Is This Arbiter's Interpretation of the Laws Correct?

[Ian Thompson]

ChessBase has an article on Illegal moves and irregularities copied from the ECU Magazine.

In the article, the arbiter describes an incident where a player picked up one of his opponent's pieces and moved it to capture one of his own pieces (and, presumably, pressed the clock, although this isn't stated either way). The arbiter says that this was not an illegal move because the laws do not prohibit "captur[ing] your own piece with one of the opponent’s", so whilst he might apply the same penalty as would apply to an illegal move, he wouldn't count it as an illegal move that counts towards 2 illegal moves losing the game. I think he's right that the laws do not explicitly say that you're only allowed to move your own pieces and capture your opponent's pieces, but surely they imply this. I would say the arbiter has failed to apply the sound judgement the preface to the laws expect him to.

The arbiter goes on to say that there was no point in applying a time penalty for this incident because White was clearly winning and had plenty of time on the clock, so didn't need an extra 2 minutes. Deciding not to give a player extra time on these grounds is clearly wrong.

[Reg Clucas]

If the clock has been pressed without a legal move being made then it is classed as an illegal move.

[Geoff Chandler]

Strange coincidence. At 12:26 a few minutes before this thread started I sent an email asking for more info on this game.

Marco Zhang (Cowley) - Derek Edwards (Witney) possibly an Oxford League match played in the 2007/2008 season.

rnbqkb1r/pp1npp1p/2pP2p1/6B1/2PPN3/8/PP2QPPP/R3KBNR w KQkq - 0 10
White played 10.Nxd6 and 1-0 was recorded. The result stood. The mistake was not noticed till much later when the winner was demonstrating their quick win in a pub.

I'm sure I've seen this before. The current source is; page 30 of The Chequered Board edited by Will Burt.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SzBEAd ... lOE3F/view.

If the mistake had been spotted White would have to make a move with the e4 Knight or the d6 pawn. (yes?)

(opening moves: 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bg5 c6 5. e5 Nd5 6. Ne4 Qc7 7. c4 Nb6 8.
exd6 Qd8 9. Qe2 N6d7)

[IM Jack Rudd]

Yes. (Specifically, he would have to make a move with whichever of those pieces he touched first. If it is not known which he touched first, he could move either.)

[Roger Lancaster]

The arbiter goes on to say that there was no point in applying a time penalty for this incident because White was clearly winning and had plenty of time on the clock, so didn't need an extra 2 minutes. Deciding not to give a player extra time on these grounds is clearly wrong.

Yes, but consider the following. With half-a-dozen moves until the time control, player A has 30 seconds remaining while player B has 30 minutes. Short of ideas as well as time, player A decides to make/complete an illegal move. The arbiter is reasonably prompt in arriving and increasing B's available time to 32 minutes but player B benefits less from this than the extra "off clock" time player A receives while the arbiter does his work. A somewhat cynical ploy but totally legal as far as I can see. [PS: It's not a tactic I've employed}.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The arbiter goes on to say that there was no point in applying a time penalty for this incident because White was clearly winning and had plenty of time on the clock, so didn't need an extra 2 minutes. Deciding not to give a player extra time on these grounds is clearly wrong."

I have known players say, "I don't want the extra time."

[Roger de Coverly]

I have known players say, "I don't want the extra time."

Whilst it's a matter of seconds on a traditional clock, on a digital clock the arbiter has to remember the method for adding a couple of minutes. Any delay while this is worked out awards additional thinking time

[Leonard Barden]

An opponent taking one of his own pieces actually happened to me in England v Italy in the 1960 Clare Benedict tournament.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2000390
I can still recall the sense of shock when my opponent suddenly leaned over and grabbed my c8 bishop.

[Matt Mackenzie]

The Complete Chess Addict had an example of Przepiorka taking *two* of his own pieces before he finally woke up

[Roger Lancaster]

This is a somewhat different question but it's probably not worth a thread of its own so I'll lump it into this one. I was playing in a league match last night where my opponent had been comfortably winning but we both ran short of time - each down to around 30 seconds plus 10-second increments - at which point I offered a draw. My opponent thought about it and then, according to the spectators, of whom there were several, said "Yes" at exactly the time that his time expired. Probably there were milli-seconds separating the two events but the spectators couldn't distinguish. We agreed the draw although I've known players who, given the same circumstances, would try to claim a win on time. Is there a definite ruling on this?

[Joey Stewart]

If you were playing online and offered a draw you would get the win if your opponent were too slow to accept before the clock expired, and it is probably the same over the board, but in a league game I would 100% say you did the right thing to leave it as a draw when it had been offered and accepted - it's much better to be on good terms with opponents you are likely to play repeatedly over several years, especially if the roles are reversed next time.

[Reg Clucas]

This is a somewhat different question but it's probably not worth a thread of its own so I'll lump it into this one. I was playing in a league match last night where my opponent had been comfortably winning but we both ran short of time - each down to around 30 seconds plus 10-second increments - at which point I offered a draw. My opponent thought about it and then, according to the spectators, of whom there were several, said "Yes" at exactly the time that his time expired. Probably there were milli-seconds separating the two events but the spectators couldn't distinguish. We agreed the draw although I've known players who, given the same circumstances, would try to claim a win on time. Is there a definite ruling on this?

It doesn't matter when the flag actually falls. It is only deemed to have fallen when a valid claim has been made to that effect. So if you had not claimed, then a draw is the correct outcome.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"We agreed the draw although I've known players who, given the same circumstances, would try to claim a win on time. Is there a definite ruling on this?"

I think you did the right thing, and unless you have an arbiter actually watching (in a tournament), the draw is the right result. If I were such an arbiter, in this scenario, I would give the draw anyway - after all, that's what you wanted, why should you get a win, when flag-fall and "yes" are effectively simultaneous events?

[Roger Lancaster]

It doesn't matter when the flag actually falls. It is only deemed to have fallen when a valid claim has been made to that effect. So if you had not claimed, then a draw is the correct outcome.

Am I not right in thinking it's "when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim" in which case, it being a local league match, there was no (independent) arbiter. Convention then dictates that the match captains, of whom I was one, become de facto arbiters and I certainly observed the flag fall. But separate to this, given that events happened within milliseconds of one another, as evidenced by my or the spectators' inability to say which happened first, it's doubtful whether an independent arbiter could have done any better. I am (and was) totally in sympathy with Kevin's separate comment but this seems to be based on common sense rather than an interpretation derived directly from the FIDE laws. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but some would argue that FIDE laws and common sense don't invariably coincide. Not a major issue but one which I had never previously come across over a lifetime!

[Roger de Coverly]

Convention then dictates that the match captains, of whom I was one, become de facto arbiters and I certainly observed the flag fall.

If you have quickplay finishes without increments, I think it better not to have that convention. The point being that a claim of "unable to win" then terminates play in the game, at which point a third party or perhaps the match captains and strongest players present determine the validity of the claim.