Drop a piece lose the game

[NickFaulks]

Yes, we've all been there. Then they press it again, then you press it again, then they hold it down....

[MJMcCready]

And sometimes someone else presses your clock.

[Roger de Coverly]

Shah's statement was that the rule is that displaced pieces lose in blitz games if not corrected in your own time. As you correctly point out, the penalty for a displaced piece is at the arbiter's discretion, so the statement that they always lose is wrong.

I gather there was an incident of this nature In the Sunday Blitz at the British Championship. The disputed issue was whether a player, having moved and pressed the clock should be penalised by loss of game if they subsequently knocked a piece over. It's quite possible that an announcement had been made that the most stringent interpretation would apply. There again, there may not have been any announcement.

[E Michael White]

Unfortunately that's where we are as regards displaced pieces followed by a clock push, when blitz is played with increments. It becomes impractical to restart an opponents clock while they take time replacing pieces. Clearly we don't want arbiters deciding different penalties for the same circumstances so the choice is a) play without increments and allow players to restart opponents clocks, as earlier laws permitted or b) play with increments where the penalty is loss of the game after the first infringement.

Roger on a separate point is the appeal process in the British clearly stated anywhere ? After Aberystwyth we would hope so. This statement from the Tournament Rules has a hint of Anfield about it, so maybe was written by an Arbiter from those parts.

The Chief Arbiter is empowered to expel a player from all tournaments entered, either for a number or rounds, a number of days, or in their entirety, who shows dissent by word or action towards an arbiter.

The problem with that is it appears to overwrite the right of a player within FIDE laws to appeal any arbiter decision or ask an arbiter to explain his ruling. Dissent on a football pitch is not the same as well informed questioning of an arbiter in a tournament hall.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Unfortunately that's where we are as regards displaced pieces followed by a clock push, when blitz is played with increments. It becomes impractical to restart an opponents clock while they take time replacing pieces. Clearly we don't want arbiters deciding different penalties for the same circumstances so the choice is a) play without increments and allow players to restart opponents clocks, as earlier laws permitted or b) play with increments where the penalty is loss of the game after the first infringement.

While I concur that it is impractical to restart and opponent's clock when there is an opponent displacing pieces and not correcting that in his own time, while increment is in place, the cure is set out in 7.4:

"If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position in his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the chessclock and ask for the arbiter’s assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces."

The player should just stop the clock and complain to the arbiter that his opponent has displaced pieces and not corrected them in his own time. It is up to the arbiter to find a suitable penalty, which could be omitted of course. That said, since this opponent is most likely doing it to save time on his clock if it was deliberate (we can't know that), then the penalty should be on his own time as well. The arbiter could probably choose some amount from 10 seconds to a minute retracted the offender, when compared to the time the offender can save (a few seconds).

I don't know why you suggest (a) or (b) since playing without increments is obviously not possible in that moment, and loss of the game seems Draconian and is not (necessarily) what 7.4 prescribes. It is not less Draconian to demand a loss just because the rules of the tournament demands that loss, as in the Beijing Mind Games and certain tournaments in India. I believe Ignatius Leong was prominent in promoting this solution in Asian tournaments. In my view the stronger the penalty sought, the weaker the mind of the arbiter seeking it. Of course that is just an opinion, but I happen to relish the British sense of fair play that neither permits indifference on the matter, nor Draconian penalties, but rather a measured response to the kind of problem that the arbiter is seeking a solution for. The loss of the game can be a necessary step when a player persistently refuses to follow the laws of chess, or is deliberately disturbing the tournament hall with screaming and shouting, but it should be the last option rather than the first.

After Brexit you should all try to become more "British", IMHO. As a foreigner I may have a biased view on what that means.

[Leonard Barden]

I gather there was an incident of this nature In the Sunday Blitz at the British Championship. The disputed issue was whether a player, having moved and pressed the clock should be penalised by loss of game if they subsequently knocked a piece over. It's quite possible that an announcement had been made that the most stringent interpretation would apply. There again, there may not have been any announcement.

I think this incident merits more discussion than there has been so far. My informant, an eye-witness, told me that subsequent to the knocked over piece incident there was a long discussion/argument between the two players and the arbiters, resulting in a replayed game and an allegation of further unsporting behaviour by one player, all this causing the prize-giving to be delayed by an hour on a very hot day. My informant's conclusion, with which I agree, is that a time penalty option rather than a mandatory decision whether to default is an essential.

[Roger de Coverly]

[ My informant, an eye-witness, told me that subsequent to the knocked over piece incident there was a long discussion/argument between the two players and the arbiters, resulting in a replayed game and an allegation of further unsporting behaviour by one player, all this causing the prize-giving to be delayed by an hour on a very hot day.

There was more to the story as Leonard's informant suggests. The starting point was displacement of pieces as in the tournaments described earlier. It's also been suggested that extra time would have been useless to the complainant on the grounds that they were in a losing or lost position when the piece was displaced.

Arbiters may know better, but isn't it the case that the easiest time penalty to apply is to add one minute or multiples thereof? So if a piece is displaced during a player's time, the opponent's remedy is to stop the clock, summon the arbiter and get given an additional minute. The other contentious point is the point at which an illegal move loses. Do you have until you've pressed the clock to correct it?

[IM Jack Rudd]

The other contentious point is the point at which an illegal move loses. Do you have until you've pressed the clock to correct it?

Yes.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Arbiters may know better, but isn't it the case that the easiest time penalty to apply is to add one minute or multiples thereof? So if a piece is displaced during a player's time, the opponent's remedy is to stop the clock, summon the arbiter and get given an additional minute.

If the displacer has a won position with little time on the clock, and the claimant has more time, it seems ridiculous to give extra time to the claimant, instead of subtracting time from the offender, as this just leads to the offender saving time on the clock exactly as planned, while the "penalty" is ineffective. But that is the arbiter's fault, as he has both options in

12.9a increasing the remaining time of the opponent
12.9b reducing the remaining time of the offending player

Why didn't the claimant complain that it was a ridiculous penalty? Perhaps that is when the big discussion started.

The other contentious point is the point at which an illegal move loses. Do you have until you've pressed the clock to correct it?

Exactly. That is hardly a contentious point.

[E Michael White]

While I concur that it is impractical to restart and opponent's clock when there is an opponent displacing pieces and not correcting that in his own time, while increment is in place, the cure is set out in 7.4:

Well yes if the tournament is played with increments that is the relevant law.

I don't know why you suggest (a) or (b) since playing without increments is obviously not possible in that moment, and loss of the game seems Draconian

I wasn't suggesting a switch to non-increment at that stage of a game. I was expressing an opinion that tournaments with increments have the drawbacks stated. The choice is to play the tournament under increment or non-increment at the outset. Tournaments of whatever nature seem to run more smoothly if the arbiters actions are determined in advance with zero or very little arbiter discretion. Wishy washy laws that say the arbiter may do this or may do that do not inspire confidence that the right result is obtained.

[Jesper Norgaard]

While I concur that it is impractical to restart and opponent's clock when there is an opponent displacing pieces and not correcting that in his own time, while increment is in place, the cure is set out in 7.4:

Well yes if the tournament is played with increments that is the relevant law.

I don't understand why you think 7.4 is not relevant for piece displacement if the tournament is not played with increment. Which law would then be relevant?

I don't know why you suggest (a) or (b) since playing without increments is obviously not possible in that moment, and loss of the game seems Draconian

I wasn't suggesting a switch to non-increment at that stage of a game. I was expressing an opinion that tournaments with increments have the drawbacks stated. The choice is to play the tournament under increment or non-increment at the outset. Tournaments of whatever nature seem to run more smoothly if the arbiters actions are determined in advance with zero or very little arbiter discretion. Wishy washy laws that say the arbiter may do this or may do that do not inspire confidence that the right result is obtained.

I did misinterpret what you said in (a), you were talking about whole tournaments without increment, under old laws. Let me try again below:

a) play without increments and allow players to restart opponents clocks, as earlier laws permitted or b) play with increments where the penalty is loss of the game after the first infringement.

Concerning (a) we could well play without increments, but not bring back earlier laws. I can only understand your comment as a hypothetical, what could happen under current laws if some of the old laws were returned

Concerning (b) I can only take that as a hypothetical as well. Suppose we had laws where increment meant that piece displacement was an instant loss. Well we have that in Beijing Mind Games, but I don't see any reason to want that. Do you?

Listen to Ian Thompson, from June 19 of this thread

Under what rule could an arbiter possibly rule that a knocked over piece constitutes an illegal move?

June 22:

Shah's statement was that the rule is that displaced pieces lose in blitz games if not corrected in your own time. As you correctly point out, the penalty for a displaced piece is at the arbiter's discretion, so the statement that they always lose is wrong.

I agree completely with Ian. Are you trying to bring Shah's statements back to life?

[Bob Kane]

I played in the British Blitz on Sunday .
In one game I was white and checked my opponents king which was on g7 from d4 with my Queen, he responded with Qh3+ announcing Mate ! he did not press his clock.
I Claimed the game because of the illegal move. We summoned an arbiter, whose first question was "can the black queen stop the check with his queen?"
( citing touch move) but no he couldn't ..
the Arbiter then stated that checkmate ends the game ! but I pointed out black King was still in Check.
All very confusing

We were given 9 secs each to finish the game
my opponent had by now had a big think and found a way to block the check with his extra rook .

so I resigned

what is the proper result in this unusual situation

personally, I think announcing check should be mandatory in blitz and would avoid a lot of disputes

[Paul Dargan]

@ Bob:

Checkmate ends the game - so long as the last move was legal (here it wasn't)
So now we consider your claim. Your opponent has not completed his illegal move (he has made it but not completed it) as he hasn't pressed the clock - this means that Qh3+ needs to be replaced by a legal move. If the Queen could interpose the check then it has to (touch move) but if that isn't possible then it can be replaced by any move.

You may have a claim for some extra time due to the distraction (but as your opponents clock has been running throughout then it's not a great claim)

From a purely practical, results-merchant perspective your best course of action would be to sit there 'dumbfounded' until your opponent's clock ran down before mentioning that it's not mate because Black was in check.

Paul

[NickFaulks]

I Claimed the game because of the illegal move.

What was wrong with that claim?

[E Michael White]

What was wrong with that claim?

For an opponent to claim the game after an illegal move the player has to have pressed the clock to complete the move.

Why were the players given 9 seconds each ?

Listen to Ian Thompson, from June 19 of this thread

Under what rule could an arbiter possibly rule that a knocked over piece constitutes an illegal move?

Well as Jesper effectively asked me:-

A player is in check and moves a piece, near to the clock, other than his king which leaves the king in check. If he presses the clock and then knocks that piece over, I would hope the arbiter rules the move illegal because it happened before the piece displacement.