Illegal moves

[Roger de Coverly]

It was suggested at a recent county AGM that the FIDE Rules of Chess would be changing regarding the treatment of illegal moves. Instead of the penalty for a first illegal move being two minutes added to the opponent's time, it would be two minutes subtracted from the player's time. The consequence of this would be that a first illegal move would lose if played with less that two minutes remaining.

There's a certain logic to this. Ever since the introduction of digital clocks it's been suggested that less scrupulous players would deliberately play an illegal move when short of time. The point being that it gave additional thinking time by exploiting the delay inherent in summoning an arbiter and for the arbiter to adjust the timer or place a substitute timer with the extra added.

A Google search didn't find any confirmation other than a suggestion that the FIDE Rules committee are working on a redraft of the whole document.

[Nigel White]

I have a lot of sympathy for the principle of deducting, rather than adding, time for illegal moves. The only downside I can think of is that in games with little or no increment, the innocent player will also lose some time before the clock can be stopped to claim an illegal move, which could be more detrimental to them if they are short of time compared with their opponent.

[Tim Spanton]

I have a lot of sympathy for the principle of deducting, rather than adding, time for illegal moves. The only downside I can think of is that in games with little or no increment, the innocent player will also lose some time before the clock can be stopped to claim an illegal move, which could be more detrimental to them if they are short of time compared with their opponent.

Why would time be lost? Surely on an illegal move being allegedly made, the clock could be stopped to summon an arbiter?

[LawrenceCooper]

I have a lot of sympathy for the principle of deducting, rather than adding, time for illegal moves. The only downside I can think of is that in games with little or no increment, the innocent player will also lose some time before the clock can be stopped to claim an illegal move, which could be more detrimental to them if they are short of time compared with their opponent.

Why would time be lost? Surely on an illegal move being allegedly made, the clock could be stopped to summon an arbiter?

The opponent could be away from the board. Even if they were there it's unlikely they would stop the clock without a second or more elapsing.

[NickFaulks]

The opponent could be away from the board. Even if they were there it's unlikely they would stop the clock without a second or more elapsing.

They shouldn't be away from the board if they are seriously short of time.

An alternative might be to both add and deduct a minute. The fact is that a way to fix this bug in the Laws could easily be found if there were the will to do so. There has been no such will for as long as I have been raising the point ( a long time! ) and I have no reason to think there is now.

[Nigel White]

I have a lot of sympathy for the principle of deducting, rather than adding, time for illegal moves. The only downside I can think of is that in games with little or no increment, the innocent player will also lose some time before the clock can be stopped to claim an illegal move, which could be more detrimental to them if they are short of time compared with their opponent.

Why would time be lost? Surely on an illegal move being allegedly made, the clock could be stopped to summon an arbiter?

Say, in a rapid game with 5 seconds increment, by the time you realise the the move is illegal and have stopped the clock, you may have used a fair chunk of the time you would have got had you been able to make a move yourself. (I agree that in most cases it will be immaterial.)

[Ian Thompson]

The opponent could be away from the board. Even if they were there it's unlikely they would stop the clock without a second or more elapsing.

They shouldn't be away from the board if they are seriously short of time.

They might not be now, but they might be later in the game if they lost some time that they should not have done.

The fact is that a way to fix this bug in the Laws could easily be found if there were the will to do so. There has been no such will for as long as I have been raising the point ( a long time! ) and I have no reason to think there is now.

Is there a problem with the Laws, or a problem with lazy arbiters?

Law 7.1 says "If an irregularity occurs and the pieces have to be restored to a previous position, the arbiter shall use his/her best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the chessclock. This includes the right not to change the clock times."

Arbiters already have the right to reset a player's clock if the player lost some time due to it being illegally started.

[Joey Stewart]

The vast majority of illegal moves are made during time scrambles so a rule change like this would assume a great level of intestinal fortitude from the arbiters who are going to be required to declare games lost and have to deal with the fallout from the angry players.

Interesting observation about "gaming the system" though - I wonder whether perhaps there should be a requirement to notate that illegal moves were played so it would be possible to determine a pattern and apply stricter sanctions to players deemed to be abusing it.

[NickFaulks]

The vast majority of illegal moves are made during time scrambles so a rule change like this would assume a great level of intestinal fortitude from the arbiters who are going to be required to declare games lost and have to deal with the fallout from the angry players.

They do this on a second illegal move, why is the first one different?

[Joey Stewart]

The vast majority of illegal moves are made during time scrambles so a rule change like this would assume a great level of intestinal fortitude from the arbiters who are going to be required to declare games lost and have to deal with the fallout from the angry players.

They do this on a second illegal move, why is the first one different?

Well you would other assume it gives sufficient warning to deter some players from making a second illegal move and those that do are more accepting of their fate knowing that they already got a warning - I guess it's just a human nature thing to prefer to know your crime before you are punished for it.

[Alex Holowczak]

I wonder whether perhaps there should be a requirement to notate that illegal moves were played

Tell me you're not an arbiter without telling me you're not an arbiter.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Away from top level chess (with paid arbiters) and tournaments (with arbiters) and thinking of evening league chess (where the team captains tend to deal with disputes) and also weekend county matches (where, again, the captains tend to jointly be the arbiters), how would this work in practice for those areas of chess that still manage to function without official arbiters?

[Tim Spanton]

I wonder whether perhaps there should be a requirement to notate that illegal moves were played

Tell me you're not an arbiter without telling me you're not an arbiter.

There's already a requirement to 'notate' draw offers, but in my experience very few players do that

[Roger de Coverly]

There's already a requirement to 'notate' draw offers, but in my experience very few players do that

Tournament arbiters often make the announcement at the start of a round that the second illegal move will lose. Some ask that the first illegal move be drawn to their attention. You would likely need an expert anyway as the process to add or subtract a couple of minutes is by no means as straightforward as it would have been on a mechanical clock.

This is what I wrote for the process on DGT 2010

Correcting the time

If it should become necessary to correct the time, say for adding two minutes for an illegal move, you do this by pressing the Start/Stop button for 10 seconds. The display digits will then start to flash, starting at the far left. Use “?”,“-” or “+” to reach and make the required changes. One of the options that can be changed is whether the clock is in the first or second time period. When it reaches the last setting, restart by pressing the Start/Stop button.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I wonder whether perhaps there should be a requirement to notate that illegal moves were played

Tell me you're not an arbiter without telling me you're not an arbiter.

There's already a requirement to 'notate' draw offers, but in my experience very few players do that

I think quite a few players do notate draw offers. I would estimate around 20%, certainly more than "very few". Implicitly, the final offer of a draw is implied when the result is recorded, though who offered is not always recorded. Some draws are 'automatic' by the laws of chess, but you don't see people writing that down.