I am wondering what other TDs think about this situation. In a scholastic game/30 with 5 second time delay tournament, (middle schoolers) the TD was called over by Black who had just won on time.
It turned out that Black’s king was in check and Black had just made a move with another piece which left his King in check (thereby illegal). At the time of Black’s illegal move, White had only approximately 3 seconds remaining on her clock. After Black made the illegal move, leaving his king in check, and white’s time ran out 3 seconds later, Black called the TD over. White noticed before the TD arrived that Black had just made an illegal move. Four TD’s (myself included) consulted and felt that the win on time should stand because White had not noticed the illegal move until AFTER the expired clock was pointed out by her opponent.
When the TD arrived back at the board, the two players informed him that they were going to draw because it was a confusing situation. He felt that he should tell them what his ruling was going to be since they had asked him for a ruling, and did so. Of course, Black then no longer wanted a draw and after more consultation with us the TD ruled that the time forfeit stood.
Now, I do not know the precise manner in which the players communicated to the TD their intent to draw, i.e., whether they had already shaken on it, or they were merely thinking about it, or something in between. A couple of us thought it would be interesting to get some feedback from those of you with more experience on this question. I am wondering now whether the players’ decision to draw should simply have been accepted without the TD telling them what his ruling was going to be on the question raised. At the time of course I felt the TD action was correct and now am a bit unsure. Bear in mind the rating of these players is approximately 600. Thanks–in advance.
I think the TD’s ruling was wrong on at least two counts. First, under 11D the illegal move should have been corrected and the game continued with two minutes added to White’s clock. Note that 11D1 gives several conditions under which the illegal move should not be corrected, such as resignation or checkmate. Conspicuously absent is a claim of a win on time.
Second, when the players stated that they had agreed to a draw, the TD should not have intervened further. If you want to be legalistic about it, 14B says, “The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players. This immediately ends the game.” To forestall the likely response here: unlike checkmate or stalemate, fall of the flag does not “immediately end the game.” If the TD had already made a ruling ending the game, the players could not have agreed to a draw. Since he hadn’t made such a ruling, they could, and the TD should have kept his mouth shut.
Things always get tricky with 600-rated scholastic players.
I think it would have been better for the TD to keep quiet once he learned the players had agreed to a draw. This would have resulted in a more amicable finish than one requiring a ruling.
I’m not so sure about the ruling itself, either. It would be reasonable to argue that when the illegal move was made, the game went into a state of suspended animation, and never got past the point where 3 seconds remained on white’s clock. In that case, the best course might be to restore white’s clock to 3 seconds, and furthermore to add 2 minutes to compensate for the illegal move, thus resuming the game (with black’s illegal move retracted) with 2:03 on white’s clock.
I get the distinct feeling that, of all the players and TDs who you say agreed that the forfeit should stand, most were parents, coaches, teammates, or others with a vested interest in the outcome.
I was just going to say most of what John has said. I’ll further go on to say that 11D1c & d both emphasize that the final move for the winning side has to be legal in those circumstances.
Can you just see a player, with his opponent in extreme time pressure, slamming down a rook and saying “Mate”. After his stunned opponent looks at the position for five seconds and then says something like “You can’t do that. That’s an illegal move.”, the first player says “OK, but I win because your flag is down.”?
The TD eventually ruled that the game had ALREADY ended when the players were agreeing to the draw. Once the game is over, that’s it. No draws can be agreed to at that time. The point is that the game didn’t end when the TD ruled. It ended when one player made a claim.
After a claim of a win on time that is eventually ruled to be correct, it’s too late to agree to a draw. The game would already be over.
Now, in this particular case I believe the TD’s ruling on the time forfeit was incorrect. Bill and John were right to question the ruling on time forfeit. Rule 11D specifies that the move should be corrected and a penalty assessed (adding 2 minutes to opponent’s time). A claim of time forfeit has no effect on this, IMO (it’s not one of the situations in 11D1 where the illegal move doesn’t get corrected and a penalty assessed).
Here are a few potential counter-arguments in favor of ruling that the game really is a time forfeit. This is probably a good time to ask Tim Just what the intent was in “fun” little cases like this.
11D1 discusses whether or not there is no time adjustment if the game is still in progress. A claim of a time forfeit could be deemed to have ended the game, and thus rendered an illegal move claim moot.
1a) This would automatically avoid claims where the player is playing over the game in analysis and uncovers the illegal move and then wants to go back and finish the game after getting two minutes added back to the time (difficult if, for example, the opponent has already left the site to eat after thinking the game is done with). On the other hand, cleaning up the board and/or recording the result could be considered the equivalent of a player resigning (11D1b) and thus be an alternate reason to deny such claims (and possibly also a reason to deny an 11D1c or 11D1d claim).
In Alex’s example above, the illegal move claim is made barely prior to the time forfeit claim, and thus is made during the game and should be dealt with. Number 3 below addresses an intentional attempt to play an illegal move to cause the opponent to flag. (If the illegal move was unintentional and the flag is claimed prior to the illegality being pointed out then there is still a good chance that there will be a dispute)
If a player deliberately makes an illegal move to get the opponent to overstep then the director can use 11J to impose penalties.
.
All the discussion among TDs on the day of the incident, and now all these paragraphs being written for this case, show it is another example of where the rules should be simplified; to:
“Any player immediately loses when he makes an illegal move.”
Illegal moves are even worse than blunders, and illegals are less frequent. Blunders usually lead to a quick loss. Nobody is saying a player should be allowed to take back a blunder, so why allow him to take back an illegal move?
.
When I was working on the rulebook a friend of mine pointed out that one “cute” dirty trick was to make an illegal move that led to mate. Then, argue that no “illegal move” claim could be made due to the fact that “mate ended the game.” I promptly inserted that little bit about “…providing the mating move is legal…” into the text of the appropriate rules. It looks like I missed one.
As for an illegal move resulting in a loss…I believe that rule would have its own Pandora’s box, especially at scholastic events.
Oh mein Gott im Himmel, no, a thousand times no. A beautiful 2-hour game of chess should be ruined because one player makes an inadvertent illegal move? No way.
This rule is sometimes used in Blitz tournaments, and it’s bad even there.
Actually, the TDs in question had no interest other than making the right decision, but I think our lack of experience got in the way. With two lawyers and a math professor in the group I’m sure we were eminently competent to make the wrong decision. But afterwards we were all pondering on this one.
I really appreciate all the feedback–and so quickly! This is really useful–and interesting.
I think awarding a forfeit there was wrong. I think the illegal move should take priority over time running out. There is too much potential for abuse otherwise.
If the correct ruling had been made then the draw offer could be made and accepted. I agree with Bill that a draw would have been in more amicable resolution. Often kids prove wiser in situations like that.
Club level chess games of high beauty are not all that common. Percentage wise they are even uncommon among grandmasters.
Illegal moves are probably less common among grandmasters than among club players. And it is the GMs who produce most of the beautiful games.
Most illegal moves occur in average games that are not candidates for any beauty prize. Illegal moves are uncommon, less common than are blunders.
The illegal move rules amount to an unnecessary exception to the touch move rules.
The majority of illegal moves get everyone guessing about the rules, which is a hint that the rule is too complex (with all the detailed scenarios that can be generated; time controls this or that, the clock flags this or that, check this or that, touched this or that).
It is a matter of personal judgment determined by how much each person values simplicity in the rules. In practical terms I see very little being gained in return for this particular complexity.
In the chess community overall, I feel I am in the minority on this. I sense that the majority does not consider rule simplicity to be any priority.
I wonder if we play by different rules about mulligans in golf?
.
I disagree. If you make an illegal move, you must take it back and play a legal move. The touch-move rule applies to the replacement legal move. That is, you must play a legal move with the same piece you originally moved illegally.
Simplicity is a good thing, other things being equal. But in this case, other things are nowhere near equal.
