Do you have to compete promotion to win ?

[Jesper Norgaard]

7.5.b after
"After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first or second completed
illegal move by a player the arbiter shall reduce his remaining thinking time on
the clock by half; for the third completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter
shall declare the game lost by this player."

The time limit is 40/90 + G/30 + 30s/move.

White erroneously plays d2-e4 on move 1, and presses his clock. For the sake of argument, let's say he took 30 seconds to do that.

I assume that the remaining time on his clock is 90 minutes 30 seconds again, so he is reduced to 45 minutes 15 seconds.

I agree. I can see that there was a point that is not handled in the article I suggested. I wanted all his fixed time reduced in half. That means for such a game, the G/30 part is also reduced in half, to G/15. Since this is not apparent with the simple noun "remaining thinking time" I will have to go back to the drawing board to find out how this should be expressed. If there is a third period of 15 minutes, that should be cut to 7.5 minutes as well.

If a player makes his first illegal move on move 40, and has 10 seconds when he does so, then the player makes the illegal move and presses the clock. He goes up to 40 seconds and back down to 20 when half the time his removed. So he has gained 10 seconds by making the illegal move.

Well of course this depends on implementation. He ended up on 40 seconds because of the increment when pressing the clock. A valid view would be that the increment does no belong to him if the move wasn't legal, so the 30 seconds are subtracted first. That means that his 10 seconds will be cut to 5 seconds before continuing the game. As a matter of fact I think that some arbiters don't care to make such deliberate calculations when a player is very short of time. Of course making the legal move replacing the illegal move, he will still receive the 30 seconds, not 15 seconds.

Assuming you want "his remaining thinking time" to be interpreted to be 10 seconds halved to make 5, then the penalty for the illegal move is 5 seconds.

Yes you can say the penalty is little, only 5 seconds. On the other hand, those are some very important seconds, if you need to make the last move!
However the idea is that he also loses the 15 minutes for the last period.

On move 41, the player makes an illegal move, and potentially loses 15 minutes.

So on move 40, the penalty is 5 seconds, on move 41, the penalty is 15 minutes.

Is this your proposal?

No on move 40 the penalty is 15 minutes and 5 seconds, on move 41 the penalty is 15 minutes plus half of whatever is left on his last 30 seconds increment. In the case that there were other periods, they would be reduced in half as well.

Considering the possibility to also reduce the increment in half, as suggested by Stewart Reuben, there are several reasons I want to avoid that. One of the first we see with the 30 seconds increment. That increment is exactly defined so that each of his moves are obliged to be scored on the score sheet. An organizer would not like that to be changed, since it will make it less likely they will obtain a PGN file with all the games. If it is cut to 15 seconds for a player, he is not obliged to score the game.

If applied with small increments like 3 min. + 2 sec. as in the official Blitz World Championship, cutting the 2 seconds into 1 second, and then to half a second, simply makes it impossible to survive a drawish position, let alone specifying an increment of half a second which is technically impossible in the DGT clocks to the best of my knowledge. So that makes at least three reasons (1.PGN 2.survivability 3.clock technical) to leave alone the increments for this article.

If he has only 1 second left in a Blitz game, that should be reduced to 0.5 seconds, which cannot be expressed, so his 1 second is just left as is. If there are 7 seconds left, it is reduced to 4, by rounding up to nearest 0.5 seconds from 3.5 seconds. The rounding bit should be clarified as well. But that is just nitty-gritty if the general principle of cutting his fixed time in half is accepted.

There should also be something about reducing fixed time to half on an analogue clock. Of course it cannot be very precise. On the DGT clock it can.

[NickFaulks]

With the current rules it is possible to make an illegal move just to get some thinking time, which is only the time it takes the arbiter to handle it.

So instead of ten seconds they get three minutes. Can't help much, I suppose, although you should factor in that the opponent has been completely upset.

[Jesper Norgaard]

With the current rules it is possible to make an illegal move just to get some thinking time, which is only the time it takes the arbiter to handle it.

So instead of ten seconds they get three minutes. Can't help much, I suppose, although you should factor in that the opponent has been completely upset.

I tend to agree with you that there is an existing unfairness in this, that is inherited from the existing laws. If the player has 10 seconds on the clock, it will be reduced to 5. If the arbiter observes that the opponent has been completely upset, he has a possibility via 12.9.b to increase his remaining time.

I think this is worse in the current laws, where the time of the offender is not affected, while the extra 2 minutes added to the opponent's clock may be useless to him because he has plenty of time.

[Jesper Norgaard]

I think I have a working definition of the proposed new 7.5.a rule that will include all time periods and increment time.

7.5.b after
"After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first or second completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall reduce his remaining thinking time on the clock by half; for the third completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. If thinking time is cut in half, also his time for future periods are cut in half, while the increment time, if available, is unaffected."

[NickFaulks]

Perhaps that's an improvement, but it must be recognised that for so long as the authorities insist that a player who overlooks that his his king is en prise must in all circumstances be allowed to take back the move, any rule can be and will be abused.

I have asked many times why this concept makes chess a better game and have never been given a reply. And if anyone else says "ah, we know what you're up to, you're really trying to get rid of the stalemate rule" I shall scream.

[Paul McKeown]

This thread started poorly, and has gone downhill from there. Can we not be more creative in our punishment of people who accidentally make an illegal move? Why don't we just burn them at the stake? Or perhaps break them on the wheel? Rolls eyes.

[NickFaulks]

Can we not be more creative in our punishment of people who accidentally make an illegal move?

What about people who accidentally leave their queen en prise? Special treatment for them too?

[Paul McKeown]

Well, what do you suggest? Apparently the loss of two minutes is insufficient punishment for an illegal move, nor is the addition of two minutes insufficient restitution. Perhaps, flaying alive might satisfy some of the more draconian who have now taken over the thread. Or perhaps not. Perhaps that and seven generations sold into bondage. That the Laws (12.9) provide the arbiter a range of options which may be applied, in his or her judgement as necessary and equitable, from a warning up to expulsion from the event, doesn't appear to satisfy the torch bearing mob.

[Alex McFarlane]

7.5.b after
"After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first or second completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall reduce his remaining thinking time on the clock by half; for the third completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. If thinking time is cut in half, also his time for future periods are cut in half, while the increment time, if available, is unaffected."

There are two problems with this suggestion.
The first means that the offender will initially gain more time. Many (most/all) digital clocks only allow you to edit the current session once the game has started. Resetting the clock therefore becomes non-trivial. Does the arbiter write down the times and then reprogram the clock or go and get a second clock? Either adds considerably to the delay.
The second is irrelevant if you think most players who make an illegal move are cheating. (I believe that cheating is the exception and can be dealt with under other Laws.) Anyway, to protect innocent careless people then time controls will change so you will get things like 20 minutes for 40 moves +2min 30sec increments or 10 minutes and 1 minute 50 sec increments for the whole game.

By the way the Laws don't say when the 2 minutes will be added. I've had three cases where one player was very short of time and the other had 6 minutes or more. On one of these I added on the 2 minutes immediately because I was asked to. On the others I just restarted the game and would have added on the time after the control was reached. In neither of those cases did the game go that far! When I explained what I had done/would do one of the players said that he would have been very annoyed if I had attempted to give him the two minutes and the other simply said thanks.

[NickFaulks]

Perhaps, flaying alive might satisfy some of the more draconian who have now taken over the thread. Or perhaps not. Perhaps that and seven generations sold into bondage.

I'm merely suggesting that if you leave your queen en prise, there is no possibility of takeback and in practice it nearly always leads to immediate loss of the game. I would like someone, anyone, to explain to me why leaving a king en prise should be different. Just asking.

Perhaps there is the germ of an explanation in your above post, but I need it to be explained more clearly.

[NickFaulks]

(I believe that cheating is the exception and can be dealt with under other Laws.)

Agreed, but it isn't. In any case, why should the offender benefit from even an entirely innocent mistake, which is increasingly likely as their clock runs down to zero?

[Ian Thompson]

Can we not be more creative in our punishment of people who accidentally make an illegal move?

I thought the discussion was around how to prevent people who make illegal moves from benefiting from it.

That the Laws (12.9) provide the arbiter a range of options which may be applied, in his or her judgement as necessary and equitable, from a warning up to expulsion from the event, doesn't appear to satisfy the torch bearing mob.

If the Laws weren't prescriptive on the penalty for an illegal move and allowed the arbiter to use their discretion under Laws 12.3 and 12.9, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty in this game that I watched a long time ago.

It was a quick play finish and both players were down to less than a minute. White had a clearly winning rook and pawn ending, but was making no progress. He obviously hadn't found the winning plan. White made an illegal move. The clocks were stopped while this was sorted out. When the game restarted White immediately played the winning plan and won without any trouble.

[Jesper Norgaard]

This thread started poorly, and has gone downhill from there. Can we not be more creative in our punishment of people who accidentally make an illegal move? Why don't we just burn them at the stake? Or perhaps break them on the wheel? Rolls eyes.

Punishing illegal moves with the loss of the game in Rapid or Blitz chess seems much more Draconian, and unnecessary. Also declaring a draw when one player has not noticed the illegal move of the other, seems very Draconian as well. Compare that to losing half of your thinking time seems a relief, but I guess not all will agree. There is also the Draconian measure that the second illegal move in a Standard game loses. All of these are removed with my article modifications, where only the third illegal move loses.

In a Blitz game where a player makes an illegal move, and this is not noticed by the opponent, the opponent making a move will exonerate the illegal move of that player, and the situation may linger on until an arbiter comes by, not to correct the illegal move and applying a proper penalty, but to declare a draw!? That is quite Draconian, and punishing the player that has not committed an illegal move.

A player committing a single illegal move will survive with the new rules. That is far from certain with the current rules, notably not in Blitz and Rapid games.

Most illegal moves are made unintentionally, so the purpose of these rule changes is exactly to avoid the Draconian losses or forced draws that are lurking today.

The cost of having an arbiter to spent time on correcting an illegal move must come from somewhere, or else schedules will drift. That time can reasonably come from the illegal move player. I don't see this as a Draconian measure, since it makes him able to survive no matter what time he has on the clock (well almost).

[Stewart Reuben]

Most people think that making deliberate illegal moves as a form of cheating is very rare. But putting the king next to the king in lightning chess used in the 1960s to be called a 'Harrison' in New York. The eponymous Harrison used to do that when in a lost position. We may have seen a deliberate illegal move by a GM against B ronstein in Hastings rapidplay in 1995.
Yesterday I saw a player cheat repeatedly in one blitz game by using one hand to move the pieces and the other to press the clock. The so-called 'arbiter' did not intervene. The player did not do it in subsequent games. The event was not FIDE Rated.

People do not seem to like accidentally illegal moves to lose automatically. That has always been the rule for blitz, but only came in for rapidplay 1 July 2014. Most people do not distinguish between the type of illegality, be it leaving the king en prise, moving a knight from e4 to g6, putting a pawn on the 8th rank and pressing the clock, etc. Indeed I know of only one person who singles out leaving or putting the king en prise differently.
I know of NOBODY who believes bad moves should not be punished if the opponent is good enough to take advantage. 50 years ago in NY, playing blitz for money, I used sometimes to offer the odds of my opponent taking their last move back when they had seen my reply.

Jesper's latest suggestion is good, but the punishment might be too trivial unless the increment is also reduced. Alex makes the cogent point that adjustment of the clock takes the arbiter some time. That is why 7.1 should be extended to cover 7.5b. I am not certain that it doesn't already do so. A future clock might include such a halving option. The reactions of people kibbitzing the games online would be interesting.

Jesper amended becomes: 7.5.b
"After the action taken under Article 7.5.a, for the first or second completed illegal move by a player the arbiter shall reduce his remaining thinking time on the clock by half, including halving the increment if any. Note should be taken of 7.1. For the third completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the gmae is drawn...

What then if there is no arbiter around? Presumably the players are self-arbiting and the clock adjustment is done by one of the two players.
The players provide the clocks In most US tournaments. This results in many different makes of clocks. This would be coped with by the extension of 7.1.

Sorry about this, but there is another matter about deliberate illegal moves. Currently we are satisfied that, in our range of experience, this is rare.
But what if the game became more like poker in etiquette? There are many poker players who believe that sharp practices are not immoral. They would not dream of hitting you over the head and stealing your money; but marking the cards, etc. is perfectly OK.

[Jesper Norgaard]

There are two problems with this suggestion.
The first means that the offender will initially gain more time. Many (most/all) digital clocks only allow you to edit the current session once the game has started. Resetting the clock therefore becomes non-trivial. Does the arbiter write down the times and then reprogram the clock or go and get a second clock? Either adds considerably to the delay.

Any of these may work. The arbiter will spent time, but the schedule is potentially given benefit if the offender is paying a big penalty in time subtracted, it will almost guarantee that this game will not be the last to finish. Quite contrary today where 2 minutes are added to the opponent, and therefore increasing the likelihood of schedule problems.

The second is irrelevant if you think most players who make an illegal move are cheating.

No, I don't, on the contrary.

(I believe that cheating is the exception and can be dealt with under other Laws.)

I don't think that cheating can always be dealt with under other laws. You see the chess arbiter is a pretty poor lie detector, although a policeman is sub par as well. Scientific tests have made clear that police are often very convinced they know who is cheating, while their score in determining who is cheating is not much better than 50%. Anyhow the purpose of the law changes is far from to punish cheating, on the contrary.

Anyway, to protect innocent careless people then time controls will change so you will get things like 20 minutes for 40 moves +2min 30sec increments or 10 minutes and 1 minute 50 sec increments for the whole game.

By the way the Laws don't say when the 2 minutes will be added. I've had three cases where one player was very short of time and the other had 6 minutes or more. On one of these I added on the 2 minutes immediately because I was asked to. On the others I just restarted the game and would have added on the time after the control was reached. In neither of those cases did the game go that far! When I explained what I had done/would do one of the players said that he would have been very annoyed if I had attempted to give him the two minutes and the other simply said thanks.

Of course the mandatory addition of 2 minutes will tend to hurt the schedule. It is still available for the arbiter if he thinks it is justified, by 12.9.b but it is depending on the arbiter. He will probably only apply it if there are no schedule problems.