I agree completely with Terry here. Nothing on that board or clock belongs to the opponent until the move is completed. Nowhere does it state that an opponent has a right to make a move before the “player on move” is no longer “player on move” by pressing his/her clock thereby completing the move.
I also disagree that in blitz it’s okay to move before the player has pressed the clock. Clock rules should transcend all games regardless of type.
Any other rule allows the practice of the player with more time feinting toward the clock in an effort to cause a violation.
No. Absolutely no for blitz. And for rapid and standard play, my ruling, if complained about, and barring exceptional circumstances, is likely to be no more than, “Yes, naughty. Play chess.”
One of the scholastic nationals (2003?) did have some players in the blitz making their first move, not pressing the clock, and then trying to claim an illegal move win.
It is currently legal to move in blitz before the opponent presses the clock (with the proviso that the opponent still gets to press the clock and the risk that if you don’t press back then it is the opponent’s move with your clock running). You may legitimately disagree about it being okay, but if you are running a blitz rated event then it is legal by default and any variation annulling that legality in your event should be announced in the pre-tournament publicity (in which case you should not be surprised by clock feints to trick the opponent into an illegal move before the clock was actually pressed).
A majority of the clock non-presses that I’ve seen have had both players oblivious to the missed press and both playing on without ever realizing it was missed once.
In an increment time control a player should alert the TD as otherwise a missed press deprives that player of the increment for a move.
Oddly it’s more acceptable in blitz than in regular chess. Though in a regular game it’s generally unimportant. Most of the time a player moves out of turn only because the other player forgot to press the clock and he just didn’t realize it. Blitz comes closest to specifically allowing it though the closest referencing rule is simply that a player must be allowed to press his clock. It’s not quite the same.
It is accepted practice for the following sequence in Blitz:
Player A moves
Player B moves
Player A presses clock
Player B presses clock
If player A makes a claim (such as triple occurrence, etc) before he presses the clock and after Player B moves, I would uphold all claims as if Player B hadn’t moved yet, so that it doesn’t nullify anything he is properly entitled to.
In general I’m not disagreeing with any of you. I know move ,move, press, press is correct in blitz as it is presently stated in the rules. I would still prefer it be changed.
In regular or quick chess I warn the opponent the 1st time he/she plays over the player on move (claimed of course). For subsequent violations I will then begin to penalize. It is a distraction and should be dealt with as such.
Let’s test this.
In a regular rated game outside of time pressure (say an hour remaining for each player), White determines a move and does not press the clock. Fifteen minutes pass. Black then makes a move, and either:
White claims a violation. The facts are undisputed. How do you rule?
I have a serious problem with number 3. Suppose we agree that White has the right to make any claims until he presses his clock, even if Black has responded in the meantime. When Black presses White’s clock, there is no reason to believe that White can make claims.
Alex Relyea
The fact pattern may have been selected with the hope and expectation that you would articulate that problem. I am appreciative, and interested in hearing the views of others.
It is quite a stretch to quote a rule that merely defines a couple of terms, and to use that rule to bolster (either side of) a debate about a later rule.
Bullfeathers.
There are many pitfalls in having a rule that penalizes a player because his opponent failed to press the clock right away.
For example, what if my opponent forgets to press his clock, and I don’t feel like reminding him because he has already forgotten to press his clock several times earlier in the game? Must I then choose between reminding him even though I don’t want to, or waiting it out until he either notices or runs out of time? Once I’ve decided what my next move will be, it gets boring to wait. And if he runs out of time, there will likely be hard feelings between us for weeks to come.
Or, what if my opponent forgets to press his clock, so I start thinking about my next move, and I eventually forget that he forgot, make my next move anyway, and reach for the clock, only to have my memory jolted when I see that his clock is still running? Am I then subject to a penalty? I have, after all, already determined my next move.
Or, what if my opponent deliberately fails to press his clock, in the hope that I will get impatient and move anyway, thus incurring a penalty? Some posters here have reported that this has already happened in some scholastic tournaments.
So, please forget about declaring it illegal for me to move before my opponent has pressed his clock. The appropriate punishment for me would be simply for my opponent to press his clock now, even though it is now his move again. That forces me to notice, and to press my clock yet again, or if I don’t notice, my time will run during his move and I may even lose by time-forfeit.
Bill Smythe
Mr. Smythe’s argument is perhaps more germane if we allow me to make a small change. Suppose his opponent has left the board after failing to press his clock. Must Mr. Smythe, after deciding on his move, wait for his opponent to return before moving, even supposing he has an, um, urgent reason to leave the board himself? I see much opportunity for gamesmanship here.
Alex Relyea
If you ask me, any of those three actions should be considered acceptable behavior by black; white has no complaint, and black should not be penalized.
I have often done number (3) myself. If my opponent is the type to forget to press his clock, then he is unlikely to notice my quick double-press, or even if he does, he has no legitimate complaint. If anything, he should be appreciative that I restored his lost increment time, or more yet, that I restored his move count (in the first control of a 2-control event).
I think I read somewhere, in some FIDE document, that procedure (3) is in fact recommended. I’m not sure I could find it now, though.
Procedures (1) and (2) deprive both players of one increment interval and one move count, but if this deprivation hurts white more than black (e.g. because white is in more time trouble than black), then black shouldn’t feel guilty for deliberately overlooking white’s missing clock press.
Bill Smythe
Good point. The original act of gamesmanship, if that’s what it was, was committed by my opponent when he failed to press his clock. As long as the rule allows me to move anyway, I am not the victim, because I can always change my mind and make my move after all. Now, if the rule prohibited me from moving because my opponent had not yet pressed his clock, then I could well become the victim because while I was in the loo he returned and pressed his clock.
Bill Smythe
Opponents have claimed this infraction in National Scholastic events on several occasions. I don’t know of anyone who has ever given a penalty for it. I certainly haven’t and wouldn’t unless there is something else going on. This is their coach trying to gain every edge they can. We don’t buy it.
If Black pressed White’s clock for him and White was deliberately waiting to press his clock, then I’d be willing to reset the clock to its original state of White’s turn. Black’s move stands barring any other claims from White.
If the clock was simply not pressed (White forgot), then I’d certainly allow White to press his clock and then Black to do so as well. All moves stand as mentioned before.
Yes, this possibility does raise some issues. But there are decent solutions.
If white moves, then waits 15 minutes, then black finally moves, and then presses first white’s clock and then black’s, it is possible that white now may say, “Hold on a minute, I didn’t press my clock yet because I was deciding whether to make a claim” (or “to offer a draw”).
In that case, I would think (and the arbiter should so rule, if necessary) that white retains his right to make a claim, based on the position just before black’s last move and double clock press, and this right expires only when white touches a piece to make his next move. The arbiter would also have the right (but not the obligation) to temporarily retract black’s last move while he (the arbiter) ponders his ruling on white’s claim.
I think you probably meant “that white cannot make claims” or “that white can no longer make claims” or “there is no reason to deny that white can make claims”, right?
Bill Smythe
No. White can no longer prove that he is on the move for claiming purposes. Assume that White’s clock is running and he wants to make a claim based on the position after his 45th move, but the clock shows that the clock is not only running for White’s 46th move, but it is, in fact, White’s move. Why would the TD who is unlikely to be watching this particular game believe that White was properly making his claim?
Alex Relyea
If both players agree with the fact that white moved and had not pressed the clock a TD has reason to believe whites explanation.
My question is whether blacks move (a) automatically represents a rejection of a draw offer not yet made and (b) assuming black is not accepting a draw offer, is he bound by the move. I’d say no and yes.
I’m not sure what the concern is for the person who walked away from the table after making a move. (If he isn’t away from the table, the opponent could simply point to the clock to remind him to press it). He can’t make a claim because he’s already moved. So the only thing that’s really a possibility is a draw offer. (I guess the story would be that perhaps he wanted to look at the situation on other boards before making a decision about that). But a potential draw offer has (in effect) already been declined. Play chess.
Can a draw offer be declined before it was offered?
I think I would rule it as if the offer was made while White was on move following blacks mice. Thus it is on the table and black may insist white make his next move before deciding whether to accept it.
A draw offer may be made at any time on a person’s move and may be improperly made on an opponent’s move (possibly penalized as a distraction of the opponent if it isn’t accepted).
Touching a piece declines a draw offer. If White admits to originally planning to make a draw offer then White is not required to do so after black moved (but is still allowed to do so).
A draw claim, on the other hand, is different. If White’s move brought about a three-fold (or greater) repetition of the position, and if both players agree that White never pressed the clock, then a TD can rule on a three-fold draw claim that ignores Black’s move (at least, a TD can if US Chess Rules are used and not FIDE rules).