Moving before the opponent has pressed their clock button

[John Foley]

This happens sometimes especially in time trouble: the second player is faster to reach the clock than the first player.
If both players are in time trouble, there may be several moves played like this. What would be the recommended way for arbiters to handle this situation?

[Sean Hewitt]

This happens sometimes especially in time trouble: the second player is faster to reach the clock than the first player.
If both players are in time trouble, there may be several moves played like this. What would be the recommended way for arbiters to handle this situation?

This is perfectly legal. The only comment to add is that the first player must still be allowed to press his clock, even if this is after the second player has moved.

[John Foley]

Sean is correct - this is in accordance with the existing rules and the 2014 version will not affect this.
The new 2014 rules of chess read as follows:

6.2 a. During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop
his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his
clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
(1) the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c and 9.6), or
(2) the player has made his next move, in case his previous move was not
completed.
A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the
opponent has made his next move. The time between making the move on the
chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the
player.

There is a drawback to this arrangement. Allowing the opponent to move before your move is complete (by pressing the clock) leads to the possibility of two people trying to simultaneously press the clock which can get nasty (c.f. women's USA chess championship in 2008).

There is a curious change in the 2014 version. 6.2.a(2) allows someone to make the next move without pressing the clock at all on the present move because making another move "completes" the previous move. Carried to its logical conclusion, there is no need to press the clock at all during the game. This option was not allowed in the previous version of the rules except if the move actually ended the game.

[David Williams]

So player A goes 1.e4 but omits to press his clock. Player B goes 1.e5, goes to press his clock and finds it is not running. Player A goes 2.Nf3 and presses his clock. Which moves have been completed? B's first surely hasn't. He has the right to press his clock and complete it, but why would he? And although A has made a second move and pressed his clock, I don't see how his move can be said to be completed when black can press his clock at any time and uncomplete it. Do they both go through the game with their completed moves lagging one behind the moves made on the board?

[Roger de Coverly]

Do they both go through the game with their completed moves lagging one behind the moves made on the board?

With the ever increasing number of games being played with increments, it should be the practice that the number of times the clock has been pressed should coincide with the count of moves played.

Some players take a very hard line on this and will leave a clock running and delay their move if the opponent fails to realise it hasn't been pressed.

[John Foley]

Do they both go through the game with their completed moves lagging one behind the moves made on the board?

This problem arises because the concept of "completing" a move by pressing the clock has been undermined. Although it may be legal to move before the opponent has pressed their clock button, it is not conducive to tracking the moves accurately.

[John Foley]

With the ever increasing number of games being played with increments, it should be the practice that the number of times the clock has been pressed should coincide with the count of moves played.

Except of course that people are fallible. They make moves without pressing their clock and they press their clock when they haven't made a move. And they can also mistakenly press someone else's clock. Hence we cannot rely upon button presses to determine move count.

[Roger de Coverly]

Hence we cannot rely upon button presses to determine move count.

You could if the clocks had a better design which showed the move count on the display. To a considerable extent the FIDE rules for digital clocks were written around what the 1994 models of digital clocks could and couldn't deliver. One of the things they couldn't deliver within the then price constraints was more information on the display. Have you ever wondered why they swap from HH:MM to MM:SS at twenty minutes? That's because 5 digit displays would have been more expensive. similarly having a display of the move counter. It wasn't possible for the FIDE rules to insist on something not supported as DGT's were the "official" clock, meaning the DGT had paid money for FIDE's marketing support.

[John Foley]

You could if the clocks had a better design which showed the move count on the display. To a considerable extent the FIDE rules for digital clocks were written around what the 1994 models of digital clocks could and couldn't deliver. One of the things they couldn't deliver within the then price constraints was more information on the display.

But how does this help? Showing the move count would be misleading if it were determined by button presses. The point is that button presses is not a definitive way of counting moves made. Until you get around that there will always be problems with accuracy.

Have you ever wondered why they swap from HH:MM to MM:SS at twenty minutes? That's because 5 digit displays would have been more expensive.

Please explain why twenty minutes and not say thirty minutes or any other arbitrary time.

[Roger de Coverly]

But how does this help? Showing the move count would be misleading if it were determined by button presses. The point is that button presses is not a definitive way of counting moves made. Until you get around that there will always be problems with accuracy.

I would have thought it obvious. You compare the counter as displayed by the clock to move number recorded on the score-sheet. If they aren't in synch, you adjust the clock. For players with really bad scoring, you check the score-sheet for missing or inserted moves.

Please explain why twenty minutes and not say thirty minutes or any other arbitrary time.

I had always presumed an arbitrary decision by one of the original designers. The Saitek clock of around the same era would flip at 5 minutes. That's a bit late if it flips back when the next control is reached. The Excalibur (USCF) used a display of MMM with the seconds in a much smaller font instead of HH:MM. When it reached 9:59, it switched to M:SS. That's OK really as I don't think you worry about seconds until there's ten minutes to go.

Remember the order of events. After Fischer demonstrated use of a digital clock in 1992, a couple of manufacturers decided it was time to bring them to market. FIDE supported this as well, but the clocks were in production before arbiters got round to specifying ideally how they should work.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Have you ever wondered why they swap from HH:MM to MM:SS at twenty minutes? That's because 5 digit displays would have been more expensive.

Please explain why twenty minutes and not say thirty minutes or any other arbitrary time.

Because what the clock in question has is a "three-and-a-half digit display". The first digit of the clock can only display 1 or blank; it doesn't have the extra LEDs to display numbers greater than 1.

[Nick Grey]

Ought to have a bigger space between boards & clocks (1m) to avoid other players pressing the wrong clock.
Pressing of the clock by other player may prevent claim of win on time.
We need a crash course in setting up digital clocks. But have to ask the arbiter to make the ruling & change.

In time trouble players may have problems placing the pieces on the board or even on the table & press the clock & my reaction would then be press the clock back & tell them to pick the own pieces up & place it properly on a square (unless I saw the arbiter was present). I certainly would not want an increase on my own clock but rather the penalty of time loss.

Then again I've played 5 minute tournaments with an analogue clock where some players were so skilled in pressing the clock & rewinding at the same time they had more than 5 minutes left on their clock but claimed loss of time by me for a flag fall.

Nice one John.

[Francis Fields]

I like what Sean said as one player in the Surrey League has the habit of keeping his hand on the clock stopping you from playing your move.


Francis