Tactical Illegal moves

[Joey Stewart]

I was just thinking of a cunning idea that could be employed to abuse the illegal move rule that adds minutes onto the clock.
Say, for example, player A is short of time in a complex position with a few moves remaining to the time control and an extra minute or two of thinking time could decide the game. He could therefore make a deliberate illegal move and press the clock, thus gaining not only the increment bonus plus having to reset the position and getting another "free" move towards the time control.
Best of all would be if player B paused the clock and called an arbiter on the game as he can now sit with several minutes of free time to continue analysis as well as another increment to come and a flustered opponent to whom the extra 2 minutes added will be of far less value.

This is why it is better to remove time from an offenders clock.

[Ian Thompson]

I was just thinking of a cunning idea that could be employed to abuse the illegal move rule that adds minutes onto the clock.
Say, for example, player A is short of time in a complex position with a few moves remaining to the time control and an extra minute or two of thinking time could decide the game. He could therefore make a deliberate illegal move and press the clock, thus gaining not only the increment bonus plus having to reset the position and getting another "free" move towards the time control.
Best of all would be if player B paused the clock and called an arbiter on the game as he can now sit with several minutes of free time to continue analysis as well as another increment to come and a flustered opponent to whom the extra 2 minutes added will be of far less value.

This is why it is better to remove time from an offenders clock.

I've seen that happen in a tournament game, although there was no reason to think the offender deliberately played an illegal move.

White was clearly winning a rook and pawn ending, but playing poor moves and making no progress. He then played an illegal move. The clock was stopped. The arbiter took some time to deal with this. White appeared to be analysing the position while the clock was stopped. When the clock was restarted White finished his opponent off with no trouble at all.

[Geoff Chandler]

I've heard (and read) about this happening as well.

I'd be too flustered battling against the clock and side stepping and creating two move tricks to stop and think of swindling a couple of minutes. I'd probably lose on time looking for an illegal move that will not screw me over once the 'touch move rule' kicks in. For this reason I think in a large amount of the known cases it has been a genuine error. Or am I being too naive.

[John Upham]

I am aware of an instance this in a local league match.

The offender gleefully announced that the victim would need to have time added to their timer.

The victim more gleefully announced that they did not want the extra time.

The offender lost on time and we all laughed.

[NickFaulks]

Or am I being too naive.

Yes, you are. This has been a known and deliberate ploy for many years. It has been discussed within FIDE but the authorities choose to do nothing about it.

Personally, I don't think it even matters whether or not it is deliberate. If you make an illegal move or an incorrect claim with seconds on your clock, this should not result in an advantage to you. Under the Laws, it unavoidably does.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Nick,

I've been playing serious chess (with clocks) since 1965. I feel left out. I've never been involved in any of these so called scams or incidents. I also think there are 100's of other players like me who do not or have not been involved in any of these adventures and these cases are very rare.

If I made an illegal move in time trouble it would not be intentional I'd resign rather than have the T.C. or my opponent thinking I was at it. (mind you I'm not a pro and chess is not my living, I may swing from a different tree if not losing was very important and mega bucks was involved.)

Surely the solution is to ask the player not making the illegal move if they want two minutes added to their clock or two minutes taken off their opponents clock. If that means the offending player loses on time then so be it.

[Joey Stewart]

It didn't used to matter as much in the days before increments as you could just reset the position and force them to play on without any penalty, this wasting their own time, but now they are getting a free increment for the illegal move on top of the one they will subsequently recieve for the correct move.

It used to be the case that you just lost time from your clock and if that was enough to lose you the game then so be it but they decided it was unfair and changed it. under the current ruling you lose nothing and end up with not only a free bit of thinking time but also the bonus increment.

[NickFaulks]

Surely the solution is to ask the player not making the illegal move if they want two minutes added to their clock or two minutes taken off their opponents clock. If that means the offending player loses on time then so be it.

That is the solution I have suggested. They won't have it.

[NickFaulks]

It used to be the case that you just lost time from your clock and if that was enough to lose you the game then so be it

I don't think it did. If memory serves, you used to lose half of your remaining time if that was less.

[Geoff Chandler]

That is the solution I have suggested. They won't have it.

Hi Nick,

That is because they never thought of it first. Wait a few years till your suggestion is forgotten and then someone at FIDE can take the credit for it.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Bridge has some infractions where the opponents have the option to choose which of a number of different penalties is applied; there might be scope for chess to do that.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I wonder what tactical illegal moves there are in cricket? (Sorry if anyone wants to avoid spoilers!)

[Matthew Turner]

I have seen this happen in real life with a top 100 player playing agaisnt David Bronstein.

I did talk to Bronstein afterwards and I remember saying it was a bit like cricket where there are gentlemen and players. To be honest I am not sure what that means, but I think he sort of did

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Can you remember the year, Matt, or are you trying to avoid identifying the player?

[Matthew Turner]

I am not going to identify the player, but I think the year was 1989/90