Illegal Moves Now Lose

[Joey Stewart]

An interesting new rule change I discovered at this weekends 4NCL - you can claim a win if you opponent plays more then one illegal move during a game. Good to finally see a actual punishment to a long standing issue in the game, though I would hate to have to be an arbiter in the junior or minor events when the knowledge becomes more widespread

[Ian Thompson]

An interesting new rule change I discovered at this weekends 4NCL - you can claim a win if you opponent plays more then one illegal move during a game.

I'm not sure it's right to call a rule new when it's been in force for almost 2.5 years.

[Joey Stewart]

I had never heard a word about it before today. I thought it was previously just in rapidplay that they had illegal moves losing, but now longplay as well.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Standardplay has had illegal moves losing for a long time, but it used to be three rather than two.

[Stewart Reuben]

Here is a completely illogical situations cauded by the Laws of Chess. I failed to get it changed.
It is a rapdidplay game. A player puhes a pawn to the eighth rank and presses the clock. This counts as an illegal move so he loses. BUT a pawn put on the last ank in this manner automatically becomes a queen. In the position under consideration, it happens to be checkmate. But you can't win if you have been checkmated.
Thus, the player loses and the opponent draws.
Pushing the pawn to the end and failing to press the clock should not be an 'illegal' move, but an 'incorrect' one.

[Ian Thompson]

If the World Championship match can be taken as indicative of what's to come for the rest of us in the future, the next thing we'll have is incorrect claims of a draw losing. The World Championship rules say, for the rapidplay and blitz games:

A maximum of two (2) incorrect claims for a draw can be made by each player. If a player makes a third (3rd ) incorrect claim, the arbiter shall declare the game lost for this player.

[Graham Borrowdale]

An interesting new rule change I discovered at this weekends 4NCL - you can claim a win if you opponent plays more then one illegal move during a game. Good to finally see a actual punishment to a long standing issue in the game, though I would hate to have to be an arbiter in the junior or minor events when the knowledge becomes more widespread

Is it really a long-standing issue in the game, outside of junior/minor events? I am struggling to recall any instances in my own experience of playing for 40 years - perhaps someone did not notice that they were in check, or tried to move from h4 to h6 in a pawn race, but nothing serious, and certainly nothing that would make me want to claim the game.

Would I need to claim the game, as in draw by repetition, or would I just get up and sign the scoresheet with an automatic win, as in win by mobile phone? Would I get admonished by my match captain if I did not claim? Can we not all just try to win by delivering checkmate?

[NickFaulks]

Is it really a long-standing issue in the game, outside of junior/minor events?

This suggests that the rule is aimed at players who struggle to remember how the pieces move, but I don't think it is.

If my opponent has very little time left in a quickplay finish and makes an illegal move, then I might hope I could get away with pressing the clock straight back and telling him to do something legal. However, once an arbiter becomes involved, then I want to be able to claim the game ( even for a first offence ). The flow of the game has been disrupted, my concentration is gone and my opponent has been given a good opportunity to consider his future play. It doesn't matter whether or ( more likely ) not he did it on purpose for these reasons.

Whatever the rules, I strongly believe that they should be the same for rapidplay games and quickplay finishes. I see no logical argument against this.

[Michael Farthing]

Well I simply ignore this rule!

If my opponent makes an illegal move I restart his clock and point out the mistake. Were he to attempt to resign I'd say, "Eeee..Don't be so daft, lad" (if he were a lad rather than a lass).

If I were to make an illegal move and my opponent pointed it out I'd assume he was being similarly gentlemanly because in my experience most players behave as I do. If he claimed his 2 minutes for a first offence fine. If he claimed the game for a second offence I would of course accept that. But I wouldn't think much of him.

But then .. I think most of these rules have been invented to deal with awkward sods that the game would be better off without.

[There's more of a case in blitz where a time penalty may not be ok since getting the next round going might be very time critical - but not a quick finish where a time penalty is perfectly sufficient and proportionate].

[Alex Holowczak]

Whatever the rules, I strongly believe that they should be the same for rapidplay games and quickplay finishes. I see no logical argument against this.

Doesn't it rather depend on the length of the game, though? An illegal move in G/15, then OK - but on move 2 in a G/90 game?

[Roger de Coverly]

Whatever the rules, I strongly believe that they should be the same for rapidplay games and quickplay finishes.

Define quickplay finish though. If it's an X in Y plus Z, then perhaps it's the period after X moves have been completed, frequently ambiguous on digital clocks. If it's increments or just all moves in Y when does normal play cease?

[David Sedgwick]

Whatever the rules, I strongly believe that they should be the same for rapidplay games and quickplay finishes. I see no logical argument against this.

Well, that gives you two choices, doesn't it?

1.Wait four years.

2. Ignore your own objections to the existence of this second option and lobby the FIDE Presidential Board to make the change which you seek with effect from 1st July 2017.

[Stewart Reuben]

If an arbiter sees an illegal move has occurred, he MUST intervene.
In blitz or rapidplay the player loses.
In standard play, for the first offence, the opponent get an extra 2 minutes and the game continues.
For the second offence the player loses.
There is no need to claim anything, provided the arbiter sees what happened, or the opponent informs the arbiter.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a player wanting to play according to the Laws. If my opponent made an illegal move in blitz, I always claimed, especially when playing for money.
A quicklay game is standardplay. I don't think it has ever hitherto been suggested that such games are played to the rapidplay laws. Would it be throughout the game, or just in the final phase?

[E Michael White]

If the World Championship match can be taken as indicative of what's to come for the rest of us in the future, the next thing we'll have is incorrect claims of a draw losing. The World Championship rules say, for the rapidplay and blitz games:

A maximum of two (2) incorrect claims for a draw can be made by each player. If a player makes a third (3rd ) incorrect claim, the arbiter shall declare the game lost for this player.

This seems reasonable to me; its a development of law 6.12.d and ensures consistency among the arbiters.

6.12
a. If the game needs to be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the chessclock.
b. A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.
c. The arbiter shall decide when the game restarts.
d. If a player stops the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine whether the player had any valid reason for doing so. If the player had no valid reason for stopping the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9.

ECF arbiters are particularly slack in applying this law correctly; it seems to start in junior chess where players are often told to "stop the clock and summon the arbiter for any problems".

[Christopher Kreuzer]

d. If a player stops the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine whether the player had any valid reason for doing so. If the player had no valid reason for stopping the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9.

ECF arbiters are particularly slack in applying this law correctly; it seems to start in junior chess where players are often told to "stop the clock and summon the arbiter for any problems".

That is a bit unfair. There is nothing wrong with teaching juniors that. Would you prefer they muddle on and mess things up? Better that they call for assistance when they need it.

What you seem to be trying to say is that juniors should also be encouraged to learn the laws and how they work, and develop the confidence to deal with situations themselves, reaching a stage where they only need to call the arbiter when absolutely needed. This would help in situations where there are no arbiters and would also help encourage common sense resolutions of disputes in the spirit the game should be played in.

Getting the balance right between being a stickler for the rules (not always a bad thing), and playing in the spirit of the game, isn't always easy, though.