Time scramble + illegal move

[Alex Holowczak]

Today, there was a rapidplay game, and both players were down to the last three minutes or so.

White played Rh7+, black played Kb6. After black's next move, he knocked his King over, put it back up on b7 (into check). At least three more moves were played, and then white noticed.

The ruling was to set up the last recognised legal position, and carry on, with no two minutes awarded because it was an accident.

My thoughts were that because it was rapidplay, and three moves had passed, then the game had to carry on, and black had to play as if he had just been put in check. I didn't know whether white would also be awarded two minutes (black technically played several illegal moves in a row). As I wasn't the section controller though, I couldn't influence the decision (despite my best efforts to inform the controller of this rule).

As it happens, the game was drawn either way, but what should the arbiter have done?

[Anthony Taglione]

My understanding is as yours: it's rapidplay and so should simply continue with Black being in check.

I'd suggest that they had each made illegal moves since the position was illegal from the moment of the erroneous King replacement. Arguably, since the White player had accepted the placement of the King after its disturbance, the error was a joint one, too; simply an unfortunate happenstance.

[Sean Hewitt]

Today, there was a rapidplay game, and both players were down to the last three minutes or so.

White played Rh7+, black played Kb6. After black's next move, he knocked his King over, put it back up on b7 (into check). At least three more moves were played, and then white noticed.

The ruling was to set up the last recognised legal position, and carry on, with no two minutes awarded because it was an accident.

My thoughts were that because it was rapidplay, and three moves had passed, then the game had to carry on, and black had to play as if he had just been put in check. I didn't know whether white would also be awarded two minutes (black technically played several illegal moves in a row). As I wasn't the section controller though, I couldn't influence the decision (despite my best efforts to inform the controller of this rule).

As it happens, the game was drawn either way, but what should the arbiter have done?

Hi Alex,

The 3 moves rule relates only to an incorrect set up at the start of the game an is not relevant to this scenario.

I asume that when white noticed the illegality it was white to move. In that case black should have been instructed to play a legal move from the position on the board immediately prior to his last move, and white should have been awarded 2 minutes additional time for black having played an illegal move.

[Alex Holowczak]

The 3 moves rule relates only to an incorrect set up at the start of the game

Are you sure?

Once each player has completed three moves, no claim can be made regarding incorrect piece placement, orientation of the chessboard or clock setting.

I assumed that meant once a player has completed three moves from the time a piece was placed incorrectly. In this case, the King was placed incorrectly, and more than three moves had passed.

I asume that when white noticed the illegality it was white to move. In that case black should have been instructed to play a legal move from the position on the board immediately prior to his last move, and white should have been awarded 2 minutes additional time for black having played an illegal move.

Correct assumption. So the arbiter was correct to go back to the last legal recognised position?

[Sean Hewitt]

The 3 moves rule relates only to an incorrect set up at the start of the game

Once each player has completed three moves, no claim can be made regarding incorrect piece placement, orientation of the chessboard or clock setting.

Are you sure?

Yep, I'm sure. What this law is saying is that once black has completed his third move then nothing can be done if piece placement is wrong (typically king and queen the wrong way around), board orientation is incorrect (black square in right corner) or clock setting is wrong (one or both players having incorrect time). It does not mention three moves after an illegal move because that's not what it means. Its three moves period - ie from the start.

I asume that when white noticed the illegality it was white to move. In that case black should have been instructed to play a legal move from the position on the board immediately prior to his last move, and white should have been awarded 2 minutes additional time for black having played an illegal move.

Correct assumption. So the arbiter was correct to go back to the last legal recognised position?

No. The arbiter should have retracted black's last move which was illegal because the black king was in check, awarded white 2 extra minutes and instructed black to play a legal move, and instructed him to move the piece that he had moved illegally if legal to do so, or any piece if not.

[Alex Holowczak]

Dramatic development - according to the white player, using the above rule, he'd have then had to block with the rook, and he'd have lost the game as a result!

Oh well...

[Paul McKeown]

It also depends on whether or not A3 applies.

A.3 Where there is adequate supervision of play, (for example one arbiter for at most three games) the Competition Rules shall apply.

[Alex Holowczak]

It also depends on whether or not A3 applies.

A.3 Where there is adequate supervision of play, (for example one arbiter for at most three games) the Competition Rules shall apply.

It was the last game going; there were about four arbiters present!

[Paul McKeown]

Alex,

I believe A.3 only applies if it applied from the start of the game. Hopefully some arbiter will confirm or deny this, but it really should have been more clearly indicated in the Law itself...

Regards,
Paul.

[Sean Hewitt]

Alex,

I believe A.3 only applies if it applied from the start of the game. Hopefully some arbiter will confirm or deny this, but it really should have been more clearly indicated in the Law itself...

Regards,
Paul.

You're correct Paul. This only applies where the ratio of games to arbiters at the start is not more than 3 to 1.

If it were anything else it would mean that the rules you were playing to could change half way through the game (as other games finished). This would be crazy although not sufficient reason to believe that FIDE had not done it!

[Alex Holowczak]

In that case, there were inadequate supervision of play, so does that alter what should have happened in this scenario?

[Paul McKeown]

In that case, there were inadequate supervision of play, so does that alter what should have happened in this scenario?

Alex,

No. Insufficient supervision was not provided, so the full set of Laws does not apply, they are overridden as stated by the laws provided for rapid play chess as found in Appendix A.

Regards,
Paul.

[Geoff Chandler]

By coincidene I witnessed one of these in a 25 minute allegro
on Sunday just gone.

I did not know if I should butt in as I was only scoring the game.
The player made up mind for me by mating theior opponent.

http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandle ... handID=398

[Neill Cooper]

I have a related query. In a team match an opponent makes an illegal move. As match captain which of the following can (or should) I do:
1) point out the illegal move
2) say that my player gets 2 minutes extra (if down to less than 5 mins?)
3) remind the opponent that they should move the touched piece
[I presume that any obligations are reciprocal, and the same would apply if it were my player who made the illegal move)

[Alex Holowczak]

Does your League have a rule that says the captains have the right to act as an arbiter?