Arbitration question

[soheil_hooshdaran]

The manual speaks of a 'fine' that can be announced in advance. What is it like?

[soheil_hooshdaran]

irregularities mean abnormal situations?

[Stewart Reuben]

Soheil >The manual speaks of a 'fine' that can be announced in advance. What is it like?<

It is an option, but I don't think it has ever happened.

> irregularities mean abnormal situations<
That is another way of expressing it.
e.g. piece has been knocked off the board accidentally and replaced incorrectly.
The player on the next board has accidentally pressed the wrong clock. (That is quite common).
A player has commenced the game in the wrong seat and thus with the wrong opponent.
A player makes two consecutive moves. (I did that once).
The clocks stop running.
White has 33 pieces on the board from the start of the game. (I've never seen that one.)
The clock is not functioing correctly.
etc.

[JustinHorton]

.
White has 33 pieces on the board

??

[Stewart Reuben]

Justine. That would certainly be an irregularity. I have however seen 32!
Of course I meant 33 pieces, not 33 white ones.

[David Sedgwick]

A player makes two consecutive moves. (I did that once).

Indeed you did. It was at the first major event for which I was the Chief Arbiter and you timed it for when I had gone out briefly to get a cup of coffee.

[Roger Lancaster]

A player makes two consecutive moves. (I did that once).

Indeed you did. It was at the first major event for which I was the Chief Arbiter and you timed it for when I had gone out briefly to get a cup of coffee.

LOL, obviously a practical test of your arbiting skills, David.

[David Sedgwick]

LOL, obviously a practical test of your arbiting skills, David.

One which I am pleased to say that I passed. Following the tournament in question, Stewart kindly submitted my application for the International Arbiter Title to FIDE and it was duly approved.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Is such a position, White plays fxg4. How would you judge? (Blitz national championship of women)
r2q1r2/pb1p1pkp/np3n2/2p5/2Q3pP/2NP1PP1/PPPB1RK1/R4B2 w - - 0 1

[Roger de Coverly]

Is such a position, White plays fxg4.

It's an illegal move. The penalty applied is whatever the Laws of Chess at the time or the regulations for the event said it was.

FIDE and the arbiters have been messing with the rules surrounding illegal moves in recent years. Is the current ruling that it's a couple of minutes added to the clock for the first such move and loss of game for the second and that applies in forms of chess?

Like upturned rooks, arbiters have a hatred of players pointing out illegal moves by taking the King.

[Tim Harding]

Is such a position, White plays fxg4.

It's an illegal move. The penalty applied is whatever the Laws of Chess at the time or the regulations for the event said it was.

FIDE and the arbiters have been messing with the rules surrounding illegal moves in recent years. Is the current ruling that it's a couple of minutes added to the clock for the first such move and loss of game for the second and that applies in forms of chess?

Like upturned rooks, arbiters have a hatred of players pointing out illegal moves by taking the King.

Yes the current ruling is that the illegal move fxg4 in that position is a couple of minutes added to the opponent's clock in classical and rapid but only ONE minute in blitz.

Taking the King is itself an illegal move (Arbiters Manual, final comment to 7.6).
So if fxg4 BxK actually happened the arbiter would have to restore the position before fxg4, give Black an extra minute (or two, but I guess this is more likely to happen in blitz) and I think they should warn BOTH players that a second illegal move would cost them the game. (That's the same penalty in all modes since Jan 2018.)

I leave it to more experienced arbiters to suggest whether White should also get an extra minute because Black played BxK. That's what the rules seem to mean but I guess one could argue that the game was paused after the first illegal move. It seems a bit silly to give them both extra time.

If both players had already made an illegal move before this happened, would one not have to say that fxg4 lost White the game and Black's replying BxK was irrelevant because the game had already ended? Scoring 0-0 would seem perverse?

They do say that hard cases make bad law!

[IM Jack Rudd]

The other thing that has to happen is that white must make a legal capture of the g-pawn. She is unlikely to be too thrilled about realizing this.

[NickFaulks]

The other thing that has to happen is that white must make a legal capture of the g-pawn. She is unlikely to be too thrilled about realizing this.

I was wondering about that. Can you argue that once White picks up the f pawn, which has no legal move, all bets are off and you can do whatever you like?

[Alex McFarlane]

Can you argue that once White picks up the f pawn, which has no legal move, all bets are off and you can do whatever you like?

Yes, you can argue ... but you shouldn't have any success. You must move the first piece touched which can be moved. QxP is the move!!!

[IM Jack Rudd]

The other thing that has to happen is that white must make a legal capture of the g-pawn. She is unlikely to be too thrilled about realizing this.

I was wondering about that. Can you argue that once White picks up the f pawn, which has no legal move, all bets are off and you can do whatever you like?

No. If white has played fxg4, she has touched both the f-pawn and the g-pawn, so the laws mandate she must make a legal move involving one of those pieces if possible.