Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision

[raycollett]

Michael Flatt (SCCU webmaster) recently alerted me to a revised FIDE rule which SCCU has published on their website (1): "The new FIDE Laws come into force today [1 Jan 2018]. The regulation on illegal moves is made common across standard, rapid and blitz games. "7.5.5 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."

In Barden's chess column on Jan 2018 (2) he reports: "In the opening round [of Carlsen won a pawn against Ernesto Inarkiev, the 2016 European champion, and his rook was checking his opponent’s king. Inarkiev illegally replied with a knight check of his own and, when Carlsen in reflex mode moved his own king, the Russian claimed the game! The world body Fide has Byzantine rules on illegal moves and the deputy arbiter declared a win for Inarkiev. On successive appeals the ruling changed to a draw, then for play to resume from the last legal position, which Inarkiev refused.

I understand the disputed game was played on 29 Dec 2017. Would the revised rules alter Arbiters' decision?

Sources:
(1) https://www.sccu-chess.com/index.php/en/
(2) https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... ontroversy
(3) https://en.chessbase.com/tournaments/wo ... blitz-2017

[IM Jack Rudd]

No. Carlsen's action was not an illegal move then and is not an illegal move now, so no penalty should accrue to it in either case.

[Brian Towers]

I understand the disputed game was played on 29 Dec 2017. Would the revised rules alter Arbiters' decision?

Well, it would certainly have altered the first (deputy) arbiter's decision, however I suspect that the incident might not have occurred at all under the new rules, but that's just my nasty suspicious mind.

The new rules state that for a first illegal move in all forms there is a time penalty only (2 minutes for standard and rapid and 1 minute for blitz) so the first arbiter would not have awarded the game to Inarkiev but would instead have awarded a time penalty and told the players to continue from the previous position. Since this would still have been completely lost for Inarkiev I suspect that he wouldn't have made the claim in the first place and might have been much less likely to play his illegal move and instead make the best move on the board at the time (resigns).

[Michael Farthing]

Umm. Is it the case then that the new rules now award a penalty for an unobserved illegal move? That was the point, Carlsen had replied before the illegal move was noticed.

[Alex Holowczak]

Umm. Is it the case then that the new rules now award a penalty for an unobserved illegal move? That was the point, Carlsen had replied before the illegal move was noticed.

The point Brian is making is that this is how the arbiter would react under the new Laws based on his decision that what had happened was an illegal move.

Under those rules and the new ones, sadly that decision that there had been an illegal move by Carlsen was the wrong one.

[E Michael White]

The description of the laws described by JR,AH,BT applies where there is adequate arbiter supervision. I understand this was a blitz event and as Carlsen was involved I guess you could assume adequate arbiter numbers. This wouldn't be the case in a local Blitz night with one arbiter and many games if the intention were to play to FIDE laws.

[Alex Holowczak]

The description of the laws described by JR,AH,BT applies where there is adequate arbiter supervision. I understand this was a blitz event and as Carlsen was involved I guess you could assume adequate arbiter numbers. This wouldn't be the case in a local Blitz night with one arbiter and many games if the intention were to play to FIDE laws.

I'm not quite sure you've understood, or I've understood your post. So for clarity:

1. The event did not have 1 arbiter per game. It had 1 arbiter per 5 games. So it was not played under adequate supervision.

2. Inadequate supervision - the decision is "Play On". The arbiter on point didn't decide that, but was overruled by Takis according to the videos. Adequate supervision the problem doesn't happen, in all likelihood, because the arbiter had plenty of time dive in to stop it. But if for whatever reason the arbiter was slow to react, you do what you would in a standardplay game: (1) go back to the position before Inarkiev's illegal move (2) Give Carlsen additional time of 1 minute and (3) Play on. There's an optional (2a) which I think is good practice, specifically to inform/warn Inarkiev that if he makes another illegal move, he will lose the game.

[Tim Harding]

In an interview next day with the Chief Arbiter, he said they proposed to host a webinar [or some of other kind of online briefing] where the new rules would be clarified for the benefit of arbiters and players.

I don't think it has yet been announced when this will be held (if it ever is).

Under the old rules (still pertaining in Riyadh) if Carlsen had claimed the illegal move then Inarkiev would have lost. Under the new rules, the time penalty (and loss in the case of subsequent second offence) would have applied. Cases where the opponent fails to claim do seem to need clarification.

[Alex Holowczak]

In an interview next day with the Chief Arbiter, he said they proposed to host a webinar [or some of other kind of online briefing] where the new rules would be clarified for the benefit of arbiters and players.

I don't think it has yet been announced when this will be held (if it ever is).

The Arbiters Commission regularly announce online Seminars, and I know Takis has delivered a few of them. So I'm sure such things will happen.

Although it isn't clear to me that the rules are inherently unclear; although I had the benefit of seeing them coming 3 months ago, but I suspect it will have passed most players by until the incident happened.

[E Michael White]

1. The event did not have 1 arbiter per game. It had 1 arbiter per 5 games. So it was not played under adequate supervision.

2. Inadequate supervision - the decision is "Play On". The arbiter on point didn't decide that, but was overruled by Takis according to the videos. Adequate supervision the problem doesn't happen, in all likelihood, because the arbiter had plenty of time dive in to stop it. But if for whatever reason the arbiter was slow to react, you do what you would in a standardplay game: (1) go back to the position before Inarkiev's illegal move (2) Give Carlsen additional time of 1 minute and (3) Play on. There's an optional (2a) which I think is good practice, specifically to inform/warn Inarkiev that if he makes another illegal move, he will lose the game.

For blitz with inadequate arbiter numbers the laws say that the Rapidplay laws apply not standardplay, before and after 31 Dec 2017. Rapidplay law A4.2 seems to be the relevant one. Do you disagree ? I don't like that law but that's what it says.

Additionally that Law should say completed not made as its not possible to make an illegal move only complete it. Completed and made are tightly defined in the Laws. Is it clear that Carlson pressed his clock after leaving his king in check.

[Alex Holowczak]

1. The event did not have 1 arbiter per game. It had 1 arbiter per 5 games. So it was not played under adequate supervision.

2. Inadequate supervision - the decision is "Play On". The arbiter on point didn't decide that, but was overruled by Takis according to the videos. Adequate supervision the problem doesn't happen, in all likelihood, because the arbiter had plenty of time dive in to stop it. But if for whatever reason the arbiter was slow to react, you do what you would in a standardplay game: (1) go back to the position before Inarkiev's illegal move (2) Give Carlsen additional time of 1 minute and (3) Play on. There's an optional (2a) which I think is good practice, specifically to inform/warn Inarkiev that if he makes another illegal move, he will lose the game.

For blitz with inadequate arbiter numbers the laws say that the Rapidplay laws apply not standardplay, before and after 31 Dec 2017. Rapidplay law A4.2 seems to be the relevant one. Do you disagree ? I don't like that law but that's what it says.

The Blitz Law says the Rapidplay Law A2 and A4 applies, you are right. But A4 says the Standardplay Law 7.5.5 applies.

[E Michael White]

The Blitz Law says the Rapidplay Law A2 and A4 applies, you are right. But A4 says the Standardplay Law 7.5.5 applies.

Didn't this event start before 31 Dec 2017 which means this version of A4.2 would apply in an event supervised by inadequate numbers of arbiters; It doesn't mention 7.5.5

A.4.2 :-

If the arbiter observes an illegal move has been completed, he shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim a win, provided the opponent has not made his next move. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.

Isn't the sequence of events - a) Tournament started before 31.12..2017 b) Inarkiev played an illegal move c) Carlson played his reply move, did not claim and the arbiter did not act.

Under the very old rules both kings in check, as this would have been, had special treatment

[Ian Thompson]

Cases where the opponent fails to claim do seem to need clarification.

I don't think so. The rules are clear to me:

1. Carlsen could have claimed the game for an illegal move when Inarkiev left his king in check.
2. After Carlsen moved his king, he could no longer claim and Inarkiev could have continued the game by getting his king out of check.
3. Inarkiev's claim that Carlsen made an illegal move was wrong and should have been dismissed.

Despite some statements to the contrary, Law A.4.4 should never have been applied. The illegal position that arose was after Inarkiev left his king in check and checked Carlsen's king. At that point the Arbiter should have done nothing. As Carlsen moved his king out of check, the game should have continued as in 2. above. If Carlsen had played a different move, leaving both his king and Inarkiev's king in check then the arbiter should have declared the game drawn, but Carlsen didn't do that.

The only aspect of the rules I'd change is the wording of 1.4.4. It's written as if the only possible illegal positions are both kings in check or a pawn on the eighth rank. Why declare the game drawn for these two types of illegal position but not others?

[Alex Holowczak]

The Blitz Law says the Rapidplay Law A2 and A4 applies, you are right. But A4 says the Standardplay Law 7.5.5 applies.

Didn't this event start before 31 Dec 2017 which means this version of A4.2 would apply in an event supervised by inadequate numbers of arbiters; It doesn't mention 7.5.5

A.4.2 :-

If the arbiter observes an illegal move has been completed, he shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim a win, provided the opponent has not made his next move. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.

Isn't the sequence of events - a) Tournament started before 31.12..2017 b) Inarkiev played an illegal move c) Carlson played his reply move, did not claim and the arbiter did not act.

Under the very old rules both kings in check, as this would have been, had special treatment

I think we are getting in a muddle with the different rulesets, dates and establishing the timeline. Or at least, I might be.

After a long weekend, I'm afraid untangling the confusion is beyond me at this time of night, so I'll leave it at: The Laws now are as you've quoted I said.

[E Michael White]

Carlson did not play an illegal move but some players and arbiters believe incorrectly that a move in an illegal position is itself an illegal move.