Interpreting USCF Blitz Rule #16

Running Chess Tournaments
1

TD’s and Rules Committee Please Help. Missouri TD’s are at odds concerning this rule, and would very much appreciate your input. Here is a link to a thread started on STLChess.com, and the initial post has been copied here:
http://www.stlchess.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2387

Fellow Chess Enthusiasts,

There was a situation at the $10,000 blitz event that left me puzzled, almost had me withdraw before round 1 even started (thanks to Tony Rich and Maurice Ashley I decided not to), and I’m still wrestling with it, even though it never occurred in any of my games.

Rule 16: Moving the King next to another King is an illegal move. Intentially playing a king next to the opponent’s in order to take the opponent’s king on the next move (if not caught) is a cheap shot and will not be tolerated! Stop the clock and claim a win because of an illegal move.

What does this mean? Can a player put their king next to yours, in a dead lost position, then your hand is on another piece as they press their clock, so it’s touch move and they can take your king on the next move since you left it in check (thus making an illegal move of your own), or do they lose automatically for having put their king next to your king on purpose? Tony interpreted the former. Ben Finegold thought otherwise. Maurice agreed with Tony and added that this situation is to be treated like any other illegal move. In the end, I just decided not to pout (I’m growing guys, I’m growing) and just sat down at my board. I’ve seen much unrest over this rule over the years. I plan to ask the USCF to amend this rule (meaning elaborate further to remedy the current ambiguity). What does “Will not be tolerated” mean. Is it an automatic forfeit? If so, why doesn’t it say that?

I appreciate Tony’s patience with me as I complained about how he was interpreting the rule. He has always been a gentlemen and if the shoe were on the other foot, with all the stress of the event, I could easily have seen myself responding less constructively. I am curious though as to how other forum participants would interpret this rule.

2

  1. I can’t really give an opinion on a pure hypothetical. was there an actual incident that brought this up?

  2. Even as hypothetical, your scenario is flawed. Touch-move does not take priority over making a legal move.

  3. I agree that the wording is awkward, but I suspect the reasoning behind it was that there is not likely to be a TD watching every game in a blitz tournament, or any scoresheet, so the player whose opponent makes an illegal move must claim it. The intent seems clear enough – if a player moves his King next to the opponent’s King, the opponent should stop the clock and claim a win. The problem is what happens if he doesn’t, and makes a different move. (Makes the move and presses the clock, not “touches a piece.”) Unless there’s a TD watching, the only thing you have to go on is the board position, and I must reluctantly conclude the slimy character who first made the illegal move could then claim a win. If a TD was watching – well, I’d have to give that one some thought. There’s a decent (though not unassailable) argument that “will not be tolerated” means the TD should then forfeit the original offender based on his personal observation.

  4. Personally, I think the first mistake was having a $10,000 blitz tournament in the first place. Putting that kind of money into something as random as blitz is an invitation to trouble.

3

Rule 11J states: “If a player intentionally makes illegal moves, the director may impose penalties.” As for what “will not be tolerated” means, you’ll need to ask the author.

I also see a rules violation in the following

Players are not allowed to begin their move until the opponent completes his. Ignoring this, having touched a piece, one can not be obligated to make an illegal move. Just let go on the original square and call the illegal move on the opponent.

4

Citation please? Common practice allows the opposite.

Alex Relyea

5

A player is, at least, allowed to hit their clock after they make their move. I saw one interesting blitz game with both players in intense time pressure (<5 seconds each). White (a septuagenarian) made his move and started reaching to press the clock. Black made his move immediately and his hand pressed the clock and retracted while White’s hand was still a few inches away from pressing the clock, so White finally pressed the clock for his move a split second after Black did for his half of the same move. Then there was a little confusion as it was now White’s move and Black’s clock was running. Black flagged before the players realized what had happened.

6

Haven’t we been through this before on another thread? Only the “player” may make a move. If your clock hasn’t been started your clock hasn’t been started your, your are still “the opponent.” Certainly common practice in blitz is otherwise, because blitz is not serious chess. It’s a form of skittles, in which the rules are not (and cannot be) strictly enforced. But if you insist on pretending it is serious chess (by rating it or having large prizes), you have to at least try to enforce the rules and you had better expect problems like this.

7

duplicate, sorry

8

duplicate, sorry

9

Thanks to each of you for your input so far. It’s not my intention to pull off any scabs from past threads (if that’s occurred), but just to get to the clarification of the rule. KxK has actually happened to me on more occassions that I can remember (in non rated games). I’ve taken player’s king’s before, but never with my king (unless I’ve caught them moving their king next to mine that is). When I decided to play in my first blitz event though, I didn’t think this would be allowed. The main reason I decided to continue in the $10,000 event was obvious. Secondarily was out of respect for Tony and Maurice. I do plan to call and ask the TD about this rule before playing in another blitz event.

10

duplicate, sorry (before today, it had been 4 years since I posted on this site and didn’t realize that each submission was separate - unless I did something wrong).

11

That’s how I would interpret it: normally the player who first calls an illegal move (the person who made the first illegal move in this case) wins, but there is a special rule which covers the situation where a player moves his king next to his opponent’s king. Even if the second player doesn’t notice, makes another move and punches the clock and the first player calls the illegal move, the first player loses (assuming this can be proved) because “[this] cheap shot will not be tolerated!” This rule is a carry-over from GM Walter Browne’s World Blitz Chess Association rules.

I’ve probably directed a couple of dozen Massachusetts and New England blitz championships over the years and this situation has never come up, or at least no one has brought it to my attention. Maybe players in New England aren’t devious enough to resort to such tricks. :slight_smile:

Bob Messenger

12

Why not change the wording to: “Putting your king next to your opponents king will result in the immediate forfieture of the game.”

13

By my reading of the text I’ve boldfaced above, it does say that.

14

Hi everyone,
I was the TD that made the ruling AL referenced, and we are both interested in finding the nugget of truth in this scenario. Al is a great person and I respect him as a TD as well. I am not saying any of this is ethical - and I agree it shouldn’t be tolerated! I’m just trying to show that it is the offended player’s responsibility to claim a win and not the TD’s. Essentially, my interpretation of the rule is based on the phrase “Stop the clock and claim a win because of an illegal move.” I think it is a player’s responsibility to point out that his/her opponent made an illegal move. If Player A moves his king next to Player B’s king and Player B points out the illegal move, A loses immediately. However, if B doesn’t point out the illegal move then I don’t think the rule is so clear. Just like if I move a piece that’s pinned to my king - it’s illegal, but it is my opponent’s responsibility to point that out.

Having said all that, I would prefer that the rule be clarified to strictly prohibit KxK, but as worded I think it is ambiguous.

15

If no TD is present, the player does not make a claim, and additional moves are played, I agree. If a TD observes the infraction, there’s a pretty good argument that he should forfeit the offender on the spot. There are counter-arguments, of the “unequal enforcement” type, but I’d say that this falls within the discretion of the TD unless the Rules Committee wants to write a more explicit rule.

16

Rule 6B “A player on move. A player is said to be on move or to have the the move when the opponent’s move has been completed.”

Rule 9A “the move is determined with no possibility of change when the player’s hand has released the piece, and completed when that player presses the clock”.

As for what common practice is, it is up to the director to rule only if he gets a complaint. Having said that, I rarely get a complaint of this type. If I were TD and an opponent was touching piece while it’s not his move and the player complained, I would issue a warning on the first offense. If the behavior continued after the warning and I got a second complaint, I would consider adjusting the clock to correct the illegal act of moving pieces while not on move.

In my opinion, when a player makes a complaint that his opponent is not following the rules and it’s written in black and white, the TD is not doing his job if he claims that common practice says not to enforce it. If a TD wants to vary from the rule book, he must announce it prior to the tournament, not spring it on the player in the heat of time pressure.

If you’d like to see the rule changed, contact the rules committee with your proposal.

17

When I played speed chess during the years before I became a tournament director, the rule I learned was this: if you’ve made your move (“determined” it, using USCF rules terminology) but have not yet pressed the clock, and your opponent makes a move, you have the right to press the clock anyway, and your opponent will then press it right back since it’s your move. This worked fine and I don’t remember there ever being a dispute about it.

Walter Browne’s WBCA rules don’t explicitly say this, but they hint at it by saying (6d) “each player must always be allowed to push the clock after their move is made”, although it’s not entirely clear whether this is alluding to the case where a player has moved without pressing the clock or is related to the clause which follows: “also, neither player should keep his hand on or hover over the clock”. The FIDE Laws of Chess (2000 version included with the 5th edition USCF rulebook) include a similar statement (in 6.8): “A player must always be allowed to stop his clock”, although they go on to say “His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game” and “The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.”

Harold does have a point in terms of USCF rules by citing rule 6B “A player is said to be on move or to have the move when the opponent’s move has been completed” and concluding that therefore a player is not allowed to make his move until his opponent has pressed the clock. Of course, this rule is routinely violated, usually because the opponent has forgotten to press his clock after making his move. Technically, according to this interpretation, if your opponent makes a move and leaves the board without pressing his clock, you’re not allowed to make your move until your opponent has returned and pressed his clock. I don’t think anyone plays chess that way, regardless of what the rulebook says.

In terms of speed chess, the problem I see with Harold’s interpretation of rule 6B is that it interferes with the flow of the game. It’s natural in speed chess, especially during the final minute, that as soon as your opponent makes a move you’ll reply with your own move. If you aren’t allowed to move until your opponent moves your opponent might deliberately delay pressing the clock to throw you off your rhythm. What I like about the rule I learned as a pre-TD speed player is that it’s self-enforcing, with no need for TD intervention: if your opponent moves before you’ve pressed the clock, just press the clock anyway to make sure he loses a move’s worth of time on his clock.

For the Massachusetts and New England blitz championships, with low entry fees and prizes, I announce a brief list of rules before the first round, and I could include this rule during my annoucements. For the World Open blitz tournament, which Harold and I have directed together for the last couple of years, I guess we’ll have to discuss this before the tournament.

Bob Messenger

18

Bob and I can certainly ask the organizer of the World Open Blitz how he would like the rule enforced. I saw no exception to this rule on pages 290-292 of the latest rule book, but must add that at the time it was published, these games were not USCF rated. The book does state “The following USCF Blitz rules are intended to be as similar as possible to regular USCF rules in order to minimize confusion”.

I don’t recall getting any complaints about moving before the opponent pressed the clock at any of the WO Blitzes I directed. Perhaps this is because in many cases, both players are doing it.

As for not moving because your opponent forgot to press the clock, I don’t think the opponent is going to complain to the TD.

19

You’re mistaken. In most cases, of course, complaining about the player just making a move would be frivolous since the opponent suffers no harm, even though it’s a technical infraction.

20

That sounds like a plan.