PDA

View Full Version : What constitutes an illegal move in blitz?



Bereaved
08-07-2007, 02:32 AM
Hello everyone,


The FIDE article relating to Blitz says:


C. Blitz

C1.

A `blitz` game is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed time of less than 15 minutes for each player; or the allotted time + 60 times any increment is less than 15 minutes.

C2.

Play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Appendix B except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Blitz. The Articles 10.2 and B6 do not apply.

C3.

An illegal move is completed once the opponent`s clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move.(my emphasis) However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected


What constitutes an illegal move? is it just leaving the king in check? or is the definition meant to encompass more broadly any violation of the laws of chess?

the reason I ask is because of the following



Finishing third on 7 was Malcolm who had suffered another loss in the sixth
round to Sadedin Redzepagic, despite claiming a win for "illegal move".
Sadedin had, (quite legally), played knight on e3 x bishop on g2. When
removing the bishop Sadedin also picked up his knight and took both pieces
off the board, then pressed his clock. Malcolm rightly complained and
Sadedin replaced the knight, (with the wrong coloured knight). Malcolm
again complained and Sadedin finally replaced the knight correctly. Malcolm
at this stage was claiming a win saying Sadedin had made an illegal move in
removing both pieces.

The arbiter, (me), denied Malcolm's claim based on the fact that Sadedin's
move was legal, the aftermath was simply "dislodging the pieces". The same
as if he knocked over a piece in making his move, which happens a lot in
lightning time scrambles. Under these circumstances Malcolm has every right
to press his clock and tell his opponent to set the pieces correctly on his
own time, but it is not an illegal move.
** The rule relates to "illegal move", not "illegal position".
Although the result will stand regardless, I would be interested, (for
possible future disputes), if anyone thinks I was wrong, and why.


This was surely a circumstance of an illegal move? After all, I have never heard of another example of a player completing their move and two pieces leaving the board after a capture?

Would appreciate any feedback anyone can provide

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PS Sadedin had more than a minute and a half more than I did, and was not in desperate time trouble yet

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2007, 01:02 PM
His original move of capturing the bishop and removing it and his own piece (the knight) from the board was clearly an illegal move the moment he stopped his clock. Up until stopping his clock he could have corrected it.

It has nothing to do with illegal position. As part of his move he illegally removed his own knight from the board and pressed the clock.

End of story. His move was illegal.

Also his subsequent replacement of the wrong coloured Knight was also illegal.

The arbiter's decision was simply wrong.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2007, 02:39 PM
Rather unusual case.

I think there's a big difference between

* making a move
* knocking a piece off the board accidentally
* pressing the clock

and

* making a move
* removing both pieces from the board by controlled hand action as if this was the deliberate outcome of a move
* pressing the clock

If it's the latter (which it sounds like it is), it's an illegal move in my view.

For it to even be arguably a legal move followed by a dislodgement (as was ruled) then the knight must have been released on the square g2 before removal. Did this occur? If not then there is no way one can correctly say that a legal move was completed at any stage.

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2007, 06:42 PM
What constitutes an illegal move? is it just leaving the king in check? or is the definition meant to encompass more broadly any violation of the laws of chess?

Clearly more than just leaving the king in check, anyway:

7.4a: If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated.

So leaving a pawn unpromoted is explicitly called an illegal move, so an opponent can claim under Blitz C3. To return to the situation:

3.1: If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent's piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.

So removing one's own piece is illegal, so you were entitled to claim the win, and the arbiter was mistaken to disallow the claim.

Lekko
05-12-2009, 11:41 PM
The arbiter, (me), denied Malcolm's claim based on the fact that Sadedin's
move was legal, the aftermath was simply "dislodging the pieces". The same
as if he knocked over a piece in making his move, which happens a lot in
lightning time scrambles. Under these circumstances Malcolm has every right
to press his clock and tell his opponent to set the pieces correctly on his
own time, but it is not an illegal move.
** The rule relates to "illegal move", not "illegal position".
Although the result will stand regardless, I would be interested, (for
possible future disputes), if anyone thinks I was wrong, and why.

Same issue arrised at MCC between myself and Michael Baron. I placed Michael in check, he proceeded to place me in check, I moved out of check (attacking his piece). His arguement was that because he was in check, I had to take his king or call illegal, but I argued that it's not checkers and I'm not forced to take anything unless I'm in check and I CAN'T move my king. We agreed upon a draw due to my time trouble (18 seconds left on the clock and no clear mate) but I was sure that the game should continue.

Am I correct? Does the game continue?

Bill Gletsos
05-12-2009, 11:54 PM
Same issue arrised at MCC between myself and Michael Baron. I placed Michael in check, he proceeded to place me in check, I moved out of check (attacking his piece). His arguement was that because he was in check, I had to take his king or call illegal, but I argued that it's not checkers and I'm not forced to take anything unless I'm in check and I CAN'T move my king. We agreed upon a draw due to my time trouble (18 seconds left on the clock and no clear mate) but I was sure that the game should continue.

Am I correct? Does the game continue?You are correct, the game should have continued.

Baron's claim that you had to take his king or call illegal move is simply rubbish.

Lekko
06-12-2009, 12:16 AM
You are correct, the game should have continued.

Baron's claim that you had to take his king or call illegal move is simply rubbish.
As I was explaining why I thought the game wasn't over, his confidence in his claim slowly deteriorated until it got to the point where he wasn't sure anymore and was happy with a draw. I only took the draw though because he had 2 minutes left and I had a matter of seconds with no clear mate.

He had a lot going through his head considering something happened that made him upset prior to the blitz tournament starting, so I'm sure it was just a mix up for him.

MichaelBaron
06-12-2009, 01:38 PM
As I was explaining why I thought the game wasn't over, his confidence in his claim slowly deteriorated until it got to the point where he wasn't sure anymore and was happy with a draw. I only took the draw though because he had 2 minutes left and I had a matter of seconds with no clear mate.

He had a lot going through his head considering something happened that made him upset prior to the blitz tournament starting, so I'm sure it was just a mix up for him.

Ok, good - now we know the rules. If i knew i would play on. I think Frank would beat me there...18 sec was enough time in that position. Thefore, i am sorry that the game did continue. Nothing major happened prior to blitz - just a clash between intelligentsia and working class :)

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2009, 05:42 PM
Baron's claim that you had to take his king or call illegal move is simply rubbish.

And furthermore, had HBK taken the king, MB would have been entitled to claim a win as king-capture is an illegal move.

Lekko
07-12-2009, 02:02 PM
And furthermore, had HBK taken the king, MB would have been entitled to claim a win as king-capture is an illegal move.
In MCC blitz, capturing the king is legal. This has been made clear to participants in the tournament time and time again by Carl.

Garvinator
07-12-2009, 02:54 PM
In MCC blitz, capturing the king is legal. This has been made clear to participants in the tournament time and time again by Carl.
MCC is clearly not playing by FIDE rules then.


1.2 The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. (my bolding) The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

As capturing the king is illegal and in blitz illegal moves lose, capturing the king in blitz loses the game.

The correct procedure is to stop the clocks and point out that the king is still in check.

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2009, 03:10 PM
In MCC blitz, capturing the king is legal. This has been made clear to participants in the tournament time and time again by Carl.

OK, I didn't know that.

I don't have any problem with organisers deciding to waive the rule against king-capture for their tournaments, but:

(i) they should clearly state to all entrants that normally king-capture is banned, so that those entrants are not confused when they play in other events.

(ii) sometimes allowing king-capture can lead to problems. For instance if someone takes the king with a queen and there is then a dispute about whether the queen slipped off a diagonal in so doing. These can be difficult to resolve, since the move destroys the evidence.

antichrist
08-12-2009, 08:11 PM
Hello everyone,


The FIDE article relating to Blitz says:


What constitutes an illegal move? is it just leaving the king in check? or is the definition meant to encompass more broadly any violation of the laws of chess?

the reason I ask is because of the following



This was surely a circumstance of an illegal move? After all, I have never heard of another example of a player completing their move and two pieces leaving the board after a capture?
Would appreciate any feedback anyone can provide

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PS Sadedin had more than a minute and a half more than I did, and was not in desperate time trouble yet

It happened in the Sydney Easter Cup about eight years ago, that is 60min guillotine (rapidplay according to BillG). It happened in the last 5 minutes of the game (for Agulto at least who came back from lunch late) after Agulto had knocked the board and a few pieces hit the floor. His opposition, Gety(?) from Germany, helped set up the board and missed his own bishop on the floor. Then when a promotion was made Geti kept his other bishop suspended in his hand coz that what was he was going to capture with.

The arbitaring committee comprising Bob Keast, Fred Flatow and another (but against my comments and advice - who am I?) a few moves down the track put both bishops back on the board upon the witness of only one person. I thought this most unfair when the moves were not recorded.

A few years later after my consistent whinging Bill came out and stated as was a rapid play game it should have been declared a draw. I finally felt justified.

You can't put two pieces back on the board on the word of one spectator.

Bill Gletsos
08-12-2009, 09:02 PM
It happened in the Sydney Easter Cup about eight years ago, that is 60min guillotine (rapidplay according to BillG). It happened in the last 5 minutes of the game (for Agulto at least who came back from lunch late) after Agulto had knocked the board and a few pieces hit the floor. His opposition, Gety(?) from Germany, helped set up the board and missed his own bishop on the floor. Then when a promotion was made Geti kept his other bishop suspended in his hand coz that what was he was going to capture with.

The arbitaring committee comprising Bob Keast, Fred Flatow and another (but against my comments and advice - who am I?) a few moves down the track put both bishops back on the board upon the witness of only one person. I thought this most unfair when the moves were not recorded.

A few years later after my consistent whinging Bill came out and stated as was a rapid play game it should have been declared a draw. I finally felt justified.I never said it should be declared a draw.
You originally described the situation here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=48930&postcount=76).
My response was here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=48944&postcount=84).
You asked a follow up question that I answered here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=49090&postcount=121).

Desmond
09-12-2009, 11:58 AM
It happened in the Sydney Easter Cup about eight years ago, You're not one to let things go, are you

Bob1
09-12-2009, 08:19 PM
A difficult game for a (then) inexperienced arbiter!
(it was also good that Fred was there at the time!)
However
I spoke to both players after that game and both agreed with the final result (after the adrenalin had subsided). It was a great contest - which is what the game of chess is all about.
If the players are OK with the result - I think we should close the case.

arosar
10-12-2009, 03:25 PM
You're not one to let things go, are you

He's a friggin' Lebo. Whaddya expect?

AR

antichrist
10-12-2009, 08:23 PM
I never said it should be declared a draw.
You originally described the situation here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=48930&postcount=76).
My response was here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=48944&postcount=84).
You asked a follow up question that I answered here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=49090&postcount=121).

thanks for that, wouldn't surprise me if I get details cross wired after many years.

antichrist
10-12-2009, 08:30 PM
He's a friggin' Lebo. Whaddya expect?

AR

Listen mate, my relos still have the original receipt from when they bought their winter village (further down the mountains) 400 years ago - beat that! And not one outsider owns one square inch of dirt in our village - beat that! see it here http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=kfarghab+lebanon+picture&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=1s4gS4XLFo_asgPcnsmUBQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CB0QsAQwAg

As well I was only trying to get good Lebo justice for your mate Ed!

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2009, 09:42 PM
thanks for that, wouldn't surprise me if I get details cross wired after many years.

Perhaps you should check your facts in such cases instead of making erroneous claims in public.

antichrist
11-12-2009, 01:07 PM
Perhaps you should check your facts in such cases instead of making erroneous claims in public.

I think I was correct wasn't I, both then and now. Myself, having never done any arbiting in my life had a better sense of justice than Aus Champ Fred and NSWCA presi Rob - bring 'em on.

It was shocking that Ed missed out on that game in such circumstances - in spite of his nice disposition about it. Johnny Bolens or Ilic would not have let them get away with it. With or without strange bags of fruit under the table

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2009, 07:07 PM
I think I was correct wasn't I, both then and now.

You had your facts wrong about the content of Bill's past statements and this is one of two currently running threads in which that is the case.

It is getting to the point where from now on if you claim that Bill said something, but don't provide an exact quote of what he said, we may as well just delete it and save everyone the trouble of debating your unreliable recollections.

Garvinator
11-12-2009, 07:09 PM
It is getting to the point where from now on if you claim that Bill said something, but don't provide an exact quote of what he said, we may as well just delete it and save everyone the trouble of debating your unreliable recollections.
Please make this a standard moderation rule, especially when it is in regards to antichrist.

antichrist
11-12-2009, 10:29 PM
You had your facts wrong about the content of Bill's past statements and this is one of two currently running threads in which that is the case.

It is getting to the point where from now on if you claim that Bill said something, but don't provide an exact quote of what he said, we may as well just delete it and save everyone the trouble of debating your unreliable recollections.

I maintain that the arbiting committee was unwise in accepting the word of one witness when there was no other evidence.

As the game had already re-commenced and could not be set up with the blessing of the two players or even maybe one player it was unjust to make such a radical judgement such as putting two pieces back on the board.

There must be certainty for such a radical move. As Gety still had the piece in his hand he could not have claimed to know accurately what was going on, otherwise he would not have had the piece in his hand.

As Gety still had the piece in his hand and therefore not in a position to be able to be seen by Agulto that it would capture his promoted queen it was entirely unfair.

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2009, 10:44 PM
I maintain that the arbiting committee was unwise in accepting the word of one witness when there was no other evidence.

None of this is relevant to what I am saying about you needing to be more careful not to misrepresent the views of others.

As for the general principle involved, when it is one player's word against another's, very often the word of an independent witness will be crucial and the arbiter is completely entitled to rely on it if they wish to. I would go so far as to say that the word of a sole independent, reliable, credible and disinterested witness who clearly witnessed a situation is often decisive in such matters.

However, as Bill pointed out in 2005, because the game was under rapidplay rules there is a question of whether the position should have been reset a second time at all - even if, say, there were 100 witnesses to what really happened. The rapid rules impose strict requirements on the players to continually keep an eye on any irregularities and take action to rectify them instantly.

It thus appears that if your account of events is correct, then you are correct that the matter was not correctly handled under the Laws, but that your reason for holding that view is not the correct one.

Unfortunately the "if" in bold is a very big "if" when it comes to anything you say given your misrepresentations of past statements on this board.

antichrist
12-12-2009, 10:43 PM
It thus appears that if your account of events is correct, then you are correct that the matter was not correctly handled under the Laws, but that your reason for holding that view is not the correct one.

Unfortunately the "if" in bold is a very big "if" when it comes to anything you say given your misrepresentations of past statements on this board.
__________________

well those St George threads came to about 800 posts - certainly good for your circulation figures whether I was right or wrong. (no wonder you have all got it if for me -after reading them again last night)