This question came up at a tournament several months ago and is still being discussed by TDs in my area.
I was called over to a game by another TD who had been called over by two players having a dispute. The clocks were stopped, and White’s flag was down. Black was claiming a win on time. White argued that since Black’s last move was illegal, he should get 2 minutes and have his clock re-started.
Material doesn’t really matter in this case, but Black had only a King and pawn about to queen on g2. White had a Queen and King and should have been able to stop the pawn with proper play.
In any case, on his last move, Black moved his King into check. White then captured it with his Queen. Both players agreed on these events.
Black said he punched his clock after his move. White, when asked, said he also punched his clock after taking the King. Later, he said he wasn’t sure. Black said that White punched his clock after taking the King.
As I saw it, the most relevant factor was that White’s flag was down and Black had claimed a win on time before White made the claim requesting extra time for the illegal move. I wasn’t certain of the relevance of whether White had punched his clock or not after moving, although it seemed likely to me that he had punched it, meaning he had completed his move before Black made the claim of a win on time.
The game was ruled a win for Black. My logic was that the game ended when Black claimed a win on time with White’s flag down. I felt White needed to make his claim about the illegal move before he had lost on time.
Was this the correct decision, and what are specific rules would you base it on?
Number of question before I can come up with a correct answer. The only time a player can capture the king, is a blitz game only. That would be under the blitz rule of variation 3A on page 291. If it was a blitz game, than would use the rule 13A1 and rule 13A3, as it would support the blitz rules of variation 3A. If it was a blitz game, with the limited evidence you gave would support whites’ win.
If it was not a blitz game, the move into check and the capture of the king are both illegal. The game would have to be restored before the first illegal move. Since the claim was made of an illegal move after whites’ flag fall, the flag fall ends the game. If white made the claim, white has to stop the clock before the flag falls. Since the flag was down, and it was not a blitz game, with the limited evidence you gave would supports’ blacks win on time.
Here are some rules and the parts of those rules that might apply (see your rulebook for the complete text):
9F. Last move of the time control.
… but if the flag is down after the move and the opponent has not yet handled the clock, the player has failed to make the time control.
9G1. Player still on move for claims.
… As soon as the player completes the move, it is the opponent’s move, and the right to make such claims belongs exclusively to the opponent.
9G2. Determination irrelevant to time control.
…The player’s flag must remain up (5G) after the final legal move has been completed, not just determined.
11A. Illegal move during last ten moves.
If, during a game, it is found that one of either player’s last ten moves was illegal, the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the illegal move. The game shall then continue by applying Rule 10, The Touched Piece, to the move replacing the illegal move. If the position cannot be reinstated, then the illegal move shall stand. Except in sudden death (11D), the time on the clocks shall not be adjusted; however, move counters on clocks that have them may be readjusted. This rule, 11A, is not in effect during sudden death time pressure (11D1). See also 11H, Director corrects illegal move in non-sudden death; and 16R, No time adjustment for reinstated position.
TD TIP: When the illegal move is a king left in check special care should be taken by the director. All moves, not just the first move, in which a player’s king remains in check should be regarded as illegal. That way, an illegal move will always have occurred within the last half-move; therefore, players cannot argue that the illegal move(s) should stand. Now, go back to the first illegal move that occurred (leaving the king in check). If the moves cannot be reconstructed, go back to a position in which the king is in check, so that the king can get out of check. In complicated cases like this the director has a lot of discretion. No player should gain an unfair advantage for deliberate illegal moves, or for inadvertent ones, which were deliberately not pointed out. Remember that the clock times will not be re-adjusted; however, move counters may need to be reset to the proper move number.
11D1. Illegal move in sudden death time pressure.
A director should not call attention to illegal moves in sudden-death time pressure. If either player has less than five minutes remaining in a sudden death time control and the illegal move is not corrected:
a. Before the opponent of the player who made the illegal move completes two moves, or
b. Before either player resigns (13B), or
c. Before either player is checkmated with a legal move (13A), or
d. Before either player is stalemated with a legal move (14A),
then the illegal move stands and there is no time adjustment if the game is still in progress. See also 16d1, Illegal moves; 11H, Director corrects illegal move in non-sudden death; and 11J, Deliberate illegal moves.
11J. Deliberate illegal moves.
If a player intentionally makes illegal moves, the director may impose penalties. See also 1C2, Director discretion; 11D, Illegal move in sudden death; 21F, Player requests for rulings; and 21K, Use of director’s power.
13C. Time forfeit.
a. Non-Sudden Death: The player who properly claims that the opponent has not completed the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time wins the game, provided that the claimant has mating material (14E) and a reasonably complete scoresheet (13C7) when the flag falls (5G). Move counters, on clocks equipped with them, may not be used as the only evidence in claiming that the prescribed number of moves were not completed in the allotted time.
b. Sudden Death: The player who properly claims that the opponent has not completed the game in the allotted time, and has mating material (14E), wins the game. A scoresheet is not required to win on time in a sudden death time control (15C).
16E. When flag is considered down.
The flag is considered to have fallen when either player points this out
Other rules that might apply: 13C6, 13C13, 19 G3 16d1, 16T, & 21F.
Most of the other rules all point out that the concept of making a win claim after the flag fall is not in order; therefore, we can apply that concept to other types of claims being made after a player’s flag fell.
If it was a blitz game, and the director used variation 3A, would not that be a issue.
Variation 3A. Illegal move caused loss. A player making an illegal move and hitting the clock shall forfeit the game, if called by the opponent before touching a piece. The one exception to the touch restriction is if a player leaves the king in check, the opponent may then touch the piece delivering the check and remove the players king from the board in order to claim a win caused by such an illegal move.
If it was the capture of the king in a blitz game, would not variation 3A be supported under rule 13A1 and rule 13A3?
13A1. The clock after checkmate. A player who checkmates the opponent is not obligated to then press (5H) or stop (5I) the clock, as checkmate takes priority over a subsequent flag fall. A player delivering checkmate may choose to press the clock to minimize the possibility of dispute.
13A3. Unclear if checkmate or flag fall came first. After considering all available evidence, including testimony by the players and any witness, 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.
True, variation 3A of the blitz rules does not have dirrect support with any of the other rules, the rule stands by itself. If if was a blitz game, and the director used variation 3A, as black made the illegal move and white captured the king, would not that end the game. Both players cannot prove whites flag was down before the capture of the king. This is an issue of the blitz rules being over looked, as the rules are not clear. If black wins the blitz game, white has to stop the clock before the flag falls. If it was a checkmate, white is free to let the flag fall.
This game occurred in a scholastic tournament with a time control of Game/30. There was no time delay on the clock. The person playing White was rated over 1400 and certainly knew you cannot take a King. Presumably, he knew he only had seconds left and just made a panic move. He was not recording moves at that point. I don’t recall if the opponent was recording at that point, since he was also low on time.
It sounds like the consensus here is that Black legitimately won the game since his claim of a win on time came before White’s claim that Black made an illegal move. I don’t think it matters that White’s reply was illegal (except that both players would get 2 minutes if Black’s claim of a win on time was denied). With 2 extra minutes, White would almost certainly have won.
What about the fact that White said he was unsure whether he punched his clock or not after taking the King? Obviously, White’s claim is weaker if he did punch the clock (since his move was over when he made the claim of illegal move), but would he lose anyway even if he did not punch it if the opponent already claimed the win on time?
Of course I was aware you can go back 2 moves to correct illegal moves, but wouldn’t your rights to make such claims end after your opponent claims a win on time with your flag down? (One counterargument is that checkmate also ends the game, but not if the move setting up the checkmate was illegal).
I agree with the ruling, but not your reasoning. Black made an illegal move and pressed the clock. If White had immediately made a claim, he would have had the two minutes added. Even if his flag fell before he could get the words out, Black cannot be rewarded for distracting his opponent with an impossible move. However, White captured the King and pressed the clock. It is no longer his move, he can make no claim, and his flag is down.
The only exception to this would be 11J, as Tim pointed out. However, determining a player’s intention is next to impossible.
(Parenthetically, I might add that I really don’t like 11D1 – I think it can lead to logically absurd consequences – but it’s in the rules and you must use it unless you post a variation.)
Black wins the game, as white cannot make any claim with the flag down. With it being a G/30, the illegal moves white and black performed during the game do not matter. White could not make the illegal move claim, as whites’ flag was down. Black made the lost on time claim, not the illegal move claim.
The players have the right to make any illegal move claim, not the people watching the board. White could not make any illegal move claims, as whites’ flag was down. Black did not make the illegal move claim, as blacks’ choice was to make the time expired claim. The illegal moves do not have any value how the game ends, as white could not make the claim and black did not make the claim.
I received a reply via email from a TD in my area (Tom Martinak) on this issue. Since it is relevant, I thought I would post it. His argument stresses the importance of whether White punched his clock or not:
" The relevant question is whether White punched his clock after taking
Black’s King. If he did, then it is Black’s move and he can make the claim of time forfeiture. If not, then it is still White’s move and he can make the claim of an illegal move and Black cannot make a time forfeit claim until it is again his move and by that point White would already have his 2 additional minutes and so wouldn’t be forfeited. (I would consider the capturing of the King and not hitting the clock to be an illegal move claim and that was presumably done before either player pointed out that the flag had fallen.) From your description it appears that in all likelihood White hit the clock and so would be forfeited."
This logic makes sense to me, but I still wonder two things. If there were no illegal moves involved, and someone’s flag falls, must you wait for them to punch their clock before claiming a win on time? It seems to me that a claim of time forfeit is different from all other claims since it ends the game.
Second, this TD said “I would consider the capturing of the King and not hitting the clock to be an illegal move claim”. Do people here agree with that?
There is a problem with that logic. If it was whites move, and whites flag falls, black can make a time forfeit claim. There are a number of clocks that are set at halt-at-end, this would make the player unable to punch the clock. The players can make the time forfeit claim, when they were on the move or their opponent was on the move. If black makes the time forfeit claim, it does not matter if white was the last player on the move, as white cannot make a legal move with time expired. If whites’ time is expired, and black makes the claim, black cannot make a legal move as the game is over.
No. In fact you should not, since it is theoretically possible that your own flag will then fall, leading to an annoying dispute.
I’m not sure. In principle, I’d like the player to do everything by the book (stop the clock, summon a TD and point out the illegal move). However, in view of 11D1 (which prohibits the TD from intervening to correct the illegal move even if he sees it), I would be inclined to cut the player some slack (e.g., ask “Was what you just did intended as …”).
The director can have reasons for wanting to correct illegal moves, but the director is bond to use the same rules for one player just as equal to any other player. If the director bends the rules, how can the director be fair to the other players with the same problem. The same problem can happen again during that tournament, or different tournaments’ months or years from now.
The players should understand the rules as well as the director. The director should not give advice of the rules of chess during the game, unless the player makes a claim on the rules. Pointing out the rules, during the game would be solicited advice from the director. If the director pointed out the illegal move, or the rule 11J, or any rule it would be solicited advice. It is up to the players to make the claim, not the director informing the player to make a claim.
Your argument about unsolicited advice is specious – 11D1 applies _only to SD time pressure, while 11H requires the TD to correct an observed illegal move in almost all other cases.
I agree that your interpretation (no ruling unless the claimant follows the procedural requirements to the letter) is legal, but I think it shows very poor judgment. The function of the TD is not to display his power, but to insure an equitable result under the rules. In the hypothetical under discussion, your version would unjustly reward the player who committed the first infraction.
There are players that make infractions of the rules, it is up to their opponents to make the claim. The actions the players did during the game, were left to their free will to make a claim or not to make a claim. If the director makes a claim in the name of one of the players, how can the director make a fair judgment. It would be equal to a playing director making a claim, than making the ruling on the directors own game.
Judges do not pull people over to give speeding tickets, than sit on the bench to find the driver guilty. Would you feel fine if a Judge arrested one of your friends, because the Judge felt the person was doing some crime against your property? Would you feel fine if the Judge set aside your wish not to punish your friend? Would you feel fine if the Judge set your friend to prison after finding your friend guilty? Why would you want the director to have that much power?
The director should have limited powers to bring a case against a single player. It should be limited to the conduct of the player, when the conduct would be rude to all the players. The director should not have the power to change the final out come of a single game with the advice of the director that makes the final judgment. If the director has the power to control all the minor and forgiven infractions of the rules. The director will take away the free will of all the players. If the free will is removed from the players, than all the players will become surfs. If you are demanding to have the director to take away your free will, the free will to make a claim or not to make a claim. Than you are making a claim you are no better than a slave. Do you want me as a director to treat you like a slave, or a person that has free will?
I don’t really want to debate this, since I’m not entirely sure I agree with Tom Martinak’s original point. However, I definitely do not agree with your argument, which is based on faulty logic. You are implicitly assuming that every possible case can be defined extensionally, with a determinate sentence for each of them. If this were possible, the TD could simply open a (very large) book to find the answer to every dispute. But, of course, it isn’t. The rules provide a set of guidelines (including the very important 21K2). They must be applied using normal human intelligence.
The rules are to be equal to each and everyone. If your flag falls during the game, and you do not have checkmate, or captured the king in blitz, or have mating material – you lose the game. If your opponent flag falls during the game, and your opponent does not have checkmate, or captured the king in blitz, or have mating material – your opponent loses the game. If the director rules you lose the game because your flag falls, or the director rules your opponent should get some extra time after the flag falls – that is not equal.
The point is this John, if I let someone get an extra two minutes after the flag falls. What about the next time someones’ flag falls during the game, should I give that player an extra two minutes also? It is not about the single game, it is having equal judgments for the same and equal problem. If as a director change the faith of the rules from one game to the next, how can I as a director prevent someone making the claim I have a personal bias for one person over someone else.
If your opponent makes an illegal move in sudden-death time limit that you detect then you get 2 minutes added to your time. If in this case the td doesn’t add 2 minutes then that is not equal and the td might be accused of showing a personal bias.
In the possible situation (where White doesn’t punch his clock) you have to deal with both of these conflicts and decide where the priority should go in order to be fair to both players. You are only dealing with one issue - the fallen flag, but there is also the second issue of the illegal move (which may well have been the cause of the flag falling). Black shouldn’t be allowed to profit by doing something illegal (whether by accident or on purpose). In dealing with these two problems, it seems to me necessary to consider them in the order that they were noticed. First we deal with the possible illegal move. Then we deal with the possible flag fall.
Some other questions come to mind:
“If it was not a blitz game, the move into check and the capture of the king are both illegal.”
I was unable to find anything in the rules that make the capture of a king illegal. Could you tell me where that is to be found?
2.“Black wins the game, as white cannot make any claim with the flag down.”
Until one of the players points out that the flag is down, it is not officially considered down. So, presumably a player may make a claim with his flag down as long as he makes that claim before he or his opponent have pointed that out.
The opponent has to point out the illegal move before the flag falls. If your opponent makes an illegal move, and you make ten moves after the illegal move, the illegal move stands. If the position of the set up of the board is wrong, if you make ten moves the position of the board stands. If the flag falls, you had to stop the clock before the flag falls.
The problem is this, the players do not know and the director does not know if the flag was down before the illegal move or up during the illegal move. Whites’ flag could have been down when black did make the illegal move.
Variation 3A. Illegal move caused loss. A player making an illegal move and hitting the clock shall forfeit the game, if called by the opponent before touching a piece. The one exception to the touch restriction is if a player leaves the king in check, the opponent may then touch the piece delivering the check and remove the players king from the board in order to claim a win caused by such an illegal move.
If the clock is a digital clock, how can the director know how many minutes white did play on with the flag down? If it was an analog clock, and the time for white is 6:03 – if the director gave white two minutes the clock will show 6:01. How can the director be equal to a digital clock an a analog clock when the flag is down? When the flag is down, how can the director know how much time white did use before the flag fall. White could have used five minutes or ten minutes with the flag down, how can the director give white two minutes before the flag fall?
If white used five minutes after the flag fall, and the director gave two minutes before the flag falls – white has gained seven minutes. If white used ten minutes after the flag fall, and the director gave two minutes before the flag falls – white has gained twelve minutes.
You need to reread the rules. The flag hasn’t officially fallen until one of the players point that out. It doesn’t matter at what point the physical act of the flag falling occurred. The only thing that matters is when the players point it out.
All this variation points out is that in speed chess that the act of capturing the king is the one case where a player can touch his piece and still claim an illegal move. (An acknowledgment that it is not uncommon for players to make the claim of illegal move by showing it in that way.) It doesn’t say anything about the legality of capturing the king i either speed chess or regular chess.
Again, the rule is that the flag isn’t officially down until one of the players point it out. The td doesn’t need to worry about how much time the player has gained. That is his opponent’s job. If his opponent gives him 10 minutes before calling his flag then that is his opponent’s problem. In all cases the td is treating the player whose flag fell the same - once it is pointed out he handles it.
The issue of how digital clocks are set is something that will come up in many cases. Consider a game played under 30/90; SD/60. Suppose White’s flag falls on move 20 and they continue to play because Black doesn’t point it out. After White uses an additional half hour he makes move 30. At that point Black can no longer claim a win on time. However there will be a discrepancy between an analog clock and a digital clock that was set to stop when falling. This case shows that players need to set (or have) a clock so that it continues running even after the flag falls.
If you want to give a player an extra two minutes because of a flag fall, run your tournaments that way. But if you do so, you could find false claims of illegal moves when the flag does fall. If the flag falls without a witness, and both players are in time trouble so there is no scoresheet with current moves. If we use your logic, you would give me two extra minutes if I make a claim of a illegal move.
If you stop the clock with the flag down, if you do not make a claim of the flag down, your opponent would know the flag is down. If you want to make a claim of a touch move, your opponent will make a claim of the flag. When both players make a claim on the same move, the director has to check what claim has more value. If white makes a claim of touch move, and black makes the claim of the flag – the claim of the flag has more value than the touch move rule.
13Cb. Time Forfeit. Sudden Death: The player who properly claims that the opponent has not completed the game in the allotted time, and has mating material (14E), wins the game. A scoresheet is not required to win on time in a sudden death time control (15C).
There is a clear rule in the book, it is about insufficient losing chances not about touch moves. But if the rule is to be equal for insufficient losing chances, it should be equal to the touch move rule.
14H4. Players with fallen flag may not claim. A player whose flag is down (5G) may not claim insufficient losing chances.
If it is clear in the rules when a flag falls, the player cannot make any claim of insufficient losing chances. If the player cannot make a claim with insufficient losing chances, why should the player have the right to make any other claim. During time trouble players can make illegal moves on the board. If we use your logic, the player cannot make a claim of insufficient losing chances, but can make a claim of a touch move. If the players flag has fallen, and you give the player the extra two minutes, the player now can make a claim of insufficient losing chances. As the player now has two minutes or less on the clock.
So in theory if this true, we have the Martinak - Forsythe theory how to over-turn Tim Just rule book with rule 14H4. This time do support rule 14H4, as the fancy way to get a draw would be a little unethical.