A couple of Fide rules questions

[David Buckley]

I have had a look through the 2018 Fide handbook but didn't find the answers I am looking for. The following situation arose in a local league match:

Black played ...Qc5+ and White responded with Qd5-d8+. After several seconds delay Black noticed that White's last move was illegal. He pointed this out and called me over to add two minutes to his clock. However he didn't stop his clock and by the time I picked it up his time had run out. Question 1: Could White have claimed the win on time?

I added two minutes to White's clock and the game continued. White played Kf1. Question 2: Since White had legal queen moves, could Black have claimed a win for a second illegal move? Question 3: After adjusting the clocks should I have said "touch move applies" or would that have been overstepping my authority?

[Alex Holowczak]

Lots to unpick here!

1. If he made the claim before the flag fell, then that'd be good enough for me. Of course, White could claim the win on time, but I'd expect the claim to be declined.

2. No, because it wasn't an illegal move. Imagine taking a photograph before Kf1 and after Kf1. If you were told only that Ke1-f1 had been played, then you'd never think there was an illegal move; and that line of thinking applies to this particular situation.

3. This divides arbiters. I would always say "It's touch move on the Queen", or something equivalent to that, in this case. My reason for that is that if you don't, then you just have to intervene in the game again a few seconds later, and I'd rather intervene once than twice. Others argue that this constitutes advice, although I'm not really clear what "advice" is being given that you won't have to give a minute later by way of an explanation when the player moves the wrong piece.

[Michael Farthing]

Lots to unpick here!

2. No, because it wasn't an illegal move. Imagine taking a photograph before Kf1 and after Kf1. If you were told only that Ke1-f1 had been played, then you'd never think there was an illegal move; and that line of thinking applies to this particular situation.

What are you saying here Alex?

I can see that it is not an illegal move - but the Queen has been touched and therefore must, if possible, be moved. Are you saying that because the opponent claimed on the wrong basis the requirement to move the Queen should be overlooked?

[Edited to add a comma. I know - pedantic - but Mike might be reading it ]

[J T Melsom]

I was witness to an incident recently where a player played an illegal move, his opponent was given the extra two minutes, the play then resumed with the same illegal move

[Roger Lancaster]

Can I just ask Alex to expand on his second answer? White had met ...Qc5+ with the illegal Qd5-d8+. The normal 'touch and move' rule wouldn't apply if White had no legal queen moves but, in this situation, it seems he did. So was he not obliged to make a legal queen move?

[Same point made elsewhere while I was typing!]

[Alex Holowczak]

Lots to unpick here!

2. No, because it wasn't an illegal move. Imagine taking a photograph before Kf1 and after Kf1. If you were told only that Ke1-f1 had been played, then you'd never think there was an illegal move; and that line of thinking applies to this particular situation.

What are you saying here Alex?

I can see that it is not an illegal move - but the Queen has been touched and therefore must, if possible, be moved. Are you saying that because the opponent claimed on the wrong basis the requirement to move the Queen should be overlooked?

[Edited to add a comma. I know - pedantic - but Mike might be reading it ]

Can I just ask Alex to expand on his second answer? White had met ...Qc5+ with the illegal Qd5-d8+. The normal 'touch and move' rule wouldn't apply if White had no legal queen moves but, in this situation, it seems he did. So was he not obliged to make a legal queen move?

[Same point made elsewhere while I was typing!]

The act of moving the Ke1 to f1 is not an illegal move, since if you read how a King move is defined in the Laws, it was moved in accordance with that definition.

Kf1 is not an illegal move. Touch move does apply given White had a legal Queen move, and so White should move the Queen. The rule that has been breached is the touch move rule, and not the illegal move rule. So it should be penalised as if the touch move rule has been broken, i.e. you put the King back on e1 and ask white to move the Queen instead because it's touch move on the Queen.

This may help you understand my answer in 3 better - I prefer telling White immediately that it's touch move on the Queen to avoid the second intervention.

[Roger Lancaster]

The act of moving the Ke1 to f1 is not an illegal move, since if you read how a King move is defined in the Laws, it was moved in accordance with that definition.

Kf1 is not an illegal move. Touch move does apply given White had a legal Queen move, and so White should move the Queen. The rule that has been breached is the touch move rule, and not the illegal move rule. So it should be penalised as if the touch move rule has been broken, i.e. you put the King back on e1 and ask white to move the Queen instead because it's touch move on the Queen.

This may help you understand my answer in 3 better - I prefer telling White immediately that it's touch move on the Queen to avoid the second intervention.

All agreed except that, if White's only legal moves were with his queen, a point on which we are all agreed, does that not mean that all other moves are not legal?

[NickFaulks]

The rule that has been breached is the touch move rule, and not the illegal move rule. So it should be penalised as if the touch move rule has been broken, i.e. you put the King back on e1 and ask white to move the Queen instead because it's touch move on the Queen.

Shouldn't there be a time penalty for that too?

[Alex Holowczak]

The act of moving the Ke1 to f1 is not an illegal move, since if you read how a King move is defined in the Laws, it was moved in accordance with that definition.

Kf1 is not an illegal move. Touch move does apply given White had a legal Queen move, and so White should move the Queen. The rule that has been breached is the touch move rule, and not the illegal move rule. So it should be penalised as if the touch move rule has been broken, i.e. you put the King back on e1 and ask white to move the Queen instead because it's touch move on the Queen.

This may help you understand my answer in 3 better - I prefer telling White immediately that it's touch move on the Queen to avoid the second intervention.

All agreed except that, if White's only legal moves were with his queen, a point on which we are all agreed, does that not mean that all other moves are not legal?

No.

3.8. There are two different ways of moving the king:
3.8.1 by moving to an adjoining square
3.8.2 by ‘castling’. (...)

The King moved to an adjoining square.

3.10.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
3.10.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9

Kf1 met 3.8.1, which is the relevant requirement of Articles 3.1 - 3.9.

There's nothing in Article 3 about touching anything; it's a simple description of how the pieces move around the board. The Act of Moving the Pieces is not covered in Article 3.

[Alex Holowczak]

The rule that has been breached is the touch move rule, and not the illegal move rule. So it should be penalised as if the touch move rule has been broken, i.e. you put the King back on e1 and ask white to move the Queen instead because it's touch move on the Queen.

Shouldn't there be a time penalty for that too?

It's up to the arbiter. There's no specific penalty, so you can choose one from the list in 12.9:
12.9 Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:
12.9.1 warning,
12.9.2 increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
12.9.3 reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
12.9.4 increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
12.9.5 reducing the points scored in the game by the offending person,
12.9.6 declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score),
12.9.7 a fine announced in advance,
12.9.8 exclusion from one or more rounds,
12.9.9 expulsion from the competition.

Personally, I'd give a warning to the player; although as explained, in practice I'd give the "warning" immediately after the illegal move was made when I was originally summoned and not after the player has tried to move something different.

[NickFaulks]

Personally, I'd give a warning to the player

My own feeling is that any infraction which causes the arbiter to be called and the course of the game to be disturbed should be punished by something more than a warning.

[Roger Lancaster]

So, although the arbiter must tell White that he cannot play Kf1, that move is not illegal but merely impermissible?

[Alex Holowczak]

Personally, I'd give a warning to the player

My own feeling is that any infraction which causes the arbiter to be called and the course of the game to be disturbed should be punished by something more than a warning.

In a touch move case, the "punishment" is that the player has to move the original piece. In all the numerous touch move kerfuffles I've been involved with in junior tournaments over the years, I don't think I've ever adjusted the clock. It rather contradicts what I wrote in answer to your previous post, but on reflection, 12.9 may not actually apply at all in this particular case.

In this specific case, the player has probably just misunderstood a rather technical part of the laws, as evidenced by the questions and posts in this thread, rather than cheat or try to get away with something. My inclination is to treat such cases lightly, but other arbiters may differ.

[NickFaulks]

So, although the arbiter must tell White that he cannot play Kf1, that move is not illegal but merely impermissible?

Putting an apple on c4 is not an illegal move, you're just not allowed to do it.

Less flippantly, if you play a move when it isn't your turn, I don't think that is an illegal move.

[Alex Holowczak]

So, although the arbiter must tell White that he cannot play Kf1, that move is not illegal but merely impermissible?

Putting an apple on c4 is not an illegal move, you're just not allowed to do it.

Less flippantly, if you play a move when it isn't your turn, I don't think that is an illegal move.

It depends!

If you have a Rook on a1, and you play Rc1 and forget to press your clock, I'd argue that if you then played Rd1 and pressed the clock, that isn't an illegal move. You've just broken the law about making two moves in a row.

If you have a Rook on a1, and you play Rc1 and forget to press your clock, I'm not sure what I'd argue if you then played Rc3 and pressed the clock. You could argue it's still just a breach of making two moves in a row, or you could argue that it's an illegal move because Ra1-c3 happened before the clock was pressed, which breaks Article 3.