1 1/2 points per game

[Brian Towers]

The opponent then realises he is facing 2 black squared bishops and assumes it is the last move which was illegal.

Would that cause a loss under a strict interpretation of the new FIDE rules for rapidplay? It's obvious there's been an illegal move, but not one that's been immediately spotted and the game claimed.

I would suggest that by analogy with Appendix A4d -

If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if the illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn

- the correct decision would be for the arbiter to consult with the players and if one claims the position occurred on the previous move and the other that it had been there for some time then if it is not possible that the extra same colour bishop was the result of a promotion (still 8 pawns on the board for that player) the arbiter should declare the game drawn. Otherwise he should tell the players to play on.

Don't forget this part of A4b -

If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim a win, provided the opponent has not made his next move.

If it cannot be established that the illegal position arose on the just completed move then the subsequent move by the claimant invalidates the claim.

It is also not clear that the position arose as the result of an illegal move. It could be, say, that one player played Bc1-g4.5 (half on g4, half on g5) and the bishop was later accidentally adjusted by one of the players to g4 instead of g5.

[Roger Lancaster]

Anyone able to advise on my previous question which essentially was, can anyone advise what happens next when a FIDE Commission (in this case, the Ethics Commission) determines that a matter " ... should be referred for the attention of FIDE Arbiters Commission as well as the FIDE Rules & Tournaments Regulations Committee” ? Specifically, is the matter automatically referred to those bodies without any further action needed from the original complainant ?

[Stewart Reuben]

I am a Councillor of the Rules Commission, heretofor secretary.
If one Commission refers a matter to another, then the second in line will consider the matter in question. Of course, there may be a breakdown in communication. We have a meeting in Yerevan in June. Neither the Chairman nor Secretary has yet informed me that this British Championship 'incident' is an agenda item.
AS I understand it, the matter was not one of ethics, but one of whether the situation was handled correctly.

[Roger Lancaster]

Thanks, Stewart. In my opinion, you're 100% correct with your final sentence (the decision to approach the Ethics Commission was taken by an aggrieved parent without, as far as I can make out, taking prior advice) but the question is what, if anything, the parent should do now. Obviously I don't want to put you in a difficult position if it is possible that you might become involved but presumably it would be a sensible step, just in case there should be a breakdown in communications, for the parent to contact the Chairman and/or Secretary of the two Commissions in question to check that the matter has indeed been referred - contact details are on the respective websites.

[E Michael White]

The 2015 British Under 8 Championship has been changed to the same rate as the Under 9 and thus becomes standardplay.

It doesn't seem to say that on the printed entry form , where the schedule indicates approx 2 hour sessions per game for U9s and 1 hour for U8s.

Also the 2015 entry form states :-

In both Under 9 and Under 8 Championships the SECOND illegal move made during the game will lose the game.

This should be changed to read :-

In both Under 9 and Under 8 Championships the SECOND illegal move completed during the game will lose the game.

otherwise the number of disputes might increase and spill over into the U9s rather than be reduced.

[Roger Lancaster]

Absolutely right, for reasons that just about everyone (except, seemingly, the ECF) understands, the key word should be "completed". Now, of course, if a second illegal move is made but not completed, ECF has created a problem for itself.

[Roger de Coverly]

Absolutely right, for reasons that just about everyone (except, seemingly, the ECF) understands, the key word should be "completed".

So to just clarify that, if say you pick up the king and place it in check, take your hand off the piece, but notice before you press the clock, that doesn't count. If, on the other hand, you play a move, press the clock, without noticing a check, then that does count.

[Roger Lancaster]

Yes, in summary you can retract an illegal move, even if you have released hold of the piece, at any time before pressing the clock (at which point the move is 'completed', unless it had already ended the game, for example by delivering checkmate) with the proviso that, if you can make a legal move with the touched piece, you must do so - or, if there are several possible legal moves with that piece, must make one of them. The position for an illegal capture is broadly similar.

Afterthought: Probably should add that the above is a summary of relevant FIDE law. There is of course some scope for organisers of events not recognised by FIDE to depart from these laws although this should be done by prior announcement, which is presumably what the ECF with good intentions intended to achieve here.

[Roger Lancaster]

Update on this, pursuant to Stewart Reuben's post on 6 May. Sevan Muradian, Secretary to the FIDE Rules & Tournaments Regulations Commission, has now confirmed the matter is on the agenda for the June meeting in Armenia. Presumably it is on an imminent Arbiters Commission agenda also but I have no definite information there.

[E Michael White]

.... pursuant to Stewart Reuben's post on 6 May. Sevan Muradian, Secretary to the FIDE Rules & Tournaments Regulations Commission, has now confirmed the matter is on the agenda for the June meeting in Armenia.

The Rules Commission Councillors Meeting in Yerevan has now concluded.

So was it discussed ?

[Stewart Reuben]

E Michael White. >So was it discussed ?<

Yes, it was.

That is what you asked, was it not? However, I'll leave it to the minutes by Sevan to explain what the decision was. The Arbiters Commission may come to a different decision.
There were those on the RC who felt that it should be no concern of FIDE as it was an L4 event (not FIDE Rated). I pointed out that was contrary to the last two sentences of the Preface.

[Roger Lancaster]

Thanks for the feedback, Stewart, and we'll await (albeit, not with bated breath) publication of the minutes.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Yes, in summary you can retract an illegal move, even if you have released hold of the piece, at any time before pressing the clock (at which point the move is 'completed', unless it had already ended the game, for example by delivering checkmate) with the proviso that, if you can make a legal move with the touched piece, you must do so - or, if there are several possible legal moves with that piece, must make one of them. The position for an illegal capture is broadly similar.

The above post says "unless it had already ended the game, for example by delivering checkmate". On the assumption that most people delivering checkmate will not be in a rush to take back their move, a more relevant example would be delivering stalemate (when in a winning position). In this scenario, if you release the piece, the game ends due to stalemate, right? And even if you have not pressed the clock, then you can't retract and play another move with that piece? And if the move you are attempting to retract is the only legal one with that piece, you would still have to make it anyway. But if the above is true, it seems to make the point of contention (in these specific cases) whether someone has released a piece on a square or not (or touched it for a piece with only one legal move). It would be more common, IMO, for someone to realise their mistake nanoseconds after touching/releasing the piece and instinctively attempt to avoid touching the piece/pick the piece up again and move it somewhere else? Isn't this what (allegedly) happened to Kasparov in that infamous incident with Judit Polgar? You are less likely, IMO, to change your mind if you have got all the way to pressing the clock. Though I suppose there is still scope for arguing when someone starts to press their clock (touch-clock rule?) and changes their mind before they have actually finished pressing the button/lever.

[Ian Thompson]

Yes, in summary you can retract an illegal move, even if you have released hold of the piece, at any time before pressing the clock (at which point the move is 'completed', unless it had already ended the game, for example by delivering checkmate) with the proviso that, if you can make a legal move with the touched piece, you must do so - or, if there are several possible legal moves with that piece, must make one of them. The position for an illegal capture is broadly similar.

The above post says "unless it had already ended the game, for example by delivering checkmate". On the assumption that most people delivering checkmate will not be in a rush to take back their move, a more relevant example would be delivering stalemate (when in a winning position). In this scenario, if you release the piece, the game ends due to stalemate, right? And even if you have not pressed the clock, then you can't retract and play another move with that piece?

No. One of the requirements for checkmate or stalemate to have occurred is that the last move played was a legal one. An illegal move that would have been checkmate or stalemate if it was legal is treated no differently from any other illegal move.

Though I suppose there is still scope for arguing when someone starts to press their clock (touch-clock rule?) and changes their mind before they have actually finished pressing the button/lever.

This point is covered by Rule 6.2 a. The move isn't completed until a player has stopped their own clock and started their opponent's. So, if you did manage to press the button such that you'd stopped your own clock (or pressed the button insufficiently far to even stop your own clock), but not started your opponent's, you'd still be allowed to retract the illegal move without any penalty for making it. To my mind though, doing this would infringe Rule 6.2 c, so you should expect to be penalised for improper clock handling instead.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Yes, in summary you can retract an illegal move, even if you have released hold of the piece, at any time before pressing the clock (at which point the move is 'completed', unless it had already ended the game, for example by delivering checkmate) with the proviso that, if you can make a legal move with the touched piece, you must do so - or, if there are several possible legal moves with that piece, must make one of them. The position for an illegal capture is broadly similar.

The above post says "unless it had already ended the game, for example by delivering checkmate". On the assumption that most people delivering checkmate will not be in a rush to take back their move, a more relevant example would be delivering stalemate (when in a winning position). In this scenario, if you release the piece, the game ends due to stalemate, right? And even if you have not pressed the clock, then you can't retract and play another move with that piece?

No. One of the requirements for checkmate or stalemate to have occurred is that the last move played was a legal one. An illegal move that would have been checkmate or stalemate if it was legal is treated no differently from any other illegal move.

Ah yes, you are right. I had got confused. I realise that an illegal move can't (doesn't) deliver checkmate or stalemate. I (and I think Roger Lancaster in his parenthetical bit) was thinking of the situation where someone makes a *legal* move that unintentionally delivers stalemate and has released the piece but not pressed the clock. Am I right that even if they have not pressed the clock, they can't retract the legal move because stalemate ends the game?

Or am I confusing things and are the touch-move and retraction provisions completely different depending on whether the move in question is legal or illegal? And am I right in thinking that releasing a piece on its square was at one point the moment when it is no longer possible to change your mind about a move? That is what I was always taught. Did that change at some point to being when you press the clock?