Arbiting Question

[IM Jack Rudd]

Yes - he touched the piece with the intention of making a move with it, so the touch-move rule applies.

[Paul Cooksey]

I was hoping for that answer, felt to me a more extreme example of type where you pick up the king intending to castle, but castling is illegal.

[Roger de Coverly]

you pick up the king intending to castle, but castling is illegal.

Presumably where a player castles illegally, he or she is required to play a King move or castle the other side. That's provided the opponent or possibly the arbiter notices.

[Chris Goodall]

you pick up the king intending to castle, but castling is illegal.

Presumably where a player castles illegally, he or she is required to play a King move or castle the other side. That's provided the opponent or possibly the arbiter notices.

Yes, that's specifically covered in law 4. Trying to move one of your opponent's pieces seems more analogous to that scenario than to an obviously unintentional touch like knocking it over, but you can imagine a player arguing that it's impossible to intend to move your opponent's piece.

[Joey Stewart]

Hi Nick,

.

Obviously it is better if the player replaces the piece on its original square. But on more than one occasion I've had a player ask his opponent what that original square was. On one occasion a hesitant player put it back on its original square thinking he had moved it so pressed the clock. That is covered explicitly in the Laws.

What was the law in that instance - did he forfeit a move or did you tell him he just had to make a move with that piece now?

[Ian Thompson]

Hi Nick,

.

Obviously it is better if the player replaces the piece on its original square. But on more than one occasion I've had a player ask his opponent what that original square was. On one occasion a hesitant player put it back on its original square thinking he had moved it so pressed the clock. That is covered explicitly in the Laws.

What was the law in that instance - did he forfeit a move or did you tell him he just had to make a move with that piece now?

Pressing the clock without making a move is penalised in the same way as an illegal move would be. The player would also have to move the piece he'd touched if possible.

[Ken Norman]

I have occasionally encountered an opponent who makes his move after I have made my move but before I have pressed the clock. I find this action distracting. That is presumably why they do it. Is his action legal?

[Roger de Coverly]

I have occasionally encountered an opponent who makes his move after I have made my move but before I have pressed the clock. I find this action distracting. That is presumably why they do it. Is his action legal?

I've seen players in time pressure follow the sequence move move clock clock. That's legal as long as they don't stock you pressing the clock. If they've got more than five minutes or there's a thirty second increment, they can also defer recording the move until after your move. When they have less than five minutes and the increment is less than thirty seconds, or none at all, they don't have to record moves anyway.

[Ken Norman]

I have occasionally encountered an opponent who makes his move after I have made my move but before I have pressed the clock. I find this action distracting. That is presumably why they do it. Is his action legal?

I've seen players in time pressure follow the sequence move move clock clock. That's legal as long as they don't stock you pressing the clock. If they've got more than five minutes or there's a thirty second increment, they can also defer recording the move until after your move. When they have less than five minutes and the increment is less than thirty seconds, or none at all, they don't have to record moves anyway.

The players I have encountered who reply before I have pressed the clock do so from move one not in time pressure and I think the rules should be changed and this action treated as cheating.

[NickFaulks]

The players I have encountered who reply before I have pressed the clock do so from move one not in time pressure and I think the rules should be changed and this action treated as cheating.

The term "cheating" is used far too freely and should in my opinion be restricted to actions which produce a meaningful advantage. However, I would approve of a minimal penalty for the action Ken describes, which I would expect to stop people from doing it.

[David Williams]

I have occasionally encountered an opponent who makes his move after I have made my move but before I have pressed the clock. I find this action distracting. That is presumably why they do it. Is his action legal?

It's legal. I presume they do it to save a second or two. I really can't see where the distraction comes in any more than if they waited for you to press the clock and moved immediately.

If it was considered to be cheating how would you differentiate it from your opponent moving, not having noticed that you have forgotten to press your clock? It seems a bit odd to make your opponent responsible for your clock management.

[Joey Stewart]

It is known as 'clock blocking ' and it happens online as well but unfortunately it is just the way the rythem of the game goes in a time scramble, the faster hand gets their move in while you are reaching for the clock and then gets to press almost simultaneously with your own so you are immediately back on your own thinking time.
It really can only be solved by increments, you can't penalise somebody just for moving quickly and trapping you in a cycle as it is not really intentional cheating annoying though it most certainly is.

[Brian Egdell]

It is known as 'clock blocking '

What is the correct legal course of action by the opponent of the "clock blocker"? Generally the opponent should press the clock even when the opponent has replied instantly, that being natural anyway because the hand would already be on its way to the clock button while the opponent is making their instant reply move, and the clock blocker should then immediately press their own clock button because they have already moved. But suppose the opponent of the clock blocker is slower physically with their arm movements and sees the instantaneous reply move before they can even reach for the clock? Is it correct, even required, to leave their own clock time running? Does it make a difference if a clock is being used which counts the moves?

[Joey Stewart]

I think it would depend on the specific wording of the rules - if they say a move is only completed once the clock is pressed or that you may not make a move during your opponents time then there would be a case that the faster player be forced to restrain himself from making the move until the clock is actually pressed, thus taking some pressure off.

It's the sort of thing that probably has never been examined in much detail since speed chess has traditionally not been taken seriously and the powers that be presumably thought that anyone who gets flagged 'deserved' it for playing with fire. This article is an example of it happening at a high level game but I don't think it was further discussed after the incident.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/us-women- ... ur-readers

[Alex McFarlane]

But suppose the opponent of the clock blocker is slower physically with their arm movements and sees the instantaneous reply move before they can even reach for the clock? Is it correct, even required, to leave their own clock time running? Does it make a difference if a clock is being used which counts the moves?

Being slower can actually be an advantage. The opponent is often confused by his clock being pressed when it is not their move. It can therefore take them longer to press the clock back costing them more time than they would have saved. I have had 'guilty' players complain about this but when told the rules normally accept it. If they try to argue then they are offered the simple solution of waiting until their clock is started before moving.
The clock should always be pressed. With some time controls the move counter determines when additional time is added on for a second session. If increments are used then these will not be added on if the clock is not pressed.
Even if the move counter is not used for time settings it can be useful in establishing which scoresheet is correct or in 50/75 move draw claims.

I consider clock blocking to be when a player presses the clock and leaves his hand over it making it difficult for the opponent to stop their clock. A tap on the offending hand by an arbiter will normally act as a first warning.