the mating move is legal, wins the game. This immediately ends the game.â This is followed by a âTD tip,â or interpretation, which says, âThis means that anything that happens after the checkmate move has been legally determined [[this means after the piece has been released on the square]] is irrelevant to the outcome of the game, including the playerâs falg falling.â
13B (Resignation) says, âThe player whose opponent resigns wins the game. This immediately ends the game.â [[This is followed by some calrification of exactly what constitutes resignation.]]
Note that, unlike the rule involving time forfeits, 13A and 13B do not say the game is won by the player who claims to have checkmated the opponentâs King. Checkmate, like stalemate, resignation, or agreeing to a draw, immediately ends the game, and anything that happens afterward is irrelevant.
You are correct that a TD should not intervene to make a claim on behalf of a player. And, for practical reasons, a claim made after too long an interval would have to be rejected. (E.g. if a player tried to claim that he checkmated his opponent in a game he lost two rounds ago, Iâd tell him to get lost.) However, if both checkmate and resignation occur, the first one ended the game and anything subsequent is mere skittling.
It does not matter which happens first to the extent you may think. The game is over if a player cames the flag down. The game is also over if a player checkmates his opponent. With these two simple facts we can see the problem. What if a player claims flag down while his oppoenet is checkmating the claiment? Or less say a player places mate but doesnt know it and at the same time his flag falls? The answer is, the player who makes the claim first wins. Thats it, plain and simple. But its not that simple. Lets say the player who flaged lies and sais that he claimed checkmate before his flag fell. Or lets say he placed mate while his flag fell and his oppoent claimed it. Lets say in addition to this the TD did not see either events occur. The TD would then have to rely on witnesses to tell what happend. And lets say after he interviewd the witnesses he was still UNABLE TO REACH A CLEAR DECISION. The rulebook sais here that the checkmate takes precident over the flag claim. But some TDs may go the other way and decide to go with the flag claim as the win. At this point, if the player disputes the TDs decision. The player should make an official disagrement before the pairings are up for the next round. A rules committe should be assembled on site or an on-call TD should be contacted.
This is already covered in the rules. 13A1 (The clock after checkmate) âA player who checkmates the opponent in not then obligated to press or stop the clock, as checkmate takes priority over a subsequent flag fall. A player delivering checkmate may choose to press the clcok to minimize the possibility of a dispute.â
13A2 (Flag fall before checkmate): âIf a pleyer claims a win by time forfeit before the opponent determines a move delivering checkmate, the time-forfeit claim is appropriate.â [[âDeterminesâ means completiing the move on the board, as per 9A.)
T13A3 (Unclear if checkmate of flag fall came first) says, âAfter considering all available evidence, including the testimony by the players and any witnesses, a director who is still unable to decide whether the claim of the flag fall occurred first shall deny the time claim and rule the checkmate valid.â
No doubt someone will point out that this seems to contradict my first posting on this thread â and they will have a point. I emphasized there that the only reason I would rule in favor of White was that, by accepting the time forfeit, Black had implictly conceded that he did not give checkmate before the flag fall â but itâs a close point.
I agree with the previous two posters on the purely practical point that the first one to make a claim is more likely to get a ruling in his favor, and that the TD should not âleadâ a player to make a counterclaim. But âfirst one to claimâ is not the basis on which such a dispute should be decided. The rules are clear the TD must try to determine which happened first.
John,
After having read the rulebook, I stand corrected. Checkmate does, indeed, immediately end the game with after-the-fact occuences being irrelevant. I was trying to draw an erroneous analogy with the Priority of agreed result over time-forfeit claim - 16S rule.
Still, however, in the situation described, where a spectator pointed out the checkmate, Iâm fairly confident as to how to rule. The player did, in fact, concede to the flag fall claim, and only after the mate was pointed out by a spectator (who probably shouldnât suffer any penalties, as he/she was probably in a post-mortem frame of mind) did he/she try to retract the resignation. I do believe, that in this particular situation, the resignation is valid, since it is apparent that the player who resigned was aided by the spectator during post-mortem.
It is true that a player doesnât need to âclaimâ a checkmate. It is also true that the TD Tip validates the checkmate. However, this is a Tip, not necessarily a rule. The Rules Committee apparently did not wish to add the language in this Tip to the main part of the rule. Perhaps because TD discretion might be hindered. Therefore, it can be accepted only as âNotes, advise, and observations (not formal rules) from experienced directors and the editorsâŚâ (xxxvii). My point to this is that there are extenuating circumstances in this particular situation. That is, the mate was pointed out during post-mortem, by a spectator.
In summary, I would validate the resignation with a hint to the player to âbe careful what you agree toâ.
I welcome any responses you may have. Perhaps Tim Just could jump in here 
-Terry Winchester
I will get a new rulebook to make sure that I am fully updated and correct on all these issues. My most recent rulebook is the 4th edition which I got at the K-9 National Champs in Kissimmee Florida last April.
We had an analogous situation recently, albeit not in blitz. White was winning when he pushed a pawn, delivering stalemate. Oblivious to this fact, Black picked this inopportune moment to resign, and the players recorded this result. A spectator who had seen the stalemating move but not the resignation observed the result and informed the tournament director. The TD verified this result and informed the players, who accepted his draw ruling without incident. His conclusion was that the draw ended the game and any subsequent event was irrelevant. Similarly, since the game was in fact over the spectatorâs actions were appropriate. I submitted this question to USCF. Tom Brownscombe confirmed the draw result. Simple ruling, really. The game was over when the stalemating move was made, and the fact that both players were clueless is thoroughly irrelevant. The fact that a spectator pointed it out also doesnât change the legitimacy of the result.
Well, I have a problem with this. I have watched young scholastic players continue playing despite one being checkmated. I have seen them illegally capture the checkmating piece with the King, even though the mating piece was defended. All the while, both opponents were totally unaware of how to play the game.
My problem is: what is a TD to do when he witnesses such acts? My events, and most of the ones I assist in, do not allow the TDâs to interfere in a game without a player request. When a player completes an illegal move (such as capturing a checking piece with the King even though the checking piece is defended), no one, not even the TD, is to call attention to it.
Is there an implied exception, under 13A, to the normal rule of allowing only the players the right/responsibility to make claims, for a TD who witnesses a check/stalemate to intervene and declare the game over? I remember a ruling in earlier editons of the rulebook where a TD could adjudicate a âridiculous positionâ. Perhaps this would apply here? If a TD witnesses a checkmate, does he have the right, under current USCF rules, to intervene in the game and declare it over?