Buzzer Chess Question

[Alex Holowczak]

Buzzer chess isn't a type of chess in the FIDE Laws of Chess, so I can't help here.

Basically, you're making up a type of chess, and making up rules for this type of chess, such as moving on the buzzer. There's no standard set.

All I can say is, there's nothing wrong with a player hovering his hand over a piece in a "normal" game for 10 seconds. Irritating, but nothing strictly against it. What do you want the penalty to be for this distraction? I guess two minutes on the clock is the "normal" penalty, but how does that work in buzzer chess?

Your assertion in (b) is wrong, aside from the "buzzer rules clearly state" bit, which as I've just said, don't officially exist. You've started to make the move when you've touched the piece, and not before it. So if you touch the piece when the buzzer goes off, that's fine.

[Ian Thompson]

All I can say is, there's nothing wrong with a player hovering his hand over a piece in a "normal" game for 10 seconds. Irritating, but nothing strictly against it.

If you think it's irritating how can it not be an infringement of Rule 12.6 ("It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.")?

[Stewart Reuben]

Well, David is very old and has probably forgotten buzzer chess. Roger de Coverly can probably tell me when I last played it.
The Laws do not permit a player to hover over a piece. Even in 'normal' chess this is sometimes done and clearly not permitted. I have known GMs who did not understand that their opponent is entitled to think, though it is not their move. Hovering obscures the board.
So it is covered in the Laws, but there are probably not enough arbiters to enforce acceptable behaviour.

Much more interesting, where and why has Lightning chess been reintroduced? That is the correct name for 10 second chess.

Two people have posted since I wrote that. Alex, when I was your age blitz was hardly known. The clocks were too expensive. Lightning was popular. I think the Laws cover it adequately. Alex, what you said about hovering is totally wrong.

With an arbiter, when he sees it he first warns the player. The second, or perhaps third time, he forfeits him. It won'tg occur again in that event.

There was also the problem of somebody moving late. That was endemic at the Manhattan Club in 1964. Again covered in the Laws.

Stewart Reuben

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex, what you said about hovering is totally wrong.

There's no law that explicitly states that you can't hover your hand over a piece?

At what point does a pause before you touch the piece become a hover?

I'm willing to take what you say on board though. I know a junior player who does this all the time, with virtually every move. I'll have a word with him.

[Stewart Reuben]

And there is also no Law that specifically states you cannot take a newspaper and place it above the board when it is your move and your clock is ticking.

>At what point does a pause before you touch the piece become a hover?<
When the arbiter decides it may be distracting.

I, and many others, have picked up a piece to move it to a particular square, then become less sure, returned it to the original square, thought further, eventually moved it and then pressed the clock. The opponent deserves an apology. If it happened again, the player would be penalised, well perhaps even the first time.

Stewart Reuben

[Alex Holowczak]

And there is also no Law that specifically states you cannot take a newspaper and place it above the board when it is your move and your clock is ticking.

Point taken.

[E Michael White]

In 1970 or thereabouts the BCF lightening rules had two rules which might be considered unusual now.

1. check had to be announced
2. the arbiter had to default a player for any second rule infringement, none of this wishy washy 3 or 4 strikes and you're out. Players and arbiters were expected to know the rules.

[John Upham]

I term the hover the Praying Mantis or Karate Kid style of playing chess: I normally ask them to desist on the grounds they are preventing me from analysing the position by obscuring the board. That usually suffices.

[Michael Jones]

Much more interesting, where and why has Lightning chess been reintroduced? That is the correct name for 10 second chess.

The Coventry League has had annual team and individual lightning tournaments for as long as anyone can remember, so here at least it has never gone out of fashion. There are some people who take a while to get used to it and move before/after the buzzer once or twice (the rule we use is that the first two such offences merit a warning, the third loses the game; I've only known one instance of a player losing that way), but we've never had any problems with 'hovering' - some might do it for a couple of seconds before they think the buzzer is about to sound, but never for 9 seconds and never in a deliberate attempt to distract the opponent.

[Ray Sayers]

I haven't played buzzer chess for a long time, but I remember I used to 'hover' a couple of seconds before making my move.

The idea wasn't to distract the opponent. It was to move as quickly on the buzzer as possible so as not to rob my opponent of a precious second or 2 thinking time.

Sometimes there is an innocent explaination; if I had thought for a moment I was putting my opponent off, I wouldn't have done it!

PS I never hovered my fingers over the board, usually around my chin; does that count?!

[Sean Hewitt]

One of my intentions was to incorporate it into the Merseyside Lightning rules, which were on the Merseyside Chess Association Website.

Perhaps the simplest solution is to agree amongst yourselves what you want the rule to be, and make that the rule.

[Alex Holowczak]

The idea wasn't to distract the opponent. It was to move as quickly on the buzzer as possible so as not to rob my opponent of a precious second or 2 thinking time.

I was thinking about this overnight, and I came to a similar conclusion to this. In the scenario described in the first place, the player clearly had no intention to distract. His intention was to make his move, but he was unable to do so due to the rules about when he can move. So a penalty in such a circumstance would seem harsh.

The Birmingham League has a Lightning Tournament which I have no intention of supporting. If they made it a blitz tournament, I'd be the first name on the entry list.

[Alex Holowczak]

One of my intentions was to incorporate it into the Merseyside Lightning rules, which were on the Merseyside Chess Association Website.

Perhaps the simplest solution is to agree amongst yourselves what you want the rule to be, and make that the rule.

This is what I think Dave Welch was, in a roundabout way, trying to get at.

[Stewart Reuben]

Martyn quoting David Welch >The game is impossible to police unless there is a lot of goodwill.<

That seems to me to be the very opposite of fobbing somebody off. Exactly the same sentiment can be expressed about league chess where there is very seldom an independent arbiter present. Geurt Gijssen said he wouldn't like to play chess under those conditions - which we regard as perfectly normal.

Wholesale cheating, or at least sharp practice, could go on in chess very easily. The Laws are written basically on the presumption that people don't cheat. That is why they are so short and why the preface is relied on so heavily.
We could start a new thread of ways in which it is possible to cheat, but not covered specifically in the Laws. But why bother?

Stewart Reuben

[Ian Kingston]

We could start a new thread of ways in which it is possible to cheat, but not covered specifically in the Laws. But why bother?Stewart Reuben

Especially for lightning chess. It's supposed to be lighthearted fun, isn't it?