Black picks his rook up from c8. Replaces the rook on c8. Presses the clock. Claims an illegal move on himself. c8-Rook has legal moves.
What is your ruling:
- Under FIDE Rules?
- Under US Chess Rules?
- Under US Chess Blitz Rules?
Alex Relyea
Wow.
OK, first the easy part. In all cases, if the game continues, Black must move the Rc8. If for whatever reason the correct answer does not include this element, then the correct answer is nevertheless wrong. 
I started to browse through the FIDE rules, looking for some sort of clear answer to a situation such as this. I couldn’t find one. However, I did notice, that in describing legal moves, it says that the Rook can move to any square on the rank or file on which it stands. Am I being a “rules lawyer” or nitpicker if I observe that this does not specifically exclude the square on which the Rook already stands? Or does the word “move” implicitly exclude that square?
Common sense tells me that pressing the clock without having made a move (which is, in effect, what happened) constitutes an illegal move, so I would assess the appropriate penalty for that (usually adding two minutes to the opponent’s clock), and require him to make a legal move with that Rook. I have not yet consulted the US Chess rules.
Assuming this is the first illegal move
- 2 minutes, warning about how many illegal moves is a loss
- 2 minutes, warning about how many such violations is a loss (rule 1A).
- loss
The first reason I can think of for doing this would be if the player was very low on time in a critical position and needed a minute to analyze it while waiting for the TD/arbiter to make a ruling. If this can be determined then the stronger penalties for deliberate rules violations may be applicable - and a ruling of even immediate loss of game might be upheld on appeal.
Never fear. Kevin Bachler will rescue us. He will play …Rc8-c8 in a tournament game, be called on it by his opponent and the arbiter, and stand his ground, pointing out that there is no rule saying that the departure and arrival squares must be different. The arbiter will then declare him the loser because he is refusing to abide by the rules of chess or an arbiter’s ruling. KB will then explain that he means no harm to his opponent or the tournament, that he is doing this in an effort to get the rule clarified, and to this end he will appeal the arbiter’s ruling. Sooner or later, the rule will be re-worded, and the world will rejoice and thank KB for this much-needed rule clarification.
Bill Smythe
Seriously, though (as we comedians say), apparently the U.S. Chess blitz rules have not yet caught up with FIDE blitz rules.
As I understand it, as of January 1, 2018 (yes, not 2019), under FIDE rules a first illegal move (in a game) does not result in a loss for the offending player – even in blitz. Instead, there is a time penalty of 2 minutes regular, or 1 minute blitz, added to the opponent’s time. A second illegal move by the same player loses the game, whether regular or blitz.
U.S. Chess should update its blitz rules accordingly. In this case the FIDE version is MUCH better.
Bill Smythe
At least with US Chess, rules 9A to 9D define the move as one of: transfer to a vacant square; capture of a piece; castling; pawn promotion. Thus Rc8-c8 cannot be a determined legal move per rule 9. Hitting the clock is when illegal moves are determined.
Since the definition of a move was not satisfied, I don’t see how you could call it an illegal move. Seems more like a touched piece followed by an improper clock press. Hard to determine any appropriate penalty without understanding the motivations of the player.
The player making the move said it was an illegal move, so the player claimed the move was completed even though there was no legal move.
If the player moved the piece with his hand still on it, realized it was a bad move, and forgot what square the piece started on and thought he was making a legal move, realizing it after the clock press, then that would be an illegal move. If the player was simply trying to game the system to gain more time to think while not caring about the opponent getting another couple of minutes then that would be a deliberate violation of the rules (and harder to determine).
FIDE has the following, which precludes Rc8 to the c8 square already occupied by the rook:
I still would argue that regardless of the player claim of an illegal move, this was not a move. The rook on C8 was touched, left on C8, and the clock pressed. It doesn’t matter if it was picked up and waved around, it never “moved” from its square.
exactly. it’s the same position, so obviously nothing moved! is common sense dead?
…scot…
If the player called a penalty on himself, then I will happily accommodate him and add two minutes to his opponent’s clock. After all, he did press the clock button inappropriately. If he does it again, then forfeit him.
But as soon as the player lifted his R from c8, c8 became a vacant square, so putting the R back on c8 was transferring it to a vacant square. 
Same. Once the R is picked up, c8 is no longer occupied by a piece of the same color.
It is time to idiot-proof the rules again? Is the concept of “illegal move” even defined properly in any rule set? (We had the same problem a while ago with “illegal position”.) Does “move”, if not preceded by “illegal”, always mean “legal move”, or does it sometimes mean “legal or illegal move”?
Bill Smythe
So this is what I ruled: first, this was a Blitz game, played under US Chess Blitz Rules. Second, Black didn’t exactly make a claim of an illegal move, but he repeatedly invited White to. White was confused and essentially asked me what to do.
I ruled (since my opinion is in accordance with Messrs. Priest and Henderson), that it was not an illegal move since no move had been made. Instead it was annoying behavior, and I added two minutes to White’s clock, or rather would have if I could figure out how to add time on the DGT NA. There was a 2 second increment, and White had 1:26 while Black had 0:09. The three of us agreed that if White flagged, we’d add two minutes at that point.
Note, though, that FIDE has declared in its recent updates that pressing the clock without moving, as well as a few other creative non-moves, are to be treated as illegal moves.
Alex Relyea
Here is the FIDE rule:
7.5.3 If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.
Note since this was a Blitz game, the penalty was 1 minute and not 2 minutes. To change the time on a DGT NA pause the clock and then hold down the pause button until it goes into edit mode.
I don’t think this is specifically mentioned in US Chess rules. I’d be inclined to treat this as an illegal move, especially in blitz.
It is impossible to idiot-proof the rules. They are creating increasingly clever idiots faster than we can idiot-proof the rules. 
Seriously, until the FIDE Presidential Board (not the rules commission) diddled with the Laws of Chess effective 1/1/2018, the laws of chess had a very clear definition of “illegal move”:
(As an aside, this is the sort of clarity I long to see some day in the Official Rules of Chess.)
The 1/1/2018 revision of the Laws of Chess introduced language that made the act of pressing the clock without making a move an illegal move (when, in fact, it is not a move at all). It also declared making a move with two hands an illegal move. Now, I’m not saying these actions should not be penalized; I’m simply suggesting language such as “penalized in the same manner as an illegal move” would have left the clear definition of an illegal move in place.
I agree, of course, but it may depend on who “they” are.
That sounds explicit, except that it raises the question “what is a move?”. In the current context, for example, is picking up a R on c8, then setting it back down on c8, then pressing the clock, an “illegal move”, or is it not a “move” at all?
True enough. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to introduce the concept of an “illegal action” (of which the two actions you describe would be examples) that would, as you suggest, be penalized the same as an illegal move. That way, it would not be necessary to clutter up the definition of “illegal move”.
Clear enough, but perhaps not adequate. If a player moves a rook diagonally, has he not only made an illegal move, but also created an illegal position, even if the position could have been reached legally by a different sequence of legal moves from the opening position? Perhaps the answer lies in another question: Is it necessary to define “illegal position” at all? To put it another way, does the phrase “illegal position” ever occur anywhere else in the rules?
Bill Smythe
And appying this definition to US Chess blitz rules could mean that an improper clock press immediately loses the game, rather than potentially a 1-minute penalty according to blitz rule 17 (7th Edition).
That rule (illegal move loses) ought to be changed anyway. FIDE has already done so in its blitz rules. A first illegal move (by a player in a game) should not result in an immediate loss, just a 1-minute penalty.
There was a thread a while ago in which this topic was mentioned, along with the question, what if a player responds to his opponent’s illegal move by capturing the opponent’s king? (The context was, that the opponent’s move was illegal because it left the king in check.)
Some seem to feel that capturing the opponent’s king should penalized more harshly than the opponent’s original illegal move was. That’s ridiculous. Under the FIDE rule, at worst, each player has made 1 illegal move, so the game would continue.
The appropriate penalty for capturing the opponent’s king (which is, indeed, childish behavior that should be punished mildly) would be to deprive the first player of the extra minute he would have been entitled to if he had claimed the illegality correctly, revert to the position just before the original illegal move, and continue the game.
Bill Smythe