A couple of Fide rules questions

[Tim Harding]

I think that Alex is basically right but the thread has got over-complicated:

a) Black should be given precisely two minutes, not more, because he should have stopped the clock before calling the arbiter/team captain.
b) If White makes a claim of win on time, reject it on the grounds that a prior claim is pending.
c) Before restarting play the arbiter should IMHO remind White that he touched his queen so if he has a queen move to get out of check he must move the queen.

On reflection I agree with Alex that Kf1 was an infraction of touch-move and not an illegal move, but if White (after the restart) made another move that didn't get out of check (whether with the queen or not) then that is a second illegal move resulting in loss.

[Roger Lancaster]

On reflection I agree with Alex that Kf1 was an infraction of touch-move and not an illegal move, but if White (after the restart) made another move that didn't get out of check (whether with the queen or not) then that is a second illegal move resulting in loss.

So, if after retracting Kf1 White instead essayed Ke2, another move which did get out of check, then - by the same logic - that wouldn't be illegal either although Kd2, which failed to get out of check, would be.

[Alex Holowczak]

On reflection I agree with Alex that Kf1 was an infraction of touch-move and not an illegal move, but if White (after the restart) made another move that didn't get out of check (whether with the queen or not) then that is a second illegal move resulting in loss.

So, if after retracting Kf1 White instead essayed Ke2, another move which did get out of check, then - by the same logic - that wouldn't be illegal either although Kd2, which failed to get out of check, would be.

Yes, I think that's right. Particularly if you've just told white that it's touch move on the Queen and he moved the King anyway. You can lead a horse to water...

[Roger Lancaster]

Helpful thread, thanks to all, particularly Alex.

[Stewart Reuben]

AMAZING. Nobody has asked to see the originl position. It is a common failing of people, who ask for rulings, that they do not provide all of the relevant facts.
In my opinion, if White made an illegal move, then anything that followed this was tainted. Thus Black could not lose on time in that sequence. Not everyody agrees with me about this.
i provided a fairy story in a recent issue of Arbiting Matters. In that I raised the issue of a player mking an illegal move, on let us say move 27. Then it is corrected and the opponent gets another two minutes. Now again he makes another illegal move on move 27. The Ruling has been that this does not count as a second illegal move, thus losing.

David Buckley >Question 1: Could White have claimed the win on time? <
I don't understand the question. The arbiter awards a win on time, there is never any need for a claim when an arbiter is in control.

[Alex Holowczak]

David Buckley >Question 1: Could White have claimed the win on time? <
I don't understand the question. The arbiter awards a win on time, there is never any need for a claim when an arbiter is in control.

It was an evening league game. What arbiter?

[Stewart Reuben]

Alex, David wrote in the original post >I added two minutes to White's clock and the game continued. White played Kf1. Question 2: Since White had legal queen moves, could Black have claimed a win for a second illegal move? Question 3: After adjusting the clocks should I have said "touch move applies" or would that have been overstepping my authority?<

That suggests very strongly to me that David Buckley was the arbiter.

[Roger Lancaster]

AMAZING. Nobody has asked to see the originl position. It is a common failing of people, who ask for rulings, that they do not provide all of the relevant facts.
In my opinion, if White made an illegal move, then anything that followed this was tainted. Thus Black could not lose on time in that sequence. Not everyody agrees with me about this.
i provided a fairy story in a recent issue of Arbiting Matters. In that I raised the issue of a player mking an illegal move, on let us say move 27. Then it is corrected and the opponent gets another two minutes. Now again he makes another illegal move on move 27. The Ruling has been that this does not count as a second illegal move, thus losing.

David Buckley >Question 1: Could White have claimed the win on time? <
I don't understand the question. The arbiter awards a win on time, there is never any need for a claim when an arbiter is in control.

As a general maxim, I'd agree with Stewart's first point. However, in this instance I think David has provided enough information and we don't really need to know whether White's h-pawn was on h2, h3 or even h7.

As to what follows, I hope I'm not revealing anything new in saying that - in evening club matches - most common convention is that the two match captains act as co-arbiters typically with the option to refer difficult issues to a third, better qualified, person later. That makes the statement "The arbiter awards a win on time" problematic as both arbiters are likely to be engaged in their own games. Of course, a very similar problem arises even in some FIDE-recognised events where one can have just a couple of arbiters managing 100 or so games - when the arbiter arrives, s/he has to reconstruct events possibly in the face of differing accounts.

[Ian Thompson]

3. This divides arbiters. I would always say "It's touch move on the Queen", or something equivalent to that, in this case. My reason for that is that if you don't, then you just have to intervene in the game again a few seconds later, and I'd rather intervene once than twice. Others argue that this constitutes advice, although I'm not really clear what "advice" is being given that you won't have to give a minute later by way of an explanation when the player moves the wrong piece.

The advice you're giving the player that is useful to someone who doesn't know the rules (when they should) is that he would be wasting time analysing moves other than a queen move because he can't play them.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"In a touch move case, the "punishment" is that the player has to move the original piece. In all the numerous touch move kerfuffles I've been involved with in junior tournaments over the years, I don't think I've ever adjusted the clock."

I suppose it depends if you regard it as a deliberate distraction? Probably not in a junior event, it's just confusion, as it may well have been in the original case cited here.

[Roger de Coverly]

he would be wasting time analysing moves other than a queen move because he can't play them.

If a legal Queen move lead to a lost position immediately, as they sometimes do, that's essentially awarding the game to the opponent as a consequence of the illegal move. But it does save the arbiter time, rather than be called back to the board later, if or when the aggrieved party insists on touch and move. But perhaps the opponent doesn't want to win in this manner.

[Alex McFarlane]

I would never tell a player they had to move a particular piece. I have said in some events something along the lines of "The touch move rule applies if possible". I doubt if I have ever said that in an Open event but may have if the two players were not highly rated/graded.
The player who made the illegal then has to think about it.

If a legal Queen move lead to a lost position immediately, as they sometimes do, that's essentially awarding the game to the opponent as a consequence of the illegal move

Is that any different from touch move where a player realises it is an error and moves another piece?

[Alex Holowczak]

The advice you're giving the player that is useful to someone who doesn't know the rules (when they should) is that he would be wasting time analysing moves other than a queen move because he can't play them.

Perhaps, but I don't think that's still preferable from a people-management perspective to having to intervene again a second time later on.

[Alex Holowczak]

"The touch move rule applies if possible".

It's tantamount to the saying the same thing. I guess I'm more explicit rather than dancing around with subtle hints.

I think the people-management side is important though. One of the things that irritates players in most sports, and I think chess is no different, is the arbiter/umpire/referee who has to keep intervening in the game all the time. In general, I think we want to keep interventions to a minimum, and so it's worth making the player understand the full penalty of their illegal move. If you can prevent intervention number 2 during intervention number 1, then that's a tick in the box from my perspective.

[Adam Raoof]

The advice you're giving the player that is useful to someone who doesn't know the rules (when they should) is that he would be wasting time analysing moves other than a queen move because he can't play them.

Perhaps, but I don't think that's still preferable from a people-management perspective to having to intervene again a second time later on.

I don't think you should tell a player that they have to make a legal move with the [insert name of piece] - they should be given the opportunity to make a second illegal move. Moreover, what if their ONLY legal move with the [insert name of piece] was checkmate?