Drop a piece lose the game

[Chris Rice]

I was watching a blitz game on Youtube and as you'll see (at 6.41 of the 7 minute clip) White was winning and then tried to play Qxa6. However in doing so the queen fell over on the a6-square. Black immediately claimed the game. Is there a specific rule on this or is it just that dropping the piece and pressing the clock constitutes an illegal move?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLatbmD526M

[Michael Flatt]

The opponent made a claim for an illegal move, which was accepted. White hadn't placed the piece correctly on the board correctly before pressing his clock.

[Jesper Norgaard]

I was watching a blitz game on Youtube and as you'll see (at 6.41 of the 7 minute clip) White was winning and then tried to play Qxa6. However in doing so the queen fell over on the a6-square. Black immediately claimed the game. Is there a specific rule on this or is it just that dropping the piece and pressing the clock constitutes an illegal move?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLatbmD526M

Yes that would have to be the reason. Still if we compare to if he had tripped over his queen (before playing Qxa6) he would not be obliged to move the queen, if he had not intended to move it. So it seems Draconian to rule this a loss. If we look at the video, the move Qxa6 was clearly played on the board, but then the hand movement from the queen to the clock, tripped over the queen. He only corrected the queen to a6 on his opponent's time right after.

FIDE rules that any move that is not a legal move, is an illegal move, except pressing the clock forgetting to move a piece. It is the law in both Blitz and Rapid games. Only in Standard games the first illegal move does not lose the game. It seems to me FIDE has gone down a road to enforce ever more Draconian losses on silly grounds disregarding the intentions of the player completely. The only Safe Heaven for a player is that if he trips over pieces he doesn't lose because of it, unless he presses the clock right after.

In my view it would be perfectly feasible to have the laws allow two illegal moves before the loss on the third illegal move, and still have perfectly fair games played. It would have to include the player committing the illegal move pay with clock time reduction, to avoid schedule problems, since an arbiter involvement will delay the game. To lose half your clock time for each illegal move, seems fair to me.

[Paul Dargan]

I know it's happened in the world cup before. In theory you have to adjust pieces, including fall-overs on your own time.

In practice in the UK I'm used to people just re-pressing the clock - but overseas I've played with both the rue that seems to be in force here (if a piece falls over after you've pressed the clock you lose) and a 1 warnign then loss rule.

Paul

[NickFaulks]

What if your hand brushes the queen on its way to the clock, causing it to wobble, but it hasn't come down when you press the clock? Are you then allowed to stabilise it? I guess you're not, and you both just sit there watching it make up its mind whether to fall.

[Jesper Norgaard]

A player may also hurl a rook down the d-file, and pressing the clock without waiting for confirmation where the rook ended. Would that constitute an illegal move if the rook was sliding by on d5 when the clock was pressed, but finally ended up on d3? I would suppose so, even if the player had not touched the piece at all after the clock press.

[E Michael White]

Some time back on Chess Café Geurt Gijssen suggested an extra 10 secs to the opponent is an appropriate penalty in a blitz game. This seems about right to me as its 1/30 of 5 mins and a 2 minute penalty would be at most 1/30 in a LP games. The FIDE Laws used to say the arbiter must penalise the player but now its unwisely left to the discretion of the arbiter or event rules.

[Ian Thompson]

I was watching a blitz game on Youtube and as you'll see (at 6.41 of the 7 minute clip) White was winning and then tried to play Qxa6. However in doing so the queen fell over on the a6-square. Black immediately claimed the game. Is there a specific rule on this or is it just that dropping the piece and pressing the clock constitutes an illegal move?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLatbmD526M

I would have thought this should be dealt with either under Law 6.12 b (stopping the clock when not entitled to do so) or Law 7.4 (displacing pieces), not Law 3 (illegal moves). Laws 6.12 and 7.4 both give the arbiter discretion on whether, and how, to penalise the player. That could be loss of the game, but doesn't have to be.

Black has no grounds for claiming the game as White's infringement of the rules does not result in an automatic loss.

[David Williams]

Is there any sort of requirement or recommendation about filming games, or certainly for high-level Rapidplay and Blitz? When you think of the amount of debate about the use of technology in sports like tennis, football and cricket, chess is dead easy. (Best not to use your own phone for it, however.)

[Paul Dargan]

Someone tried this last night in a blitz event (not terribly serious, but some GMs in the field) and an arbiter I'd not seen before politely told him to get on with the game.

That said I clearly remember an incident either in the world blitz or a world cup where someone knocked a piece over on the way to pressing the clock and made no fuss about the insta-loss they were awarded ... so maybe the rules have been relaxed.

Paul

[Michael Flatt]

Someone tried this last night in a blitz event (not terribly serious, but some GMs in the field) and an arbiter I'd not seen before politely told him to get on with the game.

That said I clearly remember an incident either in the world blitz or a world cup where someone knocked a piece over on the way to pressing the clock and made no fuss about the insta-loss they were awarded ... so maybe the rules have been relaxed.

Paul

If the Arbiter regards the mishap as a simple accident over which the player has no control he might not consider it an illegal move;
however, the fact that White had pressed the clock before righting the piece does disadvantage his opponent.
According to the particular circumstances it can't be assumed that all Arbiters would make identical decisions - they are human!

[Jesper Norgaard]

If the Arbiter regards the mishap as a simple accident over which the player has no control he might not consider it an illegal move;

That would have been prudent here as the queen had settled on a6 before being tripped over just before Abhijeet Gupta was pressing the clock. A ruling could be made through 7.4 (displacement of pieces). I notice that the incident happened at 6:37 but Sethuraman just complained to the arbiter without stopping his clock first. This seems very foolish as Black in an Armageddon game where he started with 4 minutes, Gupta with 5 minutes. At the time Gupta had 1:22 while the queen is in the way to see what time Sethuraman had. The arbiter instead stopped the clocks at 6:49 which means 12 seconds after. The arbiter couldn't possibly have known that he needed to rewind 12 seconds on Sethuraman's clock if the game was to be resumed. That is Sethuraman's fault as he didn't use the correct way to claim to the arbiter - he should stop the clocks first.

however, the fact that White had pressed the clock before righting the piece does disadvantage his opponent.

Yes but it would be possible to add a time compensation to Sethuraman's clock.

According to the particular circumstances it can't be assumed that all Arbiters would make identical decisions - they are human!

That is the center of the problem - to avoid arbitrary losses from dubious illegal move judgments, it would seem it can only be avoided if illegal moves are not ruled an instant loss as they are now in Blitz and Rapid games. Whether this is an example of an illegal move or not, is a separate issue.

Gupta had 1:22 at the time of the incident. Had he been subject to lose half his time, he would have ended up with 41 seconds. That would presumably be enough to finish the game on the board, especially if Sethuraman did not have so much time. I am not aware if they would receive increment after move 60, but it is possible.

Ruling a loss for an illegal move seems to me an unnecessarily harsh penalty. We have put up with it for many years in Blitz, now from 1 July 2014 it has also invaded Rapid games. But wouldn't it be better to decide the games on the board, and let an illegal move pass as a sign somebody tripped in his own shoelaces?

What would happen if Formula 1 was decided by similar harsh penalties, for instance if the Red Bull team by mistake sent their race car into the McLaren pit, then they should be disqualified from that race and receive 0 points? I think there would be an uproar from the teams. Unfortunately that is not the reaction from the complacent chess players who have accepted the loss as the only logical conclusion in Blitz games.

I am calling for a paradigm change - let the games be decided on the board, not by losses caused by silly rules!

[Richard Bates]

If the Arbiter regards the mishap as a simple accident over which the player has no control he might not consider it an illegal move;

That would have been prudent here as the queen had settled on a6 before being tripped over just before Abhijeet Gupta was pressing the clock. A ruling could be made through 7.4 (displacement of pieces). I notice that the incident happened at 6:37 but Sethuraman just complained to the arbiter without stopping his clock first. This seems very foolish as Black in an Armageddon game where he started with 4 minutes, Gupta with 5 minutes. At the time Gupta had 1:22 while the queen is in the way to see what time Sethuraman had. The arbiter instead stopped the clocks at 6:49 which means 12 seconds after. The arbiter couldn't possibly have known that he needed to rewind 12 seconds on Sethuraman's clock if the game was to be resumed. That is Sethuraman's fault as he didn't use the correct way to claim to the arbiter - he should stop the clocks first.

however, the fact that White had pressed the clock before righting the piece does disadvantage his opponent.

Yes but it would be possible to add a time compensation to Sethuraman's clock.

According to the particular circumstances it can't be assumed that all Arbiters would make identical decisions - they are human!

That is the center of the problem - to avoid arbitrary losses from dubious illegal move judgments, it would seem it can only be avoided if illegal moves are not ruled an instant loss as they are now in Blitz and Rapid games. Whether this is an example of an illegal move or not, is a separate issue.

Gupta had 1:22 at the time of the incident. Had he been subject to lose half his time, he would have ended up with 41 seconds. That would presumably be enough to finish the game on the board, especially if Sethuraman did not have so much time. I am not aware if they would receive increment after move 60, but it is possible.

Ruling a loss for an illegal move seems to me an unnecessarily harsh penalty. We have put up with it for many years in Blitz, now from 1 July 2014 it has also invaded Rapid games. But wouldn't it be better to decide the games on the board, and let an illegal move pass as a sign somebody tripped in his own shoelaces?

What would happen if Formula 1 was decided by similar harsh penalties, for instance if the Red Bull team by mistake sent their race car into the McLaren pit, then they should be disqualified from that race and receive 0 points? I think there would be an uproar from the teams. Unfortunately that is not the reaction from the complacent chess players who have accepted the loss as the only logical conclusion in Blitz games.

I am calling for a paradigm change - let the games be decided on the board, not by losses caused by silly rules!

Well quite - although this incident is of a different order to a normal "illegal move" which at least the perpetrator has some control over. The idea that somebody could be defaulted in the first minute of a rapidplay game for nothing more than an obvious accident is absolutely outrageous.

[NickFaulks]

I am calling for a paradigm change - let the games be decided on the board, not by losses caused by silly rules!

You don't think there needs to be some rule to prevent you from creating a shambles on the board and then starting your opponent's clock? To me, the idea isn't obviously silly.

[Ian Thompson]

If the Arbiter regards the mishap as a simple accident over which the player has no control he might not consider it an illegal move;

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