Do you have to compete promotion to win ?

[E Michael White]

SR:
3.1 and 7.4

[Stewart Reuben]

Michael W
3.1 concerns moving a piece.
7.4 applies only if the position is incorrect because one or more pieces have been displaced.
But where does it say that is is incorrect to remove your own pieces from the board?
e.g. White Kh1.P d7. Rd8. Be8, Bf7.
Black Kh8. Pg7, Ph7.
White to play and mate in 1. Take the bishop on e8 off the board.
Possibly 1.1 with 3.10 covers it.

[David Shepherd]

If the piece is no longer on the board doesn't that mean it is displaced?

[Ian Thompson]

Just last week I noticed for the first time there is nothing in the Laws to prohibit a player taking his own piece(s) off the board.

There may be nothing explicitly saying you can't do this, but the whole of Article 3 says what you can do. Removing your own pieces from the board isn't one of the things allowed by Article 3, so it's prohibited.

[Stewart Reuben]

Ian you may be right. But I am uneasy. I will have no problem if the Rules Commission decides that no change is needed.
Compare it a little with 3.7e. Originally it didn't say promotion had to be to a piece of the same colour as the pawn. Also it didn't say it had to be a new piece.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Just last week I noticed for the first time there is nothing in the Laws to prohibit a player taking his own piece(s) off the board.

There may be nothing explicitly saying you can't do this, but the whole of Article 3 says what you can do. Removing your own pieces from the board isn't one of the things allowed by Article 3, so it's prohibited.

Article 3 says what you can do when you have the move. It does not say what you can do when you don't have the move. If you don't have the move then moving any of the pieces on the board is a piece displacement handled by 7.4. If you have the move then again there is a difference if that piece that is moved is your own or the opponent´s, as moving your own piece can still be part of a legal move, and moving your opponents piece outside the board can still be part of a legal move (by capturing). Since moving your own piece outside the board is never allowed, it must always be a piece displacement handled by 7.4. That is also the answer to Stewart's mate in 1 by removing own bishop from the last rank - it is a piece displacement. The player must correct it in his own time.

What happens if the painting drops down from the hook on the wall and throws the pieces to the floor? In that case neither of the players are to blame, and is handled in 7.6, as it would be if an arbiter, the cleaning lady or any other person displaces pieces. Again we can ask what is the correct square for a piece? Well it is defined from the initial position and all the legal moves that have been made until the situation that is discussed.That concept is correct no matter if the moves are actually written on a score sheet in a Standard game, or it is a Rapid or Blitz game.

Since a piece displacement is not punished as severely as an illegal move, it follows that the more move-like a displacement is made, the more likely it will be handled as an illegal move. The arbiter should have some discretion as to which article applies.

[Jesper Norgaard]

In the current rules, an illegal move is retracted by the arbiter, and punished with a 2-minute addition of time to the opponent's clock. Not only does that actually increase the time that the game may last, but the penalty does not feel like a penalty, neither for the violator nor for his opponent. With these rules it simply becomes more difficult to keep a schedule.

In Blitz it has long been the rule that an illegal move loses the game. Recently also Rapid games are managed this way. Even in Standard games the second illegal move loses the game. Some years ago it was allowed to make 2 illegal moves, and only the third illegal move would lose the game.

In my opinion chess games should consist of legal moves from a known initial position, and nothing should get in the way with that concept. I don't agree that it is in the interest of the chess players that chess games get decided by arbiter action instead of moves on the board.

I would like to suggest we return to the original idea of allowing 2 illegal moves in a game, and only declare a player lost by the third illegal move in a game, but still seeking to punish the player severely for the illegal move, and reducing the time that the game may last in this situation. I propose to punish the first or second illegal move by cutting in half the fixed time of the player making the illegal move. Only at the third illegal move does the arbiter declare the game lost for that player.

This penalty will ensure that the total time of a game will be reduced for each illegal move that is made, and the penalty is perceived to be real and severe for that player, but will seldom decide a game as it happens today with instant loss in Blitz and Rapid.

The extra time the arbiter spends on correcting illegal moves, is compensated by shorter thinking time for the violator, and will on average benefit the schedule. A player who is today losing the game on the first or second illegal move, will also benefit because the game is allowed to continue. The player who in current rules was receiving 2 minutes extra time, quite possibly with little benefit for that player, will most likely see the reduction in half of the opponents time as a real punishment, not a slap over the fingers.

The handling of illegal moves will then be uniform independently of which type of game is played. In reality having 20 seconds left on the clock for the rest of the game is the same situation whether the game is Standard, Rapid or Blitz. Why shouldn't the penalty for an illegal move also be the same?

In my opinion all sorts of problems can arise from allowing illegal moves to stand, as it is currently handled in Rapid and Blitz. What happens if a player captures the opponents King and the opponent makes a move? According to the current rules, the illegality of the King capture is now exonerated, and the game must carry on with only one king on the board. There are many similar situations where allowing illegal moves is to the detriment of chess. For instance DGT recording of moves will abort at that moment, because it will not accept input of illegal moves. Indeed many chess databases will not allow illegal moves in games, so cannot capture games where an illegal move is allowed.

Here are the articles in the Laws of Chess that I suggest to change along with this idea:

7.5.b before
"After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player."

7.5.b after
"After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first or second completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall reduce his/her remaining thinking time on the clock by half; for the third completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player."

A.4.b before
"An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If the arbiter observes this he shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim a win, provided the opponent has not made his next move. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter."

A.4.b after:
The whole article A.4.b is removed. A.4.c becomes A.4.b and A.4.d becomes A.4.c.

The effect is that illegal moves are handled identically in Standard, Rapid and Blitz. The general incentive is to replace the illegal move with a legal move, and carry on the game from that position.
How could that be wrong for Rapid or Blitz?

[Stewart Reuben]

Most rated games are now played with an increment. For standardplay 30 seconds.
Let us suppose a player has 120 second left with a 30 second increment. It is move 30 and the first time control is at 40 moves.
He makes an illegal move and this is noticed.
According to the Norgaard system his time goes down to 60 seconds. What happens to his increment? Does it remain the same or does it go down to 15 seconds? If the latter, the clock will need adjusting twice. Many people, including arbiters, are not efficient at re-setting electronic clocks.
It is an interesting alternative.
If they are playing with mechanical clocks and the player has less than one minute left, it is impossible to set the clocks fairly.

A player plays pawn a2-a5. His opponent doesn't notice and responds pawn h7-h5. Is not the opponent equally culpable to the player? Surely the opponent has also made an illegal move?

[Jesper Norgaard]

Most rated games are now played with an increment. For standardplay 30 seconds.
Let us suppose a player has 120 second left with a 30 second increment. It is move 30 and the first time control is at 40 moves.
He makes an illegal move and this is noticed.
According to the Norgaard system his time goes down to 60 seconds.

Yes.

What happens to his increment? Does it remain the same or does it go down to 15 seconds?

No the increment is unaffected.

If the latter, the clock will need adjusting twice.

Yes we would like to avoid that extra hassle.

Many people, including arbiters, are not efficient at re-setting electronic clocks.
It is an interesting alternative.

Thanks.

If they are playing with mechanical clocks and the player has less than one minute left, it is impossible to set the clocks fairly.

I agree that it is impossible to set the clock precisely, but not impossible to set it fairly, if the arbiter just errs on the side of the violator, this could still be relatively fair. For instance if the player has 1 minute approx. and the arbiter sets the clock around 35 seconds (in other words a little more than 30 seconds) instead of 25 seconds (a little less than 30 seconds) then it would still be reasonably fair for both the violator and his opponent. Also it might be possible to replace the mechanical clock with a digital one, especially if the opponent has plenty of time, since setting precisely 30 seconds on a digital clock is not difficult, although reading the original 1 minute on the mechanical clock could be difficult.

A player plays pawn a2-a5. His opponent doesn't notice and responds pawn h7-h5. Is not the opponent equally culpable to the player? Surely the opponent has also made an illegal move?

It is not illegal to make a legal move in an illegal position, especially not if it was the opponent that produced the illegal position in the first place.
Sin is not inherited from player to player. In fact after the move a2-a5 I presume the position is still legal, even though the last move was illegal.

One of the reasons I really loathe the state of affairs for Rapid and Blitz is that illegal moves are required to stand if they are followed by a legal move, thus quite possibly creating illegal positions of the most nasty kind. What happens in a Rapid game if one player captures his opponents King, and the opponent quickly makes a legal move? The way I read the rules, the game just has to continue with just 1 king on the board. It is a Rocky Horror Picture Show, literally. Why FIDE rules were ever taken down this path I honestly can't say, but I guess arbiters voted that arbiters shouldn't have too much hassle handling illegal moves, so just defaulting the player is fine. But the players were never heard, I suspect.

[Stewart Reuben]

Jesper > Stewart Reuben wrote:
What happens to his increment? Does it remain the same or does it go down to 15 seconds?
No the increment is unaffected.

I am sure for some, this punishment would not be enough considering all the hassle caused. It would be logical to cut the increment by half as well.

I am by no means sure that: if a player makes an illegal move; if the opponent responds condonimg the illegality, he does not become equally liable. I think it is extraordinary that anybody could think that, if a player captured a king, the opponent could make a legal move with a piece.

I think all that you are suggesting about the captured king is that
A$d should read: If the arbiter, observes both kings are in check; or one or both kings are absent from the board; or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if the illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

Do you want to to add to the catalogue: 9 pawns of the same colour, or any other instantly obvious impossibilities?

What we don't want to do is saddle the arbiter with unravelling the following mating positions.
Black Kd3
White Kc1, Rc4, Re4, Rd1, Qg4, Ba4, Bb4, Ng2. Black had no legal last move, whether or not White's last was 0-0-0 or Rd1 mate.
Easier to understand is
Ka1, Rg1, Rh1. Black Kh8. mate, but Illegal. Perhaps that arose from Rf1, Rh1. Black Kg7. 1...Kh8 illegal. 2 Rf1-g1 mate.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Since an illegal move can always be played with the purpose of abusing the rules
to obtain arbiter intervention, scheming that this will result in a time delay where
the offender's replacing move can be planned, any promotion move after an illegal
move should be required to promote the pawn to a queen of the same colour.
This also alleviates the article 7.5.a from handling a pawn push without placing
a promotion piece as a special rule where it is required that a pawn promotion
becomes a queen of the same colour. This rule will apply to the move replacing any
illegal move.

7.5.a before
"If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position
immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated.
If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game
shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.
Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then
continue from this reinstated position.
If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but
not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be
replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn."

7.5.a after
"If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position
immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated.
If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game
shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.
Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then
continue from this reinstated position.
If the move replacing the illegal move is a pawn promotion, the player must promote
the pawn to a queen of the same colour from the reinstated position."

The illegal move handling in 7.5.b is suggested to change this way:

7.5.b before
"After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first completed illegal move by
a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second
completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game
lost by this player."

7.5.b after
"After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first or second completed
illegal move by a player the arbiter shall reduce his remaining thinking time on
the clock by half; for the third completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter
shall declare the game lost by this player."

In Rapid or Blitz the lack of time by the players makes it much more likely to execute an
illegal move. To alleviate arbiter intervention in these games, the players should be
allowed to correct an illegal move. The arbiter must always have the
final word in the decision:

A.4.b before
"An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If the arbiter
observes this he shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has not
made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim
a win, provided the opponent has not made his next move. However, the game is drawn if the
position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by
any possible series of legal moves. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not
intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has
made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players
without intervention of the arbiter."

A.4.b after
"An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If the players agree to
correct an illegal move according to article 7.5 the players may correct the position and
the clock time of the offender without intervention of the arbiter. The arbiter always has
the final word in the decision."

A.4.c is unchanged
"To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop the chessclock and notify the arbiter.
For the claim to be successful, the claimant must have time remaining on his own clock
after the chessclock has been stopped. However, the game is drawn if the position is such
that the claimant cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."

A.4.d before
"If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from
its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if the
illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn."

A.4.d is eliminated and a new article 7.7 is applied to all games:

7.7
"If the arbiter observes an illegal position as defined in article 3.10.c, he shall intervene
to resolve the earlier illegal move(s) in the game according to article 7.5."

The effect is that illegal moves are handled identically in Standard, Rapid and Blitz. However,
the players are allowed to correct an illegal move in Rapid or Blitz.
The general incentive is to replace the illegal move with a legal move, and carry on
the game from that position.

[Alex Holowczak]

7.5.b after
"After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first or second completed
illegal move by a player the arbiter shall reduce his remaining thinking time on
the clock by half; for the third completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter
shall declare the game lost by this player."

The time limit is 40/90 + G/30 + 30s/move.

White erroneously plays d2-e4 on move 1, and presses his clock. For the sake of argument, let's say he took 30 seconds to do that.

I assume that the remaining time on his clock is 90 minutes 30 seconds again, so he is reduced to 45 minutes 15 seconds.

If a player makes his first illegal move on move 40, and has 10 seconds when he does so, then the player makes the illegal move and presses the clock. He goes up to 40 seconds and back down to 20 when half the time his removed. So he has gained 10 seconds by making the illegal move.

Assuming you want "his remaining thinking time" to be interpreted to be 10 seconds halved to make 5, then the penalty for the illegal move is 5 seconds.

On move 41, the player makes an illegal move, and potentially loses 15 minutes.

So on move 40, the penalty is 5 seconds, on move 41, the penalty is 15 minutes.

Is this your proposal?

[Alex Holowczak]

Thinking a bit more about this...

A fixed time penalty - taken off a player's clock - of, say, 1 or 2 minutes, would be more sensible, but actually, it might even be more desirable.

If a player makes the illegal move when short of time, to the point where the penalty means they lose on time, isn't this desirable if, as you contend, the action is deliberate to try to gain more thinking time by involving the arbiter?

I imagine penalty on the brink of a time control at move 40 is a critical time in a player's thinking. I'm not sure it's logical to have the smallest penalty at the most critical time of the game.

[NickFaulks]

If a player makes the illegal move when short of time, to the point where the penalty means they lose on time, isn't this desirable if, as you contend, the action is deliberate to try to gain more thinking time by involving the arbiter?

Exactly what I've been saying for years. Expect abuse from the usual directions.

[Jesper Norgaard]

If a player makes the illegal move when short of time, to the point where the penalty means they lose on time, isn't this desirable if, as you contend, the action is deliberate to try to gain more thinking time by involving the arbiter?

Exactly what I've been saying for years. Expect abuse from the usual directions.

Not sure I agree with that. Alex has a right to try and interpret my intentions, and those of a player making an illegal move. What he doesn't have the right to is disregarding that you are innocent until proven guilty.

To clarify I would be on the barricades on the right of any player to avoid a loss on time because of an illegal move. It is the opposite of what you assume, This is the unfortunate result of an illegal move currently in any Rapid or Blitz game. I'm totally against it.

Alex. Instead on the subject of an illegal move, I contend that this may be the result of a player scheming on getting extra thinking time by performing an illegal move, for which I would like the presumed objective, extra time to consider which promotion move to make, to be eliminated by specifying that the promotion piece must be a queen, if the move replacing the illegal move is a promotion move. If there is no promotion possible for the player, then making an illegal move to "gain" time is less reasonable, especially now if we are cutting his time in half with the new rule.

With the current rules it is possible to make an illegal move just to get some thinking time, which is only the time it takes the arbiter to handle it. With the new rules the effect is also that his clock time is cut in half.