Ummm … Rule 9G1 (you know, the one that you think supports your bizarre interpretation) explicitly says that “as soon as the player completes the move, it becomes the opponent’s move.” I don’t know what variation of the English language you’re using, but in the English that I’ve always used, that means that it was not the opponent’s move before that event (the completion of the move). We don’t refer to something becoming what it already is. I don’t know how much clearer it could be. Rules 6B and 9A through 9D spell out exactly what it means to be on move, and rule 9E spells out the only exception to the general procedure (checkmate or stalemate). If this definition only applied when a claim was being made, and if rule 9G1 spelled out this qualification (it does not), those other rules would say “but see rule 9G1”. They do not. You are (mis)interpreting rule 9G1 to say what you want it to say. Rule 9G is about what you can do while you are on move – not about what it means to be on move.
You can continue to bluster and wave your hands (and write hundreds of unnecessary words in the process – get an editor!) to your heart’s content. I’m done here.
You’re overthinking it, but you’re right in that the rules make this clear.
6B is very clear that a player is not on the move until the opponent has completed their move, and everywhere else in the rules make it clear that a move is only completed when a player presses the clock.
The first sentence of 9G says, “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.” Note it clearly states “but not completed.”
We’re not arguing whether the player has the ability to move anymore, we know he doesn’t because he’s already determined his move. This scenario is whether the opponent now has the ability to move, and he doesn’t because he’s not actually on the move, per the rules.
One of the additional FIDE Laws I like is the one that says if a player makes his next move (the FIDE Laws version of determining a move), then his previous move is completed. Also note that FIDE does allow a player to make a move once the opponent has made his move, but the Laws state that a player always has the right to press his clock. Under FIDE Laws, in the scenario in the opening post, the player would indeed be forced to move the g-pawn.
As far as making moves goes (the moves 19 through 32 example), saying that a player was not obligated to make the moves that were made (because the player was not on move) then means that the player’s actions can be seen as using the the playing board and pieces to analyze in direct violation of the rules against that. So any moves actually made should stand (20D and 20F can be used to support a 1A ruling more strongly than simply using 1A by itself).
The original issue (touching a piece but not moving it) is trickier and a number of interesting points have been brought up.
According to the FIDE rule, black has completed his 19th move when he presses the clock after move 19, OR, if he fails to do so and the game continues, black has completed his 19th move when he “makes” (i.e. determines) his 20th.
Continuing in this vein, if black continues to fail to press his clock until move 32, then when he makes (or determines) his 32nd move, he has then completed all previous moves.
One clock press apiece should do it for both players. On the other hand, 13 pairs of clock presses might not be such a bad idea, as it would correct the clock’s move counter and also restore both players’ lost bonus times.
I like that the FIDE laws state this also. But apparently, my point is unclear.
I have stated several times:
Yes, the player is on the move, so long as any of his rights/obligations on that move remain unfulfilled - which includes and is completed by pressing the clock. So we agree.
The player has determined his move, so he is not on the move FOR MOVE purposes. The player cannot change the move. These two items are tautological, (Determination and being OFF the move for move purposes) but the latter provides clarity of thought and also agrees with exactly what 9G says. 9G has bifurcated the concept and clarified this precise point. That doesn’t mean the player doesn’t remain in toto on the move. What it means is that PORTION is no longer on the move, which is exactly what 9G says.
Chess is a game between two players. One of the two players is ALWAYS on the move until the game ends.
Thinking of the game BEFORE and AFTER the addition of the chess clock clarifies this concept. BEFORE the addition of chess clocks, moves were completed on the determination (which was also completion.) AFTER the addition of chess clocks, the laws of chess and physics created a separation of determination/completion into 1) Determination and 2) Completion.
My point is simply this: To look at the rules/Laws consistently, Touch-Move, which began shortly before 1500, must apply to the opponent beginning at determination. Otherwise, the introduction of chess clocks has altered the fundamental laws of chess, which was clearly not the intent of adding chess clocks to the game.
If rules do not follow this, then an entity whose rules don’t follow this has inadvertently introduced an error into its rules and needs to fix it. The point of Touch-Move is recognition of the commitment to a response - and a response can occur any time after the first player’s move determination.
Determination should always be aligned with the fundamental laws of chess. Completion with the ancillary/competition laws of chess.
EX: Players A & B are in a time scramble. Player A moves, Player B replies before Player A presses the clock.
Do you really wish to argue that Player’s B move doesn’t count and can be retracted? Doesn’t it make it even worse knowing that for at least 390 years - and likely 490 years, the rules would have seen this differently, until someone (Harkness? Morrisson? Someone else?) penned the rules and simply overlooked this nuance?
It’s not just determination and completion that get separated in the bifurcation. It must be every rule related to Determination and Completion as well. Otherwise, the view of rules is inconsistent upon the introduction of the chess clock.
White would be required to move the g-pawn. White doesn’t (shouldn’t) get a get-out-of-jail-free card based on timing. The view I offer is logical and superior. The FIDE view would give White a get-out-of-jail-free card until Black makes the next move; the US Chess version lets White off the hook if Black doesn’t happen to press the clock in a timely fashion. Do you really believe the introduction of the chess clock was to invalidate the common meaning of Touch-Move?
I understand what 6B says. What I’m saying is 6B is an error and is inconsistent. The situation at hand is proof. 6B and other fundamental laws of chess should bifurcate in the same way and should follow determination, tournament rules and ancillary competitive rules should occur at completion.
It is true that being “on move” is relinquished in stages. Initially, the player who is on move can move any of his pieces that can legally be moved. But once he touches a piece, it is determined which piece he can move, though not where to move it. Once he has released the piece on a destination square, the move is completely determined, unless it is a pawn being moved to an opposite-rank square, in which he must still determine what to promote it to.
But I see nothing in the rulebook to indicate that being “on move” is acquired in stages. It is acquired all at once, when his opponent completes his move by hitting his clock button.
Blitz Chess does have the rule:
15.) A legal move is completed when the hand leaves the piece.
remembering
6d.) Each player must always be allowed to press the clock after their move is made.
If it was blitz then White touching the pawn triggers touch move.
In other time controls the options mentioned are:
<1> no penalty since White was not on move
<2> time penalty for White interfering/distracting on the board during Black’s move
<3> touch move applies since both players legitimately thought White was on move
<4> touch move applies since otherwise White was illegally using the board as an analysis board
<5> White really is on the move even though Black did not press the clock
<6> something I’ve inadvertently skipped over
Number 3 is usually followed with no TD even being called over
If I write: “the color blue with red in it” you would not conclude that I am talking about blue - I am talking about BLUE & RED conjoined. If we give it it’s own name, it is Purple. You wouldn’t confuse Purple with Blue.
From an earlier post to assist with clarity:
All US Chess Rulebooks up to the 5th edition:
Harkness - Official Bluebook
Harkness - Official Handbook
Morrison - Official Rules Book 1st ed
Morrison - Official Rules Book 2nd ed
Redman - Official Rules Book 3rd ed
Jarecki, Goichberg, Riddel - Official Rules Book 4th ed
Followed a formula of “The Laws of Chess” (basically playing chess generally) and “The Tournament Rules of Chess” [all other rules, clocks etc, and system/TD rules"
It wasn’t until Just/Burg and the committee that the Tournament Rules were combined with “The Laws of Chess” although the rough order and separation was maintained. The idea was to separate what players had to know from what TDs had to know. It was a good idea. But sometimes there are nuances in the rules that have been missed. This is one.
And it’s very clear what impact the history had here. It’s clear from the evolution of competitive chess play (1500 vs late 1800’s) rulebooks (5th edition change and so on) and the entire concept of determination vs completion (I remember that for a while there were robust discussions about this and about the period between the two.)
I can certain picture that an arcane mind like a Bill Smythe may have picked up on this in some random rule discussion decades ago. But the point is, you’ve got a real case. And the real case, under what happened, or under legitimate rules interpretations under the current rules, has an outcome that is not in keeping with the concept of chess. The most fundamental aspect is its a board game with defined pieces and moves that is between two players. It is not a game of clock, nor a game of clock timing. Had this game in 1870 (and quite possibly 1970, 1980, or later) versus 2022 it would have been clear that the intent was for touch move to apply to the opponent during determination.
I’m not for accidental rules changes, which is what this clearly is. It needs to be cleaned up.
I THINK you and I have reached the same conclusion, but your massive verbiage makes it difficult to know for sure.
To me, the basic points are:
When a player intending to move has deliberately touched a piece that can be legally moved, he has lost the right to move a different piece.
When a player intending to move has deliberately made a legal move and has released the piece on its new square, he has lost the right to make a different move with that piece.
I just hope a reasonably compact wording can be found which avoids the use of such phrases as “on the move for determination purposes” and “on the move for completion purposes”.
We should also keep in mind, somehow, the FIDE concept that it is permissible to make your move without waiting for your opponent to press his clock, but then the opponent is still entitled to a clock press, and you must be vigilant and know that when the opponent does press the clock, you need to press it again to keep things in order.
As a general rule of thumb, the longer the post, the less likely people are to pay attention to it. And when the longest part of the post is a repeat of YOUR OWN EARLIER POST, the utility of the post drops further.
So, further questions: Who offered the draw? What did the TD say in resolution of the claim before Black offered or accepted the draw? What would the position be like after Qxg5? i.e. Would Black have still been winning, about even, or significantly worse?
I Prefer shorter posts. The two long posts had reasons:
In one additional information was added in reference to specific things previously written by another poster. The quotes provided context for the response.
In the other, a poster had clearly missed something I had written that already answered his question, so I reposted a piece. I considered using a link to the prior post, but the computer equipment i happened to be on was making that hard.
I post here rarely anymore. I don’t know why people have to go out of their way for this kind of stuff.
Also worth keeping in mind is that US Chess rules explicitly allow (though do not recommend) triple-occurrence claims to be made after determination but before completion of the move, whereas FIDE rules do not. So not only is the opponent entitled to a clock press, but potentially to claims as well.
(Yet another reason it would be a horrible idea to press the opponent’s clock if they fail to do so according to your preference…)
I have studiously avoided reading any more of Kevin’s blatherings, but I do have something new to add here.
Consider a blitz game (or any game where one or both players are in time trouble). Player A makes a move. Then, before he gets a chance to press his clock, player B immediately makes his move and “presses” his clock. Player B repeatedly does this. The effect is that player A’s clock is running continuously, and player B’s clock never runs (NOTE: This is not hypothetical – it has actually happened to me). I think we could all agree that player B is acting unethically and illegally. He is cheating.
What makes it cheating? He is not allowed to move until it is his move – and it’s not his move until player A completes his move by pressing the clock. This is part of the reason (perhaps the main reason) why rule 6B is written the way it is. By Kevin’s reasoning, player B could say “What’s the problem? He was only on move ‘for claims’ – and he wasn’t making a claim – so it’s perfectly OK for me to move.” Nonsense – it wasn’t OK, because it wasn’t your move yet. Rule 6B makes it crystal clear what it means to be on move. It is the definition of “on move”. Rule 9G and all of its sub-clauses (as well as “touch move” and all other rules that use the phrase “on move”) are referring to this definition, not altering it.
If I say that I’m available for lunch tomorrow, it doesn’t mean I’m not available for anything else. It just means that I’m available in general (i.e., I haven’t committed to anything else yet), and I am giving a particular instance of that availability. I am not limiting it in any way. Likewise, when rule 9G1 says that player A is “on move for claims”, this is nothing but a particular instance of something that he’s allowed to do while he is on move (and only while he is on move). It does not limit what else he (or player B) can or can’t do while on move. That would make the whole concept of “on move” meaningless, and it would make rule 6B unnecessary. This is clearly not the case. He’s “on move for claims” because he is “on move” in the general sense (as defined by rule 6B).
Another angle: Rule 9G (the covering rule for 9G1 and all the other sub-clauses) deals exclusively with “the period during which the move is determined but not completed” (or as 9G1 puts it, “the period between determination and completion”). Unless the meaning of “between” has changed and nobody bothered to tell me about it, this means that the move has not been completed yet – and therefore, by definition (rule 6B again), player A is still “on move”. I don’t know how it’s possible for anyone to argue with this.
This will be my last post on this topic (or in this thread). If Kevin wants to continue to huff and puff and beat his chest, he can go ahead. I won’t be reading or responding to any of it.
I think it is Mr. Wiewel who above has stated that this is explicitly allowed in Blitz, that is releasing a man on the destination square both determines and completes a move.
Nevertheless, a player always has the right, explicit under the (FIDE) Laws of Chess and strongly implicit under the (US Chess) Official Rules of Chess, to press his clock after he moves. Thus, in Blitz the sequence A moves, B moves, A presses his clock, B presses his clock is explicitly allowed.
Note that I’m not arguing that B is acting ethically or legally while doing this in a non-blitz game, just that A has clear recourse. In practice the biggest effect is that B doesn’t get to deprive A of his delay or increment.
There is a very real question as to how long Black must wait after White has determined his move before acting. Surely it benefits no one if White fails to press his clock to complete his third move of a G/90 time control and Black must wait patiently 88 minutes to claim a win on time. Most people have found an accommodation with allowing Black to move after he has chosen his move and a certain minimum time has elapsed, while understanding that White retains all rights that he had between determining and completing his move, or notifying White that he has not pressed his clock. A question remains what that minimum time is.
Yes Alex, I did say that blitz rule 15 says determining a legal move completes it (allowing the opponent to move) and to avoid Dennis’ concern blitz rule 6b says that a player is always allowed to hit the clock after moving.
A quick moving player B does not prevent player A from hitting the clock and might even suffer from:
A moves and starts reaching for the clock
B moves in a split second and hits the clock (the hitting of the clock didn’t change anything because A’s clock was still running)
A hits the clock a second later and is on move while B’s clock is running
A moves 5 seconds later and and starts reaching for the clock
B moves in a split second and hits the clock
A hits the clock a second later and is on move while B’s clock is running
(repeat the last three lines and you have a 60 move 5/0 game with B flagging while A has 3:54 on the clock, or a 60 move 3;+2 with B flagging while A has 3:56 on the clock, 2:56 if it was 3;d2).
I’ve seen games where instantaneous clock hitters end up flagging themselves that way and it was fortunate that I was watching them (and could explain things) because otherwise an instantaneous player is usually certain that the opponent must have been cheating to win on time.
Kevin’s posts are difficult to read because of their length, but I THINK I agree with much of what he is saying.
It seems, though, that the best way to set things straight would be a simple change to rule 6B:
From: 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. …
To: 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 determined. …
In other words, instead of a player being on move from the moment the opponent presses the clock to the moment the player presses the clock, a player would be on move from the moment the opponent determines a move to the moment the player determines a move.
Then, of course, it would be necessary to carefully examine just about every rule in the rulebook to make sure there are no unintended consequences.
Technically, only White could offer the draw because he was the one who was on move. But the idea of a draw was first suggested by Black, and White responded by deciding to offer a draw, which Black accepted. The TD was still deliberating about the resolution of the claim when the draw offer was made and accepted.
After Qxg5, Black would almost certainly have responded with either fxg5 or hxg5, so that it would have been an even trade. If White had been forced to move the g pawn (either g3 or g4), Black’s response would almost certainly have been Qxc5, which would have given Black a major material advantage. So it was one of those cases where the call would have stood a good chance of determining the outcome of the game.