Drop a piece lose the game

[LawrenceCooper]

If the Arbiter regards the mishap as a simple accident over which the player has no control he might not consider it an illegal move;

Under what rule could an arbiter possibly rule that a knocked over piece constitutes an illegal move?

Emil Sutovsky on Facebook mentioned that they were using different rules "These were the rules for the particular events, Arkady. It has been tried earlier on in some official competitions (even in Mind Olympiad)." that allowed such claims to be upheld. " Here the arbiter followed the regulations for the event. You may dislike Sethuraman's decision, but he was in his right."

[Michael Flatt]

Incidence like this can be very disruptive to the flow of the game. A single accident at the start of a game is easy to correct and unlikely to influence the final result. Later, when one or both players are short of time or the position on the board is critical, stopping the game to remedy the situation might unduly influence the balance of the game.

Both players trust and are reliant on the Arbiter being able to accurately evaluate the situation and apply the Laws fairly.

The classification of Arbiters by FIDE based on their level of (documented) experience is recognition that Arbiters develop their skills over time and a range of different events.

Further general guidance to Arbiters on the conduct of rapid/blitz events might be more beneficial than specific changes to the Laws of Chess.

[Richard Bates]

Incidence like this can be very disruptive to the flow of the game. A single accident at the start of a game is easy to correct and unlikely to influence the final result. Later, when one or both players are short of time or the position on the board is critical, stopping the game to remedy the situation might unduly influence the balance of the game.

Both players trust and are reliant on the Arbiter being able to accurately evaluate the situation and apply the Laws fairly.

The classification of Arbiters by FIDE based on their level of (documented) experience is recognition that Arbiters develop their skills over time and a range of different events.

Further general guidance to Arbiters on the conduct of rapid/blitz events might be more beneficial than specific changes to the Laws of Chess.

Well then they should change the laws in rapid play to say defaults on apply when the aggrieved party has fewer than 5 minutes on the clock. With additional time on all other occasions

[Michael Flatt]

Well then they should change the laws in rapid play to say defaults on apply when the aggrieved party has fewer than 5 minutes on the clock. With additional time on all other occasions

Yes. That could work. But the actual time, whether it be 5 mins or 2 mins, should be debated. Hopefully top players in international events would make proposals to the Rules Commission, if they feel that it is necessary.

[NickFaulks]

Well then they should change the laws in rapid play to say defaults on apply when the aggrieved party has fewer than 5 minutes on the clock. With additional time on all other occasions

Yes. That could work. But the actual time, whether it be 5 mins or 2 mins, should be debated. Hopefully top players in international events would make proposals to the Rules Commission, if they feel that it is necessary.

That is what I have been saying for years, at meetings and on this forum ( though do you really mean the aggrieved party or his opponent? ). My idea has been twisted into a wilful desire to default people. I doubt that Rules Commission will allow it to see the light of day.

By the way, I would also apply it in the quickplay finish of a standard game. Why not?

[Richard Bates]

Well then they should change the laws in rapid play to say defaults on apply when the aggrieved party has fewer than 5 minutes on the clock. With additional time on all other occasions

Yes. That could work. But the actual time, whether it be 5 mins or 2 mins, should be debated. Hopefully top players in international events would make proposals to the Rules Commission, if they feel that it is necessary.

That is what I have been saying for years, at meetings and on this forum ( though do you really mean the aggrieved party or his opponent? ). My idea has been twisted into a wilful desire to default people. I doubt that Rules Commission will allow it to see the light of day.

By the way, I would also apply it in the quickplay finish of a standard game. Why not?

Aggrieved party = he who allegedly suffers from opponent making illegal move.

I guess the slight problem is games played with analogue clocks.

[Ian Thompson]

If the Arbiter regards the mishap as a simple accident over which the player has no control he might not consider it an illegal move;

Under what rule could an arbiter possibly rule that a knocked over piece constitutes an illegal move?

Emil Sutovsky on Facebook mentioned that they were using different rules "These were the rules for the particular events, Arkady. It has been tried earlier on in some official competitions (even in Mind Olympiad)." that allowed such claims to be upheld. " Here the arbiter followed the regulations for the event. You may dislike Sethuraman's decision, but he was in his right."

The rules for this event don't appear to be available on-line anywhere, but it is worth noting the whole of Sutovsky's comment:

"These were the rules for the particular events, Arkady. It has been tried earlier on in some official competitions (even in Mind Olympiad). Luckily it is not in the FIDE rules for blitz yet, if I remember correctly."

So the answer to the original question:

Is there a specific rule on this or is it just that dropping the piece and pressing the clock constitutes an illegal move?

Apparently there was a specific rule for this event, but in events played under FIDE rules there is no specific rule and it is not an illegal move.

[LawrenceCooper]

Under what rule could an arbiter possibly rule that a knocked over piece constitutes an illegal move?

Emil Sutovsky on Facebook mentioned that they were using different rules "These were the rules for the particular events, Arkady. It has been tried earlier on in some official competitions (even in Mind Olympiad)." that allowed such claims to be upheld. " Here the arbiter followed the regulations for the event. You may dislike Sethuraman's decision, but he was in his right."

The rules for this event don't appear to be available on-line anywhere, but it is worth noting the whole of Sutovsky's comment:

"These were the rules for the particular events, Arkady. It has been tried earlier on in some official competitions (even in Mind Olympiad). Luckily it is not in the FIDE rules for blitz yet, if I remember correctly."

So the answer to the original question:

Is there a specific rule on this or is it just that dropping the piece and pressing the clock constitutes an illegal move?

Apparently there was a specific rule for this event, but in events played under FIDE rules there is no specific rule and it is not an illegal move.

Exactly, that's why it seems so ridiculous to those of us who have never been subject to such nonsense.

[Michael Flatt]

And potentially both players could be defaulted! (see rule 7.3.1)

6. Technical Organisation
6.1 The Technical Director, in consultation with FIDE, is responsible for and has full control of
the technical organisation of the Events. He shall have the final interpretation of the
Regulations governing the Events.
7. Playing Conditions
7.1 The tournament shall be played according to rules, doping control and examination of FIDE.
7.2 Players must be seated at their respective tables before the start of each round. Once the
Chief Arbiter announces start, any player who is absent shall immediately be declared to
have lost by default.
7.3 For Blitz Events, if a player displaces any piece(s) he must reset the piece(s) on his own
time. If this is not done and he has already started his opponent’s clock, the opponent can
make a claim and the game declared lost for the offending player.
7.3.1 An arbiter can also declare the loss for the offending player even without any claim from the
opponent. In case that a game continues with displaced pieces, the game shall be declared
lost for BOTH players who shall then both receive a zero score.
7.4 Pairing for all Events will be based on Pairing Program existing in the Swiss Manager.

[1] World Mind Sports Rules: http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... orts-games

[Michael Flatt]

Elsewhere you get one warning:

Rapid & Blitz
The Rapid championship will be played according to Article A4 Rapid Rules and Blitz According to B4.

If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re‐establish the correct position in his own time. If he/she press the clock before adjusting the piece, for first such offence there will be warning and for second offence the player will be declared lost.

[1] Asian Junior Chess Championship-2016: http://ww2.delhichess.com/wp-content/up ... ations.pdf

[NickFaulks]

Well then they should change the laws in rapid play to say defaults on apply when the aggrieved party has fewer than 5 minutes on the clock. With additional time on all other occasions

I don't see how it can be right for the penalty to depend upon the amount of time the aggrieved player has left. It is consistent for it to depend on how much time the offending player has left.

[Richard Bates]

Well then they should change the laws in rapid play to say defaults on apply when the aggrieved party has fewer than 5 minutes on the clock. With additional time on all other occasions

I don't see how it can be right for the penalty to depend upon the amount of time the aggrieved player has left. It is consistent for it to depend on how much time the offending player has left.

I don't see why. My argument is made on the basis that the penalties for illegal moves are primarily predicated on the disorientation affect on an opponent. Such disorientation is significantly more acute when one is very short of time, such that a standard 2min time penalty is not really sufficient compensation. There is the added potential issue that it sometime may not be immediately obvious to one short of time that an illegal move has been made. So it is consistent for the penalty to be more draconian on the instigator of the illegal move should one's opponent be short of time.

I think your position seems to rest on the idea that one might make a (deliberate) illegal move as a bit of sharp practice to buy time whilst the claim is investigated. I don't really think this makes much sense, the gains from such sharp practice would be minimal and anyway i don't believe that penalty clauses within the laws are generally framed on this basis (if they did then they would be more likely to be written to penalise offenders with time deductions, rather than offering compensatory time bonuses to opponenets).

[Alex Holowczak]

I think your position seems to rest on the idea that one might make a (deliberate) illegal move as a bit of sharp practice to buy time whilst the claim is investigated. I don't really think this makes much sense, the gains from such sharp practice would be minimal and anyway i don't believe that penalty clauses within the laws are generally framed on this basis (if they did then they would be more likely to be written to penalise offenders with time deductions, rather than offering compensatory time bonuses to opponenets).

I think this is a mistaken assumption.

The reason that Rapidplay became a loss after an illegal move, is because with three illegal moves losing, it was apparently relatively common in a time scramble at the end of the game for players to do things like a3-a4.5, then soon after, a4.5-a6. If you're losing, then I imagine that tempo might make a difference in some situations. Given the only penalty was 2 minutes to your opponent, you basically had a free shot at cheating with no consequences of concern. As a result, one illegal move became the Law, and it was very much done with the idea of preventing players from making deliberate illegal moves.

One thing I've learnt in my limited time attending FIDE meetings is that while the sort of sharp practice described above wouldn't cross the mind of most English amateurs, but it is common enough in other countries to be of concern. It certainly isn't "minimal".

While the Laws aren't framed on this basis, I think Nick's contention is that they should be framed on this basis. For what it's worth, I think it's more logical to penalise the offender then compensate the victim, irrespective of whether or not the illegal move is deliberate.

Anyway, Baku is apparently likely to amend the Rapidplay Laws such that two illegal moves lose, and not one. In which case, the incident in the video would probably be resolved with a time penalty to one of the two players, and the game would carry on.

[NickFaulks]

I think your position seems to rest on the idea..... and anyway i don't believe that penalty clauses within the laws are generally framed on this basis

As so often when people try to guess what someone else really means, you are wrong. I just don't see why the penalty imposed on a transgressing player should be multiplied because his opponent has chosen to run himself short of time.

I'm certainly not going to try to get into the heads of the framers of the current rule. I think it is an excellent example of the old saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

[NickFaulks]

Anyway, Baku is apparently likely to amend the Rapidplay Laws such that two illegal moves lose, and not one.

If so, the change will doubtless be accompanied by the usual commentary that the new rule should not be interpreted by players to mean that they are permitted to make one illegal move - which, of course, it will be.