English Chess Forum

Hi all,

I seem to remember seeing a thread on a similar topic some time ago on this forum. However, I can't remember exactly what was discussed in it, or what the conclusion was - obviously I can't find the thread itself. So I'd like to raise this particular issue again:

In a league game earlier this evening, I noticed that a player on one board was in severe time trouble. However, he managed to keep his game alive by playing his moves before his opponent had a chance to press the clock, and thus went on to win. Obviously I'm not interested in appeals etc., but I just want to know for future reference: is this legal?

Many thanks,

Alex Hardwick.

Alexander Hardwick wrote:However, he managed to keep his game alive by playing his moves before his opponent had a chance to press the clock, and thus went on to win. Obviously I'm not interested in appeals etc., but I just want to know for future reference: is this legal?

Yes, but only in the sequence move, move, clock , clock. In other words, the player who first moved is entitled to start the opponent's clock for a fraction of a second even if the opponent has already replied at the board.

As you observed, we've had this one before.

The old maxim is still valid: you make your move, you press your clock. Player B has the right to play their move once Player A's move has been completed however this doesn't infringe on Player A's right to start Player B's clock. I used to find it offputting when opponents bashed out their moves instantaneously however once I realised that I could just maintain the usual routine (move-clock-move-clock) it stopped bothering me at all.

It may be permissible within the laws of chess, but I think it is poor sporting etiquette to reply instantly to a move before the opponent has pressed the clock, so I hope it is not a habit which becomes commonplace. Someone who once tried this against me not only objected when I correctly started his clock again, but also had the cheek to try to make a second move in succession! Distracting to myself and the others playing in the match, particularly when he insisted loudly that I "was wrong to press the clock when it was my turn to move". When he eventually lost, he claimed that my actions had distracted him!

I have always held the view that the move is not complete until the clock has been pressed, therefore the other player should not move until that time. This is what I said to a regular user of this forum when he asked me quite some time ago and he started moving and then holding his hand over the clock to stop the other player moving and pressing their clock until he had pressed his. I think it's bad manners to try and move before your opponent has pressed their clock and bad practice by the player who gets that short of time that they feel they have to play with that tactic.

Yeah, I like to be able to press my clock - I have had some blitz games in the past where it has become a bit of a wrestle to keep my opponents hand off the clock, it prompted me to come up with a new variant called 'fighting chess' but that is another story....

It is disappointing that arbiters take no action against clocking

Peter Ackley wrote:Player B has the right to play their move once Player A's move has been completed

No, player B has the right to play their move once Player A's move has been made, i.e. before they press the clock.

Scott Freeman wrote:I have always held the view that the move is not complete until the clock has been pressed, therefore the other player should not move until that time. This is what I said to a regular user of this forum when he asked me quite some time ago and he started moving and then holding his hand over the clock to stop the other player moving and pressing their clock until he had pressed his. I think it's bad manners to try and move before your opponent has pressed their clock and bad practice by the player who gets that short of time that they feel they have to play with that tactic.

You're right that the move is not complete until the clock has been pressed, but the relevant distinction is between the words "completed" and "made". It may well be bad manners, but after the move has been made, your opponent can reply.

I personally would ask players not to move until the clock had been pressed, if the issue was raised during a game. However, I can also see that if we take this conversation to a conclusion it would prompt discussions about some sort of video replay system being necessary to prove whether someone had touched the next piece before the previous player had pressed the clock. Would each player be allowed 3 "claims" like in cricket......? In all seriousness, it is a very difficult thing to judge seeing the pace that some blitz games finish in.

However that is my opinion which other arbiters may well wish to disagree with me on and I may turn out to be wrong. I guess it's over to my colleagues to prrove me right or wrong.

Scott Freeman wrote:I personally would ask players not to move until the clock had been pressed, if the issue was raised during a game. However, I can also see that if we take this conversation to a conclusion it would prompt discussions about some sort of video replay system being necessary to prove whether someone had touched the next piece before the previous player had pressed the clock. Would each player be allowed 3 "claims" like in cricket......? In all seriousness, it is a very difficult thing to judge seeing the pace that some blitz games finish in.

However that is my opinion which other arbiters may well wish to disagree with me on and I may turn out to be wrong. I guess it's over to my colleagues to prrove me right or wrong.

I agree that it could get a bit silly, but alas...

It seems that, like most minor rule infringements, there is not really a set penalty for such a crime and thus the player with the biggest mouth tends to be the one who wins out in the arguement.

The Law is clear. A player may start and even complete his move before his opponent has pressed his clock. This is deliberate, Geurt Gijssen believes it is too common a practice to outlaw (particularly in blitz). As stated above, even though the player is entitled to do so, the opponent is still entitled to his press.
Scott is simply wrong here in Law.
Here is a game for you, probably blitz. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Q and, before White completes Qe2, Black plays Nd4. So White instead plays 4 Qh5. Then he plays 5 Qxf7. That move is legal, although the one he preceding it is illegal. Thus it is mate which ends the game.
If called upon as arbiter, I would stop the clocks, reinstate the position to 4 Qe2 Nd4, and tell White it his move and restart his clock. I would award no penalty, both players have been at fault. I might congratulate White (probably a teenager) on his knowledge of the Laws.
The Rules and Tournament Regulations Commission has long been aware of this problem, but been unable to compose an appropriate Law. Thus we would rely on the preface.
Stewart Reuben

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt123.pdf also explains with examples, not sure about Stewarts use of "complete" above but I am sure that he is correct and that what Scott says is incorrect.

PS The video of the disputed womens championship is well worth a watch and when you recall the image of the chess piece being hurled accross the room the rule tends to stick in your mind

Stewart Reuben wrote:A player may start and even complete his move before his opponent has pressed his clock.

This is not quite accurate.

A player B may start and make his move before his opponent C has pressed the clock after Cs previous move. Both moves at that stage are made but not complete. The opponent C may then complete his move by pressing the clock and only then can B complete his move by pressing the clock.

This has significance in the sequence :- C moves but does not press the clock, B moves and cannot press the clock, B gets up from his chair and leaves the board, C completes his move by pressing the clock. Bs move is incomplete, his clock is ticking and he could lose on time.

For what it's worth, here is Geurt Gijssen's explanation of this scenario based on one of his columns:

Let me start with two definitions:
1. Making a move means to play a piece from one square to another square.
2. Completing a move means making a move, stopping one's own clock, and starting the opponent’s.

It is a generally accepted interpretation that a player may make his move after the opponent has made (not completed) his move. Thus, before a player has pressed his clock, the opponent is allowed to make his move, but, after the opponent has made the move, the player still has the right to press his clock.

In my opinion, the sentence "A player must always be allowed to stop his clock" justifies the way the player of the black pieces acted.

We discussed this matter during the FIDE Congress in Dresden 2008. The question was, whether we should forbid a player to make a move before his opponent has pressed the clock. We concluded that especially in time scrabbles, blitz, and rapid games, it is very difficult to see the real sequence of what is happening. Therefore, we did not change this Article of the Laws of Chess.