PDA

View Full Version : Resignation in response to illegal move, other illegal move issues sf. SIO 2009



Javier Gil
15-04-2009, 09:50 PM
(I just read about this in the closetgrandmaster's blog)

Regarding the Sarah Anton - Paul Broekhuyse game game (in which Paul resigned a clearly better ending after Sarah made an illegal move by moving her knight diagonally and thus forking his King and Queen), I think it's unbelieveable that the arbiters did nothing about this. I mean, from now on, it's probably worth trying making illegal moves like that, after all, you can't lose a game by making an illegal move, can you?
I know she wasn't trying to cheat and this was a case of mutual blindness, but by doing nothing, the arbiters are saying: you might as well try it, you're not risking much, and you might get away with it in some cases!

Shocking decission by the arbiters, in my opinion.

Is this the first time ever someone is allowed to make an illegal move and get away with it?? Really shocking! :wall:

Kevin Bonham
15-04-2009, 10:10 PM
Shocking decission by the arbiters, in my opinion.

Actually under the FIDE laws the arbiters have no choice.

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


Is this the first time ever someone is allowed to make an illegal move and get away with it?? Really shocking! :wall:

No it's certainly not the first time this sort of thing has happened - indeed it has happened to me twice (once in my favour, once not)!

In a blitz tournament once my opponent played an illegal queen move (slipped a square on a diagonal). I had been completely winning the game and thought I had all possible threats covered - when a forced mate in two suddenly appeared on the board I resigned in dismay before realising that I really had covered the threats and the move had been illegal.

In a rated game my opponent was trying to mate me with K+Q vs K and he had about 20 seconds on his clock (guillotine). I unintentionally made an illegal move leaving my king in check and before I could correct it my opponent moved his queen and stalemated me. As he had stalemated me with a legal move the game was over and the result stood.

In a recent Croydon tournament (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=237032) there was a resignation following an illegal move and the players decided to agree a draw when this was pointed out. However had the players not agreed the arbiter would probably have ruled the resignation stood.

You say it's a shocking decision by the arbiters but they are correctly implementing the laws as they stand; if you have an issue here it should be with the Laws not the arbiters.

Of course if the arbiter believes the illegal move was deliberate (and hence cheating) they are well within their powers to overrule the resignation and take appropriate action against the cheating player.

CameronD
15-04-2009, 10:24 PM
if the arbiters didnt know of the illegal moves before receiving the scoresheets, then its not their responsibility to examine each game. Players need to take responsibility to look after their own board.

A player could also make an illegal move, keep playing and demand that the board reverts back to its originasl position before the game ends.

Mischa
15-04-2009, 11:56 PM
Umm...I don't get how an experienced chess player can make such a move

Miranda
16-04-2009, 12:35 AM
Umm...I don't get how an experienced chess player can make such a move
Everyone blunders, and everyone makes mistakes.

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2009, 12:59 AM
Umm...I don't get how an experienced chess player can make such a move

Crossed wires in the brain happen sometimes under pressure, especially in time trouble. Some players are more prone to it than others but experience and skill are not necessarily barriers.

Mischa
16-04-2009, 01:17 AM
ok.....

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2009, 01:40 AM
According to TCG this was the game (it's quite interesting even without the incident):

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 e5 6.Nb3 Nxe4 7.fxe4 Qh4+ 8.Ke2 d5 9.h3 Bg4+ 10.hxg4 Qxh1 11.exd5 0-0-0 12.c4 Qh4 13.Kd2 Bb4+ 14.Nc3 Rhe8 15.a3 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 e4 17.Kc2 Ne5 18.Be3 Nxg4 19.Bxa7 e3 20.Bd3 Qf2+ 21.Qe2 g6 22.Rf1 Qxe2+ 23.Bxe2 f5 24.Nd4 Nf2 25.Bb6 Rd7 26.Nb5 f4 27.Re1 Re5 28.Bf3 g5 29.Bd4 Rf5 30.Bxe3 fxe3 31.Rxe3 Rf8 32.d6 g4 33.Bd5 Kb8 34.Be6 Rg7 35.d7 Re7 36.Nd4 Kc7 37.Nb5+ Kd8 38.Nd4 h5 39.Kd2 h4 40.c5 Rxd7 41.Bxd7 Kxd7 42.Ne6 Rf5 43.Ke2 h3 44.gxh3 gxh3 45.Nd4 h2 46.Nxf5 h1=Q 47.Kxf2 Qb1 48.Nd4 Qa2+ 49.Kf3 Qxa3 50.Rd3 Ke7 51.Kf4 Qxc5 52.Ke4 b5 53.Nf5+ Kf6

and now 54.Nf5-d7+ 1-0.

Prior to that white had been winning for much of the game but had drifted in the endgame. Without the incident it looks drawn though black would play on for a while in the hope of picking something off if white made an error.

BearDrinkingBeer
16-04-2009, 09:41 AM
Prior to that white had been winning for much of the game but had drifted in the endgame. Without the incident it looks drawn though black would play on for a while in the hope of picking something off if white made an error.
That reminds me of a game I saw recently.

Event: Grand Prix
Site: Nalchik
Date: 2009
Round: 1
White: Leko Peter
Black: Kamsky Gata
Result: 1/2-1/2
PlyCount: 242

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Qa4+ Bd7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4 Bg7 7. e4 O-O 8. e5 Ng4 9. d4 Na6 10. h3 Nh6 11. Be2 c6 12. O-O Be6 13. Qa4 Nc7 14. Rd1 f6 15. Bc4 Bxc4 16. Qxc4+ Nf7 17. d5 cxd5 18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. Rxd5 Qe8 20. exf6 Bxf6 21. Be3 b6 22. Rad1 Rc8 23. Qb3 Qc6 24. Rd7 Rc7 25. Rxc7 Qxc7 26. Ng5 Bxg5 27. Bxg5 Rd8 28. Re1 Rd7 29. Qe6 Kf8 30. Bf4 Qd8 31. Kh2 Rd4 32. Rc1 Rxf4 33. Rc8 Rxf2 34. Rxd8+ Nxd8 35. Qd5 Nf7 36. b4 Kg7 37. a3 Rf6 38. Qa8 e5 39. Qxa7 Re6 40. Kg1 e4 41. Kf1 e3 42. Ke2 b5 43. Qd7 Re5 44. a4 bxa4 45. Qxa4 Kf6 46. Qd7 Ng5 47. Qd8+ Kf5 48. Qd3+ Kf6 49. Qd8+ Kf5 50. Qf8+ Ke4 51. Qa8+ Kf4 52. Qf8+ Ke4
53. Qa8+ Kf4 54. b5 Ne4 55. b6 Nc3+ 56. Ke1 Rb5 57. Qf3+ Ke5 58. Qxe3+ Ne4 59. Ke2 Rb1 60. Qa3 Nd6 61. Qc5+ Ke6 62. Qc6 Rb2+ 63. Kd3 Rb3+ 64. Kc2 Rb4 65. Kc1 Rb3 66. Qc5 h6 67. Qd4 g5 68. Qc5 Kd7 69. Kc2 Rb5 70. Qc7+ Ke6 71. Qc6 Rb4 72. Kc1 Rb3 73. Qc5 Kd7 74. g4 Ke6 75. Qc7 Kd5 76. Qa7 Kc6 77. Qc7+ Kd5 78. Kc2 Rb5 79. Qh7 Rxb6 80. Qxh6 Rc6+ 81. Kd3 Nf7 82. Qh7 Rf6 83. Qg8 Kd6 84. Qe8 Rf3+ 85. Kd4 Rf4+ 86. Kc3 Rf3+ 87. Kb4 Rf6 88. Kb5 Kd5 89. Qa8+ Ke6 90. Kc5 Ke7 91. Qa7+ Kf8 92. Qa3 Kg8 93. Kd5 Kg7 94. Qg3 Kg6 95. h4 gxh4 96. Qxh4 Kg7 97. Qg3 Kg6 98. Qh4 Kg7 99. Ke4 Kg6 100. Qh5+ Kg7 101. Ke3 Re6+ 102. Kf4 Rf6+ 103. Kg3 Rd6
104. Qf5 Rf6 105. Qc5 Rd6 106. Qc3+ Kg6 107. Kh4 Kh7 108. Qc7 Kg7 109. Qe7 Rh6+ 110. Kg3 Rf6 111. Qb4 Rd6 112. Qb2+ Kg6 113. Qb8 Kg7 114. Kf4 Rf6+ 115. Ke4 Re6+ 116. Kf4 Rf6+ 117. Kg3 Rd6 118. Qb5 Kg6 119. Qb7 Kg7 120. Qe7 Rf6 121. Kg2 Rd6 1/2-1/2

http://www.chessbase.com/news/2009/fide/games/nalchik01.htm

Ian Rout
16-04-2009, 10:08 AM
Umm...I don't get how an experienced chess player can make such a move
Crossed wires in the brain happen sometimes under pressure, especially in time trouble. Some players are more prone to it than others but experience and skill are not necessarily barriers.One way to explain how this can happen is that part of the way a chess player thinks (well I can't speak for everybody but I think most people would agree) is to visualise a good position and then work out how to get to it. So if you see that two pieces are a Knight fork apart you look at how to get the Knight in there or utilise the threat of doing so. Thus White would see that a Knight on d7 (or e4) would win the Queen - as both the Knight and Black King had changed position in the last move, and possibly last second, it's understandable that it might not have conciously registered that it can't be done in one move.

As noted above the rules are quite clear that an illegal move stands if not detected during the game, and the arbiters have no discretion unless they believed it to be deliberate (punishing reprehensible behaviour should of course always trump the procedures for "normal" circumstances). Generally it is not feasible to revisit such games even if in this case it could have been done.

Although it might seem tempting to play an illegal move in the hope of getting away with it, in practice it's unlikely to be effective. First the opponent will probably notice and you achieve nothing except get penalised. Second you can only do it once or twice before you get a reputation and players and arbiters are on the lookout. If you try it a third time and the arbiter rules it deliberate you don't have much comeback; the arbiter, like any sporting umpire, is not governed by "beyond reasonable doubt" and with your past record you'd have an effort winning over an Appeals Committee.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2009, 10:53 AM
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3 e5 6.Nb3 Nxe4 [this sac is unsound, and unnecessary because Black can gain the advantage simply with 6... d5] 7.fxe4 Qh4+ 8.Ke2 [8. Kd2 is better; less exposed there. If 8... Qf4+ then Ke1] 8... d5 9.h3 Bg4+ 10.hxg4 Qxh1 11.exd5 0-0-0 12.c4 Qh4 13.Kd2 Bb4+ 14.Nc3 Rhe8 15.a3 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 e4 17.Kc2 Ne5 18.Be3 Nxg4 19.Bxa7 e3 20.Bd3 Qf2+ 21.Qe2 g6 22.Rf1 Qxe2+ 23.Bxe2 f5 24.Nd4 Nf2 25.Bb6 Rd7 26.Nb5 f4 27.Re1 Re5 28.Bf3 g5 29.Bd4 Rf5 30.Bxe3 fxe3 31.Rxe3 Rf8 32.d6 g4 33.Bd5 Kb8 34.Be6 Rg7 35.d7 Re7 36.Nd4 Kc7 37.Nb5+ Kd8 38.Nd4 h5 39.Kd2 h4 40.c5 Rxd7 41.Bxd7 Kxd7 42.Ne6 Rf5 43.Ke2 h3 44.gxh3 gxh3 45.Nd4 h2 46.Nxf5 h1=Q 47.Kxf2 Qb1 48.Nd4 Qa2+ 49.Kf3 Qxa3 50.Rd3 Ke7 51.Kf4 Qxc5 52.Ke4 b5 53.Nf5+ Kf6

and now 54.Nf5-d7+ 1-0.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2009, 10:54 AM
Umm...I don't get how an experienced chess player can make such a move
Conversely, experienced players know that they are vulnerable to occasional brainfarts, so would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. After all, a veteran like PaulB, former Australian Junior Champion, missed it too.

Kaitlin
16-04-2009, 11:20 AM
You know how I sometimes make a bad move..

I think the two moves ahead (so im level 2 now) and think ..hmm that wont be good, then i think another one and think ..hmm that wont be good.. then I think of a good two moves ahead - and then play that move, fogetting I havent played the other two moves first :doh:... and then its not good :(

Denis_Jessop
16-04-2009, 12:04 PM
I had exactly the same sort of thing happen in an ACT Championship in which I was the arbiter, The two players involved were both mature and very experienced players. One of them moved a knight two squares diagonally (the bishop's move in old Arabian chess) but neither player noticed it! I was not a witness. A spectator was and informed me but when I went to the board there were no knights there at all so I declined to take action. Then the opponent raised the issue so I stopped the clocks and we went back through the game to find that each player had recorded the illegal move as played (?!). The game still being in progress, the position before the illegal move was restored, the clocks adjusted and the game continued. As it happened the player who made the illegal move was totally lost after moving the knight according to the rules so it all finished almost immediately.

DJ

Kai
16-04-2009, 02:41 PM
I had exactly the same sort of thing happen in an ACT Championship in which I was the arbiter, The two players involved were both mature and very experienced players. One of them moved a knight two squares diagonally (the bishop's move in old Arabian chess) but neither player noticed it! I was not a witness. A spectator was and informed me but when I went to the board there were no knights there at all so I declined to take action. Then the opponent raised the issue so I stopped the clocks and we went back through the game to find that each player had recorded the illegal move as played (?!). The game still being in progress, the position before the illegal move was restored, the clocks adjusted and the game continued. As it happened the player who made the illegal move was totally lost after moving the knight according to the rules so it all finished almost immediately.

DJ
If the player who made the illegal move ends up in a losing position, and then notices that he made an illegal move earlier, can he request for the game to be restored to the position prior to the illegal move being made? Can the opponent (who is now in a winning position, and who was not the player at fault) not agree to restoring the position, and request that the game be continued with the status quo? Otherwise, it seems to me that the illegal-move perpetrator gets a second chance in the game e.g. if you play an illegal move and notice it later, you can keep quiet if you are winning until the opponent objects - but if you are then losing, you can ask for the game to be restored to the move prior to the illegal move. Seems a bit unfair for the opponent if he is already in a winning position and has to re-play the game?

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2009, 03:17 PM
If the player who made the illegal move ends up in a losing position, and then notices that he made an illegal move earlier, can he request for the game to be restored to the position prior to the illegal move being made? Can the opponent (who is now in a winning position, and who was not the player at fault) not agree to restoring the position, and request that the game be continued with the status quo? Otherwise, it seems to me that the illegal-move perpetrator gets a second chance in the game e.g. if you play an illegal move and notice it later, you can keep quiet if you are winning until the opponent objects — but if you are then losing, you can ask for the game to be restored to the move prior to the illegal move. Seems a bit unfair for the opponent if he is already in a winning position and has to re-play the game?
No need to speculate. Such a request must be granted, but the opponent is given extra time. The Laws (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article)are very clear:


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 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

b. After the action taken under Article 7.4(a), for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player.

BearDrinkingBeer
16-04-2009, 06:07 PM
If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity.
Does this mean that the person who did not play the illegal move can choose to play on and see how the game goes, and if he does end up in a losing position he can ask to go back to the position where the illegal move was made (This is assuming the the illegal move wasn't devastating, for example, winning a queen)?

Denis_Jessop
16-04-2009, 09:16 PM
Does this mean that the person who did not play the illegal move can choose to play on and see how the game goes, and if he does end up in a losing position he can ask to go back to the position where the illegal move was made (This is assuming the the illegal move wasn't devastating, for example, winning a queen)?

Unless the arbiter sees the illlegal move being played or otherwise knows of the illegal move, it must be claimed by one of the players. There is no obligation on a player to claim an illegal move and if he is in a winning position (for example) he can just play on. The position is as Jono described it. One might think that it would be unfair in the case put by Elmochess for a player apparently to profit from his own wrongdoing but an answer to that is that, but for the illegal move, the other player's winning advantage may not have arisen. In any case the rules (quoted by Jono) are clear on what happens if during the game it is found that an illegal move has been completed.

DJ

Taigastyle
16-04-2009, 11:54 PM
habbit

Fair enough...

Edit: lol I did it too

anyway to make this not pointless spam Ill try and post something constructive.

In my opinion if neither player notices an illegal move, keep playing.

Especially when the standard of play is expected to be so high, it should not be a problem in the first place. Sure it can slip the mind, but rewinding a game is too much of a hastle.

Javier Gil
17-04-2009, 10:44 AM
Actually under the FIDE laws the arbiters have no choice.

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



Yes, ok, you're right about 5.1b.
But I think the ethics of the sport of chess are above what is written in a book of rules. It is not the first time that an arbiter changes a result. Think for example about the number of scoresheets which are signed by both players where they write 1-0 instead of 0-1. It happens a lot. They have no trouble changing that, do they? And you yourself mention another example where a player had resigned but later that decission was overruled.
I think the arbiters should at least have contemplated the possibility of asking the players involved.
A critical question here is, was Sarah happy with that result once she was told what had happened? because, and correct me again if I'm wrong, I think most players wouldn't want to win a game like that. And if she too wasn't happy about it, and say, offered to either have the game declared a draw or resign it, would the arbiters object to this also?
It'd be interesting to know what she did when it was found what had really happened...




In a recent Croydon tournament (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=237032) there was a resignation following an illegal move and the players decided to agree a draw when this was pointed out. However had the players not agreed the arbiter would probably have ruled the resignation stood.



Ok, but at least they were offered that opportunity here!



Of course if the arbiter believes the illegal move was deliberate (and hence cheating) they are well within their powers to overrule the resignation and take appropriate action against the cheating player.

I don't think this is a valid point. Intentions are incredibly hard to judge, (sometimes it takes months in court!), so let's stick to facts. She made an illegal move, that's a fact. She probably didn't mean to, but someone was punished for the illegal move that she made and it wasn't her. FACT.

I guess you can call it "Collateral damages", with the consent of a bad arbiter.

Duff McKagan
17-04-2009, 11:29 AM
Excuse me, but the arbiter's are not 'bad'. They are following the rules. And as Jono has pointed out in the past, resignation ends the game. Contest the rules, not the arbiters please.



I don't think this is a valid point. Intentions are incredibly hard to judge, (sometimes it takes months in court!), so let's stick to facts. She made an illegal move, that's a fact. She probably didn't mean to, but someone was punished for the illegal move that she made and it wasn't her. FACT.

I guess you can call it "Collateral damages", with the consent of a bad arbiter.

Davidflude
17-04-2009, 11:35 AM
If someone makes a habit of making illegal moves could the victim ask the arbiter to expell the person who played the move from the tournament.

Garvinator
17-04-2009, 12:11 PM
If someone makes a habit of making illegal moves could the victim ask the arbiter to expell the person who played the move from the tournament.
The victim can ask, whether the arbiter would do it or not is a different story.

Javier Gil
17-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Excuse me, but the arbiter's are not 'bad'. They are following the rules. And as Jono has pointed out in the past, resignation ends the game. Contest the rules, not the arbiters please.

Excuse me, you tell your children what to do, not me. :)
I have my own opinion, and I'm expressing it. ;)
A book of rules can never cover all the possible circumstances. Thus, a good arbiter, when confronted with a situation like this, has to ask himself/herself: is it reasonable to win a game like this? Obviously, this was not the case here, and that's why I don't think that whoever the arbiter was is a good arbiter.
You have your own opinion, I have mine. ;)

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2009, 12:35 PM
Yes, ok, you're right about 5.1b.
But I think the ethics of the sport of chess are above what is written in a book of rules. It is not the first time that an arbiter changes a result. Think for example about the number of scoresheets which are signed by both players where they write 1-0 instead of 0-1. It happens a lot.

The Laws explicitly allow the arbiter to declare a result at variance with that signed on the scoresheets. "Even if incorrect, this result shall stand unless the arbiter decides otherwise." So the arbiter changing a result in that case is not above what is written by the rules but clearly within them.


They have no trouble changing that, do they? And you yourself mention another example where a player had resigned but later that decission was overruled.

Yes but only because the players both agreed that the result be a draw. (In fact, in that case both players had resigned!)


I think the arbiters should at least have contemplated the possibility of asking the players involved.
A critical question here is, was Sarah happy with that result once she was told what had happened? because, and correct me again if I'm wrong, I think most players wouldn't want to win a game like that. And if she too wasn't happy about it, and say, offered to either have the game declared a draw or resign it, would the arbiters object to this also?
It'd be interesting to know what she did when it was found what had really happened...

Well, we don't know any of these details at all so all this is completely hypothetical. We don't even know when the arbiters were informed of the illegal move, or even if they were informed of it at all while the round was in progress. We don't know when Sarah became aware of the illegal move or even if she is aware of it now (although I suspect she would be) or what her reaction was. According to AR's report "It wasn't until much later that Paul himself realised the mistake."

I agree that when the situation has only just arisen it is OK for the arbiters, along the lines of your suggestion, to drop hints that if the players want to respond to the situation by agreeing a draw, then that will be accepted. Some arbiters will do this kind of thing and some will not and it's a matter of arbiting style. But that applies when the situation arises freshly. I wouldn't go chasing it up hours later.


Ok, but at least they were offered that opportunity here!

Again, a difference is that in the Croydon case the arbiter was aware of the situation more or less immediately whereas in the SIO case it appears unlikely that the arbiters knew until a long time after the game. An arbiter watching the game would have jumped in and corrected it immediately before Paul could resign.


I don't think this is a valid point. Intentions are incredibly hard to judge, (sometimes it takes months in court!), so let's stick to facts. She made an illegal move, that's a fact. She probably didn't mean to, but someone was punished for the illegal move that she made and it wasn't her. FACT.

He was only punished because he resigned instead of realising the move was illegal, stopping the clock and claiming his two extra minutes. FACT. :lol:

As for intentions, arbiters are not bound by the beyond-reasonable-doubt standards of a court of criminal law so the fact that intentions are hard to prove in court (while true) is not relevant. Arbiters need to make on-the-spot judgements about likely intention frequently, for instance in applying the touchmove rule which explicitly refers to intention.


If someone makes a habit of making illegal moves could the victim ask the arbiter to expell the person who played the move from the tournament.

Well, if someone makes three illegal moves against you in one game you can simply claim a win. And yes, a serial illegal-move-maker across multiple games could indeed be expelled from a tournament although an arbiter would only consider this if it was clear to them that the illegal moves were deliberate.

ElmirGuseinov
18-04-2009, 10:05 AM
Umm...I don't get how an experienced chess player can make such a move


Looks like both players were very tired...
Absurd though...

By the way,I know some GM examples, when one of the opponents made castling even after K moved earlier in the game..That was noticed 20 moves after, but the game continued..once was Korchnoi-Kindermann,I think.

Kaitlin
18-04-2009, 10:21 AM
(this time I have read what the thread is about.. unlike my last post here)

I think..

the rule should just be..

Any player having made an illegal move will be deemed to have lost the game as soon as it is discovered - pairings, prizes ect already offically announced will still stand

MichaelBaron
19-04-2009, 11:34 AM
As i know Sarah well, I believe that:
1) it was an accident, she clearly did not do it on purpose! It was a genuine mistake by both players.
2) I can recall accidently playing an illegal move about 12 years ago, luckily that time - my opponent noticed it and the game continued in a proper way, but i can assure everyone that yes- accidents do happen!

ER
19-04-2009, 12:59 PM
As i know Sarah well, I believe that:
1) it was an accident, she clearly did not do it on purpose!...
Michael, I don't think anyone posting here doubted Sarah's honesty! The point of discussion here is the related rules and their implementation!

Garrett
19-04-2009, 09:59 PM
As i know Sarah well, I believe that:
1) it was an accident, she clearly did not do it on purpose! It was a genuine mistake by both players.


Yes, I happened to walk past the board just as the illegal move had been played.

The expression their faces left me with no doubt that it was a genuine mistake by both players.

Cheers
Garrett.

paulb
20-04-2009, 12:11 AM
The interesting thing about this incident is that it shows that even resigning can be a blunder ... up till now, I'd been labouring under the delusion that I'd already made all the really stupid moves and there was nothing more to unlearn ... :)

To explain the incident: we'd had a tough, interesting game and were moving very quickly. I had a couple of minutes, she had considerably less - just seconds, I think. When she played the final move, all I felt was that all-too-familiar sinking feeling that, yet again, I'd walked into a deadly fork, mixed with the urge to start laughing hysterically. It didn't even enter my head that an illegal move had been played - after all, Sarah was clearly quite a good player. There's no point in getting snarky in such situations, so I simply congratulated my delighted opponent, smiled about the absurdity of it all, and went off for a nice lunch.

(Incidentally, before this tournament I had decided to change my mental approach - to finally accept* the fact that my rating is 2000-something and not 4000-something and that I would almost certainly lose games in this event and that I shouldn't get really deeply depressed about losses, as I have always done in the past, despite their ever increasing frequency. So I was ready to be philosophical about it all. I've finally learnt how to lose graciously!)

After lunch I took a stroll and started pondering the game in my head. I was fuzzy on the details and couldn't work out how the knight had got to d7. So when I got back to the tournament hall I pulled out the score sheet, realised an illegal move had been played, and asked a couple of arbiters what the rules were. They were both adamant that resignation was final and the result would stand. My main reaction was amusement.

I have no problem with the rule.Thanks to my Dutch origins, I like clarity and practicality, and I prefer hard rules to relying on an arbiter's discretion.

Suppose the rule was that illegal moves negate resignations. This would create a lot of practical problems, because the results of games could be overturned at any moment ... including five minutes before the next round. The result would be long delays.

I should also say that my opponent acted completely honourably. She clearly had no idea that an illegal move had been played. And even if she had, any protests on her part would have been in vain, because the rule is that resignation is final. I've had my fair share of good luck in tournaments and this was just a bit of bad luck.

(And I've tried to play illegal moves myself. Against Chapman in the Australian Open this year, I played a Najdorf and he threw about 27 piece sacrifices at me, until my king was as naked as a Paris Hilton home video. I thought I could get out of it all by castling in the line of fire, but he eventually pointed out that this wasn't possible.)

* I split my infinitives. They sound better that way.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2009, 12:24 AM
Michael, I don't think anyone posting here doubted Sarah's honesty!
After PaulB's post above, there can be no doubt. PaulB likewised acted honorably and sportingly.

Basil
20-04-2009, 12:34 AM
Good post, Paul. Works on many levels!

Phil Bourke
20-04-2009, 04:57 AM
Congats PaulB on your excellent composure and behaviour in an extremely difficult situation!
I doubt that many, myself included, could have acted in the same manner.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2009, 10:53 AM
A book of rules can never cover all the possible circumstances.
Indeed not, but these circumstances are covered.


Thus, a good arbiter, when confronted with a situation like this, has to ask himself/herself: is it reasonable to win a game like this? Obviously, this was not the case here,
Not so obvious, when the rule states that resignation ends the game.


and that's why I don't think that whoever the arbiter was is a good arbiter.
I think he was, as does the loser in this instance too, as shown above! I also agree with him on the following:


I like clarity and practicality, and I prefer hard rules to relying on an arbiter's discretion.

That way, everyone is in the same boat, and knows in advance where he stands and what he is permitted and forbidden to do.

The rule about illegal moves begins “If during a game …”, which indicates that it's too late once the game is over.

Rincewind
20-04-2009, 01:41 PM
Most people seem to agree with the arbiter on this one. :clap:

Should we add a poll or perhaps is someone is motivated enough a new thread with a poll could be started.

fritz
20-04-2009, 03:22 PM
I find it incredible that both players did not see this.

Sure, I can understand a player leaving his king in check and neither player noticing it in a blitz game, but this is ridiculous.

How could you ever prove that one player was cheating ? The answer is: you could'nt.

Rincewind
20-04-2009, 03:54 PM
I find it incredible that both players did not see this.

Sure, I can understand a player leaving his king in check and neither player noticing it in a blitz game, but this is ridiculous.

As Paul said it was at the end of a tough game and both players were running short on time, the person who made the illegal move, particularly so. So to all intents and purposes it was blitz conditions and both players were not fresh.


How could you ever prove that one player was cheating ? The answer is: you could'nt.

No but for this to be any use from a cheating point of view you would have a player who often made an illegal move in a hopeless position to try and salvage the game. Most of the time such attempts would be detected by their opponent and/or an arbiter. If such behaviour was to become a trend then the offending player would come to the attention of the arbiter and possibly/eventually they would be reported to the governance body's disciplinary committee.

In the first instance I believe the arbiter has quite a lot of scope to deal with such problematic behaviour under the laws of chess regarding distraction and disrepute.

fritz
20-04-2009, 04:24 PM
As Paul said it was at the end of a tough game and both players were running short on time, the person who made the illegal move, particularly so. So to all intents and purposes it was blitz conditions and both players were not fresh.



No but for this to be any use from a cheating point of view you would have a player who often made an illegal move in a hopeless position to try and salvage the game. Most of the time such attempts would be detected by their opponent and/or an arbiter. If such behaviour was to become a trend then the offending player would come to the attention of the arbiter and possibly/eventually they would be reported to the governance body's disciplinary committee.

In the first instance I believe the arbiter has quite a lot of scope to deal with such problematic behaviour under the laws of chess regarding distraction and disrepute.

C'mon, this situation for players rated above 2000 ?

Ok, I can understand these things happening for say players rated U1500 or novices or juniors but not for players at this level.
(and there's no excuse whether it is in blitz conditions or not)

Rincewind
20-04-2009, 04:48 PM
C'mon, this situation for players rated above 2000 ?

But it did occur and several other players have shared similar recollections. Your lack of imagination is not something which needs to be addressed in this thread. Perhaps you never make a mistake, most people are afflicted by the occasional oversight, particularly when time is short.


Ok, I can understand these things happening for say players rated U1500 or novices or juniors but not for players at this level.
(and there's no excuse whether it is in blitz conditions or not)

Sorry, but you introduced the idea of blitz conditions as a mitigating factor, not me. When it is pointed out that this happened in effectively blitz conditions it is a bit disingenuous for you to change your story and now claim that blitz conditions would not be a mitigating factor.

Denis_Jessop
20-04-2009, 04:48 PM
C'mon, this situation for players rated above 2000 ?

Ok, I can understand these things happening for say players rated U1500 or novices or juniors but not for players at this level.
(and there's no excuse whether it is in blitz conditions or not)

Fritz, I don't know how much chess experience you have but the idea that strong players never make mistakes, which you imply, is quite wrong. The fact is that, especially in the past, this idea could grow up because great blunders by GMs were rarely reported. GMs have been blundering big time for years - even Tigran Petrosian (the world champion, I mean, not any other Petrosian) blundered away hie Queen on at least one occasion.*

Paul has given an entirely credible account of what happened and that really should be the end of the story.

* footnote: in the Candidate's Tournament, Amsterdam, 1956, in a winning position v Bronstein.

DJ

fritz
20-04-2009, 04:53 PM
Your lack of imagination is not something which needs to be addressed in this thread.

No need to be offensive. I'm simply expressing my point of view.

arosar
20-04-2009, 04:56 PM
I find it incredible that both players did not see this.

Sure, I can understand a player leaving his king in check and neither player noticing it in a blitz game, but this is ridiculous.

How could you ever prove that one player was cheating ? The answer is: you could'nt.

As ridiculous as these (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1008373)?

And note that this situation has none whatsoever to do with cheating. It was an honest error.

AR

Rincewind
20-04-2009, 05:01 PM
No need to be offensive. I'm simply expressing my point of view.

I meant no offense but basically you are say you cannot imagine it occurring. It did occur. Ergo...

Kevin Bonham
20-04-2009, 05:32 PM
C'mon, this situation for players rated above 2000 ?

Only one of them (the player who resigned) was rated above 2000.

In Zhao-Rujevic Mingara 2000, Zhao to play move 30 had a queen on h5 and captured Rujevic's pawn on b5 although he jumped over his own pawn on g5 to do it. Neither player noticed and the game continued. The arbiter (Shaun Press) noted that a spectator had seen the illegal move and mentioned it to him and that he dismissed the idea on the grounds that players of this level would not make such a mistake or if they did one of them would have noticed. Of course, Zhao was very young when this happened but he was already a strong player, coming =2nd in that event (Aus Championships).

It can happen at practically any level.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2009, 06:22 PM
* footnote: in the Candidate's Tournament, Amsterdam, 1956, in a winning position v Bronstein.
This game (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1033916).

paulb
20-04-2009, 08:52 PM
In defence of Fritz, I can't believe I missed it either ... I'll think twice about resigning in future!

Vlad
20-04-2009, 11:37 PM
I had a similar experience in the Australian Juniors 2 years ago. There was a lightning tournament for juniors and some people decided to organize a lightning tournament for coaches.

It is already the final round, I have 100% so far, but I still need at least a draw to win the tournament. In the last round I am playing Ken Xie, who is about 2100 player. In addition to playing I am making sure that Anton, who was just 5 at that time, finds his board and reports his result, so a part of my brain was busy with that. My position is winning, I have about 1 minute, my opponent around 30 seconds. We started playing very quickly. At some moment he takes my pawn with a queen on b6. I only noticed that he touched my pawn, I presumed that the queen landed on the same square. I make a couple checks and make some other move. Suddenly I look at the position and see that my King is on e5 while his queen is on b5, which means I have just made an illegal move. I am very surprised but I do not see any explanaition, so I just congratulate the opponent. Then about 2 minutes later I realized what happened.

Ok, I did not get the prize which was about 20 $, that was not a big deal. What I did not like in that story was the reaction of the opponent when somebody else told him about what happened. He said that because I am higher rated I should have noticed it and so it was my fault. If I did accidentally something like that to a GM, the minimum I would do is to say sorry. Then I would talk to a person and offer either replay the game or resign it myself.

Spiny Norman
21-04-2009, 05:57 AM
How about each of us makes a personal rule:

The Rule: When my queen is captured due to an apparent blunder, I will first check my scoresheet to determine which square the capturing piece has moved from and whether that move is a legal move.

Not that I have recently lost a queen to a blunder, but maybe that's because my opponent's haven't made any illegal moves? Its fairly easy to look back through the scoresheet to see where the capturing (or forking) piece has come from, as its last destination square should be recorded (and if it was a capture, then track back your own piece, etc).

Ian Rout
21-04-2009, 10:23 AM
The Rule: When my queen is captured due to an apparent blunder, I will first check my scoresheet to determine which square the capturing piece has moved from and whether that move is a legal move.
This probably won't happen again for a while since people will recall the incident and follow the above advice.

The reference to checking the scoresheet raises a point which I don't think has been mentioned before and perhaps is part of the answer to observations along the lines of "good players wouldn't miss this, even in blitz". The players, while playing quickly, weren't actually playing blitz, with the implication that what they were doing was easier. But in fact at 30s increment it's compulsory to record moves so the player has to constantly move their vision between the board and the scoresheet. Thus in blitz you would see the move Nf5-d7; in this game Paul very likely just looked up to see the Knight on d7, not the move itself.

Javier Gil
22-04-2009, 02:31 PM
After Paul's explanations, I agree that my comments were "a little hasty". :oops:

Having said that, the thought that an illegal move loses in blitz, but can win in a STC game is still bewildering.

I guess this is what you get when you ask a group of people to play chess 12 hours a day, several days in a row. :hmm:

Rincewind
22-04-2009, 02:51 PM
Having said that, the thought that an illegal move loses in blitz, but can win in a STC game is still bewildering.

You can still win a blitz game with an illegal move. If the scenario in question was to occur in blitz the ruling would be the same.

Even if Paul had noticed the illegality immediately after his resignation, it would be too late. To make a claim for a win, Paul would need to make the claim before the end of the game. This is one reason that rules which state that checkmate immediately end a game must include the caveat that the move producing the checkmate is legal.

The main difference between blitz and classical (illegal move-wise) is that you do not immediately lose a game if you make an illegal move in a classical time control game.

Javier Gil
22-04-2009, 06:48 PM
No, you got it wrong this time, Rincewind. :)
An illegal move does lose in blitz (according to the RULES, although it needs to be claimed) whereas, according to the rules, it can win the game in a slow game, as it has been demonstrated. :)

In my opinion, if Paul had claimed right after the game that his opponent had made an illegal move and the arbiter had done nothing about it, then I don't think he's a good arbiter, but I agree that this is just a personal opinion. :)

Bill Gletsos
22-04-2009, 06:53 PM
No, you got it wrong this time, Rincewind. :)
An illegal move does lose in blitz (according to the RULES, although it needs to be claimed) whereas, according to the rules, it can win the game in a slow game, as it has been demonstrated.However in the case in point if it had been a blitz game then Paul still would have lost as he resigned instead of claiming the illegal move.

In my opinion, if Paul had claimed right after the game that his opponent had made an illegal move and the arbiter had done nothing about it, then I don't think he's a good arbiter, but I agree that this is just a personal opinion. :)Then in my opinion we can be thankful you were not the arbiter. :hand:

Even if Paul had claimed right after the game that his opponent had made an illegal move it is immaterial as Paul had already resigned and resignation immediately ends the game.

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2009, 07:30 PM
No, you got it wrong this time, Rincewind. :)
An illegal move does lose in blitz (according to the RULES, although it needs to be claimed) whereas, according to the rules, it can win the game in a slow game, as it has been demonstrated. :)

But it can also win in blitz if the opponent fails to realise it is illegal and responds by resigning, which is exactly what happened in the SIO.

I know that you can lose a blitz game in exactly the same way as Paul lost his game in the SIO because I have personally done it in a state blitz championship (as already mentioned on this thread). I don't see how Rincewind is wrong.

Javier Gil
22-04-2009, 11:29 PM
Then in my opinion we can be thankful you were not the arbiter. :hand:


"We" ? :D Bill, you can tackle me on your own, you're good enough. :)

I happen to think that an arbiter is much more than someone who simply robotically repeats what is written in a handbook. Tournament organisers wouldn't need to pay hundreds of dollars to an arbiter if it were that easy.
I think the role of an arbiter is much more important than that and this role involves protecting the essence of what's fair in chess.
To apply standard rules to exceptional circumstances is a bit absurd. No book can cover all exceptional circumstances.
Since it is presumed that all arbiters know all the FIDE laws of chess and the tournaments rules, we have to use other means to measure how good an arbiter is, because if we didn't, they'd all be the same, and that's not the case.
We all have our own way of judging how good an arbiter is.



But it can also win in blitz if the opponent fails to realise it is illegal and responds by resigning, which is exactly what happened in the SIO.


Sure, who's saying the opposite? :D

All I said was that an illegal move does lose in blitz (if the opponent claims) but an illegal move does not only not lose in stc chess, but it can even win!
Whether other hypothetical statements that you come up with are true or not, does not make this one a lie, does it? :hmm:

There you go then! ;)

Garvinator
23-04-2009, 12:14 AM
Javier,

Under your definition, at what point is a game concluded?

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2009, 01:24 AM
I happen to think that an arbiter is much more than someone who simply robotically repeats what is written in a handbook. Tournament organisers wouldn't need to pay hundreds of dollars to an arbiter if it were that easy.

It's not primarily how easy or hard it is that is the reason the (modest) amounts of money available to arbiters are paid. It's that someone who knows all the rules (and even those are few and far between) has to spend the whole day standing around keeping an eye on what is going on without even playing in the tournament.


I think the role of an arbiter is much more important than that and this role involves protecting the essence of what's fair in chess.
To apply standard rules to exceptional circumstances is a bit absurd. No book can cover all exceptional circumstances.

Indeed and the preface refers specifically to cases that are "not precisely regulated". This is not always helpful, since the Laws are not clear on how to recognise such a case and at what point a situation becomes "exceptional" enough to do so. But what's imprecise about "The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game."? Not even an "unless the arbiter decides otherwise" in that one.

My view on this one is:

* It can at least be argued that this case is precisely regulated since the Laws clearly state that a resignation immediately ends the game.
* It is therefore not clear that this case is not precisely regulated.
* It is therefore reasonable for the arbiter to apply the Law as it is written to this case.
* It may also be reasonable for them to instead not apply it and to instead declare that the situation is not precisely regulated and they should do something else.

So at worst it is a subjective decision with more than one reasonable option.

When an arbiter has taken an option that is reasonable, I don't think it is fair to call that arbiter incompetent, even if you would have taken a different approach. Rather, if a decision you find inflexible is a reasonable reading of the Laws, then you should blame the Laws not the arbiters, and encourage FIDE to change them.

After all if FIDE thought this was an issue they could easily add "provided the move preceding the resignation was legal" to the resignation rules. But they have not done so, despite similar situations coming up before.

Gijssen in one of his columns even responded re a case where a player resigned after a clearly wrong touchmove decision by an arbiter and then wanted to appeal, and indicated that even if a player's resignation is sparked by a wrong decision it's too late - a player wishing to appeal should refuse to sign the scoresheets.

He said that the question of whether a player can appeal even after resigning should be discussed in Dresden. So it looks like arbiters were aware of these sorts of issues (resignation in irregular circumstances) but I don't believe anything has been changed.


All I said was that an illegal move does lose in blitz (if the opponent claims) but an illegal move does not only not lose in stc chess, but it can even win!
Whether other hypothetical statements that you come up with are true or not, does not make this one a lie, does it?

No, but I just don't find it a very useful comparison. You're comparing a player losing by illegal move in blitz to a player winning following an unclaimed illegal move at a standard time control. But you're changing two variables (whether there's a claim and what the time control is) at the same time, and in fact the variable that creates the possibility of a win is not the time control but whether or not the illegal move is claimed.

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2009, 09:51 AM
Javier,

Under your definition, at what point is a game concluded?
On could also ask, if JG were right, then what is the point of the "If during the game" clause in the article on illegal moves? This reinforces KB's contention that the situation was precisely regulated. PaulB himself agrees that the arbiters acted correctly!

Ian Rout
23-04-2009, 10:02 AM
I think that the arbiter does in fact robotically apply the rules most of the time. This ensures that there is somebody there to do it and that the rules are correctly applied, rather than have the players somehow negotiate disputes or somebody who doesn't know the rules stepping in and making something up.

Sometimes there are non-standard circumstances where the arbiter has to apply judgement on what is a fair decision, perhaps by considering analogous cases. But in standard circumstances such as an illegal move being made, as we know will occasionally happen, we want the identical decision to be made in identical circumstances. This is best achieved by having a precise boundary. It could be that an illegal move stands once the opponent has replied, or after the game has finished, or up to the start of the next round, etc. There are arguments for any of these, it happens that one of them is the rule and the others aren't.

In a less imperfect world there would be an arbiter watching every game and in a completely perfect world illegal moves wouldn't happen at all. This tournament was not played in a perfect world. In this case the rule gives an outcome which seems unfair but the reality is that there would be more unfairnesses if arbiters were to make up new rules on the fly in circumstances already covered.

Garvinator
23-04-2009, 12:18 PM
In large, important tournaments like the one mentioned, there is quite often an appeal committee. So if the arbiter was to 'go against the fide laws of chess', then a player could just appeal and the appeal would almost certainly be successful when the incident in question is precisely regulated by the laws of chess.

This also prevents an arbiter using their own judgement when situations are precisely regulated by the laws of chess.

Garvinator
23-04-2009, 12:22 PM
All I said was that an illegal move does lose in blitz (if the opponent claims) but an illegal move does not only not lose in stc chess, but it can even win!
Technical point here but I think an important one. The 'illegal' move did not win the game for Sarah. All it did was fork king and queen. Paul could have played on not realising the illegal move.

Would your argument be different if Paul had played on for another 20 or so moves, instead of resigning immediately?

Bill Gletsos
23-04-2009, 12:56 PM
"We" ? :D Bill, you can tackle me on your own, you're good enough. :)

I happen to think that an arbiter is much more than someone who simply robotically repeats what is written in a handbook. Tournament organisers wouldn't need to pay hundreds of dollars to an arbiter if it were that easy.
I think the role of an arbiter is much more important than that and this role involves protecting the essence of what's fair in chess.
To apply standard rules to exceptional circumstances is a bit absurd. No book can cover all exceptional circumstances.
Since it is presumed that all arbiters know all the FIDE laws of chess and the tournaments rules, we have to use other means to measure how good an arbiter is, because if we didn't, they'd all be the same, and that's not the case.
We all have our own way of judging how good an arbiter is.Sure we do and we would all hope an arbiter would use their discretion and best judgement in circumstances where the Laws of Chess permit it. However in the case in point, that was not possible as the FIDE Laws are quite clear that resignation immediately ends the game and no allowance is made in the laws for why the player resigned.

If the arbiter ignores clearly regulated situations then the arbiter would be in breach of Article 13.1 which states The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2009, 01:01 PM
On could also ask, if JG were right, then what is the point of the "If during the game" clause in the article on illegal moves? This reinforces KB's contention that the situation was precisely regulated.

Indeed. While I was equivocating about it a bit further up I am now going to say that in my view the situation was clearly precisely regulated. Despite the absence of definition of what "precisely regulated" means, I don't see how anyone can convincingly argue that this isn't covered.

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2009, 01:35 PM
If the arbiter ignores clearly regulated situations then the arbiter would be in breach of Article 13.1 which states The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.
That's a clincher.

So if an arbiter decided in the interest of “fairness” to call the game a draw or some such, the legal winner by resignation would have just cause for appeal or even legal action. A third player may even have standing to complain if he would win a higher prize if the resignation stood according to the Laws, but is deprived of this prize if this result were overturned in the name of “fairness”.

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2009, 08:41 PM
That's a clincher.

So if an arbiter decided in the interest of “fairness” to call the game a draw or some such, the legal winner by resignation would have just cause for appeal or even legal action.

If the arbiter declared a draw against the wish of the player who stood to win the game and the latter appealed I would throw out the arbiter's ruling on appeal. That said, there are some arbiters who like to bend the rules when they think "fairness" dictates it, aware that most players won't bother appealling and willing to be overruled if the player does.


A third player may even have standing to complain if he would win a higher prize if the resignation stood according to the Laws, but is deprived of this prize if this result were overturned in the name of “fairness”.

I can't actually remember a case of a third party appealling in this manner but I agree it's possible for a third party to be disadvantaged.

Saragossa
23-04-2009, 10:38 PM
Maybe they should insert something along the lines of 'Just use common logic and everything should be apples' they could word it alot more technically but something like this in the rules would solve alot of problems (probs create alot but hey ebb and flow).

Oepty
23-04-2009, 11:34 PM
If you as an arbiter were asked to rule or became aware of a situation like discussed in this thread where the illegal move had come to the players attention while the player were still at the board and both players wanted to continue the game would you allow them to continue?
Scott

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2009, 11:39 PM
If you as an arbiter were asked to rule or became aware of a situation like discussed in this thread where the illegal move had come to the players attention while the player were still at the board and both players wanted to continue the game would you allow them to continue?

At weak junior level this happens a lot and I generally will let it go if both players are clearly happy to continue.

In a serious tournament I've never come across it and I think I would insist it be fixed up.

[Edit: above answer was on false premise, see #71]

Oepty
23-04-2009, 11:42 PM
At weak junior level this happens a lot and I generally will let it go if both players are clearly happy to continue.

In a serious tournament I've never come across it and I think I would insist it be fixed up.

What be fixed up? Either the resignation stands or the players continue the game as though the illegal move had not been played.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2009, 11:56 PM
What be fixed up? Either the resignation stands or the players continue the game as though the illegal move had not been played.
Scott

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about a case where the players wanted to continue playing from a position after an illegal move without fixing up the illegal move (and without a resignation having happened.) I didn't pay attention to "a situation like discussed in this thread".

So your scenario is (correct me if I'm wrong):

* One player plays an illegal move
* The other resigns
* Both players then realise the move was illegal
* Upon realising this they prefer to cancel the resignation, rectify the illegal move, and continue the game
* They have reached this decision before the arbiter becomes aware of what has occurred.

Yes in that case I would let them continue even though it is against the strictest letter of the laws. It's sensible to not impose a solution that neither player actually wants in a case where doing so creates no inconvenience. It's not the same as the idea that the arbiter should try talking the players into agreeing to an alternative solution.

Rincewind
24-04-2009, 12:04 AM
Maybe they should insert something along the lines of 'Just use common logic and everything should be apples' they could word it alot more technically but something like this in the rules would solve alot of problems (probs create alot but hey ebb and flow).

The Rules already state something like this in the preface ...


The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.

However, when the rule specifically says how a situation should be interpreted, then the arbiters should enforce the rules. In the case of this thread the situation is precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws.

Javier Gil
24-04-2009, 03:35 AM
Technical point here but I think an important one. The 'illegal' move did not win the game for Sarah. All it did was fork king and queen. Paul could have played on not realising the illegal move.


Read it carefully:


All I said was that an illegal move does lose in blitz (if the opponent claims) but an illegal move does not only not lose in stc chess, but it can even win!

*CAN* ;)

Rincewind
24-04-2009, 08:28 AM
*CAN* ;)

You are not comparing apples with apples. An illegal move *CAN* also with a game in blitz. And in the situation described here the same illegal move would result in a win in both blitz and normal chess.

So what is the difference?

Javier Gil
24-04-2009, 10:55 AM
You are not comparing apples with apples. An illegal move *CAN* also with a game in blitz. And in the situation described here the same illegal move would result in a win in both blitz and normal chess.

So what is the difference?

What makes you think I am comparing anything? it is just a thought about something which is true. ;)
Because it is true!

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2009, 11:26 AM
So your scenario is (correct me if I'm wrong):

* One player plays an illegal move
* The other resigns
* Both players then realise the move was illegal
* Upon realising this they prefer to cancel the resignation, rectify the illegal move, and continue the game
* They have reached this decision before the arbiter becomes aware of what has occurred.

Yes in that case I would let them continue even though it is against the strictest letter of the laws. It's sensible to not impose a solution that neither player actually wants in a case where doing so creates no inconvenience. It's not the same as the idea that the arbiter should try talking the players into agreeing to an alternative solution.
But what if it does create inconvenience to a third party? E.g. A has 5/5 and is playing in the last round with B on 3.5, while C has 4/5. C's only chance to tie is for him to win and A to lose. Now B forks A's K+Q with an illegal N move, and A resigns. But then they notice it, and agree a draw after the game had already ended, and inform the arbiter of all this. So A wins the tourney with 5.5/6, while C won his game and comes second with 5/6. C has every right to complain about being deprived of a share of first place, since the game was lost by A according to the rules. And under Article 9, there is no provision for draw by agreement except during the game.

Rincewind
24-04-2009, 11:28 AM
What makes you think I am comparing anything?

Read what you said very carefully...


All I said was that an illegal move does lose in blitz (if the opponent claims) but an illegal move does not only not lose in stc chess, but it can even win!
(emphasis added)

From the juxtaposition of clauses and the use of "but" you are clearly making a comparison of a different handling of illegal moves in std chess and blitz.


it is just a thought about something which is true. ;)
Because it is true!

The following is also true...

You can win a blitz game with an illegal move but you can lose a std game with an illegal move.

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2009, 11:59 AM
But what if it does create inconvenience to a third party?

I'm not sure to what extent a third party has rights in these situations. As I mentioned before I'm not aware of a case where a third party has ever successfully appealled, although there may have been one (maybe something involving unplayed draws or something like that).

Scott's scenario wasn't that they agree a draw though. It was that they continue playing.

Actually I may have still misread what Scott was saying because I suggested that the illegal move should be cleaned up. In a serious (non-rapid/blitz and not involving weak juniors) game I would not allow the players to continue with an illegal move in the game record. The position before the illegal move must be reinstated whether the players want it to be or not.

Oepty
24-04-2009, 06:08 PM
I'm not sure to what extent a third party has rights in these situations. As I mentioned before I'm not aware of a case where a third party has ever successfully appealled, although there may have been one (maybe something involving unplayed draws or something like that).

Scott's scenario wasn't that they agree a draw though. It was that they continue playing.

Actually I may have still misread what Scott was saying because I suggested that the illegal move should be cleaned up. In a serious (non-rapid/blitz and not involving weak juniors) game I would not allow the players to continue with an illegal move in the game record. The position before the illegal move must be reinstated whether the players want it to be or not.

I meant that play continues from the position immediately before the illegal move. The illegal move cannot stand. I was assuming the arbiter was involved and had to make a decision before play continued and the players made the arbiter of all the facts accurately.

Seperately to my senario I think if the game is going to end without play continuing it must be with resignation standing. To allow a draw agreement I think is just a cop out and could be very unfair to other players as Jono points out.

Back to my senario, I really don't know what the right thing is do that is why I put it up. Please give me your views.
Scott

eclectic
24-04-2009, 06:46 PM
the player who made the illegal move would be required to make a legal move with the piece he moved or if he first touched the piece he captured with the illegal move then he would be required to use another piece to capture the same piece were this legally possible

Javier Gil
25-04-2009, 04:43 PM
From the juxtaposition of clauses and the use of "but" you are clearly making a comparison of a different handling of illegal moves in std chess and blitz.


No, that was not my intention. At least I didn't mean to compare them.
I used the conjuntion "but" to link both clauses, product of my observation.
I think that when we compare things, we list some of their features or qualities and we either make an assessment of leave the question open. For example, when we compare two laptops sold by dell.
If anything, I think my comment is more of a paradox.




The following is also true...
You can win a blitz game with an illegal move but you can lose a std game with an illegal move.

I'm sure that any other sentences that you come up with are either true or false, yes. :D but, I'm sorry to say, that doesn't change the fact that mine is true. ;)
You know, it's ok, let my opinion live in this small universe, don't kill it. I have no trouble with your truths. :)

Rincewind
25-04-2009, 04:57 PM
No, that was not my intention. At least I didn't mean to compare them.
I used the conjuntion "but" to link both clauses, product of my observation.
I think that when we compare things, we list some of their features or qualities and we either make an assessment of leave the question open. For example, when we compare two laptops sold by dell.
If anything, I think my comment is more of a paradox.

If you just wished to list two independent observation without comparison you would join them with an "and". The use of "but" is to say...

In blitz it is handled one way but in std chess it is handled another.

While this is true in the sense that illegal moves can cause one to lose the game on the spot, if claimed, it is not true in the sense your statement is implying.


I'm sure that any other sentences that you come up with are either true or false, yes. :D

This is not so, some of the sentences I come up with are nether true nor false. Either because they make no assertion or because the make an assertion to which a truth value cannot be validly assigned.


but, I'm sorry to say, that doesn't change the fact that mine is true. ;) You know, it's ok, let my opinion live in this small universe, don't kill it. I have no trouble with your truths. :)

This thread is about illegal moves in chess. If a player makes an illegal move which provokes a resignation from their opponent then the resignation stands. That is just the rules and is true for standard, rapid play and blitz chess.

I think we can move on now.

Javier Gil
26-04-2009, 12:47 AM
If you just wished to list two independent observation without comparison you would join them with an "and". The use of "but" is to say...

Not at all. :) I used "but" to highlight the paradox.
I'm sorry if you missunderstood it.


This is not so, some of the sentences I come up with are nether true nor false. Either because they make no assertion or because the make an assertion to which a truth value cannot be validly assigned.

Ok, some of yours are neither true nor false. Mine was true. :D


This thread is about illegal moves in chess. If a player makes an illegal move which provokes a resignation from their opponent then the resignation stands. That is just the rules and is true for standard, rapid play and blitz chess.

Yes, this thread is about illegal moves, but you seem to forget that we were talking about that sentence of mine. And yes, I too hope that we can move on! ;)