Is this a win?

[David Sedgwick]

A move is completed only after you press the clock. So no move was made prior to pressing the clock.

That's not quite right.

The move was made prior to pressing the clock, but it was not completed prior to pressing the clock.

[Stewart Reuben]

We don't even know they were playing to quickplay finish rules. They could have been playing all the moves in 90 minutes, no increment and no QPF.

[Nick Burrows]

If a similar scenario occurs in the future, I think I will claim the win.

What did the position look like at 2 minutes out? The "short of time" technique is to eliminate White's last pawn, so there's no question of losing.

Yes, I'm sure he could have done this with his wits about him (4 pints!)

[E Michael White]

A move is completed only after you press the clock. So no move was made prior to pressing the clock.

That's not quite right.

The move was made prior to pressing the clock, but it was not completed prior to pressing the clock.

David's comment is not quite right either.

Illegal moves are never made they can only ever be completed. Some players and arbiters consider an illegal move to be made and completed together at the time the clock is pressed.

Laws 4.7 - 4.7.3 define when a move is considered to have been made but states that it only applies to legal moves. In the case of an illegal move it is probably better to refer to an illegal move being played or played at the board to distinguish the movement of pieces from the pressing of the clock.

[Nick Burrows]

We don't even know they were playing to quickplay finish rules. They could have been playing all the moves in 90 minutes, no increment and no QPF.

It was all in 90 with no increment. Whats the difference between QPF rules and not?

[Roger de Coverly]

It was all in 90 with no increment. Whats the difference between QPF rules and not?

I'm guessing Oxford league. There's quite a detailed document describing local interpretations.

http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/documen ... 201806.pdf

[Nick Burrows]

It was all in 90 with no increment. Whats the difference between QPF rules and not?

I'm guessing Oxford league. There's quite a detailed document describing local interpretations.

http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/documen ... 201806.pdf

Thanks for that Roger - that is detailed

It was actually played in the Leamington League.

[David Williams]

When you reach the situation where one player is massively ahead on material but with virtually no time, the player with no time will be moving instantaneously, often before the other player has pressed his clock. Is it ethical for the player with more time to play an illegal move and not press the clock for a second or two? Nothing to lose, and he might at least disrupt his opponent's thinking for a second or two. And if it's not ethical, but he did it accidentally (as here), is it ethical to gain by the mistake?

[Nick Burrows]

It might not be ethical if that was done on purpose. In my game, I was blitzing moves too - hence not noticing the square was covered. I let go of the piece briefly, instantly realized and instantly moved to a legal square. I didn't gain any benefit. He had 2 seconds or so left, so it changed nothing.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick >It was all in 90 with no increment. Whats the difference between QPF rules and not<

All in 90, no increment, no QPF RuleIII.4 or III,5,1. Then take king + knight against king + knight. One player can play on until the other's time runs out. He then wins. The only defence is the 50 move rule, It would bring chess into disrepute.

This was what much of the PB wanted, The RC also voted that way. I was practically a lone voice. Then Makro stepped in. He told Geurt Gijssen that dropping the QPF Rule was too divisive and that it should be retained in the Guidelines. This was in Estonia. i spent much of the ensuing days re-writing the Laws, consulting with Gijssen, who had return to the Netherlands due to poor health. Not everywhere had enough digital clocks, so league rules would have had to be re-written, contrary to the Laws of Chess...
QPF in the absence of an arbiter is an abomination for me, as I wrote the rules and it would be very invidious.

[NickFaulks]

All in 90, no increment, no QPF RuleIII.4 or III,5,1.

Is that true?

"III.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time."

[MartinCarpenter]

So although White has the right to claim a win - should he claim a win?

Black had a draw in hand and only needed to offer. The fact that he chose not to, and play for an unlikely win should be penalised if the gamble fails. Otherwise you may as well make a rule that says a player in a winning position can use all his remaining time with a draw in hand.

If a similar scenario occurs in the future, I think I will claim the win.

Maybe worth thinking of offering a draw once it becomes clear your opponent might lose on time? On your clock time if you really want, or a little in advance of them getting really short.

If they then try to finish it off and don't make it its very clearly their risk.

[David Williams]

It might not be ethical if that was done on purpose. In my game, I was blitzing moves too - hence not noticing the square was covered. I let go of the piece briefly, instantly realized and instantly moved to a legal square. I didn't gain any benefit. He had 2 seconds or so left, so it changed nothing.

I was thinking more of, say, white king on b6, black king on b8, white has just played Qc7+. White has one second left. If black plays Ka8 he will be mated before he has pressed the clock. So he moves Kc8 and waits. White might try Kc6, but more likely he is just confused. At any moment black thinks white is at all distracted by this he moves his king to a8 and presses his clock.

[NickFaulks]

I was thinking more of, say, white king on b6, black king on b8, white has just played Qc7+. White has one second left. If black plays Ka8 he will be mated before he has pressed the clock. So he moves Kc8 and waits. White might try Kc6, but more likely he is just confused. At any moment black thinks white is at all distracted by this he moves his king to a8 and presses his clock.

Are you seriously asking whether we think this is ethical?

[David Williams]

No, I think I'm trying (and failing?) to make the case that what happened in the actual game was essentially the same thing in terms of its potential effect on the player whose flag fell. A momentary distraction wondering whether he could claim an extra two minutes, and it's too late to claim the draw he was intending to.