Rule 11H starts off like this:
Rule 11H. Director corrects illegal move in non-sudden death. Except in the last five minutes of any time control, a director who witnesses an illegal move being made shall require the player to replace the move with a legal one …
First it states that this is only for non-sudden death and then it states it’s for any time control (which would include sudden death)
In 40/120, 16/60 repeating, there’s a time control at 40, 56, 72, etc. That’s what’s meant.
As Tom said, 11H applies to non-sudden death controls, even if there are multiple ones. 11D applies to sudden death controls.
I actually believe the title of rule 11H is incorrect and that the intent of rule 11H is to apply (as it states) to any time control, sudden death or otherwise. I believe the correct title of rule 11H should be “Director corrects illegal move except in time pressure.”
Hm, I thought I had raised this point in the rules committee. I’d have to check my e-mail archive to see. If I haven’t, I will (and will propose an ADM to correct it).
I would have to disagree. 11D covers sudden death and includes adding two minutes to the clock of the opponent of the person making illegal moves. 11H covers non-sudden death and does not include adding those two minutes.
If the two minute add is changed to be identical in both cases then a single rule will suffice.
Alternately, a single rule can be made with two sub-rules about adding the two minutes (depending on the type of time control used at that point of the game).
11D was changed and now covers sudden death and non-sudden death. The update to the 5th edition online states:
“11D. Illegal move in sudden death: Remove the references to sudden death. Now the start of the rule is as follows: Rule 11D, “Illegal move: If, a player completes an illegal move by pressing the clock, in addition to the usual obligation to make a legal move with the touched piece if possible, the standard penalty specified in rule 1C2a applies (i.e. two minutes added to the opponents clock).”
Also, 11D and 11H cover different rules. 11D is about when a player gets 2 extra minutes on the clock for an illegal move (used to be just sudden death but now its any time) and 11H is about when a director should correct an observed illegal move. Rule 11D1 seems out of place and the part about a director not calling attention to an illegal move in sudden-death time pressure should be incorporated into rule 11H and the rest of it should come after rule 11A and 11B as it is an exception to these rules.
Tack it on as another change that didn’t make it into the 6th edition.
Correction.
The change did make it into the sixth edition. However, 11D only talks about sudden death time pressure while 11H talks about end-of-the-time-control time pressure. 11D always adds two minutes while 11H does not add two minutes for non-sudden-death controls.
Ken gets to have fun with an ADM that essentially merges 11D and 11H properly.
Rule 11D1 says that
"If either player has fewer 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."
What if the players agreed to a draw (or the game is drawn in another way) or one player runs out of time before the illegal move is corrected?
Also, section 11 makes it seem like above rule only applies in sudden death time pressure. However, rule 16D1 states its for sudden death or non-sudden death (but doesn’t mention b, c, or d). Therefore, I think rule 16D1 should be incorporated into section 11.
What if? Is it really necessary to list every way that a game can end? I assume those are explicitly listed as they are the ones that are most likely to produce an “I got jobbed” reaction.
Ever hear about cross references? It’s in a different section and refers back to the more detailed explanation.
It either should list all of them or none of them since otherwise it makes things confusing (like the section in the rulebook on draws in Blitz) and can make it seem like it only applies to the items listed.
First of all, changing your tone would be nice. Second, I think it’s better to incorporate rule 16D1 into section 11 since not everyone checks the other sections that are referenced and I think section 11 is the best place for it.
Tone may be dictated by the banality of the previous post.
If you’re referring to Tournament Directors as everyone, then I’d say that it is an inefficient TD who doesn’t read, and attempt to understand all the rules, including references.
I wish there were a “Thank You” or “Like” button 
Forum posters are permitted to blunder-check before hitting <>.
The whole freaking point of 16D is that’s in the section on use of the clock while 11D is in the section on illegal moves. Illegal moves in time pressure naturally fall into both sections. Therefore 16D repeats the basics of the rule (it’s not a separate rule, it’s the same rule) and (explicitly!!!) refers back to 11D for details. In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a lot of that in the rule book. That’s a feature, not a bug, since there are many rules that span multiple categories.
Note, BTW, that that was (in effect) in the part that you clipped out of my quote.
Ken is submitting an ADM which includes deleting 16D and moving the relevant content of the rule to 11B1.
Actually, I do not think it is a feature to have rules governing handling of illegal moves within rule 16, Use of the chess clock. As a software engineer (my profession), I believe in the principle of “DRY” – “don’t repeat yourself.” As a rules weenie, I think the same principle should apply. Information in more than one place tends to get “out of sync.” If you doubt this, please consider the following. Rule 11D1 states that an illegal move must be corrected within two moves if either player has fewer than five minutes remaining in a sudden death time control. Rule 16D1 states that an illegal move must be corrected within two moves if either player has fewer than five minutes remaining in either the non-sudden death or sudden death time control. Please advise me which rule I should enforce as an NTD.
Please clarify for me also how rule 16D has anything to do with “use of the chess clock.”
This is an example of “user hostility” (instead of “user friendliness”) in the Official Rules of Chess. I am an NTD who has nothing more worthwhile to do with his life than to memorize the rule book, so I can cope with finding the correct rule to apply to a given situation. On the other hand, what about the poor inexperienced CTD or even LTD who actually does have a life and does not dedicate himself to memorizing the rule book? This poor guy, faced with the need to find the rules governing illegal moves, would perhaps turn to the table of contents, find rule 11 (“Illegal positions”, which really should have been titled “Illegal moves”), guess that’s the most likely place to look, and head off to page 27 to find the guidance he seeks. One hopes the director will notice the cross-reference at the end of 11D to 16D1 (which is also titled “Illegal moves”).
That would be a completely different issue. If there is a 16D, on special rules for sudden death time pressure, then that needs to mention that there is a special rule for illegal moves in sudden death time pressure. Does it need to lay out the entire rule? No. That’s what the xref is for. Is it useful to have an “executive summary” of the rule? I think so. Shouldn’t it be “don’t repeat yourself, unnecessarily”? It’s a lot more user hostile to insist that someone know the exact section of the rule book that covers a particular rule. Over the years, there have been plenty of questions raised about pairing rules because, in the interest of brevity (apparently), a rule covering the procedure for doing X did not repeat that this was subject to the proviso that the rest of the score group could be paired and the colors weren’t made worse…
It’s impossible to “idiot-proof” the rule book. If someone insists upon reading sentences out of context and ignoring cross references, there isn’t really much that one can do.
Respectfully, you have not addressed the issue that there are contradictory rules. I assert that the contradiction is at least an indirect result of violating the principle of “don’t repeat yourself.”
Strangely, the FIDE Laws of Chess appear to adhere to “don’t repeat yourself,” and the rest of the world seems to get along just fine with them.
If 16D is wrong, fix the “summary” in 16D and point to the fuller description.
Can the whole rule book stand to be rewritten to be less convoluted? Absolutely. But it’s been edited basically piecemeal for decades now so that almost no section has even changed numbering.
However, I would note that we had a question earlier from a certain someone who decided to ignore the opening sentence of Section 33 and interpret a single sentence out of one of the paragraphs contained therein. You can only avoid repeating yourself if you are willing to assume that the readers will read a rule in its entirety. It seems that that may be a bit optimistic at least for our universe of TD’s.