Do you have to compete promotion to win ?

[Ian Thompson]

The only easy way to solve the problem Nick mentioned is for the first illegal move to lose.

Is it difficult to add time on to one clock and subtract time from the other? It shouldn't take more than a minute to do it. If the issue is as Nick Faulks says and only really applies when the offending player is short of time then make the time deduction 5 minutes, or 10 minutes, so an infringement when short of time loses the game, but otherwise it won't.

An alternative might be to permit the opponent to refuse the penalty.

This would set a dangerous precedent, which we already see with losses due to mobile phones ringing, of players being, or at least feeling, that they are being pressurised not to apply the rules.

[Roger de Coverly]

This would set a dangerous precedent, which we already see with losses due to mobile phones ringing, of players being, or at least feeling, that they are being pressurised not to apply the rules.

I'm sure it happens in practice that the player with more time would waive the right to an additional two minutes by not summoning an arbiter, particularly with digital clocks. There was an allegation that in the early days of digital clocks, a foreign GM playing at Hastings deliberately made an illegal move when short of time, the idea being to exploit the pause while an arbiter fiddled with a clock.

With the increasing use of increments, there's a disparity in the award of two minutes. If you have less than a couple of minutes and your opponent has only a little more and the position is unsuited to an Appendix G claim, the extra two minutes for an illegal move is a possible lifesaver, particularly if the extra time provokes a draw offer. With increments it's of somewhat lower value.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick >in the case of the king it is randomly somewhere between loss of the game and negligible? I have never heard any explanation other than "that's the way it has always been done".<

First you must make your mind up what you want to achieve.
If it is game where you stick rigidly to the Laws, then you end up with a number of defaults.
If you want only some illegal moves to lose, then you have to decide which ones.
If you want none to lose, then you end up with something like the current Laws for standard play.
Why shouldn't I take off my own pieces?
What is this nonsense about the stalemate rule? You trap the king. It can only be moved to a square where it can be taken. No, we can't have that and instead it is a draw.
I do have a reason for that, but I can't believe they thought about this in the 19th century. If stalemate loses, my guess is that White's advantage may be 60% instead of the current 51.5%. Of course, if we played 2 game matches in tournaments, that wouldn't matter so much.

I can remember at least three tournaments where I walked away and allowed the players to get on with their own game.

[Roger de Coverly]

If stalemate loses, my guess is that White's advantage may be 60% instead of the current 51.5%.

Not to mention rewriting reams of endgame theory and putting most of the "sacrifice a pawn for initiative" openings out of commission.

[Jesper Norgaard]

It might thwart this particular scheme, but it would not be effective in stopping the unacceptable conduct, so it's pretty pointless. (If the rules were as you suggest, the player could just play any king move in E. Michael White's position, leaving him free to play any legal move he likes once the illegal move is retracted because the king has no legal moves.)

No I was prepared to penalise ANY illegal move with not allowing underpromotion in the replaced move. Thus if you move the king, the move replacing the king move cannot promote to a rook, bishop or knight.

If a player is short of time and decides to deliberately play an illegal move to get the clocks stopped while it's corrected, so he gets extra thinking time, the only way to deal with that under the current rules is to have supervision by an arbiter and to have an arbiter who is prepared to apply an appropriate penalty for such behaviour. The difficulty, of course, is that it's almost impossible to determine that a player deliberately played an illegal move, so they're very likely to get away with it. The rules would be much better if they applied an automatic time penalty to the player who made the illegal move as well as giving extra time to their opponent.

Yes I believe it will be impossible to punish deliberate illegal moves, because it is impossible to objectively conclude it was a deliberate swindle. In effect he can scheme with other things, like disturbing his opponent, and hope that the arbiter will stop the game, so he can get some extra time to think. We can punish illegal moves differently though.

I have not had the patience to follow this thread in detail, but the cases discussed seem to have practical importance only when a player does something illegal when short of time. This leads me to a general complaint about the Laws, which I have argued for many years.

Suppose that a player who is very short of time commits an infraction. The clocks are stopped and an arbiter is summoned. The position is explained to him and he makes a ruling. He adjusts the position and the clocks as required and the games is restarted. Throughout the intervening period, the players have of course had at least half of their minds on the position on the board.

I'm sorry, this is no longer the same game. The game as it was before the infraction, with momentum favouring one player or other, is irrecoverably dead. In my opinion the player deemed to be at fault should lose two minutes of his time. If that means that he loses on time, then so be it. The current "penalty" that his opponent gets 26 minutes instead of 24 is meaningless.

I hear you both on the penalty being useless for the faultless player. When 24 minutes is increased to 26 minutes, but the culprit gets an extra minute to think, the effect is actually worse than status quo. There is no penalty at all, just costless extra thinking time to the culprit.

People like Justin Bieber will just laugh off being fined with 5000 dollars for throwing eggs on his neighbours door. The effect is non-existing compared to the millions of dollars he earns. The American courts have instead had succes with applying penalties relative to earnings, so that an infraction by Justin Bieber might cost him 10% of his earnings that month, so now the rich people will listen.

My initial reaction is to hurt the player of the illegal move on the thinking time. How about cutting it in half? And I do mean half. If he has 10 seconds left, he will have 5 seconds after the penalty. If he has 40 minutes, he will have 20 minutes after that. That will
have a definite discouragement but still leave life after the sentence. There are no "default loss so be it".

It is relatively easy to administer the penalty, and it will have a relatively proportional effect whether the violator has little time or lots of time. It may sound Draconian, but it will not necessarily lead to a loss on time, only a 50% reduction in time management ability. After the second illegal move, the time is reduced to 25% compared to before the first infraction (not considering time used between first and second infraction of course).

Under those circumstances I would not have any problem granting violators 3 lives, so that only after the third illegal move, is the game lost. I think it is a better and less Draconian penalty to apply than instant loss at the first or second illegal move.

The awarding of 2 minutes extra time to the opponent could be changed to an offer of 2 minutes extra time, if he/she wants it, so that the hassle (and extra time delay for the arbiter applying the extra time) can be avoided if the award is not wanted by that player. As it happens now, in a Blitz game the offer should be 1 minute instead of 2 minutes to concur with the rhythm of play.

Of course there are also some practical problems in applying this penalty, for instance on analog clocks where handing out a result in seconds is not possible, but I don't think it is an impossible task for the arbiters.

If it is desirable to change for Blitz and Rapid too, then the rules would have to abandon the handling of illegal moves in A4 so that the handling of illegal moves becomes uniform for all three modes of play. Some arbiters say that it is impossible to handle. However if the players are allowed to administer this penalty of Blitz games themselves, perhaps that could relieve the arbiters of the extra task. In any case Blitz and Rapid games could also be handled as today with first illegal move becoming a loss, but it would be less necessary if the time penalty is enough preventive action.

Jesper asks me to modify 7.5a para 2.
Change the word illegal to' incorrect'. Define incorrect in the glossary. Since pushing the pawn to the 8th rank and pressing the clock is no longer illegal, this removes the problem of mating with an illegal move and the game thus ending up as a draw.

7.5b. After the action first completed illegal or incorrect move by a player, the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determined the penalty awarded. Normally the opponent shall be awarded an extra two minutes. But he may decide this is too disturbing and that it is better simply to continue the game without altering the clock times.
This is similar to 7.1 and I expect they can be amalgamated.

Thanks Stewart, this was a concrete idea I hadn't thought about. I am only getting my head around the idea, and I'm not prepared to comment yet. I will comment in due time.

[NickFaulks]

First you must make your mind up what you want to achieve.

Stewart,

I though I had done so, and expressed myself in terms in terms that almost anyone could understand. Looking back, I still think that I did - Rules Commission arbiters are evidently the toughest nut to crack.

Obviously, and as you know perfectly well, I want the Laws to be observed at at times. Absolutely, utterly and under no circumstances do I want the arbiter to decide whether or not it is beneficial for the Laws to be waived ( I don't know whether I'm making myself clear, but I'm doing my best ). I would like to see the Laws changed in one simple way which has no substantive effect on the game of chess.

When explaining the game to a beginner, you say that the object of the game is to capture the opponent's king. They get that. You then say that in certain circumstances, when their opponent has put their king on a square where you can capture it directly, you must let them off. They ask why, you say it's just a strange rule. They ask whether, if their opponent does something equally careless and gives them their queen instead, they have to let them off that too? You say no, you can just take it and please don't ask what the difference is.

My suggestion for a minor and long overdue improvement to the game is that failing to notice that a move leaves one's king is en prise is treated like any other blunder, and that if the opponent notices he can take the king and win the game. Simple. Forget all the stuff about illegal moves because it isn't an illegal move, just a common or garden blunder like any other. Which, except when the player is messing about in the ways discussed in this thread, is exactly what it is.

I never doubted that you would attempt to muddy the water with an irrelevant discussion of stalemate. You know perfectly well that I have no desire to change the stalemate condition. Some consequential changes to the wording of several regulations would be required, since they currently rely heavily on the definitions of "legal" and "illegal" - some clauses could simply be removed, and we don't mind that. The whole process doesn't seem very difficult, if it were deemed desirable.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick,
Your post above is a deliberately and unwarranted slur on me. I resent your idea that I am deliberately muddying the waters. What possible motive could I have for doing that?
Carl. Please moderate this forum comment by Nick Faulks.

You would have preferred that I write: First one must make one's mind up what one want to achieve. Instead, I used the normal construction in English of 'you' instead of 'one'. Alternatively I could have used RC or General Assembly.

No, it is you who is deliberately choosing one particular type of illegal move and making it different from others.
Make your suggestion to the Rules Commission. I shall not facilitate it. Ashot is currently asking for suggestions.

You are obviously unaware that there are about 37 instances in the Laws of Chess where the arbiter is expected to use his discretion. Apart from the Preface, I think the first example is in 4.3.

[NickFaulks]

Carl. Please moderate this forum comment by Nick Faulks.

Oh dear.

[Roger de Coverly]

There is another way to view this. If you input a game to a database, when you push a pawn to the eighth, a dialogue box will appear which asks whether you want a queen, rook, bishop or knight. If over the board was regarded as the physical manifestation of a game being played in the head, then pushing a pawn automatically promotes it and the doubt is what to. Thus shouting "queen" indicates the choice, delivers mate and the game is over.

[Carl Hibbard]

Carl. Please moderate this forum comment by Nick Faulks.

Oh dear.

I see no need to moderate Stewart as the "suggestion" cannot possibly be classed as a slur. You have responded to the post and that is sufficient on this one.

[E Michael White]

7.4a of the 2005 Laws for standardplay states: If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. For blitz, of course, the last illegal move lost.

Which copy of the 2005 Laws are you quoting from. Hopefully not the UK CAA copy.

[Stewart Reuben]

I was quoting from the official 2005 Laws of Chess. The accessible version for me is in the Third edition of my book. Perhaps I should have written, more accurately, in blitz, if the player completed an illegal move, the opponent could claim a win.

[E Michael White]

You may recall that FIDE simultaneously had two versions of the 2005 Laws on their website as a result of change control errors. One live version erroneously contained an arbiters new suggestions. It's advisable to check you have the correct version when looking at 2005 laws.

[Brian Towers]

You may recall that FIDE simultaneously had two versions of the 2005 Laws on their website as a result of change control errors. One live version erroneously contained an arbiters new suggestions. It's advisable to check you have the correct version when looking at 2005 laws.

And the UK CAA one is still wrong? If so perhaps let them know.

[Stewart Reuben]

Oddly enough I am more interested in the 2014 Law being correct and that the Laws, due to be agreed in Baku to take effect from 1 July 2017, are also correct.
e.g. Just last week I noticed for the first time there is nothing in the Laws to prohibit a player taking his own piece(s) off the board.