PDA

View Full Version : Illegal move discovered late



themovingman
16-01-2008, 10:57 AM
What would the situation be - players somehow discover an illegal move was made very early on - say at move 43 it was discovered (game still going of course) white's 21st move illegal.

But say it was at a weekender, the third round of day one (ie one more rouind due to go that day), game (with increments) has been going till [say] ten minutes before the next scheduled round.

what is the procedure chaps ?

CameronD
16-01-2008, 12:21 PM
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

During a tournament game at Redcliffe, the clock stopped operating, thankfully zi roughly knew the time remaining and the opponent agreed, otherwise the arbiter wouldn't have a clue what to set the clocks. I'm considering recording the time each 5 moves in future.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2008, 07:52 PM
Normally the arbiter should restore the times to about where they would have been at the time the illegal move occurred.

If that is going to seriously and unacceptably delay the start of the next round then one option would be to pair the players for the next round on an assumed score and allow their next round games to be delayed until they had finished, while the other players would start the next round on time. Early in the tournament any error in the assumed score would be unlikely to affect the outcome; late in the tournament such a practice should not be followed if prizes are capable of being affected.

An alternative is to simply go back to the position where the illegal move happened and reduce the time of both players (from what it was estimated to be at the time of the illegal move) proportionally to fit the session. If this is going to turn a 5-hour game into a blitz-out then perhaps this is best avoided too.

There is no fixed procedure for this situation because it is a very unusual one - typically an illegal move that is not noticed within a few moves will not be noticed until after the game. Given that it is an unusual situation, the arbiter would have wide discretion in finding the best solution given all the circumstances.

Denis_Jessop
16-01-2008, 09:22 PM
Normally the arbiter should restore the times to about where they would have been at the time the illegal move occurred.

If that is going to seriously and unacceptably delay the start of the next round then one option would be to pair the players for the next round on an assumed score and allow their next round games to be delayed until they had finished, while the other players would start the next round on time. Early in the tournament any error in the assumed score would be unlikely to affect the outcome; late in the tournament such a practice should not be followed if prizes are capable of being affected.

An alternative is to simply go back to the position where the illegal move happened and reduce the time of both players (from what it was estimated to be at the time of the illegal move) proportionally to fit the session. If this is going to turn a 5-hour game into a blitz-out then perhaps this is best avoided too.

There is no fixed procedure for this situation because it is a very unusual one - typically an illegal move that is not noticed within a few moves will not be noticed until after the game. Given that it is an unusual situation, the arbiter would have wide discretion in finding the best solution given all the circumstances.

I had a funny example of delayed discovery a few years ago as arbiter in an ACT Championship when a spectator told me that a player had made an illegal N move. I had a look at the game and there were no Ns on the board so I said I would do nothing partly because no player had complained and the spectator shouldn't have interfered anyway. Then the player whose opponent was alleged to have made the illegal move complained to me. On examination it was discovered that many moves before both players had recorded a N move of 2 squares diagonally but neither player had noticed it at the time - neither was in time trouble. I reinstated the position to that immediately before the illegal move and applied the KB alternative rule regarding time. As it happened that was academic as the player having to move his N had no good square for it and lost quickly in a few moves.

DJ

Basil
16-01-2008, 09:39 PM
I had a funny example of delayed discovery a few years ago...
I think the idea of this thread relates to late discoveries during the game :eek:

CameronD
16-01-2008, 09:41 PM
I had a funny example of delayed discovery a few years ago as arbiter in an ACT Championship when a spectator told me that a player had made an illegal N move. I had a look at the game and there were no Ns on the board so I said I would do nothing partly because no player had complained and the spectator shouldn't have interfered anyway. Then the player whose opponent was alleged to have made the illegal move complained to me. On examination it was discovered that many moves before both players had recorded a N move of 2 squares diagonally but neither player had noticed it at the time - neither was in time trouble. I reinstated the position to that immediately before the illegal move and applied the KB alternative rule regarding time. As it happened that was academic as the player having to move his N had no good square for it and lost quickly in a few moves.

DJ


I guess an unsporting player could keep playing knowing that they could go back if they were about to lose.

mayonnaise
17-01-2008, 02:46 AM
I heard that in one tournament a Queen made a capture thru a piece or made a knight jump or something while both players were in time trouble and the opponent did not pick up on it, and the onus was on the opponent right then and there, so the move stayed and in the post game notation, the move was given three exclamation marks

Ian Rout
17-01-2008, 08:18 AM
the onus was on the opponent right then and there,
This would only be the case if it was a rapid game, which seems unlikely if the game was being recorded. It may well be though that the move was only discovered after the game was completed.



no player had complained and the spectator shouldn't have interfered anyway.
Surely this is not interfering. Interfering would be leaping in and speaking to the players. Pointing out something which the arbiter should in principle be aware of, but in practice misses through being unable to be everywhere, is perfectly reasonable. Of course the arbiter has to make a pragmatic decision what to do with the information (or whether to believe it).

themovingman
17-01-2008, 10:52 AM
This would only be the case if it was a rapid game, which seems unlikely if the game was being recorded. It may well be though that the move was only discovered after the game was completed.



Surely this is not interfering. Interfering would be leaping in and speaking to the players. Pointing out something which the arbiter should in principle be aware of, but in practice misses through being unable to be everywhere, is perfectly reasonable. Of course the arbiter has to make a pragmatic decision what to do with the information (or whether to believe it).

hat did happen at the Oz Champs 2000 - a spectator (and capable player btw) phrased it as "I think xxxx made an illegal move" , upon which the response by the head Arbiter was along the lines of "they're both champs - that wouldn't happen" and yet sure enough entering the game into the database proved difficult there being a Rook check jumping over a pawn, the players themselves confirmed the scoresheets.


Such odd little things happen - perhaps it was a more interesting game even so - I forget the result tho fairly easily found.

-----------------

I was thinking the very late discovery of the illegality btw would be during a repetition claim

ps and thanks for all the replies, I was especially relieved to hear of the adjourned-game options, of course it makes sense - time is of a scarcity at a weekender but something along those lines are indeed workable - I had got top the assumed result stage but thought I would post before hurting my little brain too much :D

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2008, 09:00 PM
I heard that in one tournament a Queen made a capture thru a piece or made a knight jump or something while both players were in time trouble and the opponent did not pick up on it, and the onus was on the opponent right then and there, so the move stayed and in the post game notation, the move was given three exclamation marks

The onus is only on the opponent right then and there in blitz and rapidplay.

I had an insane time scramble once where both players were down to about 20 seconds and my opponent was trying to mate me with KQ vs K. I played an illegal move, moving my king from one square where it was in check to another where it was also in check, and he responded by stalemating me. Stalemate immediately ends the game and it is too late to fix the illegal move once the game is over, so I escaped with a draw. :owned:

(Perhaps he should have said to the arbiter, "but Bonham moved into check last move, can't he just do it again?")

ER
18-01-2008, 02:39 PM
At a very recent tournament, my opponent moved his King into a checked position. I told him so and then he placed the King on the square it was moved from and moved another piece. I objected saying "sorry the King was touched and since there are legal squares that it can go, you have to move the King"! So it happened!
Was my action legal? Sportmanslike? Otherwise?
Cheers and good luck

Rincewind
18-01-2008, 02:42 PM
At a very recent tournament, my opponent moved his King into a checked position. I told him so and then he placed the King on the square it was moved from and moved another piece. I objected saying "sorry the King was touched and since there are legal squares that it can go, you have to move the King"! So it happened!
Was my action legal? Sportmanslike? Otherwise?
Cheers and good luck

I believe you were within your rights. The king was touched first and therefore should be moved if a legal move was possible. I don't believe it was unsporting based on the information you have provided.

ER
18-01-2008, 02:45 PM
thanks Rince, and yes it happened exactly that way!
Cheers and good luck

CameronD
18-01-2008, 02:46 PM
At a very recent tournament, my opponent moved his King into a checked position. I told him so and then he placed the King on the square it was moved from and moved another piece. I objected saying "sorry the King was touched and since there are legal squares that it can go, you have to move the King"! So it happened!
Was my action legal? Sportmanslike? Otherwise?
Cheers and good luck

I would've done the same

ER
18-01-2008, 02:47 PM
thanks Cam

Trent Parker
18-01-2008, 03:17 PM
I remember playing a game down at ANU a few years ago against, I think it was STML's Little brother?? Prem?? Anyhow in post game analysis he had a bishop on g5..... But the starting position had an early e3 on my scoresheet. I was puzzled. What happened here? His scoresheet ended up being the same as mine and Prem had played an illegal move. But it was not found out until after the game. I think I was glad to win that Game as I had played a very bad tournament and had lost to a couple of youngsters with three digit ratings Including a young Allen Setiabudi who crushed me.

Basil
18-01-2008, 06:31 PM
At a very recent tournament, my opponent moved his King into a checked position. I told him so and then he placed the King on the square it was moved from and moved another piece. I objected saying "sorry the King was touched and since there are legal squares that it can go, you have to move the King"! So it happened!
Was my action legal? Sportmanslike? Otherwise?
Cheers and good luck
Tournament? Touched piece? No question. Enforcing this actually helps the opponent in life - it might even be an early childhood cure for leftism ;) and related bleeding heart hazy-fazy, sloppy-poppy psychoses.

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2008, 03:31 PM
Tournament? Touched piece? No question. Enforcing this actually helps the opponent in life — it might even be an early childhood cure for leftism ;) and related bleeding heart hazy-fazy, sloppy-poppy psychoses.
Usually real life is the cure for youthful faux-idealistc leftism, as per apocryphal saying of Churchill's. ;)

Denis_Jessop
24-01-2008, 06:44 PM
At a very recent tournament, my opponent moved his King into a checked position. I told him so and then he placed the King on the square it was moved from and moved another piece. I objected saying "sorry the King was touched and since there are legal squares that it can go, you have to move the King"! So it happened!
Was my action legal? Sportmanslike? Otherwise?
Cheers and good luck

In a club game what you did would be the norm. Strictly speaking you should not speak to your opponent at all but should stop the clocks, call the arbiter and have the arbiter make the ruling.

DJ

Sam
06-02-2008, 10:22 AM
Usually real life is the cure for youthful faux-idealistc leftism, as per apocryphal saying of Churchill's. ;)

Usually real life is the cure for right wing armchair dogma.:whistle:

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2008, 11:32 AM
Usually real life is the cure for right wing armchair dogma.:whistle:
"Real life" as used by a lefty means the media, academia and government bureaucracies.

tanc
06-02-2008, 02:47 PM
During the Ryde-Eastwood Rapids last year, I was observing a game between LesM (he was Black) and another player. It was straight out of the opening and it went like this (I remembered it because of the opening moves):

1. e4 c5
2. d3 d6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Nc6
5. Ne3 e5
6. Be2 a6
.....

Who needs Bishops? :D