FIDE Laws of Chess 2018

[Kevin Bonham]

More changes have been made to the FIDE Laws of Chess, to commence from Jan 1 2018:

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.ht...8&view=article

The big one is that one illegal move no longer loses in rapid and blitz. Instead it is now two illegal moves for all time controls.

[ER]

Instead it is now two illegal moves for all time controls.

Is that two illegal moves in succession?

[Kevin Bonham]

Is that two illegal moves in succession?

No, two illegal moves at any stage of the game.

If the arbiter is not watching, the player will need to claim the first illegal move when it happens, otherwise it will not be treated as illegal, meaning that a second illegal move won't lose.

This is going to create a lot more work for arbiters in blitz tournaments.

[whatteaux]

No, two illegal moves at any stage of the game.

But not at the same time, I believe. So if, for example, you castle out of check (illegal) with both hands (also now illegal), that counts as one illegality not two.

[Kevin Bonham]

But not at the same time, I believe. So if, for example, you castle out of check (illegal) with both hands (also now illegal), that counts as one illegality not two.

Correct.

[Pierre Dénommée]

Another big change

A.4.3 To claim a win on time, the claimant may stop the chessclock and notify the arbiter. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the claimant cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Gone is the requirement that the claimant must have time left on his clock. This requirement has been there from at least 1977.

[Craig_Hall]

Probably a stupid question, but how does one stop a clock when both players have run out of time?

[Andrew Hardegen]

Probably a stupid question, but how does one stop a clock when both players have run out of time?

Hi Craig. For Rapid/Blitz (my understanding):

In the 2014 Laws, the wording was essentially "must stop the clock, and must have time remaining"

In the July 2017 Laws, the wording is essentially "may stop the clock, and must have time remaining"

In the January 2018 Laws, the wording is essentially "may stop the clock" and there is no longer any condition specifying that the claimant must have time remaining.

So I am guessing that, since July 2017, there has not been any strict requirement to stop the clock to claim a win on time in rapid/blitz. Having said this, currently, if the opponent makes a move after their flag falls and immediately leaves the board before you notice the flagfall, then you might need to stop the clock to make sure that you still have time remaining at the point when the opponent returns or the arbiter arrives to verify the flagfall. The use of "may" rather than "must" allows the player to stop the clock in this fashion, but means that ordinarily there is no strict requirement to do so.

In the January 2018 Laws, there is absolutely no reason to stop the clock when claiming flagfall (unless there is nothing to indicate which flag fell first), but there is also no reason to penalise anyone for doing so. In view of this it is probably better that the rules continue to permit it, as they have done in the past. Of course if the clock has stopped on its own as a result of both flags having fallen, then it cannot be `stopped' by the claimant. Nor can it be `stopped' by the claimant if it is set to freeze when the first flag falls.

[NickC]

No, two illegal moves at any stage of the game.

This is going to create a lot more work for arbiters in blitz tournaments.

While I think increasing the number of illegal moves to two before triggering an automatic loss makes sense for Rapid games, I'm not a supporter of this change for Blitz games because as you say it will create a lot more work for arbiters and may result in each round taking longer due to the extra time added to the opponent's clock (and the time for the arbiter to deal with the claim).

[Kevin Bonham]

While I think increasing the number of illegal moves to two before triggering an automatic loss makes sense for Rapid games, I'm not a supporter of this change for Blitz games because as you say it will create a lot more work for arbiters and may result in each round taking longer due to the extra time added to the opponent's clock (and the time for the arbiter to deal with the claim).

I'm opposed to it for the same reason. There should have been more consultation about it.

[Jesper Norgaard]

While I think increasing the number of illegal moves to two before triggering an automatic loss makes sense for Rapid games, I'm not a supporter of this change for Blitz games because as you say it will create a lot more work for arbiters and may result in each round taking longer due to the extra time added to the opponent's clock (and the time for the arbiter to deal with the claim).

You are right about the scheduling problem. That's why I'm suggesting that the penalty should be half the time deducted, instead of 1 minute added to the opponent's clock. If the player making the illegal move has 2:57 on the clock, he will receive 1:29 and the game continues. This way there is much less chance to provoke a late round.

[Bulldozer]

You are right about the scheduling problem. That's why I'm suggesting that the penalty should be half the time deducted, instead of 1 minute added to the opponent's clock. If the player making the illegal move has 2:57 on the clock, he will receive 1:29 and the game continues. This way there is much less chance to provoke a late round.

That wouldn't make much sense if there is an increment. Imagine, a player has one second left...
I think it's better to deduct a constant amount of time, e.g. one minute. If there is less than one minute on the clock - it's a loss on time.

[Jesper Norgaard]

That wouldn't make much sense if there is an increment. Imagine, a player has one second left...
I think it's better to deduct a constant amount of time, e.g. one minute. If there is less than one minute on the clock - it's a loss on time.

There are some problems with this proposal. With an analog clock for instance, determining if there was a direct loss or not when the player has around a minute left - tough to call. If both players had 10 minutes on the clock - the penalty of 1 minute subtracted is almost not felt. If there is an increment, the player will still have the same amount of increment, and can conceivably survive the penalty when only 1:02 on the clock (2 seconds will be left by the arbiter). I suspect that in some cases 1 minute may be given up by a devious player to deliberately make a disturbance with the illegal move - as it is today with the "penalty" of adding more time to the opponent's clock. In effect any amount of time less than 1:01 is an instant loss - as the first illegal move is before January 1, 2018. I would rather wave goodbye to those instant losses - not invite them back depending on an arbitrary number on the clock. If 1:01 on the clock, you continue. If 1:00 on the clock, a loss is declared. It's almost like a gamble. Shouldn't we leave gambling out of chess? If there is no increment, getting reduced from 1:01 to 0:01 is just like a death penalty. What can you do on a single second?

There is some Solomonic justice in cutting off 50% of the time. You pay with what you got (time on the clock). And always with the same percentage. I am proposing the same penalty for Standard games - if you have 2 hours on the clock, you will be left with 1 hour. Of course the penalty could be different than 50% - but it is a lot easier to calculate. With this proposal there are no instant losses for the first illegal move. And in most cases, the schedule is benefitted. Which it would be in both proposals, of course. But on average, the 50% proposal is cutting more time. In your proposal, it will never exceed a minute, so if it takes the arbiter 2 minutes to intervene, the schedule will suffer. In my proposal, there is no guarantee it won't. But the average should be more favorable for the schedule I think.

King Solomon parted the baby in half for the two ladies that claimed the baby - or at least he claimed he would.

[Kevin Bonham]

I think it is incorrect to insist on unified penalties for illegal move across all time controls and this debate shows exactly why. The new unified penalty makes blitz tournaments harder to run and potentially slower (though not as slow as if they are held up by appeals, but that's another story.) But alternative penalties have problems too. Half the time means making an illegal move in a standard results in a far more severe penalty than in a blitz game with increment. That's silly. A time deduction creates problems with analog clocks though really those should be being phased out anyway, but also creates a somewhat arbitrary situation in which if the increment is large, an illegal move may result in immediate loss for one player but be not such a big deal for another who has just a second more on their clock.

This change shows the problems with allowing the General Assembly's powers to change the Laws of Chess to be delegated. Instead of a stable set of Laws every four years we have ended up with this mess where changes (good and bad) can be made with no consultation at short notice.

[Bulldozer]

I think it is incorrect to insist on unified penalties for illegal move across all time controls and this debate shows exactly why.

I consider it as a compensation of time (needed for the correction) rather than penalty. The penalty will be after the second breach.

A time deduction creates problems with analog clocks though really those should be being phased out anyway, but also creates a somewhat arbitrary situation in which if the increment is large, an illegal move may result in immediate loss for one player but be not such a big deal for another who has just a second more on their clock.

A loss on time is somewhat arbitrary anyway. If you press the clock just a moment before it reaches 0:00 you are fine because you are added some time. But if you late just for one millionth of a second then you are lost.