Q1. Both players have just seconds left, one player makes a move knocking over a number of pieces and then punches his clock. His opponent frustrated that he doesn’t know where the pieces belongs or how he might make a move in this miss oversteps the time control. How should a TD rule in this case, and does it make any difference if this is a standard game or a blitz game?
Q2. Both players have just seconds left, one player makes a move and then moves his hand over towards the clock. His opponent makes a move and punches the clock. The first person, with his hand near the clock, now completes his former move by now punching the clock – it is the first person’s turn to move, but his opponent’s clock is now running. How should a TD rule in this case, and does it make any difference if this is a standard game or a blitz game? (And does it make any different if he was intending to fake out his opponent, or if it just happened by accident?)
Steven Craig Miller (chess coach at Lincoln-Way West High School, New Lenox, IL)
From Q2 I should have added after “it is the first person’s turn to move, but his opponent’s clock is now running” the phrase “and then his time runs out”.
The opponent loses the game. The opponent should have immediately pressed his clock without making a move. Rule 11C (“Accidental piece displacement”) states that the player must restore the position on his own time before pressing the clock. If the player does press the clock without restoring the position, the opponent “may press the clock without moving, if necessary, to force the opponent who knocked over the piece(s) to restore the position on his or her own time.”
It is immaterial whether the game was “standard” or bllitz.
I have a feeling my answer will be controversial, since I have had arguments with other TDs about this.
The essential word is “completed.” Rule 9 (“Determination and completion of the move”) makes a definite distinction between a move being determined with no possibility of change and a move being completed. It is lengthy to quote in its entirety, but the gist of it is that a move is determined when the player lets go of the piece and completed when the player presses the clock. In the time between determination and completion of the move, the player is still “on the move.” (For instance, this is the correct time for the player to offer a draw.)
While the rule book is not explicit about this, I connect rule 6B and rule 9 and infer that a player may not move until the opponent presses the clock. Usually, the argument I hear against this is “so, if a player forgets to press the clock, the opponent is just supposed to sit there?” I believe that, technically, the answer is “yes.” In practice, though, the opponent either reminds the player to press the clock or just eventually makes a move.
Let’s say in your particular case that White had moved, and before White pressed his clock, Black moved. Then White pressed his clock. So, it’s White’s turn to move, but Black’s clock is running. Black should just press his clock to start White’s clock. I would argue (as above) that Black should not have moved before White completed his move by pressing the clock, and White was fully justified in pressing his clock. (Note that if there is an “increment” time control [in which a certain amount of time, typically 30 seconds, is added to the player’s clock when pressed], it is important that a player be allowed to press the clock after moving. This is also true if the clock is in “Bronstein mode” [equivalent to delay, except the delay time is added back when the player presses the clock].)
Again, nothing in my answer depends on whether the game in question is a blitz game. However, moving on the opponent’s time tends to happen much more frequently in blitz than in “standard” games. A noteworthy example is the playoff between Irina Krush and Anna Zatonskih in the 2008 U.S. Women’s Championship (here is an open letter from Irina Krush on Chess Life Online that also contains a link to the video of the game).
Finally, I’ll point out that the FIDE Laws of Chess differ from the USCF rules on this point. The Laws of Chess do not use the terms “determined” and “completed” to describe the process of moving. Instead, the Laws of Chess article 1.1 state “a player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’” and refers to article 6.7. The Laws of Chess basically treat a “determined” move (USCF term) as “made.” Article 6.7 states that “a player must always be allowed to stop his clock.”
I’ve probably given you more of a dissertation than an answer to your question, but I hope it helps. I probably just love the sound of my typing too much.
The opponent who runs out of time loses the game. Even though the opponent has determined a move, his move is not completed until he presses the clock.
To me, your answer to Q1 is a lot more “controvercial” than Q2.
For Q1, since I am not a NTD, but just a player, I would not argue the interpretation for the rules, but only point out that this interpretation (that seems to encourage knocking over pieces and pressing the clock) is why I do not play over-the-board blitz without delay or increment any more.
For Q2, on the other hand, I totally agree with your interpretation. One should not make a new move until his/her opponent completed theirs. If you notice that your opponent forgot to press the clock, politely notify them of it, rather than make a move when your time is not running. If my opponent is not at the board at the time, I would even go as far punching my opponent’s clock for him/her (fully knowing that I run the risk of being forfeited for this action)
In the situation Mr. Miller presented in his first question, it is very unfortunate that the opponent (apparently) did not know the rule allowing him to immediately stop his clock and start the other player’s clock. Unfortunately, after the game, it is too late to make a claim.
I appreciate everyone going over these issues with me.
In regards to Q1, it seems to me that if a player accidentally displaces pieces and then presses the clock during a game in sudden death, the right thing would be to stop both clocks and claim an additional two minutes (rules 11C & 11D), yes? This would also hold true for a blitz game, unless one is using rule 3A, and then the person who knocked over the pieces and pressed the clock would forfeit (a strict interpretation of the rule which I’ve never seen used, but then I’ve never seen anyone ask for two extra minutes during a blitz game either).
As for Q2, it struck me as an attempt at cheating. Neat trick to make a move, pretend to press the clock by moving one’s hand near the clock, wait for your opponent to move and press the clock, then press the clock so that one could continue to think about the position while your opponent’s clock was running. It seems odd to me that during a time scramble, one needs to wait until one’s opponent presses the clock before one is allowed to move. It seems equally odd that it would be okay to press your clock after your opponent has made a move.
Remember, at least under my interpretation of rules 6B and 9, the opponent has no right to make a move before you press the clock. And, in the case of an increment time control, it is important that the player be allowed to press the clock after moving, since that causes the increment time to be added to the clock.
I appreciate very much the thankless hard work of the TD’s in the US and can understand their frustration at players not knowing the rules. Moreover, that indeed might be the issue in the cited example.
However, allow me to put that aside and instead look at the issue from the players perspective, rather than TD’s. What if a player notices that his/her opponent is down to the last few seconds and then while making his/her move and pressing the clock, would then grab the clock in the same motion. Does then the opponent have a recourse to protest the result after their flag has fallen? If yes, how is it different from distracting the opponent by knocking the pieces over? I understand that grabbing the clock is expressly prohibited, but so is making illegal moves. My point (rather wishful thinking) is to have a way to appeal a loss on time if the time forfeit claim is made when the position on the board is illegal.
I do hope I’m not giving the impression of frustration at players not knowing the rules. (Nor do I give players a “free pass” for not knowing the rules. But I don’t mean to come across as frustrated. As a TD, I “live and die” by the rule book, as I describe in the next paragraph.)
In the case described in the first question, I would only rule that the player whose flag had fallen loses the game because the first player (who knocked over the pieces) claimed the flag fall before the other player had claimed violation of rule 11C. While I may be sympathetic with a player not knowing the rule, as a TD, I am required to objectively apply the rules. I understand this may not seem “sporting” (the comments about “the player’s view”), but it is what the rules require of the TD.
The situation in the question (where the player knocks over pieces and presses the clock without restoring the position) as well as the hypothetical you describe (the player grabs the clock) are quite thorny, especially in a blitz game without delay where the opponent may be down to less than a second. In a blitz game under these circumstances, I would be especially liberal about interpreting the opponent’s action as a claim. For instance, in the case of the displaced pieces, if the opponent pressed the clock without moving but not in time to prevent his own flag falling, and the player who knocked over the pieces did not call the flag fall before the opponent pressed the clock, then I would interpret the opponent’s action as a silent claim of a violation of rule 11C. Even if the first player then called the flag fall, I would rule that the opponent’s “silent claim” had happened first, and I would likely impose the standard penalty of adding two minutes to the clock of the opponent of the player who displaced the pieces.
In the case you described (a player grabbing the clock away from the opponent), if I witnessed that behavior, I would intervene under the provision of 21D3. (Rule 21D concerns the director’s intervention in a game; 21D3 provides for “warning players about or penalizing players for disruptive, unethical, or unsportsmanlike behavior.”) I think that grabbing the clock in the manner described crosses the line of unsportsmanlike behavior, and possibly unethical behavior as well. As far as I’m concerned, there is no way to justify grabbing the clock as “accidental” (unlike the possibility of accidental piece displacement).
For that matter, if the director were to witness a player intentionally displacing pieces when moving and then pressing the clock in an attempt to make the opponent lose on time, this could also be considered “unsportsmanlike.” However, in this case, I believe the director must be quite sure the behavior is, in fact, intentional.
Blitz can sometimes be painful because of the lack of delay. A player stands a much better chance of handling cases such as displaced pieces not being restored without losing time when there is a delay.
(Just to open another can of worms, here’s one of my pet peeves: a player “promotes” a pawn by pushing it to the last rank, says “queen” (or maybe doesn’t say anything), and presses the clock. Rule 8F7 disallows this and also states that the opponent may immediately press his own clock without moving to force the player to complete the promotion properly. I witnessed this behavior [not replacing the pawn in a time scramble] just this week.)
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you expressed frustration at the players not knowing the rules. What I meant is that for the players who know the rules, the issue of other players not knowing the rules is not such a problem, as it is for Tournament Directors. So, by “player’s view”, I meant that for the purposes of this discussion, I would assume that the players know the rules.
My beef is with the “accidental” criterion. It’s extremely rare to have the pieces knocked over and not replaced in a game when both players have plenty of time. Given weighted set of pieces, normal coordinated human beings are quite capable of consistently putting the pieces upright. I claim that the same care with the moves should be taken when one or both sides are in time trouble. To give an extremely common example, when one throws a piece on a square rather than sets it there while making a move, he or she might be genuinely intending to have it landed right side up and claim that it was accidental when it did not. However, at the same time, the player throwing the piece knows full well that this kind of accident is going to happen most of the time.
I understand that this is a thorny issue and having a delay or increment is the best way to avoid it. I was standing right beside the video camera when the Krush-Zatonskih game was played (so, you can only see me on that video after the game ended) and cannot deny a healthy amount of entertainment that I got from watching. I agree with Irina that the USCF rules currently in place and the common way they are enforced could be improved upon by (for example) providing an avenue for appeal even after the flag has fallen. I envision a common resolution of such an appeal would be to replay the game (when it’s feasible, of course).
The only potential attempt at cheating is by the second player who moved when it was not his turn. In the given scenario when the first player completes his move by pressing the clock, there is an incorrect position on the board that was caused by the second player. The second player must restore the correct position on his own time by returning the moved piece to its previous square. He is then free to make his move, but must follow the touch-move rule as he touched this piece when creating the issue. In practice the second player usually just presses the clock again, and the first player does not claim the rules violation as it is rarely enforced by TDs. He instead forgives the infraction and continues the game.
“Pretending to press the clock” would be treated differently.
Picking up the clock by either player is forbidden under 16C2. If I don’t see it, there aren’t any witnesses, and time ran out on a player, I’d have to evaluate the situation quite carefully. Essentially you have a player making a claim but without the physical ability to stop the clock, and it would be a rare claim indeed. All psychology aside, I would likely add 2min to the claimant’s clock and make the two decide the game on the board. If there are disinterested witnesses that can indicate whether it was an attempt to win on time with seconds to go, I’d forfeit the player who picked up the clock.
You seem to be assuming a number of things that weren’t given in the problem.
First, rule 11C applies if, and only if, the piece displacement was accidental. And there are two pieces of evidence that at least suggest it may not have been: (1) The player displaced the pieces when his opponent was under serious time pressure, and (2) after displacing the pieces, the player illegally pressed his button without replacing the displaced pieces. In my experience, it’s pretty unusual for pieces to be displaced during a tournament game, and it would certainly be very convenient for a player to have such an unusual accident and then forget he was supposed to replace his pieces before hitting his button, all at the precise point in the game when he stood to benefit from such accidents.
Second, nothing is given in the problem about the order of claims, and I’d be surprised if they were clearly made in the order you describe. Of course, if I were called over to a board with some displaced pieces and one player said “His flag fell” and the other didn’t say anything, I’d call the first player the winner. And if his opponent later explained that the player had displaced a number of pieces and then hit his button without fixing it, I’d explain to him that (a) he should have immediately hit his button and demanded that his opponent replace the pieces, and (b) he should have called it to my attention before I ruled on the fallen flag. But a more likely scenario is that I would be called over and presented with all of the facts at the same time. Assuming that both players were in agreement about what happened, I’d rule that the player who displaced the pieces and then hit his button had made an illegal move and give his opponent 2 more minutes.
Note that rule 11C says that “The opponent may press the clock without moving, if necessary, to force the player who knocked over the piece(s) to restore the position on his or her own time” (emphasis mine). It doesn’t say what happens or what the ruling should be if he doesn’t. But it says that the player who displaced the pieces “must not press the clock until the position has been reestablished” and the player has clearly violated that.
The problem with this is that a player who deliberately displaced pieces would be unlikely to do it in a manner that looked deliberate. A player who displaces pieces and then hits his button without fixing things when his opponent is under serious time pressure doesn’t deserve to get the benefit of the doubt!
In my opinion, when a player punches a clock with pieces knocked over, I call this an illegal move. I would like to extend the rule that checkmate does not end the game if the mating move is illegal. If I am lucky and a delay clock is being used, even if there is dispute over how much time is left, I can always give the 5" + the 2 minutes. Even if there was a dispute and time delay was not being used, I would at least give 2 minutes unless it was felt that perhaps 10 seconds or more passed.
I hate the rule that if pieces are knocked over, just restart your opponents clock.
Regardless if the opponent is experienced or not, I don’t think a player should benefit from knocking over pieces. I am concerned that the game is fair for both players. This might be a case where I would ignore the “rule” and allow the game to continue unless it were first reported as over, ie signed score sheet or players leaving the table.
I think you may be opening quite a can of worms there. You’re basically throwing out the rule that a legal move (that is, a move that is compliant with rule 8 ) that produces checkmate or stalemate is both determined and completed when the player releases the piece on its destination square. Also, it seems that you would then require the player to press the clock after the move producing checkmate or stalemate, since you don’t know whether pieces will be knocked over until the clock is pressed. Presumably, by changing the precise point at which the move is determined, you’re opening the door to time forfeit claims, even if the position on the board is checkmate for the player out of time and even if there are witnesses to attest that the player released the piece before the flag fell.
But I think the question is “what constitutes an illegal move?” I would argue that an illegal move is one that does not comply with rule 8 (moves of the pieces) or with rule 12 (check, as in refuting [“refudiating”?] check). My issue is with declaring pressing the clock with pieces knocked over and not replaced to constitute an illegal move.
I certainly do not think a move that does not conform with rule 8 should end the game even if the result is a checkmate or stalemate position.
The rule already is that an illegal move that produces “checkmate” is not considered a checkmate (13A).
When Ernie said –
– I’m sure he meant he’d like to extend the “illegal-checkmate-does-not-end-the-game” rule in such a way that various other illegal procedures – such as knocking pieces over and then calling the opponent’s flag – don’t end the game either.
I agree. Another example would be an illegal move other than checkmate, followed by a “legal” checkmate on that player’s next move.
Such hanky-panky (both of these examples, and others) must not be tolerated. The TD needs a stronger hand to overturn such nonsense.
The most logical way to fix the rule would be to give the TD the discretion to rule analogously to 11A. That rule says that (under certain conditions) an illegal move should be corrected if the illegality is noticed within the next ten moves.
The analogy would be that, if an apparent game-ending move (such as checkmate or a flag fall) occurs within ten moves after an illegal move, the TD should be empowered to annul the apparent result and restore the game to the position just before the illegality.
Certain specifics, especially involving timing, deserve further discussion. If, for example, the “checkmated” player appears to accept the result, or fails to object immediately, the TD should have the discretion to rule that the original (bogus) result should stand.
