PDA

View Full Version : Is it a legal move?



Phil Bourke
18-05-2006, 08:29 PM
Recently had the experience of a player picking up his queen from d1 to play it to d6, when he dropped the lady and she landed standing erect and properly on e2. He picked it up to play it to d6 and the opponent claimed that the move had been completed. Upon gaining both player's account of the event, I said that the player should be allowed to play the queen to d6. Was this correct? Or should the queen have remained on e2 where she was accidently dropped?

Rincewind
18-05-2006, 08:42 PM
Recently had the experience of a player picking up his queen from d1 to play it to d6, when he dropped the lady and she landed standing erect and properly on e2. He picked it up to play it to d6 and the opponent claimed that the move had been completed. Upon gaining both player's account of the event, I said that the player should be allowed to play the queen to d6. Was this correct? Or should the queen have remained on e2 where she was accidently dropped?

I believe the wording is that one has to 'deliberate' touch a piece, but merely has to release the piece in a square. I would argue that accidentally dropping a piece does not satisfy the requirement of being released in a square.

For the sake of the argument lets assume the DOP was present and witnessed the move. Further lets assume that the dropping of the piece was obviously accidental to the DOP. Then I would say the move need not stand. But it would depend on your intepretation of of law 4.6

4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square...

and particularly the bolded phrase.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2006, 11:06 AM
I had this same "dropmove" issue for the first time ever two weeks ago in a junior event. In a KR vs K ending the player briefly released the rook on a square where it could be captured, then grabbed it and moved it back a square. When I said it had to be left on the square it was released on he claimed he had "dropped" it. This was plausible because he had been bringing pieces down on squares more or less vertically rather than sliding them.

As (i) I was unconvinced the drop was clearly accidental and (ii) the Laws don't distinguish between accidental and deliberate release, I enforced dropmove. The opponent took the rook and the game was drawn.

I thought that this would be a good lesson to the player in the importance of careful handling of pieces even if he was innocent. His coach agreed.

In a case where the piece was clearly dropped I would probably not enforce it.

WhiteElephant
19-05-2006, 11:58 AM
I think in a kids' tournament it is a different story because kids will invent all sorts of reasons for the Queen being on e2 so yu can never be sure whether it was an accident or not.

In the case of adults, however, all I can say is that you would have to be a real PRICK to try to enforce that rule if your opponent had clearly dropped the piece accidentally.

Garvinator
19-05-2006, 12:00 PM
In the case of adults, however, all I can say is that you would have to be a real PRICK to try to enforce that rule if your opponent had clearly dropped the piece accidentally. (my bolding)
speaking of which, nah only jokes, this is one that I havent been involved in ;) :cool:

WhiteElephant
19-05-2006, 12:03 PM
speaking of which, nah only jokes, this is one that I havent been involved in ;) :cool:

hehe well it would be a tough question for the arbiter. Do you endorse the prick who is probably technically correct or do you give it to the good guy and let him move the Queen to where he originally intended? I think Phil did the right thing.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 12:12 PM
hehe well it would be a tough question for the arbiter. Do you endorse the prick who is probably technically correct or do you give it to the good guy and let him move the Queen to where he originally intended? I think Phil did the right thing.How do you know his original intention was to move it to d6 and not e2. Obviously if his opponent agrees that he accidently dropped it then there wouldnt be an issue as the arbiter wouldnt have been called. However if the opponent does not agree and the arbiter is summoned then simply because he says he meant to put it on d6 not e2 isnt sufficient reason.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-05-2006, 12:47 PM
So, the question is:

Was it a clearly accidental drop or not?

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 12:54 PM
So, the question is:

Was it a clearly accidental drop or not?Exactly and without a reliable and unbiased witness, the arbiter would have to reject the claim of accidental drop.

WhiteElephant
19-05-2006, 12:58 PM
How do you know his original intention was to move it to d6 and not e2. Obviously if his opponent agrees that he accidently dropped it then there wouldnt be an issue as the arbiter wouldnt have been called. However if the opponent does not agree and the arbiter is summoned then simply because he says he meant to put it on d6 not e2 isnt sufficient reason.

I was assuming from the way Phil phrased his original post (ie. dropped the piece implies accidental not deliberate) and both players were aware of this. However, the opponent still claimed that the move had been completed because the player moving the Queen had technically let go.

antichrist
19-05-2006, 01:03 PM
Exactly and without a reliable and unbiased witness, the arbiter would have to reject the claim of accidental drop.

Having a reliable witness did not help Lloyd Fell in that "I adjust" fiasco, a 45-second I adjust.

WhiteElephant
19-05-2006, 01:10 PM
Exactly and without a reliable and unbiased witness, the arbiter would have to reject the claim of accidental drop.

That's the point, if the opponent had known it was an accident it wouldn't be very sporting to call the arbiter and claim the move had been completed, since the arbiter has no way of knowing other than the word of the players.

Basil
19-05-2006, 01:12 PM
Try telling that to the Squad re 1/2 hour of delightful mayhem! Not that I'm complaining, mind you.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 01:18 PM
That's the point, if the opponent had known it was an accident it wouldn't be very sporting to call the arbiter and claim the move had been completed, since the arbiter has no way of knowing other than the word of the players.Correct but without a reliable and unbiased witness the arbiter has no chocie but to reject the accidental drop claim.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 01:19 PM
Having a reliable witness did not help Lloyd Fell in that "I adjust" fiasco, a 45-second I adjust.The arbiter decided you wern't reliable. :hmm:

Rincewind
19-05-2006, 01:22 PM
As (i) I was unconvinced the drop was clearly accidental and (ii) the Laws don't distinguish between accidental and deliberate release, I enforced dropmove. The opponent took the rook and the game was drawn.

All the red herrings of witnesses etc are side issues. Yes without a witness of obvious accidental drop then the claim is hard to substantiate. However, if the DOP witnessed an obviously accidental drop, what do the laws say?

I think point (ii) is the most interesting part of this debate. The wording of "released on a square" to my mind is only satisfied by a deliberate act. The dropping of a piece is not releasing, rather the piece escaped!!!

Also since the touching of a piece is clearly only binding if it is a deliberate act, it would seem to make sense to me that the untouching should only be binding if it too was done deliberately.

WhiteElephant
19-05-2006, 01:24 PM
Correct but without a reliable and unbiased witness the arbiter has no chocie but to reject the accidental drop claim.

Bill, I'm curious, what if the arbiter saw the incident and it appeared to be an accident. However, the opponent still claimed that the move had been completed and should stand. How should the arbiter rule?

EDIT: RW, you just beat me to the same question. :)

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 01:42 PM
Bill, I'm curious, what if the arbiter saw the incident and it appeared to be an accident. However, the opponent still claimed that the move had been completed and should stand. How should the arbiter rule?If the arbiter is the witness then obviously if he is of the belief it was an accidental drop then no doubt he would rule that way.

Basil
19-05-2006, 01:45 PM
If the arbiter is the witness then obviously if he is of the belief it was an accidental drop then no doubt he would rule that way.

Unless the arbiter was part of the Squad, and the game was the BB - what he believed right, and what he ruled may be two different things :doh:

1min_grandmaster
19-05-2006, 03:14 PM
Here's an interesting scenario I have seen many times that is somewhat related to the situation being described.

Player 1 picks up a rook on a1 and moves it quickly along the a-file where he releases it while his hand is in motion. The piece then slides along the board, so that even though the piece was released on a7, the rook ends up on a8.

Now you can imagine what happens next, there are all sorts of possibilities. I give just 3:

Example 1: player 2 has his king on g8 and thinking that the rook is on a7, he make some move that leaves his king in check (the rook is sitting on a8), then player 1 claims a win because of illegal move (in a blitz game).

Example 2: player 2 captures the rook with his own rook that is on the 8th rank (e.g. Rg8xa8). Player 1 protests claiming the rook is meant to be on a7 but slid away.

Example 3: player 2 captures the rook with his own rook, but this time, on the 7th rank (e.g. Rf7xa7) and player 1 protests claiming the rook is actually on a8.

In my opinion, these possible scenarios suggest, certainly in a blitz game, that the piece should be considered where it ends up (i.e. where it stops), as otherwise, it is just too easy for the player who has this habit to get away with all sorts of unethical tricks. It is that player's responsibility to move pieces correctly. I think that this kind of piece sliding is quite different to an accidental dropping of a piece.

I should mention that lots of players consistently slide pieces in this manner (several times in the one game). If you do not agree, look closely next time you are watching some fast players play blitz games. In fact, you can often see this in slow games when players are in time trouble.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-05-2006, 03:18 PM
Exactly and without a reliable and unbiased witness, the arbiter would have to reject the claim of accidental drop.

Maybe without a reliable and unbiased witness, the arbiter has to reject the claim of drop not being accidental?

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 03:29 PM
Here's an interesting scenario I have seen many times that is somewhat related to the situation being described.

Player 1 picks up a rook on a1 and moves it quickly along the a-file where he releases it while his hand is in motion. The piece then slides along the board, so that even though the piece was released on a7, the rook ends up on a8.

Now you can imagine what happens next, there are all sorts of possibilities. I give just 3:

Example 1: player 2 has his king on g8 and thinking that the rook is on a7, he make some move that leaves his king in check (the rook is sitting on a8), then player 1 claims a win because of illegal move (in a blitz game).

Example 2: player 2 captures the rook with his own rook that is on the 8th rank (e.g. Rg8xa8). Player 1 protests claiming the rook is meant to be on a7 but slid away.

Example 3: player 2 captures the rook with his own rook, but this time, on the 7th rank (e.g. Rf7xa7) and player 1 protests claiming the rook is actually on a8.

In my opinion, these possible scenarios suggest, certainly in a blitz game, that the piece should be considered where it ends up (i.e. where it stops), as otherwise, it is just too easy for the player who has this habit to get away with all sorts of unethical tricks. It is that player's responsibility to move pieces correctly. I think that this kind of piece sliding is quite different to an accidental dropping of a piece.Clearly the square the rook is actually on is all thats important and if the rook ends up on a8 that is where it is and the player cannot claim it is on a7 when it isnt.

However that said, the usual trick of the blitz hustler is to leave the rook straddling both a7 and a8. Then your scenarios do come into effect.

If the player leaves the rook straddling a7/a8 then his opponent should if there is no increment restart his clock and ask him to adjust it and if there is an increment stop the clock and summon the arbiter.

The reason why this occurs is because the offender usually isnt challenged by his opponent.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 03:29 PM
Maybe without a reliable and unbiased witness, the arbiter has to reject the claim of drop not being accidental?Isnt that essentially what I said?

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2006, 03:42 PM
I think point (ii) is the most interesting part of this debate. The wording of "released on a square" to my mind is only satisfied by a deliberate act. The dropping of a piece is not releasing, rather the piece escaped!!!

Yeah, I was thinking about this too, that "released" tends to imply intention. A counter-argument is reference to "mistaken release" but I think that this is fairly weak since in such cases the act of release is usually deliberate but the mistake concerns releasing one item or person when one intended to release another. There are also cases of accidental release - eg an accident involving a dam wall releases a mass of water - but in these cases the releasing agent is an object.

antichrist
19-05-2006, 04:06 PM
The arbiter decided you wern't reliable. :hmm:

But it wasn't me who hid their blank scoresheet under their elbow when asked by the arbiter on a previous occasion if was filling their moves in whilst playing Lloyd Fell. They had a dispute and Lloyd had dobbed him in for not writing down moves - so then could not argue the position. WRitten it all backwards but you get the drift.

Now just who did it happen to be and who was unreliable?

Igor_Goldenberg
19-05-2006, 05:37 PM
Isnt that essentially what I said?
No. I'll put important part in bold:

"Maybe without a reliable and unbiased witness, the arbiter has to reject the claim of drop not being accidental?", whcih is the same as accept that the drop was accidental.

Rincewind
19-05-2006, 05:42 PM
In my opinion, these possible scenarios suggest, certainly in a blitz game, that the piece should be considered where it ends up (i.e. where it stops), as otherwise, it is just too easy for the player who has this habit to get away with all sorts of unethical tricks. It is that player's responsibility to move pieces correctly. I think that this kind of piece sliding is quite different to an accidental dropping of a piece.

I think the issue here is that if player A is inclined to move pieces in this fashion then their ability to substantiate an accidental drop is considerably reduced. Again this is only of an issue if the DOP is present. Without the DOP witnessing the move then the ability to substantiate an accident is reduced to effectively zero and therefore would come down to the sportmanship of player B.

However it is still important to know the status of an accidental drop in the laws as they stand and in full knowledge of all the facts. Without knowing that, what should happen in everyday circumstances is already obscure.

Rincewind
19-05-2006, 05:46 PM
Maybe without a reliable and unbiased witness, the arbiter has to reject the claim of drop not being accidental?

Well from an assessement of the material facts available to the arbiter you have a piece on a square and no fingers attached. I think without evidence to the contrary you would have to rule that the piece got there by normal means (by a player making a move) rather than unusual means (being accidentally dropped in the square). The guiding principle being, if you see some horse manure you don't assume it was left by a zebra.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-05-2006, 05:51 PM
Well from an assessement of the material facts available to the arbiter you have a piece on a square and no fingers attached. I think without evidence to the contrary you would have to rule that the piece got there by normal means (by a player making a move) rather than unusual means (being accidentally dropped in the square). The guiding principle being, if you see some horse manure you don't assume it was left by a zebra.

I would never be able to distinguish between a horse and zebra manure. Does it mean I am not good at talking s**t?:)

Serious note: If an arbiter arrives to the table where the player already lifted the queen from the square where it "dropped" to the square where it should've been put?

Rincewind
19-05-2006, 05:54 PM
Serious note: If an arbiter arrives to the table where the player already lifted the queen from the square where it "dropped" to the square where it should've been put?

Well then it depends on lots of things.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2006, 06:05 PM
No. I'll put important part in bold:

"Maybe without a reliable and unbiased witness, the arbiter has to reject the claim of drop not being accidental?", whcih is the same as accept that the drop was accidental.I disagree, the onus is on the player claiming accidental drop to prove it. Without an reliable and unbiased witness he cannot. As such the arbiter should disallow his claim.

Vlad
19-05-2006, 08:57 PM
However that said, the usual trick of the blitz hustler is to leave the rook straddling both a7 and a8. Then your scenarios do come into effect.


Yeah, this is exactly what Zhong told me about 5 years ago. He was claiming that was Johny's technique.

How can one mate with one rook (no help of a king is needed)? Well, you can put ur rook somewhere between a7 and a8 and whatever your opponent does you just capture his king. If he does not move you capture it on the 8-th row, if he moves to the 7-th row you capture it on the 7-th row.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2006, 09:02 PM
This is another good reason for banning king capture.

Denis_Jessop
19-05-2006, 09:19 PM
I disagree, the onus is on the player claiming accidental drop to prove it. Without an reliable and unbiased witness he cannot. As such the arbiter should disallow his claim.

I believe that this is correct. There is a 1972 FIDE Rules Commission interpretation to that effect. The Commission was asked about a case of a claim by one player that his opponent had touched one piece and moved another. There was no independent witness so the arbiter rejected the claim. The Commission said:

"The Commission declares that the arbiter was correct. As in the case of all other Laws, unbiased evidence is required to support any claim by a player that his opponent violated a Law.If the accused player denies the allegation and it is impossible to prove otherwise by the testimony of an arbiter or other disinterested witness, it is just a question of one player's word against that of his opponent. An unsubstantiated claim would have to be rejected."

I cannot see any reason to doubt that that view is still the correct one.

DJ

Phil Bourke
19-05-2006, 09:32 PM
Interesting replies. Many thanks, in my situation, the 2nd player wasn't claiming that the move had been completed, he was asking if it should be regarded as being completed. Not all people are that petty :) This made it easier as both players agreed that the piece had been dropped, it was just unlucky that it fell standing on a legal move square. As I soon guessed that if it had come to rest on e3 or any other illegal move square then it cannot be a move, if it had fallen to the table and lay on its side, then that would confirm the dropping incident. Amazing how physics can conspire to confound us mere mortals :)

ElevatorEscapee
19-05-2006, 10:35 PM
Yeah, this is exactly what Zhong told me about 5 years ago. He was claiming that was Johny's technique.

How can one mate with one rook (no help of a king is needed)? Well, you can put ur rook somewhere between a7 and a8 and whatever your opponent does you just capture his king. If he does not move you capture it on the 8-th row, if he moves to the 7-th row you capture it on the 7-th row.

Other dirty 'blitz' tricks of a similar nature:

When both players only have a few seconds left in an endgame, there is the old "King to the middle of four squares" move... the opponent wastes valuable seconds trying to work out which square it is meant to be on. :mad:

And who can forget one's opponent moving his King next to your King in the blitz time scramble and capturing it on the next move, thereby claiming victory. :rolleyes:

This is best achieved if your opponent is about to queen a pawn, and you 'accidentally' knock the newly crowned monarch off the board whilst hastily making your next move and bashing the clock... your opponent will be reaching off the board to grab his queen, will have it in his hand and will automatically make his next planned move (with the newly promoted queen), being distracted from the fact that you have just moved your king next to his. I have never forgiven someone who did this to me about 13 years ago. :evil:

antichrist
20-05-2006, 12:17 AM
You should have done my trick and kept fist on clock until he sets the board up properly on his time.

Vlad
21-05-2006, 01:26 PM
You should have done my trick and kept fist on clock until he sets the board up properly on his time.

If both players know your trick then a game of chess suddenly becomes a fighting contest.

Vlad
21-05-2006, 01:48 PM
There was an accident on one of junior Olympiads. A Russian girl was playing against an African girl. It was a relatively close game. The Russian one was in time trouble but was better. With about 30 seconds on her clocks she found a clear way of winning (say she was white and she played Bd3-b5). It was only two moves till the time control left, so both girls understood that black was "toasted".

So what African girl did was something clearly she was coached by adults (you would not come up with such a tactics on a spot especially when you are a little girl). She took white' bishop from b5 and placed it back to d3 and pressed the clock. The Russian girl was puzzled; she did not know what to do. She looked around but there was no arbiter nearby. She played the same move again and got exactly the same response. So finally after a few more repetitions of the same move black claimed a win on time.

Russians placed an appeal. Africans placed an appeal as well, in which they claimed that a powerful chess country Russia is trying to pressure a little African country. The committee voted and gave a point to the African girl.

Axiom
21-05-2006, 02:01 PM
There was an accident on one of junior Olympiads. A Russian girl was playing against an African girl. It was a relatively close game. The Russian one was in time trouble but was better. With about 30 seconds on her clocks she found a clear way of winning (say she was white and she played Bd3-b5). It was only two moves till the time control left, so both girls understood that black was "toasted".

So what African girl did was something clearly she was coached by adults (you would not come up with such a tactics on a spot especially when you are a little girl). She took white' bishop from b5 and placed it back to d3 and pressed the clock. The Russian girl was puzzled; she did not know what to do. She looked around but there was no arbiter nearby. She played the same move again and got exactly the same response. So finally after a few more repetitions of the same move black claimed a win on time.

Russians placed an appeal. Africans placed an appeal as well, in which they claimed that a powerful chess country Russia is trying to pressure a little African country. The committee voted and gave a point to the African girl. shouldnt the russian girl have been coached to stop the clocks and call an arbiter in an incident like that?

Vlad
21-05-2006, 07:20 PM
shouldnt the russian girl have been coached to stop the clocks and call an arbiter in an incident like that?

Do you seriously expect a little girl to know that she is meant to stop the clocks? To tell you the truth I did not know; meaning that this rule keeps changing and you never know what is the most recent modification. At some point I remember the rule was that you were never allowed to stop the clocks; stopping the clocks was equivalent to resigning.

antichrist
21-05-2006, 07:53 PM
If both players know your trick then a game of chess suddenly becomes a fighting contest.

What about if they put fist over fist over the clock? What - then head butt each other?

pballard
22-05-2006, 01:42 PM
Do you seriously expect a little girl to know that she is meant to stop the clocks?

If she's of sufficient standard to play in an international tournament: yes.

pballard
22-05-2006, 01:54 PM
How can one mate with one rook (no help of a king is needed)? Well, you can put ur rook somewhere between a7 and a8 and whatever your opponent does you just capture his king. If he does not move you capture it on the 8-th row, if he moves to the 7-th row you capture it on the 7-th row.

An interesting event from a junior tournament many years ago. (Strong 16 or 17 year old juniors, not beginners). Black was losing against White. Black began sliding his king onto ambiguous squares, moving his king in two moves to (say) e3, e4-and-a-half, e6. Suddenly, with the king on e6 (or whatever) he was in range to stop white's pawn from queening. White looked in disbelief. Instead of winning, he was losing.

White resigned. Fortunately, Black was prone to joking and not to cheating. Black told White what'd he'd done, and resigned instead.

Now the interesting bit: Black was informed after the game by another player that he legally he could have claimed a win, because once white resigns, that's it. Is that correct?

Rincewind
22-05-2006, 02:18 PM
Black was informed after the game by another player that he legally he could have claimed a win, because once white resigns, that's it. Is that correct?

Law 5.1 (b) states
The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

So technically, yes. However, were such shinanigans discovered by the arbiter, I imagine the cheating player would be dealt with very harshly.

The main purpose of rule 5.1(b) is I believe to stop a player resigning and then making a post hoc claim on time or similar.

Vlad
22-05-2006, 02:44 PM
If she's of sufficient standard to play in an international tournament: yes.

Russian girls are good enough to win these competitions from time to time but not of sufficient standard to play in them.:hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2006, 03:07 PM
Do you seriously expect a little girl to know that she is meant to stop the clocks? To tell you the truth I did not know; meaning that this rule keeps changing and you never know what is the most recent modification. At some point I remember the rule was that you were never allowed to stop the clocks; stopping the clocks was equivalent to resigning.

That's correct. I remember in junoir (16-17 yo, about 2000+ level) I spotted a checkmate in one! Not quite beleiving myself I was affraid to stop the clock, because if I am wrong, stopping the clock is technically resigning.

Bill Gletsos
22-05-2006, 03:10 PM
That's correct. I remember in junoir (16-17 yo, about 2000+ level) I spotted a checkmate in one! Not quite beleiving myself I was affraid to stop the clock, because if I am wrong, stopping the clock is technically resigning.Must be a Russian rule as I can find no reference to anything like it even going back to FIDE rules in the mid 70's.

pballard
22-05-2006, 03:42 PM
Do you seriously expect a little girl to know that she is meant to stop the clocks? To tell you the truth I did not know; meaning that this rule keeps changing and you never know what is the most recent modification. At some point I remember the rule was that you were never allowed to stop the clocks; stopping the clocks was equivalent to resigning.


That's correct. I remember in junoir (16-17 yo, about 2000+ level) I spotted a checkmate in one! Not quite beleiving myself I was affraid to stop the clock, because if I am wrong, stopping the clock is technically resigning.

You didn't know that you should stop the clocks and call the DOP if your opponent was doing something illegal?

Phil Bourke
22-05-2006, 05:47 PM
Would appear that current practise is if resigning, to stop the clock and shake hands. If in doubt about legality, stop the clock and call the DOP. If agreeing to draw, shake hands and then stop the clock. Now we only have to be careful about those players that are going to stop the clock and shake hands and report the result as a draw :)
Will have to remember on insisting on a verbal acknowledgement before shaking hands :)

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2006, 05:51 PM
You didn't know that you should stop the clocks and call the DOP if your opponent was doing something illegal?

He wasn't doing anything illegal (unless blundering checkmate in one falls in that category)

WhiteElephant
22-05-2006, 06:09 PM
Must be a Russian rule as I can find no reference to anything like it even going back to FIDE rules in the mid 70's.

I remember as a junior playing Adrian Wills at Waverley Chess Club. At one point, I suspected a draw by triple repetiton had occurred. I pointed this out to Adrian, who said he did not think so, and I had better call the arbiter. I reached my hand out to stop the (analogue) clocks and Adrian warned me that I had better not as I have to call an arbiter on my own time.

I left my clock running while I went downstairs to look for an arbiter. The arbiter had gone home so a couple of other club members came over, stopped the clocks and went over the game. They decided that there was no triple repetition and we continued playing, with the result being that I had lost about 10 minutes on my clock.

I never clarified the correct way to claim a draw by triple repetition as it has never happened to me again, but the club members who had assisted were in agreement that the claimant should not stop the clocks until the arbiter has arrived.

Garvinator
22-05-2006, 06:17 PM
I remember as a junior playing Adrian Wills at Waverley Chess Club. At one point, I suspected a draw by triple repetiton had occurred. I pointed this out to Adrian, who said he did not think so, and I had better call the arbiter. I reached my hand out to stop the (analogue) clocks and Adrian warned me that I had better not as I have to call an arbiter on my own time.

I left my clock running while I went downstairs to look for an arbiter. The arbiter had gone home so a couple of other club members came over, stopped the clocks and went over the game. They decided that there was no triple repetition and we continued playing, with the result being that I had lost about 10 minutes on my clock.

I never clarified the correct way to claim a draw by triple repetition as it has never happened to me again, but the club members who had assisted were in agreement that the claimant should not stop the clocks until the arbiter has arrived.


Article 9: The drawn game

9.1

1. A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before stopping his clock and starting the opponent`s clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid, but Article 12.6 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.

2. The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his scoresheet with a symbol (See Appendix E13).

3. A claim of a draw under 9.2, 9.3 or 10.2 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw.

9.2

The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves)

1. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or

2. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer in this manner be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.

9.3

The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if

1. he writes his move on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or

2. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

9.4

If the player makes a move without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.

9.5

If a player claims a draw as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, he shall immediately stop both clocks. He is not allowed to withdraw his claim.

1. If the claim is found to be correct the game is immediately drawn.
2. If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent`s remaining time. Additionally, if the claimant has more than two minutes on his clock the arbiter shall deduct half of the claimant`s remaining time up to a maximum of three minutes. If the claimant has more than one minute, but less than two minutes, his remaining time shall be one minute. If the claimant has less than one minute, the arbiter shall make no adjustment to the claimant`s clock. Then the game shall continue and the intended move must be made.

9.6

The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.

Garvinator
22-05-2006, 06:18 PM
When making any claims, always stop the clock and then get the arbiter.

Bill Gletsos
22-05-2006, 06:40 PM
When making any claims, always stop the clock and then get the arbiter.You appear to have missed the point that WE was not referring to the current rules but to when he was a junior.

Denis_Jessop
22-05-2006, 09:28 PM
Would appear that current practise is if resigning, to stop the clock and shake hands. If in doubt about legality, stop the clock and call the DOP. If agreeing to draw, shake hands and then stop the clock. Now we only have to be careful about those players that are going to stop the clock and shake hands and report the result as a draw :)
Will have to remember on insisting on a verbal acknowledgement before shaking hands :)

Yes, Phil, that's right. The rules say that "the game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns" (Art 5. 1b.) The FIDE Rules Commission decreed in 1971 that "if a player shakes hands with his opponent, this is not to be considered as equal to resigning as meant in Art 11.2" [which was in the exact same terms as Art 5.1b. now is expressed]. There is no reason to doubt that that is still the correct interpretation.

DJ

pballard
22-05-2006, 11:23 PM
You appear to have missed the point that WE was not referring to the current rules but to when he was a junior.

I don't know how old White Elephant is, but I reckon I've known about that rule for at least 25 years.

WhiteElephant
22-05-2006, 11:29 PM
I don't know how old White Elephant is, but I reckon I've known about that rule for at least 25 years.

If only everyone had the benefit of your knowledge...

pballard
23-05-2006, 01:33 PM
If only everyone had the benefit of your knowledge...

My point is not that I have special knowledge, but that it ("call the DOP if there's a dispute, stopping the clocks if necessary") is a pretty basic part of the rules of competitive chess, which I've known about for yonks. Certainly anyone should know it by the time they go off to an international competition.

Basil
23-05-2006, 03:21 PM
My point is not that I have special knowledge, but that it ("call the DOP if there's a dispute, stopping the clocks if necessary") is a pretty basic part of the rules of competitive chess, which I've known about for yonks. Certainly anyone should know it by the time they go off to an international competition.

At that level of chess, it regrettably is incumbent on all participants to be aware of the rules.
Technical and actual victory for pballard

At that level of chess, and indeed many other activities played at world level, it is not always possible to have all bases covered, viz;
- African atheletes, sans experience with certain track surfaces, or the option of shoes
- Sundry nations being fully aware of all the rules [watch out for debacles at the World Cup], and so forth.

One's perspective of 'what's obvious' or 'what's a given' for a global community is often hard to assess from the glorious luxury of a first world country.
Pyrrhic and humanitarian victory to White Elephant

Chief Duggan presiding
B.bb
Wis. Solomon

Please forgive the split infinitive in the first sentence :pray:

WhiteElephant
23-05-2006, 04:18 PM
I think the issue is: did the rules change at some point?

It appears that:

Igor Goldenberg
drug
Adrian Wills
some senior members of Waverley Chess Club such as David Potter and Matthew Drummond

at one point believed that stopping the clocks for any reason was wrong (ie. tantamount to resigning). Claims had to be taken up with the arbiter while clocks were running and the arbiter would presumably adjust the clocks later, based on the outcome of the claim.

It seems unlikely that those guys would not know the rules. Could it indeed be possible that the rules were changed?

pballard
23-05-2006, 07:11 PM
I think the issue is: did the rules change at some point?

It appears that:

Igor Goldenberg
drug
Adrian Wills
some senior members of Waverley Chess Club such as David Potter and Matthew Drummond

at one point believed that stopping the clocks for any reason was wrong (ie. tantamount to resigning). Claims had to be taken up with the arbiter while clocks were running and the arbiter would presumably adjust the clocks later, based on the outcome of the claim.

It seems unlikely that those guys would not know the rules. Could it indeed be possible that the rules were changed?

I've got a copy of "Laws of Chess - Official Code" published 1973, edited by CJS Purdy. In that book (Article 17A.2), it says that clocks keep running while a draw claim is investigated, (and that if you are wrong and your time expires while the DOP investigates, you lose on time).

So that was certainly the rule at some stage, so that explains why Wills and co. think/thought that is the rule.

I've always thought the rules were what Bill said (stop clocks, get the DOP, time penalty if your claim is wrong). Now I've no idea where I got that idea from :)

BTW I'm about the same age as Drummond and Potter, so you'd think we'd have learnt the same rules.

[In view of that, I've got another comment on that strange incident from the girls' international tournament, but I've got a game tonight so it'll have to wait].

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2006, 08:26 PM
I've got a copy of "Laws of Chess - Official Code" published 1973, edited by CJS Purdy. In that book (Article 17A.2), it says that clocks keep running while a draw claim is investigated, (and that if you are wrong and your time expires while the DOP investigates, you lose on time).

So that was certainly the rule at some stage, so that explains why Wills and co. think/thought that is the rule.That is correct but the issue here is stopping the clock when your opponrnt is breaking the rules. e.g. violation of touch move etc.

I've always thought the rules were what Bill said (stop clocks, get the DOP, time penalty if your claim is wrong). Now I've no idea where I got that idea from :)In the 1973 laws you quote above Article 14.6 says if the game has to be interrupted for some reason for which neither player is responsible the clock shall be stopped. It doesnt mention who may stop the clock, nor is there an Article that mentions the game being interrupted for some reason for which one or both player's are responsible.
Also there is Article 18 on Players' Behaviour. It lists a number of things players should not do but stopping the clocks isn't one of them. Nowhere in the 1973 laws does it mention that only the arbiter may stop the clocks.

By the time you get to the 1980 version of the Laws of Chess there is still no mention that only the arbiter may stop the clocks or any prohibition mentioned against the players doing so. Article 14.6 is still there but insttead of just mentioning the saying the clock shall be stopped it now says both clocks shall be stopped. Also what was Article 18 Players' Behaviour is now Article 19 The Conduct of the Players.

In the 1984 version of the Laws of Chess Article14.6 has become Article 12.5 but the wording has changed to state that the clocks shall be stopped by the arbiter. However 12.5 still only refers to the game being interrupted for some reason for which neither player is responsible only. What had been Article 19 is not Article 15.

In the 1988 version of the Laws of Chess Article 12.5 still mentions the clocks shall be stopped by the arbiter, however there is an additional sentence that states:
If the arbiter is not present, the player may stop both clocks in order to seek the arbiter's assistance.
Again Article 12.5 still only refers to the game being interrupted for some reason for which neither player is responsible.

The the 1997 Laws of Chess Article 12.5 has essentially been replaced by Article 6.12 which states:
6.12 a) If the game needs to be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the clocks.
b) A player may stop the clocks in order to seek the arbiter`s assistance.
c) The arbiter shall decide when the game is to be restarted.

The the 2001 Laws of Chess Article 6.12 became Article 6.13 and was changed to the following:
6.13 (a) If the game needs to be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the clocks.
(b) A player may stop the clocks in order to seek the arbiter`s assistance, for instance when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not avaliable.
(c) The arbiter shall decide when the game is to be restarted in either case.
(d) If a player stops the clocks in order to seek the arbiter`s assistance, the arbiter shall determine if the player had any valid reason for doing so. If it is obvious that the player has no valid reason for stopping the clocks, the player shall be penalised according to article 13.4.

Artivle 6.13 remains the same in the current 2005 Laws of Chess.

pballard
24-05-2006, 09:56 AM
That is correct but the issue here is stopping the clock when your opponrnt is breaking the rules. e.g. violation of touch move etc.


The problem with this thread (as usual on the internet) is that several examples have been mentioned. WhiteElephant mentioned a dispute over the procedure for claim of triple repetition (post 52).

In any case, I was just going to add that I'd been a bit harsh in the Russian girl example. It's all very well to say "call the DOP", but if you're short of time and the DOP isn't standing next to you, then you risk losing on time while you go looking for the DOP, and you risk being forfeited (or you think that, not being 100% sure of the rules) if you stop the clocks before looking for the DOP.

In short, I think the newer rules are an improvement, but (since they've changed) I can understand now why not everyone knows them and there is confusion from time to time.