Drop a piece lose the game

[Roger de Coverly]

Is it also your (Stewart Reuben's) contention that if it is Black's move (in a Standard game), and White stands up to go to the toilet, if he accidentally knocks over piece(s) on the board, he also loses?

Illegal moves don't lose at standard play, so presumably not.

It seems to be Stewart's opinion that an illegal position arises when a piece is displayed and thus should get the same penalties as an illegal move. To my mind, that's only become an issue in the last six months or so and chess does not have a history until recently of games being claimed if a piece is knocked over.

I wonder if this throws any more light on the Aberystwyth dispute of two years ago, that went all the way to the FIDE Ethics Commission as well the Arbiters' one. It had never been clear how the facts of an illegal move could be disputed, but if it was a displaced piece, perhaps they could.

[Ian Thompson]

Is it also your (Stewart Reuben's) contention that if it is Black's move (in a Standard game), and White stands up to go to the toilet, if he accidentally knocks over piece(s) on the board, he also loses?

Illegal moves don't lose at standard play, so presumably not.

Presumably it would still count as an illegal move, so you'd lose if you did it twice in a standard play game under Stewart's rules.

[Stewart Reuben]

Jesper >Since we are talking about any mode here, rule 7.4 in Danish, is it your contention that Richard Bates' scenario also loses in a Standard game? If not, why not?<

Because, in a standardplay game the first illegality does NOT lose.
I now believe that losing after the first illegal move in rapidplay is a bad law. But I was unable to convince my fellow RC Councilllors of this.

To be clear Richard. Yes, if a player creates an impossible situation according to the Lawsn and the opponent's clock is going, then the player loses. That is provided either the arbiter notices, or the opponent claims.

[NickFaulks]

To be clear Richard. Yes, if a player creates an impossible situation according to the Lawsn and the opponent's clock is going, then the player loses. That is provided either the arbiter notices, or the opponent claims.

Does whether or not an increment is being used make a difference, as has been suggested?

[Richard Bates]

Jesper >Since we are talking about any mode here, rule 7.4 in Danish, is it your contention that Richard Bates' scenario also loses in a Standard game? If not, why not?<

Because, in a standardplay game the first illegality does NOT lose.
I now believe that losing after the first illegal move in rapidplay is a bad law. But I was unable to convince my fellow RC Councilllors of this.

To be clear Richard. Yes, if a player creates an impossible situation according to the Lawsn and the opponent's clock is going, then the player loses. That is provided either the arbiter notices, or the opponent claims.

You don't think there is perhaps something wrong with that? That something occurring accidentally, and which is unlikely to have any bearing whatsoever on the game outcome, should result in a default. And when there is a perfectly obvious less draconian alternative available in the granting of additional time? Such an interpretation is far worse than any mobile phone or draconian time default rules which are at least closer to the control of the potential "offender".

I doubt there is anyone who has played chess who hasn't potentially fallen foul of what would be a totally ludicrous outcome were it to be generally interpreted in such a way. Do you make an exception for those effected by some sort of disability?

What is the penalty for spilling a drink all over the board? (a far more disruptive act than briefly disturbing and replacing an accidentally displaced queen)? No "illegal/impossible" position there though! Most players have probably done that at some point as well.

EDIT: regardless of the natural justice arguments above, having just perused the laws I am totally bemused by your interpretation. It seems quite clear from the drafting of 7.4 and 7.5 that a "displaced piece(s)" and "illegal moves" are two completely different things, with different remedies in each case. Since the specific rapidplay (and therefore blitz) rules only specify a mandatory default after an "illegal move" (and are silent on any specific penalties for displaced pieces) then I don't see how the laws as written can possibly be interpreted to result in a (mandatory) default for the displacing of pieces. Maybe there is some other clause somewhere else...

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick Faulks >Does whether or not an increment is being used make a difference, as has been suggested?<

No.

Richard >You don't think there is perhaps something wrong with that?<
Perhaps you overlooked that I wrote that I think we made a mistake in having the first illegality lose in a rapdiplay game in the 2014 Laws.
Next, you will be stating that removing an opponent's piece from the board (whch is not specifically forbidden) is just a misplaced piece. To me, misplaced means such as pawn a2-a4.5.

Rixhard >What is the penalty for spilling a drink all over the board?<
Keres v Benko, the latter very short of time. Pal spilt his coffee on the board and stopped the clock. Paul simply restarted Benko's clock.

I didn't want a mobile phone ringing to lose automatically, but was outvoted.

[Roger de Coverly]

Maybe there is some other clause somewhere else...

I don't think there is. There is an influence in organised chess that would like to default players at the slightest opportunity. Having been more or less thwarted in the attempt to default players for not being seated at the board when the game commences, said influence has now moved on to attempting to default players for accidentally knocking pieces over.

[Jesper Norgaard]

“Power tends to corrupt,” said Lord Acton, the 19th-century British historian. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Abraham Lincoln: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Maybe there is some other clause somewhere else...

I don't think there is. There is an influence in organised chess that would like to default players at the slightest opportunity. Having been more or less thwarted in the attempt to default players for not being seated at the board when the game commences, said influence has now moved on to attempting to default players for accidentally knocking pieces over.

I have noticed that suggestions to change the laws have become more draconian in recent time.

There was a surge around 2008 with several tournaments with displace-pieces-and-press-clock-is-a-loss rules in vigor. I believe the principal proponent was Ignatius Leong, but I did not experience it personally, so I could be wrong. In themselves, these rules can be said to fit within the constraints of the normal rules, since an arbiter is always able to rule a loss, but they are certainly in the extreme end of what arbiters would normally do.

Stewart Reuben told the following tale:

"I stick to what I said in 1984 at the Olympiad. A Ugandan had difficulty understanding why there wasn't a greater penalty for something his opponent had done. I said, 'We try to avoid penalising somebody for tripping over their shoelaces.' The Uganda said, 'Thank you very much. Now I understand' and returned to his game. That is why I would prefer it to be two illegal moves for rapidplay and that the pawn push to the 8th rank is incorrect, not illegal."

I kind of sympathize with this story, and think it is the right mindset for an arbiter's general attitude to infractions. The only infractions to deem a loss are the deliberate swindling, the persistant refusal to follow the Laws of Chess, and similar behavior.

It is therefore with some surprise I saw that Stewart Reuben feels that violating rule 7.4 by displacing pieces in the opponent's time should be considered an illegal move, and has been for the last 60 years.

For the record I checked Geurt Gijssen's An Arbiter's Notebook and nowhere does he suggest that such an interpretation of piece displacement can be handled as an illegal move.

Rule 7.4 talks about penalising the player for not correcting displaced pieces in his own time, but nowhere does it say that it should lead to the loss of the game, nor that it should be handled as an illegal move. That interpretation sits squarely with Stewart Reuben, Ignatius Leong and the arbiters in the British Blitz Ch. 2016, who apparently stated this "rule" as an introduction to the tournament.

I even want to go further, and consider an illegal move as an accident much like tripping in your own shoelaces, so we should not declare losses because of it (with the exception of the third such illegal move in a game), not even in Blitz. Halving the time is adequate penalty. Let's return to 3 illegal moves in a game (the third would be a loss).

In Blitz I have won countless games by the illegal move is a loss, and have only lost like that in very few games, perhaps just a handful. I don't like to win like that, and think that a time penalty is a better solution.

[Jesper Norgaard]

A player's clock is going. His opponent has caused there to be a piece that is lying on its side. This is clearly an illegal position. (Misplaced piece refers to one that is in the wrong place.)
The opponent loses as he has done in blitz for the last 60 years in my experience.

I am still interested in affirmation of this point. According to you, in the last 60 years it has been the practice to declare an illegal move if a player has displaced pieces and pressed the clock, or displaced pieces when the opponent's clock is running. Does that also cover the case where the opponent's clock is running, but the player is on move? This would happen if the opponent has made a move, but not completed it. Did that ever become a dispute, that a piece displacement by the player who was on move, was declared a loss, because his opponent's clock was running?

If the interpretation that piece displacement and then clock press is a loss, there must surely have been a lot of cases during the last 60 years. I presume you would have been involved both as an arbiter and a chief arbiter, both in the UK and abroad. Do you have any cases that you can mention?

If there is video evidence, so much the better, but I know that this would only cover a short range of years, not the majority of 60 years.

They announced the rule at the start of the Blitz event that knocking over a piece and pressing the clock counts as a forfeit. Richard also lost a game by making an illegal move in a winning position. Apparently other games had been decided by this rule, this is why Richard is upset that Ghasi escaped this punishment. Everyone I have spoken to who witnessed the event feels that Ghasi should have been foreited.

Nick Pert relates that Richard Pert was given a loss for an illegal move in the British Blitz Championship, apparently against David B. Graham. This indeed has been the rule in Blitz, probably during all 60 years, that an illegal move is a loss.

In that specific Blitz Championship of 30.th. of July 2016, chess-results.com reports that IO Kevin Staveley was the organizer, IA Peter Furland was the chief arbiter, and FA David Thomas and NA Antony Tatam were arbiters. Did they in fact communicate as Nick Pert confirmed in a post, that the displace-clockpress-loss rule was in effect? Of course, if it is true that this has been the official interpretation during the last 60 years, that would not be necessary, as everyone would know it was in effect (same procedure as last year, Miss Sophie).

[Stewart Reuben]

I did not write that a displaced piece lost. I wrote that a piece knocked over loses if the opponent's clock is going.
In the Ghasi-R Pert incident, Ghasi claimed he reset the piece in his own time. In the absence of an arbiter observing this, he had no alternative to allowing the game to continue.
One independent spectator, of no legal standing of course, told me that nobody would have been in a physical position to see everything apart from the 2 players.

[Roger de Coverly]

I wrote that a piece knocked over loses if the opponent's clock is going.

Those of many years experience struggle to recall any incidents of this nature other than recently, when it seems to have become the new favourite of arbiters seeking to determine the results of games other than by the skill of the players.

What you seem to be saying is that if you arrive marginally late as Black in a Blitz or Rapidplay game, then if in the process of shaking hands, your elbow knocks over the King or any other piece, then you've lost before even playing a move.

[Jesper Norgaard]

I did not write that a displaced piece lost. I wrote that a piece knocked over loses if the opponent's clock is going.

In these two sentences you seem to make a separation of the two cases. To me a displaced piece is one that is not on the square it was supposed to be, as can be confirmed from the score sheet or from the video of the game progressing. If it's knocked over, stolen by a thief, washed out by a cup of coffee, or simply corrected to an incorrect square by the player on move - is all the same to me. I fail to understand the separation you are trying to make.
Shouldn't it all be ruled by article 7.4? Which other article would be relevant?

To take your words literally, a piece knocked over (by the player) loses if the opponent's clock is going. What happens if it was not the opponent's move? You failed to answer that. What happens if somebody else pressed the clock?

About the Danish translation of 7.4, you seemingly confirmed that whether the piece was displaced, or it was knocked over, it was the same thing? How can you then make the above distinction?

In the Ghasi-R Pert incident, Ghasi claimed he reset the piece in his own time. In the absence of an arbiter observing this, he had no alternative to allowing the game to continue.

I entirely agree with that. It was a case of word against word where there was no other evidence. If it had been taped on video, I would disagree. If an arbiter had witnessed, I would disagree. But as the case stood, and there was a legal position on the board, Richard's claim had to be dismissed.

One independent spectator, of no legal standing of course, told me that nobody would have been in a physical position to see everything apart from the 2 players.

Such a testimony, which only tells about the general situation, not about specifics in the conflict, I'm prepared to accept.

[Chris Rice]

I entirely agree with that. It was a case of word against word where there was no other evidence. If it had been taped on video, I would disagree. If an arbiter had witnessed, I would disagree. But as the case stood, and there was a legal position on the board, Richard's claim had to be dismissed.

One independent spectator, of no legal standing of course, told me that nobody would have been in a physical position to see everything apart from the 2 players.

Such a testimony, which only tells about the general situation, not about specifics in the conflict, I'm prepared to accept.

Would arbiters welcome the idea to make it standard that all digital clocks be fitted with a camera? I would have thought this would be of great help in blitz games where disputes are frequent. Not only knocking over pieces but other things such as pawn races where someone plays h4-h6 and then argues the pawn was always on h5 and picking up a knight on g7 that had no squares to go to, raising it high into the air, waving it about and then plonking it on f5.

[Stewart Reuben]

Chris Rice >Would arbiters welcome the idea to make it standard that all digital clocks be fitted with a camera?<

Wouldn't that be costly? Having more arbiters might be cheaper. The video camera might well not record what happened because somebody's hand might get in the way. Incidents are rare in chess. That is why they are remembered when they occur. Avoiding them is the trick.
Electronic boards also help. They are particularly useful for the U8 and U9.
I suppose there could be a sensor in each piece that indicated when it was touched.

[Roger de Coverly]

Wouldn't that be costly? Having more arbiters might be cheaper.

The camera caught Nakamura castling with both hands, the four (!) watching arbiters didn't notice or weren't bothered.

The arbiters at the British Championship Congress have adopted the pragmatic principle that the sensory boards are well deployed on the tournaments of the youngest age-groups.