I encountered a situation today that I had never seen before, and it didn’t appear to me that the rulebook gives a clear answer to it.
The situation was that Black had just determined the move Qg5, but had not completed the move by hitting his clock button. White had pawns at h2, g2, and f2, guarded only by his king at g1 (which I assume had gotten there by White castling and then moving his rook off the f1 square).
At this point, White picked up his g2 pawn with the intent of moving it to g3, but then noticed that his queen at c5 was attacking Black’s queen, and decided that Qxg5 would be a better move, since the pawn move would have left his unprotected queen open to Qxc5. So he set his pawn back down on the g2 square.
At that point, Black realized that he had never completed his move by pushing his clock button, and quickly hit his clock button. Then, White tried to move Qxg5 (Black would have been able to capture back with a pawn, resulting in an even exchange, which was clearly better for White than simply losing his queen at c5). But Black accused him of a touch move violation.
The players decided at that point that the fairest thing was for them to agree to a draw, which they did. But afterward, they wondered what the resolution would have been if they hadn’t. There’s no question that if Black had completed his move before White touched his g2 pawn, White would have been obligated to move it. But the only piece White touched after Black completed his move by hitting his clock button was the c5 queen.
6B. A player on move. A player is said to be on move or to have the move when the opponent’s move has been completed.
Per the Rules in 9G, there is a period when the player has determined the move, but not completed the move. In this case, that player is still on move until they press the clock because there are various claims they could make, or offer a draw at the appropriate time.
Rules 10A, Adjustment of Pieces, and 10B, Touch-move Rule, both refer to the player having to be on move for these to be applicable.
In the scenario you described, I would interpret the above rules to mean that White was not on move until Black has pressed the clock, and therefore I would not rule he has to move the pawn, unless he was still holding it when Black completed his move. However, White could certainly be penalized for adjusting pieces during his opponent’s time should his opponent make such a complaint.
There is also 20F prohibiting analysis in the playing room. If playing that additional move was done on another chess board then 20D says that loss of game is common. Since the player was analyzing the next move I would not overrule a TD that said that the move first made during the analysis is the one that had to be played.
That also covers cases where a player forgot to ever hit the clock after a move and they both played on. If it turns out that the opponent of the absent-minded player makes a blunder on a subsequent move then that opponent cannot try to claim that the absent-minded player’s move was never completed and the game should be restored to that point.
Addendum:
Before the blitz rules had the clause saying that a determined move was completed there was an interesting tactic used at the blitz tournament at a scholastic national. One team would make the first move, NOT hit the clock, and then claim an illegal move win when the opponent responded to the move.
I can just see somebody in time trouble deliberately failing to hit the clock just to get two minutes added after claiming a penalty when the opponent subsequently makes a move.
Citing the 20F prohibition means that the player that played g3 is between the rock of agreeing that touch move applies and the hard place of getting forfeited for illegally analyzing the game by moving pieces around the board. It also prevents the deliberate failure to press the clock from getting a benefit.
I guess I’m curious as to where the TD was during all of this. No implicit criticism here, but the reaction is very different if Black says, in effect, “You touched your pawn” or “He touched his pawn.”
Both of the above analyses appear to be incorrect. The rules make this clear:
9G. Determined moves and completed moves. As described in 9A through 9D above, there is a period between the
release of a piece and the press of the clock during which the move is determined but not completed. The significance of this period is as follows (for information on determined moves and the visually impaired or handicapped player see 35F4, Determination of a move):
9G1. Player still on move for claims. Claims of triple occurrence of position (14C), the 50-move rule (14F),
or insufficient losing chances in sudden death (Variation 14H) remain in order during the period between determination and completion of the move. 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. In the case of 9F, Last move of the time control, whether or not the
player has determined the move is of no significance in deciding whether the player has made the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time. The player’s flag must remain up (5G) after the final legal move has been completed, not just determined. 9G3. Draw offers. Except for Variation 14H2a, Resolution of Variation 14H claim, the
interval between determination and completion of the move is the proper time to offer a draw (14B1). See also 14, The Drawn Game.
TD TIP: The first step in resolving a properly made draw claim, including an insufficient losing chances (Variation 14H) claim in sudden death, is to notify the opponent of the claimant that a claim is the same as offering the opponent a draw; however, the draw offer is proper even if a move has not been determined or completed. See rule 14, The Drawn Game, for more information on draw claims being considered draw offers. 9H. Stopping the clock. If a player determines a move and then stops the clock to see a director
for any reason, rather than pressing it, the determined move is not yet completed and the player is still on move for claims (9G1).
More concisely, the above reads as follows: The significance of this period is as follows
[b]9G1. Player still on move for claims.
[b]9G2. Determination irrelevant to time control.
[b]9G3. Draw offers
This lists the only ways that the player is still on the move. Therefore, the first player is not on the move concerning the determination of a move. There are only two players, and one of them must be on the move. Once player A releases a piece and determines the move, player B is on the move for move determination. Therefore touch-move applies.
Our Tournament Directors - including NTDs - often let themselves get confused by contrived tournament rules which arose to enforce practicalities, and forget to look at history and context.
Clocks were brought into the game to increase practicality. They weren’t brought into the game to confuse the issue and change the underlying nature of the game. The nature of the game is that if one makes a move, the opponent is on the move.
Hi Alex, that is one disadvantage of looking at the forums after waking up for a while at night. Now that I’ve finally awaken for the I see that difference.
This sounds like you’re just making up your own rule. There is no such thing as “being on the move for move determination.” A player is either on the move or not, regardless of any imaginary qualifying conditions. Rule 6B explicitly says that “A player is said to be on move or to have the move when the opponent’s move has been completed.” Period. We do not have the right to add qualifying conditions to that.
Rule 9G (and its sub-rules) is concerned with defining what can (and/or must) happen between the determination and completion of the move. It says nothing about touch move, and it says nothing to change the definition of what “on move” means. That has already been unambiguously defined in Rule 6B, which makes it clear that you’re not on move until your opponent has completed his move, and rules 9A through 9D, which make it clear that the player has completed his move when and only when he has pressed the clock (or produced checkmate or stalemate (as in rule 9E), after which the remaining clauses of rule 9 are irrelevant).
And, finally, since the “touch move” rule (rule 10) explicitly refers to the player on move, touch-move does not apply to the situation described in the OP – unless you insist on making up your own rules instead of following what the rulebook clearly says.
But Mr. Kosterman misses Rule 1A. Let’s face it: it’s not uncommon for, say, White to determine a move but fail to complete it for a long time, defined as at least as long as it takes Black to decide what his response will be, then Black makes a move on the board and touches his dormant clock button to no effect (because White’s clock was already running), followed by White making a move on the board and pressing his clock or not, in which case the time where the initial move has, technically by the above, not been completed. So every TD must be prepared to face a claim somewhere along the line about a move not completed.
Mr. Bachler’s solution, while not necessary, is certainly supportable. If he were working for me and made such a ruling I would uphold his side in an appeal, but there are many ways to handle it.
But consider a case where White completes move 19, and Black determines his move 19 but no one presses his clock for the next 13 moves at which point on move 32 Black realizes his clock is still running. At what point is move 19 completed? Must the players really press the clock thirteen times each completing moves 19 to 32? Is Black allowed to change his move 24 since White never completed his move 24? Surely there is some way to complete your move without pressing your clock to avoid the necessity of having to wind this game back 13 moves where there may or may not be complete scoresheets.
IMO the solution must not be the one offered by Bill Smythe, that White may press Black’s clock at some point when he believes that Black has “forgotten” to, not least because White must not be able to complete Black’s move for him. Were a player to complain about an opponent doing that in my tournament, or I were to witness it in a FIDE-rated section, I would apply an extremely harsh penalty.
I recognize the situation that Mr. Relyea is describing, and the impracticality of being anal about move completion in such situations. In actual practice (in my own games), I will often just make my move and hit the clock after my opponent has forgotten to hit the clock, and I don’t see that this causes any real problems. It can cause problems with move counters, but I don’t care about move counters, and I don’t pay any attention to them (and when my clock is being used, I deliberately set it without a move counter).
What I object to is Mr. Bachler’s contention that this practice is somehow justified by rule 9G. It is not. Rule 9G neither says nor implies anything at all about a player being “on move for determination”. That meaningless concept is purely Mr. Bachler’s fanciful invention. It will not be found anywhere in the rules.
Nope, not making up anything. Logic still lives in the world.
There are only two players in chess. One of the two is always on the move from the beginning of the game until the end of the game. The rulebook clearly states:
"9G. Determined moves and completed moves. As described in 9A through 9D above, there is a period between the
release of a piece and the press of the clock during which the move is determined but not completed. The significance of this period is as follows (for information on determined moves and the visually impaired or handicapped player see 35F4, Determination of a move):
9G1. Player still on move for claims. Claims of triple occurrence of position (14C), the 50-move rule (14F),
or insufficient losing chances in sudden death (Variation 14H) remain in order during the period between determination and completion of the move. 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."
These two, taken together, make it very plain that the concept of being “on the move” can be split into “being on the move for claims” and “being on the move for the move”. Again, clocks do not change the fundamentals of chess.
9G1 makes it very clear that the first player is on the move only for claims - the move has been determined and cannot be changed. (Why would Black pushing his clock button change something fundamental to chess?) Hence the opponent is on the move for a move, and not claims.
Again, too many TDs get confused by the rules are are supplemental for tournament practicality - they are not intended to fundamentally change chess. You’re over thinking it.
Take the clock away. What would you rule? Clearly that the touch move would stand.
Fair enough. I think that most of us, especially below the NTD level, try to use other rules to support their rulings under 1A, with greater or lesser levels of success. As I said, while I think rulings other than that chosen by Mr. Bachler are completely supportable, I’d uphold that ruling 100% of the time. Keep in mind that the role of the appeals TD is not to come up with the best possible ruling but rather to determine whether the ruling of the floor TD is acceptable.
What 9G1 makes clear is that only the player on move can make claims (and that the correct time to do this is between determination and completion). It doesn’t say that this means he’s not on move for other purposes. That’s ridiculous. Rule 9G is not meant to limit the conditions for being on move. It’s not about that. It’s about what you can and can’t do between determination and completion. There’s no question that the player is still on move during this period, regardless of whether or not he’s making a claim. You are reading something into it that’s not there.
And if there were no clock, a lot of things would be different. That doesn’t mean we can just pretend that there’s no clock and play accordingly.
How can he be “on the move for other purposes” if his move has been determined? It’s not ridiculous. Here’s why.
First, it’s clear that 9G1 bifurcates what it means to be “on the move.” That is, it’s clear that there are two sets of considerations - the move itself - and other rules. So there’s no question about that.
It’s also clear when a move is determined: 9A. Transfer to a vacant square. In the case of the legal transfer of a piece to a vacant square, the move
(7A, 7B, 7C) is determined with no possibility of change when the player’s hand has released the piece, and completed when that player presses the
clock.
Hence we know that Black’s move Qg5 could not be changed, even though he hasn’t pushed his clock.
A historical view of the rules shows that the purpose of chess clocks was to accelerate games for practical reasons, it was never intended to fundamentally change chess. We know this because:
Moves are determined based on release (9A) not based on clock push.
Rules like insufficient losing chances would be nonsensical if the intent was for clocks to change the game.
Concepts like delay and increment would be unnecessary if it was ok for the clock to fundamentally change the game.
9A, like 9G, bifurcates the concept of on the move into “move completion” and “other rules completion.”
As we can see, clocks are not intended to change the result in this type of situation. That is clear.
In a game sans clocks, White’s touching of the g2 pawn would force it to be moved. Question: How or why should adding a clock to the game change that?
I would argue that it’s abundantly clear that it shouldn’t change it - since that’s clearly not the reason why clocks were adopted to be part of chess tournaments and matches.
Mr. Relyea points out that we routinely recognize moves as having been completed even when the clock has not been pressed. How do we do this if we don’t fall back to the original concept of move determination? Could a player stop pushing his clock button at a critical point later in the game, and once in a losing position claim that none of the prior moves stood because he/she had never pressed his/her clock, and that the game needs to go back to an earlier position?
That is absurd, none of us would allow it. But why? Well, practically it would wreck the tournament. But in theory, it breaks the fundamental concept of chess - that all the moves had been determined, and hence could not be retracted. In other words, move completion once the move is determined ONLY APPLIES to the other applicable tournament rules.
It’s really the only possible solution.
White’s g-pawn should have been required to be moved. This wasn’t an informal blitz game, touch move applies once the prior move is determined.
Because that’s what the rules say! He is on move (with no qualifications) until the move is completed (rule 6b), and it’s not completed until he presses the clock (rules 9A through 9D). Period. The rules are very explicit about this.
Nonsense. Rule 9G1 does no such thing. Rule 9G in general says that, during the period between determination and completion, (a) you can make claims, (b) if your flag falls, you still lose, even though you have determined your move, and (c) you can offer a draw. All of these things are true because you have not yet completed the move (i.e., you are still “on move”), and cease to be true as soon as you complete the move by pressing your clock. There’s no way you can construe that as being a “bifurcation” of what it means to be on move. Being on move is a prerequisite for everything in rule 9G.
It doesn’t matter what we routinely recognize. The rules say what they say, and no amount of handwaving changes that. I know that it’s impossible for you ever to admit that you’re wrong, but you are wrong about this. You don’t get to decide that the rules say something different from what they actually say.
No, I’m reading exactly what IS there. Yes, the player is still on the move, in the sense that so long as any part of the move is incomplete. But they are not “on the move” for move purposes, because the move has been determined.
I don’t think you’re hearing the language. Being on the move means that one is in a position of completing the various obligations to be completed each move. Once the player has determined a move, he is no longer under the obligation to determine a move, right?
Determination=being OFF THE MOVE for move purposes. If it didn’t, you couldn’t validate any moves not accompanied by clock presses.
I agree. But then, that isn’t what we are saying.
We are recognizing that it has never been the purpose of adding a clock to fundamentally change the rules of the game. This is a thought experiment to see the underlying logic of how things are supposed to work. Once the move is determined, it cannot be changed, only tournament factor rules can still change.
You’ve ignored it a few times now - what logical factor has changed by adding a clock such that the situation should change by the mere addition of the clock? Why should chess change for that? Do you want clocks to change the fundamental laws of chess?
[/quote]
Yes it does:
"9G. Determined moves and completed moves “The significance of this period is as follows” - this is telling you that the roster that follows describes what is allowed between determination and completion: 9G1. Player still on move for claims. 9G2. Determination irrelevant to time control.
9G3. Draw offer
Nowhere in the list is the ability to move. This is because the ability to move ended with determination. Hence, 9G has clearly bifurcated the situation into determination and completion, and determination ≡ no longer on the move for move purposes.
I can construe it because that is what it says.
You describe it exactly as I did when bifurcating it: 1) The player is no longer on the move for move purposes. 2. The player is on the move for all other tournament rule purposes.
You have literally just said what I’ve been saying. The issue isn’t that you disagree, it’s that you maintain only one narrow view of what you are saying. I’ve said nothing inconsistent with what you’ve described.
What I’m pointing out is that a broader perspective provides you additional rule power. One of the things that’s true in math, logic, and law, is that things that represent the same thing, really ARE the same. 2 + 2 doesn’t just equal 4, it literally IS 4.
Using this principle can often make it easier to solve certain types of problems. We can substitute one thing that is equivalent for another, use that restated issue to more easily solve a problem, and then substitute back at the end.
I’m certain you’ve done this.
That is all that is happening here. By realizing that “Determination” ≡ “Not on the move for move purposes” many issues get simpler, because we lose the confusion over clock tournament rules.
We suddenly find that we are suddenly in harmony with the history of rules and the meaning of what should happen.
I admit I am wrong when I’m wrong and do it all the time.
I’m not wrong here. You just didn’t understand the process.
I don’t appreciate the accusatory insults. It’s inappropriate. Keep your discussion to the topic, please.
What we recognize matters. Understanding the reasons for the rules is as important as understanding them. Otherwise, as you did here, and as Wiewel has often done, one makes confusing rulings by misinterpreting intent.
Can you cite a rulebook source for that? I’m not aware of a codification of chess tournament rules prior to the mid-1800’s, possibly not for some time after that.
Maybe it was considered ‘proper behavior’, though Franklin’s essay on chess suggests there wasn’t much proper behavior in his time, but were there any sanctionable rules regarding it? In other words, if you did it and got caught, what happened? My guess is–nothing.
I really don’t think we need all that logic (and maybe pretzel logic) to come up with an answer to the OP’s original question.
Just as the right to move a differentpieceis lost when the player touches the first piece, likewise the right to make a differentmove(with the same piece) ought to be lost when the player releases the piece on its new square.
I think that’s the same conclusion Kevin reached, but I don’t feel like reading all that stuff just to figure out for sure.