1. ## A headache of a scenario

The game is 1hr Guillotine

Both players are under 5 min

Player A pushes his pawn to the 8th, Presses the clock, changes the pawn to a Queen.
Player B Claims the win by Illegal Move
Player A says "OK" or something to that effect

Player A gets the arbiter and when the arbiter and Player A get to the board the pieces are messed up on the board. In a reconstruction of the position it was clear that Player A was going to win the game. However both players had not written down their moves inside the 5 min mark. But the game could be reconstructed from where they finished wrinting

Arbiter tells Player B that the Illegal move does not constitute a loss of the game and that two or three minutes would be added to the clock.

Player B tells Arbiter that Player A resigned.

Player A tells Arbiter that he did not resign

So My Questions are : 1/Does an "ok" constitute a resign 2/What do you think the Result should be or procedure should be to produce a result?

(as a following note, Player B didnt want to replay the game and then player A convinced himself that he did resign..... go figure. I'm leaving this out of the scenario however.)

2. Originally Posted by Trent Parker
So My Questions are : 1/Does an "ok" constitute a resign 2/What do you think the Result should be or procedure should be to produce a result?

(as a following note, Player B didnt want to replay the game and then player A convinced himself that he did resign..... go figure. I'm leaving this out of the scenario however.)
What a farce. That's why each chess move should have an increment in my humble opinion. Of course you can get a similar situation with a 10 seconds increment since players would not write down moves after they were below 5 minutes on the clock. I think that the most ridiculous discussions come when the clock winds down to zero with no possibility to avoid the melt-down (no increment).

1. An "OK" does not constitute a resignation, and in this case the common sense for the "OK" is "OK I made an illegal move".

2. The position should be restored as best as it can before the promotion (e.g. he must complete his promotion) and his opponent given 2 minutes for the illegal move. If you can't reconstruct even a plausible position, the arbiter must make his decision from the circumstances and his experience, because I believe there are no rules regulating this. If play should commence and the opponent refuses to continue, I would say it means he resigns and loses the game (in fact the arbiter should just put up the reconstructed position and start the clock, the rest is up to that player, if he resigns, walks away or whatever ...).

{Out of scenario}
If player A really did resign, that stands. However I don't like these cases with handshakes and bogus mates where one player benefits from an incorrect claim that he should win the game. How could you ever resign a game with an "OK". That is surrealistic. Next time you have a bad position, try "Oh, I'm going for a cup of coffee, do you want one too, and by the way you're resigning, aren't you?" and if he says "OK" then claim the game to the arbiter

3. Originally Posted by Jesper Norgaard
2. The position should be restored as best as it can before the promotion (e.g. he must complete his promotion) and his opponent given 2 minutes for the illegal move. If you can't reconstruct even a plausible position, the arbiter must make his decision from the circumstances and his experience, because I believe there are no rules regulating this. If play should commence and the opponent refuses to continue, I would say it means he resigns and loses the game (in fact the arbiter should just put up the reconstructed position and start the clock, the rest is up to that player, if he resigns, walks away or whatever ...).
Article 7.4 deals with what happens when there is an illegal move. It says must be restarted from the last position identified, and in the extremely unlikely senario that this is from the starting position then this is what should happen.

7.4
a.
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. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.13. The Articles 4.3 and 4.6 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this re-instated position.

Scott

4. Go back to the position immediately prior to the illegal move (the pawn push which was not promoted on his own time) and give player B an extra 2 minutes for the disruption caused by the illegal move. Start clocks and player A is bound by touch move (the pawn must be moved).

If player B moving the pieces around while player A went to get the arbiter was a deliberate attempt to avoid playing from the pawn push than I would penalise player B too. At the very least (if it was accidental or ignorance) then he should get an official warning about interfering with the board when there was a dispute pending.

5. I agree with Jesper. "OK" is not a resignation.

I would give both players two extra minutes in this situation - B for the illegal move by A, A for the disruption caused by the board being messed around as a result of B's clearly incorrect belief the game was over. Even if B's belief the game was over was genuine, A should be entitled to compensation.

6. ## This is appualing.

Originally Posted by Trent Parker
The game is 1hr Guillotine

Both players are under 5 min

Player A pushes his pawn to the 8th, Presses the clock, changes the pawn to a Queen.
Player B Claims the win by Illegal Move
Player A says "OK" or something to that effect

Player A gets the arbiter and when the arbiter and Player A get to the board the pieces are messed up on the board. In a reconstruction of the position it was clear that Player A was going to win the game. However both players had not written down their moves inside the 5 min mark. But the game could be reconstructed from where they finished wrinting

Arbiter tells Player B that the Illegal move does not constitute a loss of the game and that two or three minutes would be added to the clock.

Player B tells Arbiter that Player A resigned.

Player A tells Arbiter that he did not resign

So My Questions are : 1/Does an "ok" constitute a resign 2/What do you think the Result should be or procedure should be to produce a result?

(as a following note, Player B didnt want to replay the game and then player A convinced himself that he did resign..... go figure. I'm leaving this out of the scenario however.)
For a start an illegal move in g/60 isn't not an automatic win as stated. Player A gets 2 mins as has also been stated (not 3 mins??)

I agree with Kevin when he says that 'Ok' is not enough to hold the result, a handsake seals a result.

If the game can be recontructed, it starts again. Both players needed also to be educated about procedure here, but punishment is not necessary.

I don't agree that this situation supoorts not using guillotine finishes. Where was the DOP when the scramble started. He/She should have had a scoresheet and been wrting down moves.

This exact scenario happened to me at the 1997 Gosford Open. It was also g/60. I was in a timescramble and in the heat of the battle I played e6 to e8 (in one move) and put a queen on e8. All the spectators and the arbiter burst out laughing, but my opponent and I had no idea what was going on.

At this point Shaun Press as DOP claimed it "Was the most blanant illegal move, he had ever seen" and then replaced my pawn on e7 with 2 mins on my opponent's clock. Neither my opponent or I had any idea what had happened. I looked at NZ IM Ben Martin and asked if I had really made the illegal move, and he said that I did.

I ended up winning anyway, so stupidy in chess is inter-generational. Guillotine time controls are fine, if you have an arbiter that can hold his/her own.

7. Thanks Thunder, my day has just been made

8. Originally Posted by Thunderspirit
For a start an illegal move in g/60 isn't not an automatic win as stated. Player A gets 2 mins as has also been stated (not 3 mins??)

I agree with Kevin when he says that 'Ok' is not enough to hold the result, a handsake seals a result.

If the game can be recontructed, it starts again. Both players needed also to be educated about procedure here, but punishment is not necessary.

I don't agree that this situation supoorts not using guillotine finishes. Where was the DOP when the scramble started. He/She should have had a scoresheet and been wrting down moves.

This exact scenario happened to me at the 1997 Gosford Open. It was also g/60. I was in a timescramble and in the heat of the battle I played e6 to e8 (in one move) and put a queen on e8. All the spectators and the arbiter burst out laughing, but my opponent and I had no idea what was going on.

At this point Shaun Press as DOP claimed it "Was the most blanant illegal move, he had ever seen" and then replaced my pawn on e7 with 2 mins on my opponent's clock. Neither my opponent or I had any idea what had happened. I looked at NZ IM Ben Martin and asked if I had really made the illegal move, and he said that I did.

I ended up winning anyway, so stupidy in chess is inter-generational. Guillotine time controls are fine, if you have an arbiter that can hold his/her own.
Expecting the arbiter to keep score in time scrambles is unrealistic, as multiple boards are likely to be scrambling.

9. Originally Posted by CameronD
Expecting the arbiter to keep score in time scrambles is unrealistic, as multiple boards are likely to be scrambling.
The arbiter can and should deputise assistants for this purpose when required. Players who have finished their game and are watching can do the job.

10. ## Thank you, Kevin

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
The arbiter can and should deputise assistants for this purpose when required. Players who have finished their game and are watching can do the job.
It's an arbiter's responsibility to look after games in time scrambles. While it's not possible to be at every board, and Kevin has mentioned an experience player/administator to do the same.

Or, the DOP could be lazy and just add an increment and the DOP could do bugger all....