Arbiting Question

[Reg Clucas]

Is it correct, even required, to leave their own clock time running? Does it make a difference if a clock is being used which counts the moves?

It is certainly not required - you are entitled to press your clock even if your opponent has moved before you do so. And it means you get your increment added.

[David Williams]

Is it correct, even required, to leave their own clock time running? Does it make a difference if a clock is being used which counts the moves?

It is certainly not required - you are entitled to press your clock even if your opponent has moved before you do so. And it means you get your increment added.

You are entitled to press your clock. Are you obliged to? Your opponent is down to a couple of seconds, you make a move and your opponent responds instantly. If you don't press, his time remains the same. If you do, he gets the increment (to which he is entitled whether you press or not, surely?). But in the heat of battle?

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

The players I have encountered who reply before I have pressed the clock do so from move one not in time pressure and I think the rules should be changed and this action treated as cheating.

Whilst it may be a bit unsettling when someone moves before you press the clock to 'complete' your move, it is also worth noting, if the rules were changed to prevent "an opponent who makes his move after I have made my move but before I have pressed the clock", then David would be correct, how would you differentiate between simply you/your opponent forgetting to press the clock?

If it was considered to be cheating how would you differentiate it from your opponent moving, not having noticed that you have forgotten to press your clock? It seems a bit odd to make your opponent responsible for your clock management.

Besides, I am not sure beyond it being a bit unsettling for a couple of moves, someone who is moving this quickly from move one onwards, can not possibly be doing the same thing for the whole game (and win!), unless they really were exceptionally good at chess, in which case those few seconds saved really would have no impact on the ultimate result of that said game..

[Paul McKeown]

Michael White/Roger de Coverley

Yes, thanks for that. The points remains that spurious claims can still be dismissed by consideration of intent.

[Paul McKeown]

I have occasionally encountered an opponent who makes his move after I have made my move but before I have pressed the clock. I find this action distracting. That is presumably why they do it. Is his action legal?

It is perfectly legal to do so, and your opponent is almost certainly simply making their move without any consideration of whether you find it distracting or not.

Your right to press the clock, though, remains unabridged.

6.2.2 A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move.

If they have made their move before you have pressed the clock, you may still press the clock, they may press it on their side, and then you must make your move before pressing it again. With the use of increments, and clocks set with move counters, this all actually becomes advisable in order for both players to gain their increments and to avoid complications with time controls later in the game.

Also note 6.2.1 through 6.2.1.2:

6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
6.2.1.1 the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.6.1 and 9.6.2), or
6.2.1.2 the player has made his next move, when his previous move was not completed.

The annotated version of the (FIDE Arbiters' Commission) Arbiter's Manual 2022 makes the following observations:

Normally, when the player forgets to press his clock after making his move, the opponent has the following possibilities:
(a) To wait for the player to press his clock. In this case there is a possibility to have a flag fall and the player to lose on time. Some may think that this is quite unfair, but the Arbiter cannot intervene and inform the player.
(b) To remind the player to press his clock. In this case the game will continue normally.
(c) To make his next move. In this case the player can also make his next move and press his clock. If the game is played with move counter active, then one move has been missed by both players.

Making it illegal to make a move until your opponent has pressed their clock seems a strange request. Are they required to sit there, not progressing the game, whilst their forgetful opponent neglects to do the necessary? Regarding distraction, perhaps your opponent may even find it distracting that you are not pressing the clock when they expected you to do so. Should they tell you to press the clock, if you haven't? What if that was found distracting in itself?

[Ian Thompson]

With the use of increments, and clocks set with move counters, this all actually becomes advisable in order for both players to gain their increments and to avoid complications with time controls later in the game.

The annotated version of the (FIDE Arbiters' Commission) Arbiter's Manual 2022 makes the following observations:

Normally, when the player forgets to press his clock after making his move, the opponent has the following possibilities:
(c) To make his next move. In this case the player can also make his next move and press his clock. If the game is played with move counter active, then one move has been missed by both players.

I don't see anything in the rules preventing retrospective catching up of missed clock presses.

Let's say neither player presses the clock after their 10th move. The game then continues until move 20 with both players pressing the clock after each move. The clock press after move 20 was actually for the 19th move, so the player whose clock is now running is entitled to press it for their 20th move.

An unscrupulous player might decide to wait until their opponent has left the board before doing so.

[David Williams]

I don't think anyone has answered the question I posed a while back, which is whether a player can be compelled to press his clock. In a game with increments it matters.

You have less than a minute on your clock, your opponent just under five minutes. You initiate a long sequence of forced exchanges. Your opponent replies and you move before he has pressed his clock. Instead of pressing the clock he replies. This happens several times, the dust clears, you're in an ending, it's his move and his clock is running. And you still have less than a minute on your clock because you have missed out on half a dozen increments. What should happen?

[Alex McFarlane]

Let's say neither player presses the clock after their 10th move. The game then continues until move 20 with both players pressing the clock after each move. The clock press after move 20 was actually for the 19th move, so the player whose clock is now running is entitled to press it for their 20th move.

No, the clock press at move 20 was for the 20th move!

Consider a time control of 40 moves in 2 hours. A player completes their 40th move. While thinking about their 41st their flag falls. The opponent points out that the clock was not pressed on move 38 and therefore only 39 moves have been completed. Does the player lose on time?
Of course not. Although a player is allowed to press the clock the correct number of times, a clock press counts for the current move.

Obviously missed presses can be done at a later time.

[E Michael White]

Michael White/Roger de Coverley

The points remains that spurious claims can still be dismissed by consideration of intent.

The reason I pointed out the latest law revisions from Jan 2018 is that the definition of intent is now taken to be different from earlier law versions.

4.2.1
Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”).

4.2.2
Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.

4.3
Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:

4.3.1 one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved

etc

Para. 4.2.2 is the relevant bit which includes virtually everything as intended. Clearly accidental contact is usually taken as similar to brushing another piece with the back of the hand when attempting to move a different piece. Dismissing claims due to lack of intent is now therefore much less feasible.

[Paul Dargan]

I understand this change and think it is unfortunate. The classic example is having a pair of bishops on adjacent squares (say d3 and d2) and intending to play something like B(d3)xg6 - then accidentally picking up the dark-squared bishop on d2 to effect the capture. In the old rules you could argue (and I would agree) that you did not pick-up the d2 bishop with the intention of moving it - these days it's deliberate contact so you are compelled to move it.

I think this is a regrettable evolution of the touch move rule - but I realise it removes issues with arbiters having to determine 'intent' and reduces subjectivity. I would prefer a higher degree of arbiter interpretation and common sense and more loosely written laws - but that is of course dependent on universally highly skilled arbiters - sadly my experience is that many arbiters are borderline competent, let alone capable of making high quality decisions regarding 'making an attempt to win by normal means', etc. so we seem destined to go for more deterministic rules

[Paul McKeown]

With the use of increments, and clocks set with move counters, this all actually becomes advisable in order for both players to gain their increments and to avoid complications with time controls later in the game.

The annotated version of the (FIDE Arbiters' Commission) Arbiter's Manual 2022 makes the following observations:

Normally, when the player forgets to press his clock after making his move, the opponent has the following possibilities:
(c) To make his next move. In this case the player can also make his next move and press his clock. If the game is played with move counter active, then one move has been missed by both players.

I don't see anything in the rules preventing retrospective catching up of missed clock presses.

Let's say neither player presses the clock after their 10th move. The game then continues until move 20 with both players pressing the clock after each move. The clock press after move 20 was actually for the 19th move, so the player whose clock is now running is entitled to press it for their 20th move.

An unscrupulous player might decide to wait until their opponent has left the board before doing so.

No, nothing prevents retrospective catching up on clock presses.

And, as you say, an unscrupulous player might decide to do this whilst their opponent was away from the board. The annotaton to 6.2.2 in the annotated version of the (FIDE Arbiters' Commission) Arbiter's Manual 2022 makes the following observation (without making any reference to the possibility of abuse):

6.2.2 A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move. The time between making the move on the chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.

[annotation begins]
The following situation may happen:
A player makes a move, forgets to press the clock and leaves the table (for example to go to the toilet). After he returns he sees that his clock is running and believing that his opponent has completed his move he makes another move and presses the clock. In this situation the Arbiter must be summoned immediately to clarify the situation (did the opponent make a move or not?) and make the necessary corrections on the clock and the board.
[annotation ends]

Normally clock presses are caught up with whilst both players are at the board, and both players communicate their intent, implicitly or explicitly. This is a transparent process and neither player benefits from it. However, doing it whilst a player is away from the board does seem abusive, but the Laws have no comment to make. I suppose if you leave the board, you do so at your own peril. Particularly if you and your opponent have missed stopping the clock at any stage in the game.

[Paul McKeown]

The reason I pointed out the latest law revisions from Jan 2018 is that the definition of intent is now taken to be different from earlier law versions.

4.2.2
Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.

Para. 4.2.2 is the relevant bit which includes virtually everything as intended. Clearly accidental contact is usually taken as similar to brushing another piece with the back of the hand when attempting to move a different piece. Dismissing claims due to lack of intent is now therefore much less feasible.

(All of which has been dealt with before here in earlier threads, of course.)

The Laws still provide easily dismissal of non-intentional contact, such as the wild claims one might come across in junor chess of clear non-intentional contact, and still provide protection for those with motor disorders or other physical conditions, and still allows someone to reset pieces that have been knocked off the board, and still sensibly deal with the player whose chair or elbow got knocked by a passer by when he was about to move, etc. Any change to the Laws which did not provide adequately with such cases would be a mistake, but such a change has not happened.

[StewartReuben]

Paul McKeown >With the use of increments, and clocks set with move counters,<

I have never seen a chessclock with a move counter. It is always a push counter. There could be such clocks, attached to a digital board.

[Paul McKeown]

Paul McKeown >With the use of increments, and clocks set with move counters,<

I have never seen a chessclock with a move counter. It is always a push counter. There could be such clocks, attached to a digital board.

Stewart, I know the thing is not psychic and can only count the moves that have been signalled to it, however, the point is that after 40 moves (that it has been told about) it will add the next 30 minutes (or whatever) for the next 20 moves to the time available. Sadly, every time someone mentions digital chess clocks which are used to keep track of mulitple time controls in the same game, this same pedantic point occurs, and equally as often doesn't say something that the author and the readers were unaware of.

[Roger de Coverly]

Stewart, I know the thing is not psychic and can only count the moves that have been signalled to it, however, the point is that after 40 moves (that it has been told about) it will add the next 30 minutes (or whatever) for the next 20 moves to the time available.

That depends how it's been programmed. When leagues and tournaments were using the x in y plus z format, the clocks would add the time z at expiry of y, showing a flag fall when this happened, independent of the counter. It was possible to have them add the time after exactly x pushes without displaying a flag, but that involved a bit of devious thinking to program it. Now many events use increments, leagues and tournaments have gone over to a straight x in y plus increment format. That has the practical advantage that players no longer have to remember whether or not they've had the extra z awarded.