PDA

View Full Version : Interesting blitz ruling



firegoat7
10-11-2006, 12:15 AM
An arbiter is present.

Player A has 30 seconds left in a 5:0 game. Player B has 1 second.

However player A is facing a forced mate in 2. Neverthless, Player A decides to utilise a sneaky technique. Player A calls attention to the clock and asks the arbiter to observe very closely what is about to happen. Having previosly been blitzing the finish, Player A makes a move and attempts to press the clock very slowly (say 5 seconds). Meanwhile Player B, in their time pressure zeal, presses the clock first. Player A replies "you must allow me to press the clock" and immediately restarts Player Bs clock, who's flag then falls.

3 Questions:

Is Player A allowed to restart Player Bs clock?
Is Player B allowed to make a move before Player A has pressed the clock?
Can Player A claim a time penalty against Player B?

cheers FG7

P.S what would happen if it was mate in 1 and Player B had played mate on the board?

MichaelBaron
10-11-2006, 01:22 AM
I am not an experienced arbiter. So I do not know what the rule is in such a case. But generally, if you are doing something illegal (e.g. make an illegal move) your opponent may get some time added to his clock but you will not get time deducted. I guess this is a fair and logical solution:hmm:

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2006, 02:20 AM
Very interesting situation. My answers are (I expect some people to disagree as the rules are quite ambiguous) :


Is Player A allowed to restart Player Bs clock?

Not in this exact situation.


Is Player B allowed to make a move before Player A has pressed the clock?

Yes.


Can Player A claim a time penalty against Player B?

No. If anything time should be added to B's clock and the game continue.

The Laws do say a player should always be allowed to stop their own clock. So if A had made a move and then B had bashed out a reply instantly giving A not enough time to press the clock, A would be entitled to press the clock, B would repress, game would continue. Not that uncommon.

If one player either chooses not to, or forgets to, press their clock right after making their move, then in my view that player has been allowed to press the clock right after moving but has failed to do so.

Sounds like A is just trying to find a loophole in the rules to hustle a win that would not otherwise occur. I would give B extra time and continue the game.



P.S what would happen if it was mate in 1 and Player B had played mate on the board?

The mate stands because A had not made a valid claim of a win on time before the mate appeared on the board.

Desmond
10-11-2006, 07:39 AM
Someone is bound to open this can of worms, so it might as well be me :D

If B had made a 10.2 claim when the arbiter was called over, what would have been the ruling?

MichaelBaron
10-11-2006, 08:32 AM
So is it Legal to make a move before your opponent has pressed the clock?

Ian Rout
10-11-2006, 11:23 AM
I think the arbiter should rule that Player A is entitled to have his hand on or near the clock only for as long as is reasonably necessary to press it. Player B is entitled to be able to ascertain the point at which the clock is pressed, which is impeded if A has a hand on the button or lever longer than is needed for pressing it.

A is permitted to delay pressing the clock after making the move to attempt to procure the response described in the question, but is only permitted to have his hand in the vivinity of the clock when actually pressing it.

Of course cheating and gamesmanship are a significant part of speed chess, so it could be argued that it spoils the fun if the rules are enforced too rigorously.

arosar
10-11-2006, 11:49 AM
If B had made a 10.2 claim when the arbiter was called over, what would have been the ruling?

But it's G5, isn't it? I didn't think 10.2 applied.

AR

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2006, 11:57 AM
But it's G5, isn't it? I didn't think 10.2 applied.Correct, it doesnt apply in blitz.

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2006, 12:21 PM
So is it Legal to make a move before your opponent has pressed the clock?I explained this back in early 2004 but I'll repeat it as it probably well worth repeating. ;)

The following sequence is perfectly legal.
Player A pickups up a piece and moves it.
Player A releases the piece. Player A has not yet pressed his clock.
Now at the point that player A released his peice, it is entirely legal for Player B to touch one of his own pieces and start to move it.
Player B can in fact release his own piece prior to Player A still having touched the clock.
Now the critical point is even if Player B press's his clock prior to Player A having yet pressed his clock, Player A is entitled under Article 6.8 to always be allowed to stop his clock. Therefore if Player B presses his clock before Player A has, Player A can still stop his own clock and start player B's and Player B would then have to restart Player A's.
Note it is entirely illegal for Player B to not allow Player A to press his clock in the above sequence.


This whole thing comes down to FIDE's use of the words "completed", "move has been made", touched a piece", etc in various areas of the rules.


Thus the sequence of a move is:
1) A player touches a piece. Lets keep this simple and assume he touches one of his own pieces. A piece is considered touched when a player deliberately touches a piece with the intention of moving it.
2) The player then moves his piece to a square and releases the piece. The move is now considered to "have been made". Unless the move is illegal, the player can no longer retract or change his move.
3) If the move in 2) immediately ended the game under any section of Articles 5.1 or 5.2 then stopping the clock is irrelevant.
4) if the move did not end the game then the move is then considered to be complete when the player stops his clock. Note in Blitz it is not until this has occurred that a player can claim a win via illegal move.

Now the issue of when an opponent is able to reply to a players move is covered by the last sentence of Article 1.1 which states: "A player is said to 'have the move', when his opponent's move has been made.

Note the FIDE Rules commission deliberately changed Article 1.1 in the 2001 Laws to say "has been made". In the preceding rules (FIDE 1997) the wording was "has been completed".

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2006, 12:25 PM
I think the arbiter should rule that Player A is entitled to have his hand on or near the clock only for as long as is reasonably necessary to press it. Player B is entitled to be able to ascertain the point at which the clock is pressed, which is impeded if A has a hand on the button or lever longer than is needed for pressing it.

A is permitted to delay pressing the clock after making the move to attempt to procure the response described in the question, but is only permitted to have his hand in the vivinity of the clock when actually pressing it.

Of course cheating and gamesmanship are a significant part of speed chess, so it could be argued that it spoils the fun if the rules are enforced too rigorously.Article 6.8 b may well be relevant here:

A player must stop his clock with the same hand as that with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the button or to `hover` over it.

Desmond
10-11-2006, 12:53 PM
Correct, it doesnt apply in blitz.:doh:

antichrist
10-11-2006, 03:17 PM
Article 6.8 b may well be relevant here:

A player must stop his clock with the same hand as that with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the button or to `hover` over it.

What about when a player wants to display to the other player that he has made an illegal move (maybe not in blitz) so he keeps his finger on the button to prevent the other guy pushing it? He wants the correction done on the time of the erring player. I suppose he stops the clock instead?

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2006, 03:19 PM
What about when a player wants to display to the other player that he has made an illegal move (maybe not in blitz) so he keeps his finger on the button to prevent the other guy pushing it? He wants the correction done on the time of the erring player. I suppose he stops the clock instead?

He should stop the clock and get the arbiter to fix it. It is better to stop the clock because that way you can get your two penalty minutes!

antichrist
10-11-2006, 03:22 PM
He should stop the clock and get the arbiter to fix it. It is better to stop the clock because that way you can get your two penalty minutes! thanks very much.

firegoat7
11-11-2006, 08:42 AM
Lets just clarify this again.

Player A has made a move physically on the board, but has deliberately moved incredibly slow with their hand to press the clock (picture a slow mow motion). The time delay is in the movement from piece to clock.

Player B has then moved before Player A has pressed the clock. An illegal act in a game of chess.

In my opinion, Player B has deliberately breached the rules of chess, not A. At the very minimum player B should be forced to take their move back, in their own time, at the arbiters insistence!

Since, in blitz the move is not complete until you have pressed your clock, player B had no right to move, let alone press the clock- In fact it borders upon analysis. Therefore Player B should be rebuked by the arbiter, not A. First offence a warning, 2nd offence a time penalty.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
11-11-2006, 09:57 AM
Player B has then moved before Player A has pressed the clock. An illegal act in a game of chess.

It isn't illegal at all. It may seem like it should be but you will not find anything in the laws that says a player cannot move before the opponent has pressed the clock It is a player's turn to move once the opponent's move has been made (Art 1.1) which is not the same thing as "completed". Having made a move the obligation to start the clock is on the player who has moved. While the opponent is required to allow the player to press the clock after moving, this can and sometimes does happen after the opponent has replied.

Article 6.8a causes some confusion here because it says a move is not completed until the clock is pressed. However the purposes of that concept of "completion" are, for examples:

(i) A player, having made an illegal move, can still rectify it without penalty provided they have not pressed their clock (Art 7.4a).

(ii) To avoid losing on time a player has to not only make the required number of moves, but also complete them by pressing the clock, unless their final move has ended the game by checkmate, stalemate or dead position.

Bill Gletsos
11-11-2006, 10:37 AM
Lets just clarify this again.

Player A has made a move physically on the board, but has deliberately moved incredibly slow with their hand to press the clock (picture a slow mow motion). The time delay is in the movement from piece to clock.

Player B has then moved before Player A has pressed the clock. An illegal act in a game of chess.There is absolutely nothing illegal about it at all and B's behaviour is entirely legal and in accordance with the laws of chess as I explained in post #9.

In my opinion, Player B has deliberately breached the rules of chess, not A. At the very minimum player B should be forced to take their move back, in their own time, at the arbiters insistence!

Since, in blitz the move is not complete until you have pressed your clock, player B had no right to move, let alone press the clock- In fact it borders upon analysis. Therefore Player B should be rebuked by the arbiter, not A. First offence a warning, 2nd offence a time penaltyYou are incorrect as explained above.

antichrist
11-11-2006, 12:59 PM
As told before my best mate in the Ukrainian club and myself were playing in the Ukrainian blitz comp. I moved my piece without taking my hand off the piece, he saw mate next move (that I could not have avoided anyway), made his move and let go of the piece. I, then seeing the mate brought my piece back to a position to make his move illegal - then I declared that I won because he made an illegal move. He called me everything and then stormed out of the venue. No wonder I don't have friends. Is that a classic?

firegoat7
13-11-2006, 11:12 PM
It isn't illegal at all. It may seem like it should be but you will not find anything in the laws that says a player cannot move before the opponent has pressed the clock It is a player's turn to move once the opponent's move has been made (Art 1.1) which is not the same thing as "completed". Having made a move the obligation to start the clock is on the player who has moved. While the opponent is required to allow the player to press the clock after moving, this can and sometimes does happen after the opponent has replied.

Article 6.8a causes some confusion here because it says a move is not completed until the clock is pressed. However the purposes of that concept of "completion" are, for examples:

(i) A player, having made an illegal move, can still rectify it without penalty provided they have not pressed their clock (Art 7.4a).

(ii) To avoid losing on time a player has to not only make the required number of moves, but also complete them by pressing the clock, unless their final move has ended the game by checkmate, stalemate or dead position.


I am sorry but you are wrong in my opinion.




6.8

1.

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent`s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2)
The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent`s clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.


Therefore Player A has not completed their move until the clock has been pressed and Player B was never entitled to press their own clock.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
13-11-2006, 11:18 PM
There is absolutely nothing illegal about it at all and B's behaviour is entirely legal and in accordance with the laws of chess as I explained in post #9.
You are incorrect as explained above.

I don't believe that I am incorrect. I believe that you are incorrect. Fide is quite clear about the laws.




6.8

1.

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent`s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2)
The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent`s clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.


In my example, I said that player A took their time to press the clock. As Fide notes it is regarded as the players time, since the move has not been completed until the clock is pressed.. Therefore Player B is not allowed to press the clock twice in a row. Thats the point, to force them to break the laws with gamesmanship. In my opinion they most certainly ought to have to reset the board back to the position after Player A made their move, all in their own time!

Otherwise they are simply cheating.

cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2006, 11:23 PM
I've already mentioned the difference in the Laws between "made" and "completed".

4.6 "When, as a legal move, or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled ..." (Art 3 makes no reference to the clock.)

That plus Art 1.1 shows that once you play a legal move and remove your hand it is your opponent's turn to move and they don't have to wait for you to press the clock.

The confusion is FIDE's fault for using the word "completed" which misleads some people into thinking you can't move before the clock is pressed. In fact you do not have to wait, but they may still press after you have moved.

firegoat7
13-11-2006, 11:34 PM
I've already mentioned the difference in the Laws between "made" and "completed".

4.6 "When, as a legal move, or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled ..." (Art 3 makes no reference to the clock.)

That plus Art 1.1 shows that once you play a legal move and remove your hand it is your opponent's turn to move and they don't have to wait for you to press the clock.

The confusion is FIDE's fault for using the word "completed" which misleads some people into thinking you can't move before the clock is pressed. In fact you do not have to wait, but they may still press after you have moved.


I disagree with your interpretation. I have made my case. As an arbiter I would make a completely different ruling.


cheers Fg7

Garvinator
13-11-2006, 11:50 PM
I disagree with your interpretation. I have made my case. As an arbiter I would make a completely different ruling.


cheers Fg7
and you would be overturned on appeal everytime if you have a competent appeals committee.
I am sure Geurt Gijssen has commented on this previously. Bill might even be kind enough to be research assistant for this case ;)

firegoat7
14-11-2006, 01:32 AM
and you would be overturned on appeal everytime if you have a competent appeals committee.


With due respect GG I find your observation very debateable.




I am sure Geurt Gijssen has commented on this previously. Bill might even be kind enough to be research assistant for this case ;)

Well here are some links.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt31.pdf

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt63.pdf

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt63.pdf


Indeed there is some discussion and it is far from clear what the correct procedure is. I think Gijssen is simply wrong about certain points, but I agree with him on other points. I can accept that the opponent can make a move, but I don't accept that they can press the clock out of order. It seems that this issue is very controversial and arbiters do disagree over it. You must remember that simply allowing people to press the clocks out of order has all sorts of ramifications for time controls in long play (especially with set move time controls), also the only examples were not blitz games which may change the rulings. The points made about favored left and right hand sides make a lot of sense!

cheers
Fg7

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2006, 01:49 AM
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt31.pdf

In this case Denoumee (the questioner) and Gijssen both clearly agree that the difference between "made" and "completed" means a move can be played before the opponent has pressed the clock. Denoumee doesn't like it but both clearly agree that the Laws allow it.


http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt63.pdf

Again the questioner argues that the Laws permit a move to be played before the clock has been pressed, and doesn't like the fact that this is so. Gijssen equivocates a bit suggesting that moving before pressing is "not very fair" but ultimately agrees that it can happen and then says that if it does the Laws address it by allowing the opponent to always press the clock.


http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt63.pdf

Same link as above.

None of the arbiters you quote are saying that you can't move on the opponent's time. All are saying they don't approve of the practice (and some that they don't think it should be legal) but that it is nonetheless legal.


I can accept that the opponent can make a move, but I don't accept that they can press the clock out of order.

Not sure what you're saying here since if A makes a move on B's time, how could A press the clock out of order when B's clock is already running?

Suggestion: could people linking to pdfs of Gijssen's please name the questioner for the section they are referring to to make it easier to find? (Definitely not singling firegoat out here, many others have just given the PDF link without saying which example they're referring to.)

Denis_Jessop
14-11-2006, 12:11 PM
I can accept that the opponent can make a move, but I don't accept that they can press the clock out of order.

Doesn't this refer back to fg's post #1 where he is saying, as I read it, that the situation is that player A is pressing his clock but very slowly in an attempt to upset player B who has only 1 second left.

In such a case, I agree that A must be allowed to finish pressing his clock, that is, to the stage when A's clock stops, before B can press the clock. In other words, B cannot make a move in reply to A and press his clock as soon as the bar on a DGT clock, for example, starts to move but before that movement has stopped A's clock.

Were the case to be that A made a move but did not "complete" it by stopping his clock and, in the meantime, B had made a move that delivered checkmate, the game would end at the moment when B made his move and the actions with the clock would be irrelevant.

One point of the provision clearly is to establish that if a player's flag falls in the period between the player's making the move (Art. 4.6) and completing it by stopping the clock (Art. 6.8a), the player loses on time if the prescribed number of moves has not been made or if the whole game was to have been completed in the time that has expired.


Once again the drafting of the FIDE laws is not the best. The sentence about completion of a move that is in 6.8a really should either be a separate numbered paragraph in 6.8a or, better still, a separate provision, for example, 6.8b.


Incidentally, my remarks about the sentence in 6.8a apply also to the second sentence of 4.6. Both provisions are very important and are relatively hidden in the Laws.

DJ

Ian Rout
14-11-2006, 01:16 PM
I think I will stick with my earlier ruling that Player A is in breach by his manner of pressing the clock, which denied B access to the state of the clock; the specification that B's action's were "in ... time pressure zeal" (implying fault on B's side) is just push-polling.

This becomes clearer if we imagine that A had procured his objective by cupping his hand round the button and making pressing motions with his thumb so that B cannot tell when it is pressed, or had lightly swooped on the button without pressing while tapping the chair with his other hand to make a noise like a clock. In those cases A has done the same thing but in a more blatantly improper manner.

If however the circumstances were simply that B had rushed to move without waiting for A to press (a plausible scenario with 0:01 left) then all the other discussion becomes relevant.

Bill Gletsos
14-11-2006, 02:40 PM
I don't believe that I am incorrect. I believe that you are incorrect. Fide is quite clear about the laws.You can believe what you like. You are however wrong.

In my example, I said that player A took their time to press the clock. As Fide notes it is regarded as the players time, since the move has not been completed until the clock is pressed.. Therefore Player B is not allowed to press the clock twice in a row.Actually Player B pressing the clock prior to player A has no real effect as player B's clock was not running.

Thats the point, to force them to break the laws with gamesmanship.Player B isnt breaking the laws just because he presses before player B. in fact as noted above Player B's pressing has no real effect.

In my opinion they most certainly ought to have to reset the board back to the position after Player A made their move, all in their own time!

Otherwise they are simply cheating.They are not cheating at all.
Player B can move his pieces after Player A releases his piece and before player A presses the clock. Player B can press his own clock any time after player B releases his piece.
If however Player A has not yet pressed his clock before player B presses, player A is still permitted to press his clock.
In this circumstance Player B would then have to again press his clock to start players A's clock.

firegoat7
14-11-2006, 03:10 PM
If however the circumstances were simply that B had rushed to move without waiting for A to press (a plausible scenario with 0:01 left) then all the other discussion becomes relevant.

Ian,

I have used this technique. I make a move in a blitz finish, normally my moves are about half a second with my opponent replying at the same rate. But I noticed that if I paused and moved my piece then slowed down the time it took to press the clock, to say for arguments sake 5 second, that my opponent always pressed the clock before I got to press mine, and that when I insisted that they must allow me to press the clock they would inevitably say they have already moved and attempt to hold down the time.

Now it is clear that a player must be allowed to press the clock to complete the move. I just thought it was an interesting point that shows a flaw in the Fide rules.

In my opinion, if Fide had really thought about the rule in relation to Blitz, they would allow player B to pre-move a piece, but not take their hands off it until the opponent has pressed the clock.That to me would seem fair.

Their current policy allows a sort of clock denial to occur, which lacks common sense.

cheers Fg7

firegoat7
14-11-2006, 03:26 PM
You can believe what you like. You are however wrong.

I may well be wrong, hopefully your argument will convince me.




Actually Player B pressing the clock prior to player A has no real effect as player B's clock was not running.
It is illegal to touch the clock during a game when you are not moving. Is this true or false?



Player B isnt breaking the laws just because he presses before player B. in fact as noted above Player B's pressing has no real effect.
First, let us establish whether Player B is allowed to touch the clock at all when its not their turn. Ok



They are not cheating at all.


Lets investigate your reasons why they are not cheating.



Player B can move his pieces after Player A releases his piece and before player A presses the clock. Player B can press his own clock any time after player B releases his piece.


Yes, this seems to be the rule, and its a very odd one at that. Why should they be allowed to touch their clock at all? Why should they be allowed release their piece before Player A has completed their move? Could an illegal move be enforced in such a circumstance, by either player? How would Player A enforce it? How would player B enforce it? How would the arbiter know who is at fault? I suspect that this is how the sneaky mate on the board over clock time sometimes sneaks in as well.

For me this rule is absurd. That is my opinion, can you think of a reason why it it justified?



If however Player A has not yet pressed his clock before player B presses, player A is still permitted to press his clock.
In this circumstance Player B would then have to again press his clock to start players A's clock.

Yes we understand this you said it all before.



Anyway. I want naming rights for this idea.

The Beaumont blitz rule says this.

When pre-moving you should not be allowed to release your moved piece until your opponent has pressed the clock. That would be fair and it would prevent a ruining of the spirit of the laws of chess. Who will bring it up at the Fide congress for me? AC r u there..........

cheers Fg7