Move determination vs move <D>etermination

Running Chess Tournaments
1

When the 4th edition rulebook came out in 1993, it clarified, for the first time, the distinction between move determination and move completion. A move is determined when the player’s hand releases the piece on its new square, and completed when the player presses the clock.

The distinction is useful in several ways. Examples:

  • To avoid losing on time, a player must complete (not just determine) the move before time expires.
  • But a game-ending move (checkmate or stalemate) decides the result when the move is determined; it is not necessary to complete the move by pressing the clock.
  • The interval between determination and completion is the proper time to offer a draw.
  • A move must be determined before it is completed (i.e. before the clock is pressed).

The 4th edition listed explicit definitions for move determination in the following four cases:

  1. ”In the case of the transfer of a piece to a vacant square, the move is determined … when the player’s hand has released the piece …”
  2. In the case of a capture, the move is determined … when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player’s hand has released the capturing piece …”
  3. ”In the case of castling, the move is determined … when the player’s hand has released the king, which has moved two squares toward a rook …”
  4. ”In the case of the promotion of a pawn, the move is determined … when the pawn has been removed from the chessboard and the player’s hand has released the new piece on the promotion square …”

So far so good. But, sometime between the 4th and 5th editions (I remember seeing the change in a printed rating supplement before the 5th edition came out), the second case above was changed:

  • ”In the case of a … capture, the move is determined … when the player has deliberately touched both his or her own piece and the opponent’s piece …”

This change, IMHO, was not wise. It fuzzies the distinction between generic determination (the point at which, due to touch-move and other rules, there is only one legal way to finish the move) and specific Determination, as spelled out above. Sort of like the distinction between democratic and Democratic.

If we carry this notion of generic determination to its logical conclusion, we could say that:

  1. A transfer to a vacant square is generically determined when the player’s hand releases the piece on its new square.
  2. A capture is generically determined when the player has touched both the capturing piece and the captured piece.
  3. A castling move is generically determined when the player releases the king on its new square.
  4. A promotion is generically determined when the new piece is released on its new square.
  5. In a position where a piece has only one legal move, the move is generically determined when the player touches that piece.
  6. In a position where an opponent’s piece has only one legal way to be captured, the move is generically determined when the player touches that piece.
  7. In a position where there is only one legal move, period, the move is generically determined as soon as the opponent has determined his previous move!
  8. In the position below with white to move, if white touches black’s queen, not only has he determined his move, but he has also determined his next four moves, and his opponent’s next four as well.

Now, exactly how useful is this concept of generic determination, as opposed to the specific Determination set forth in rules 9A-9D?

Not very useful, I’d say. But then, in the case of a capture, the definition of Determination that appeared in the 4th edition should be restored. It is ridiculous that, as soon as a player has touched both his bishop and his opponent’s knight, he is allowed to press the clock without even actually playing BxN.

Now, there might be a few situations where generic determination might appropriately be used in a rule. If, for example, a player determines (generically) a checkmating or stalemating move, or a move which creates a dead position (14D), that should be enough to escape losing on time.

Contest time!

Find the longest sequence of plies (half-moves) such that every move in the sequence is legally forced, for both players. In the example in the diagram, there are seven consecutive legally-forced half moves.

Bill Smythe

2

I don’t think the authors ever intended to deal with what you are calling “generic determination”. I think they intended only what you are calling Determination.

As for a person touching two pieces and then hitting the clock without playing the capture move, I don’t think that’s allowed. However, the rulebook should probably clarify what happens if a person determines a move, but then does not make the move that has been determined. Is a penalty applied, as is the case for an illegal move, or is he merely compelled to make the move that was determined?

And what if he determines a legal move, but executes an illegal one before pressing the clock?

3

It might be clearer to divide the turn into phases.

Phase 1 runs from the instant the turn begins until you touch something that can move or that can be captured.

Phase 2 runs from that point until the touch move or piece release rules have narrowed the possibilities down to only one possible move.

Phase 3 runs from that point until the move is completely executed on the board. Completely executed means that the moving piece has been released on its new square (or both moving pieces in the case of castling), and if the move is a capture, the captured piece has been removed from the board. In the case of a promotion, completion on the board means that the pawn has been removed and the piece it has promoted to has been placed on the board. (Note: it is possible for phase 3 to take no time. For instance, on a simple move of a piece to an empty square, there would be nothing to do after the release of the piece on the new square ends phase 2. That would start phase 3, which would immediately end because the move has been completely executed on the board).

Finally, we enter phase 4, which spans the time from the end of phase 3 to the punching of the clock.

Game ending moves take effect when phase 3 ends.

Draws should be offered during phase 4.

The clock can only be punched while in phase 4.

4

You sum it up nicely. And perhaps there should be names for each phase. Something like:

Piece commitment: end of phase 1.
Move determination: end of phase 2.
Move execution: end of phase 3.
Move completion: end of phase 4.

With this terminology, what I have been calling “determination (lowercase)” or “generic determination” would become simply determination, while “Determination” or “specific determination” would become execution.

That way, we’d have two different terms (determination and execution) for the two different concepts. This should reduce the odds of the Rules Committee again becoming confused, as they did between editions 4 and 5, when they effectively replaced execution with determination as the tipping point for a capturing move.

So we’d have:

  • To avoid a time forfeit, a player’s move must be completed before time expires.
  • In the case of a game-ending move, a player’s move must be executed before time expires.
  • A draw offer should be made after the move is executed and before it is completed.
  • A move must be executed before the clock is pressed.

Note that the term “determined” would then completely disappear from the rules, replaced by the less ambiguous “executed”.

But just to throw in a monkey wrench (I love doing that), I wouldn’t mind having (generic) determination, instead of execution, used as the tipping point in the second case above, i.e. in the case of a game-ending move.

Bill Smythe

5

You omitted one of the most important implications of the distinction:
It means that a player who has fully executed a move (e.g., picking up their pawn from the e2 square and releasing it on the e4 square) cannot change that move, even though (a) they have not yet hit their clock button, and (b) there are other legal moves they could have made with the same piece.

The trouble was that the older wording was confusing. While it is true that there are times when a move is effectively determined as soon as you touch a piece (i.e., there is only one place to legally move the piece), there are also many situations in which touching a piece does not restrict the player to a single move. But there is no situation in which a player can choose more than one move once he has touched both one of his own pieces and an opponent’s piece which his own piece can legally capture. So under the old wording, there was really a contradiction between the move determination rule and the touch move rule: The move determination rule implied that the player was not committed to capturing the touched opponent’s piece because, e.g., he had not yet released his own piece on the square, while the touch move rule implied that he was committed to the move as soon as he touched both pieces.

Bob

6

One of the things missing from the discussion is that a move that is determined might not be a legal move.

Let us suppose the white king is on e1. A black bishop is on b4. c3 is empty. d2 is empty. In other words, the black bishop is checking the white king.

There is a white pawn on c2. The white player touches the c2 pawn. He then moves it, to c4, and releases it. (In other words, moving to c3 would have ended the check. Moving to c4 did not.)

What just happened, and how can we apply the rules, as written? The way I read the rules, when white touches the pawn on c2, he is compelled by the touch move rule to make a legal move with the c2 pawn, if possible. However, no move has been determined. At the moment he releases the pawn on c4, the move Pawn to c4 has been determined. That move is illegal. He must complete the move by pressing the clock. Then he must reset the pieces, and suffer any penalty for making an illegal move. Meanwhile, the touch move rule is still in effect. He must make a legal move with the c2 pawn, if possible. Since it is possible, he must move the pawn to c3.

He has a bishop on c1. He touches it. What now? By the touch move rule, he previously touched the pawn. He is compelled to make a pawn move. There is no effect from touching the bishop. He moves the bishop to e3. Still no effect. He releases the Bishop on the e3 square. Oops. Now he has completely determine the move Bishop to e3. That move is illegal. Start again, and apply any penalties.

This time, he moves Bishop to d2, and releases it. The move is completely determined. It’s a legal move. However, he can’t make it. He touched his pawn earlier. Reset the pieces. Restart his clock if he pressed it, but do not apply any penalties because there was no illegal move. The move Bishop to d2 is not illegal. It just isn’t an option available to him. He must move Pawn to c3.

The assumptions in the above discussion are that if a move has been determined, it must be completed. Moreover, it is possible to determine an illegal move. That’s the questionable assumption. Another assumption is that “an illegal move” only refers to moves which violate the fundamental rules of Chess, i.e. the sort of rules that might be found on the back of the box of a Wal-Mart Chess set. A move which violates USCF tournament rules, such as the touch move rule or the move determination rule, is not an illegal move.

Where it gets really tricky, then, is what to do when someone moves King (on e1), to g1, and punches his clock. The move that has been completely determined is O-O. (Assume castling is legal at the time.) The question is whether the white player has made an illegal move. The board position is wrong. That’s certain. However, is the white player penalized with an illegal move penalty, or is he simply required to correct the board position?

Finally, the rulebook doesn’t offer any advice on the case discussed in the en passant thread. A player moves a pawn diagonally, but doesn’t remove the enemy pawn that could be captured en passant. Has he determined an illegal translation move? Has he determined a perfectly legal en passant capture, in which case he is compelled to remove the pawn, but suffers no other penalty?

ETA: I think one way to fix the issue would be to state that any move which violates either the fundamental rules of chess or the USCF tournament rules is an illegal move. If you make any illegal move, including a move that is a touch move violation or move determination violation, you are assessed an illegal move penalty. This would cover every possible situation, although it might create a tiny controversy in cases where a player determines an illegal move, realizes it, corrects it before punching the clock, and makes a legal move instead. In this case, with the correction I am suggesting, he could still be assessed an illegal move penalty. Likewise, a player who touches a piece which could make a legal move, then makes a move with a different piece, could be assessed an illegal move penalty in addition to being forced to make a move with the touched piece.

7

I see nothing in the rulebook indicating that an illegal move is ever determined. Note that Rule 9A specifically refers to “the legal transfer of a piece to a vacant square” (emphasis mine). Nor is the player required to complete the illegal move by pressing the clock. If he does and it is a sudden death situation, the standard penalty (2 minutes added to the opponent’s clock) applies; otherwise it doesn’t.

The rulebook doesn’t say what happens if a player, when castling, moves the king and then presses the clock without moving the rook. Rule 9C indicates that the move has been determined but not completed. But the spirit of Rule 11D (even though it technically doesn’t apply) suggests that the standard penalty should be applied (in sudden death) since the clock was pressed. The rationale of Rule 11D seems to be that it is the pressing of the clock that justifies a time penalty, since the error has deprived the opponent of an unknown amount of time.

Under Rule 9B. an en passant capture is not determined until the player has touched both his pawn and the opponent’s pawn. So if he moves his pawn diagonally without touching the opponent’s pawn, that’s an illegal move - not a determined en passant capture. So the player can either complete the capture by removing the pawn, or move his pawn straight forward instead of diagonally. The standard penalty should be imposed only if he pressed the clock.

I don’t know why you think the rules should be modified so as to apply a penalty even if an illegal move was corrected before the clock was pressed. Why should the opponent get extra time if the error did not cost him any time?

Bob

8

Good point. Maybe we should say that it is impossible to Determine (using Bill’s notation) an illegal move.

Then we can say that no penalty for an illegal move can be assessed until and unless the clock is pressed.

We can say that if a legal move has been determined, but the final state of the board does not match the determined move, a penalty is assessed, and the pieces must be set to the state of the board corresponding to the determined move. That should cover pretty much everything.

The penalty might not be time. In Blitz, the penalty is a game loss.

What about it, fellow TDs? Suppose someone in blitz picks up a piece, moves it, releases it, realizes that he is in check, resets the piece to its original square, and then makes a move with a different piece, getting him out of check, and then hits the clock.

Game over, or keep playing?

Intuitively, I would say keep playing.

Or, what if he picks up the piece, moves it, releases it, realizes it is a bad move, and then moves the same piece to a different, legal, square, and punches the clock. All in Blitz play, of course.

Has he made an illegal move by changing his move after determining it? If so, the game is over. He loses.

Has he violated the move determination rules. The clocks are paused. The pieces are moved to reflect the determined move. Game continues. No penalty.

Or do we just keep playing using the adjusted move?

The third option seems absurd. It would negate the concept of move determination.

The easiest and most consistent would be the first. It was a move that could not legally be made, which makes the move illegal. You lose. Likewise, if you touch one piece and move another, you lose. That has probably come up in blitz play. How have TDs handled it? It seems harsh, but it’s very easy to interpret and enforce.

9

With one major caveat, I would (and have) say that if you touch a piece that can’t move, then there is no penalty, similar to touching the king in the initial position. However, if the first touched piece can capture or interpose to get out of check, that is a touch move violation (see below).

I would consider it moving out of turn. Playing e2-e4 and then immediately playing e4-e5 is not REALLY an illegal move, as both moves are legal, but it wasn’t White’s turn when he played the second move. Similarly, playing Bc1-f4 and Bf4-g5 is moving twice in a row. The move was determined with no possibility of change when the player (White?) released the Bishop on f4, then he moved again.

I would add two minutes to the opponent’s clock, restore the Bishop to f4 (or whatever) and go on with the game.

Alex Relyea

10

Taken literally, this says that a piece that slips out of a person’s fingers and lands on a square that it cannot move to would receive an illegal move penalty even if corrected before the clock is hit.

You would also get some people who would argue that picking up a piece and then putting it down on its original square to further think through the position should be assessed a penalty for illegally moving the piece to the same square it began the move on.

Somebody moving bishop a2 to f7 and accidentally knocking over the g7 pawn (and then resetting it on g7 before hitting the clock) could be cited for determining the illegal Ba2xg7 capture unless they remembered to say j’adoube before fixing the position.

I have directed blitz events where a player tried to claim an illegal move win before the moving player completed the move. In such cases the moving player simply corrected to a legal move before hitting the clock. In one case the corrected move involved castling through check, for which the opponent started to make a claim but then held back until after the clock was hit (and thus received a win for the completed illegal move violation).

11

I read the Blitz rules. They are explicit in distinguishing an “illegal move” from a touch rule violation. They don’t go into a move determination violation, but I think we can infer that a move determination violation should be treated the same way.

And rule 15 should be amended immediately. It just has to go. It says “A legal move is completed when the hand leaves the piece.” That is one bad rule that completely mixes up the concepts of completion and determination.

12

The reason for rule 15’s existence is that it allows the practice of an opponent moving before the player has pressed the clock. This practice should not be allowed in regular chess but is apparently acceptable in blitz.

13

If that’s the intent, the rule should be written explicitly to allow what they intended to allow. As it is, it completely mixes up determination and completion, which they went to great pains to define previously.

It should have been something along the lines of

  1. “In Blitz Chess, an opponent may begin a move as soon as his opponent’s move has been determined, but before it is completed (by pressing the clock.)”
14

I’ve had opponents who prevented me from pressing my clock by moving and getting to the button first. When they do that, I simply start theirs.

A player has to be permitted to “complete” their move (by pressing the clock); or at least they should be allowed.

15

After a very interesting position the original poster wrote,

"Now, exactly how useful is this concept of generic determination, as opposed to the specific Determination set forth in rules 9A-9D?

Not very useful, I’d say. But then, in the case of a capture, the definition of Determination that appeared in the 4th edition should be restored. It is ridiculous that, as soon as a player has touched both his bishop and his opponent’s knight, he is allowed to press the clock without even actually playing BxN."

Today I witnessed an informal match where the player of the black pieces would claim a win when the player of the white pieces would start his clock without moving first. Would it be possible to claim a win if a player presses the clock without moving in a tournament game (with the exception of starting the clock without moving for an absent opponent)? After all, how is an opponent allowed to perform any operation on the board when my time is running? And if the clock is stopped, does this not indicate a resignation?

I plan on adding a black pawn on f6 and a white pawn on f5 to the interesting position Mr. Smythe shared and let my students have a go at it. I will also show the original position and give the source as well.

16

I’m not sure what you mean in the first instance, but you may be mistaken. The game starts, under the new rules, by either player starting White’s clock. If Black is not present, White must start his own clock first. He can not start Black’s clock without moving. Also, there are many legitimate reasons to stop both clocks. It is not sufficient to determine a resignation.

Finally, a player can claim anything he wants to, and many have. If he tries to claim a win because his opponent has pressed the clock without moving, he’s not likely to prevail, and may be penalized.

Alex Relyea

17

In the old rules, the player of the white pieces was allowed to press the clock of an absent opponent without making a move. There are STILL players who think that is the current rule (and get quite surprised when I explain the newer rule that has been in place for over a decade).

There have been players at blitz tournaments who will play white, make their first move under clock-move rules, NOT press the clock, and then claim an illegal move win when black responded while it was still white’s move. That has occasionally worked with inexperienced TDs caught by surprise, but with more experienced TDs it will sometimes result in the claimant not only being denied but being less likely to be looked upon favorably with future claims (yes, I know that such attitudes are not supposed to occur but TDs do have normal human reactions).

18

That’s a good reason not to have clock-move tournaments, blitz or otherwise.

Alex Relyea

19

If I were handling that claim, that stunt would instantly earn the claimant the standard penalty under blitz rule 18 for unsportsmanlike conduct.

20

Sometimes the old rules are better. Having the knowledge of what an opponent actually played for their first move turns the rude habit of showing up for a game late into a potential advantage. A confederate could report what move white opened with and black could enlist their database to more accurately prepare for their opponent. The rules should treat all players equally. Practically speaking, a wider range of players are represented in databases than over a decade ago.

As to the slimy behavior mentioned in this post regarding trying to claim a win on a technicality, I would explain that this is a chess tournament and not a law class. Of course, I would really want to simply eject players who attempt such antics but I would have to see if my hands were tied by the rules first. Blitz chess tournaments should observe all of the rules of standard chess tournaments with the exception of having to record moves. My whole comment earlier was inspired by reading that an opponent could start moving before I hit the clock after I released my piece. Maybe in the age of digital clocks this is not an issue but back in the days of the analog clock (BHB in particular) many were broken by two players vigorously pressing the buttons simultaneously. Requiring a waiting period (move after opponent has pressed the clock) may save a lot of these venerable old clocks that are still used occasionally.