question for you all

[William Metcalfe]

This happened in a game tonight.
Its the final game left both players are down to 2 mins in a qpf player a puts player b in check instead of moving his king he moves a rook player a does not notice and moves a piece.As player b made a illegal move can a captain say anything before player a makes a move.I said nothing at the time as i thaught that was the rule did i make the right decision.
My next question if a arbiter had been watching the game could he have interviened the reason i ask is if there is no arbiter present the captains are sudo arbitors of the match.On getting home i realised i was not certain of the rules incase it ever happens again and its something i have never seen happen in a game before

[Ben Purton]

I am under the understanding that an arbiter can at his discression. However as a captain you cant, because its the players responsbility to spot the relevent checks, in fact I believe the King can stay in check and then if the player can insist on prevention of the check when he spots it later on.

[Mike Gunn]

This is covered by article 7.4 of the FIDE laws according to which the game must be restored to the position before an illegal move was made (You can stop the clocks to do this). The opponent of the player who made the illegal move gets two minutes extra. If an arbiter is present (and sees the illegal move or an illegal position) he would always intervene and enforce the rule. Spectators or other players are not allowed to intervene. If captains have been appointed arbiters under the rules of the competition (a bad idea in my view) they can intervene, otherwise not. The "normal" role of captains is to provide advice on the rules if asked to do so by their players, not to exercise all the powers of an arbiter.

[Sean Hewitt]

Mike has it absolutely correct. Some competitions allow the captains to be pseudo arbiters, some dont. The captain can therefore only intervene if the competition allows although an arbiter would always step in uninvited!

If the players play on and then realise before the game has ended that an illegal move was made, the game goes back to the point of the illegal move. The clocks are restored to the time at the point of the illegal move (best guess) and the player playing the illegal move is penalised by the award of two minutes additional time to his opponent.

However, if the illegal move is discovered after the game is over (whether that be checkmate, loss on time, resigned or draw agreed) then it's too late and the result of the game stands.

Hope that helps.

[Ian Thompson]

However, if the illegal move is discovered after the game is over (whether that be checkmate, loss on time, resigned or draw agreed) then it's too late and the result of the game stands.

Can you quote the rule that says this, as I don't think you are right? The result is only final once 8.7 (signing of scoresheets) has been completed, and even that is at the arbiter's discretion if an error subsequently comes to light.

If one player claimed checkmate or loss on time and it was found that an illegal move had previously occurred, I believe the claim would be rejected and the game would continue from the position immediately before the illegal move.

For resignations and draws you may be right.

[Edward Tandi]

But this is a quickplay finish, does appendix B5 not apply?

B5. The arbiter shall make a ruling according to Article 4 (The act of moving pieces), only if requested to do so by one or both players.

When we discussed 10.2, it was confirmed that B7 applies to quickplay finishes.

[Sean Hewitt]

But this is a quickplay finish, does appendix B5 not apply?

B5. The arbiter shall make a ruling according to Article 4 (The act of moving pieces), only if requested to do so by one or both players.

When we discussed 10.2, it was confirmed that B7 applies to quickplay finishes.

Edward,

Appendix B only applies to Rapidplay games (those where the players have between 15 and 60 minutes for all of their moves). It does not apply to the QPF element of a standard play game.

[Paul McKeown]

But this is a quickplay finish, does appendix B5 not apply?

Edward,

10.1 A `quickplay finish` is the phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.

B1. A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be made in a fixed time from 15 to 60 minutes; or the time allotted + 60 times any increment is from 15 to 60 minutes.

Rapidplay rules do not apply to normal games, even those with quickplay finishes. Therefore, law B5 ("The arbiter shall make a ruling according to Article 4 (The act of moving pieces), only if requested to do so by one or both players.") does not apply to normal games, even in the quickplay finish phase. As far as I am concerned law 13.1, "The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed", applies - and that includes seeing that all elements of law 4 are obeyed.

As for the old thread on 10.2, I observed it, but didn't participate as it did my head in. I wouldn't regard anything that was derived from it as applying to any of my games, unless it came from an ECF or FIDE arbiter, that is for certain. And to make things very clear, that includes the circumstance that I should be playing at or against West London chess club or against you.

Regards,
Paul McKeown.

[Sean Hewitt]

However, if the illegal move is discovered after the game is over (whether that be checkmate, loss on time, resigned or draw agreed) then it's too late and the result of the game stands.

Can you quote the rule that says this, as I don't think you are right? The result is only final once 8.7 (signing of scoresheets) has been completed, and even that is at the arbiter's discretion if an error subsequently comes to light.

If one player claimed checkmate or loss on time and it was found that an illegal move had previously occurred, I believe the claim would be rejected and the game would continue from the position immediately before the illegal move.

For resignations and draws you may be right.

No problem - its article 7.4 which states "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." [The emphasis is mine]

Therefore only illegal moves discovered during a game can be rectified. Law 5 deals with the completion of the game and specifies that checkmate, stalemate, resignation etc immediately end the game (provided that the move delivering mate etc is legal). Once the game is ended as per Law 5, Article 7.4 can no longer be applied.

Hope that clarifies matters.

[Edward Tandi]

10.1 A `quickplay finish` is the phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.
B1. A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be made in a fixed time from 15 to 60 minutes; or the time allotted + 60 times any increment is from 15 to 60 minutes.

Rapidplay rules do not apply to normal games, even those with quickplay finishes. Therefore, law B5 ("The arbiter shall make a ruling according to Article 4 (The act of moving pieces), only if requested to do so by one or both players.") does not apply to normal games, even in the quickplay finish phase. As far as I am concerned law 13.1, "The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed", applies - and that includes seeing that all elements of law 4 are obeyed.

Having re-read relevant parts of the thread on 10.2, I realise the confusion is all mine. I'm glad to have this explicitly spelt out though.

As for the old thread on 10.2, I observed it, but didn't participate as it did my head in. I wouldn't regard anything that was derived from it as applying to any of my games, unless it came from an ECF or FIDE arbiter, that is for certain. And to make things very clear, that includes the circumstance that I should be playing at or against West London chess club or against you.

I find this unnecessarily negative and almost defensive. I state on our 10.2 page that it is "not an authoritative work to be referenced during games", so why you bother to disregard it in such a manner is beyond me. Are you trying to "rubbish" my question? Not very nice, there's no harm in clarifying things.

[E Michael White]

If captains have been appointed arbiters under the rules of the competition (a bad idea in my view) they can intervene

Its a bit stronger than that. The arbiter must intervene every time he sees an illegal move played. Rule 13.1 requires him to ensure the rules are strictly enforced which includes playing legal moves and awarding a two minute penalty. The arbiter does not have any discretion as regards intervention or awarding the penalty. Some arbiters seem to get QPF, RP and Blitz confused at the end of a game and keep quiet leaving it up to the players.

In addition to what has already been said by Sean, if a game is sent for adjudication before an earlier illegal move is discovered, the position has to be changed back to before the illegal move if the mistake is found before the adjudicators decision is made known. FIDE decided in 1958 that FIDE rules apply up to the point of the adjudicators decision being made known. Which incidentally showed that adjudications were confirmed as within FIDE rules.

English League adjudicators could therefore find themselves adjudicating a known double edged position in the Kings Indian after perhaps move 12.

[Simon Spivack]

If the players play on and then realise before the game has ended that an illegal move was made, the game goes back to the point of the illegal move. The clocks are restored to the time at the point of the illegal move (best guess) and the player playing the illegal move is penalised by the award of two minutes additional time to his opponent.

I have only seen this arise when one of the players is in time trouble. The non-faulting player has always immediately spotted the infringement; thus the problem of how to assess the clock times often does not arise: but then I never play chess with children or animals.

The Laws are reasonably logical, it should be possible to deduce the following, even from a position of ignorance:

1) It often makes no sense to carry on the game after an illegal move, hence, in the general case, the position and clock times prior to the violation must be restored.

2) An infraction, unless it is relatively trivial or benign, requires a penalty. In this instance the offence is fairly minor, a light punishment is in order. Given that a deduction of time could well result in a loss of the game, it is more sensible to add time to the non-offending party's clock.

3) Thus a certain number of minutes must be added. I shall horrify the Senior Arbiters who post here by suggesting that, in a league match with no arbiter present; it is not the end of the world if one or three minutes are added instead of two.

One should never overlook the Preface, specifically: "Where cases are not specifically regulated by an article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision ...".

A captain, organiser or arbiter should ensure that the playing conditions are at a tolerable standard before a match begins. However, we are all human. Suppose, in a league match, that a table has one leg too short. Many times this is tackled by putting books, or whatever, on the floor to compensate. Suppose this has been done in a silly way. If I was the captain and observed this, in a match with no arbiter; then, if possible, I should speak to the opposing captain first; however, if he was engrossed in his own game I'd unilaterally supervene to prevent the chaos resulting from a table fall; I'd do this regardless of what authority the captains are supposed to have.

Adjudications are not part of the FIDE Laws, see, for instance:

http://www.bcf.org.uk/grading/2006/adju ... _dec06.htm

"ADJUDICATIONS
As an offshoot from these discussions, it has come to my notice that there are games still being played which are adjudicated. This includes Essex and Leicestershire and some Northern events. Organisations are entitled to run events as they wish, although doing away with adjudications in the 1970s was one of the reasons for the English Chess Explosion. The ECF Rules make it clear that events where there is the possibility of finishing with adjudications cannot be graded. The games must be played to the FIDE Laws of Chess, which certainly do not allow for adjudication as a way of concluding a game. "


"The first thing we do, let's kill all the arbiters" - Jack Cade.

[E Michael White]

Simon

I somehow knew you would reply to the adjudications point.

Regarding how the FIDE rules should look, I think this is an age related thing. It seems to me that older players born before about 1943 mostly prefer game rules to be a little vague and for an arbiter to have considerable discretionary powers whereas those born after 1963 usually prefer rules and conditions to be clear so that they know what they are dealing with and where they stand. Younger players also like to turn up with definite knowledge of how long the session will last to know which trains they can catch. The endless efforts of some players to switch to increment modes conflicts with the desire to know when a session will end to make transport arrangements easier. Wishy-washy statements such as sessions will hardly ever go beyond 10:30 dont help if you are the one there at 11:00 and your last train left at 10:45.

When Stewart Reuben made the statement about 2 years ago that adjudications werent allowed under FIDE rules, I had an exchange of e:mails with him. Stewarts contention was based primarily on three points.

a) That the TLA OTB means all moves and the result have to be decided with both players at the board.
b) He felt that some of the FIDE rules commission interpretation findings of 1958 - 1963 had fallen into disuse although they had never been withdrawn by FIDE.
c) He felt that a UK law still existed that witches could be burnt at the stake but this had fallen into disuse so could not be used as a legal defence. In Stewarts view this justified his stance on point b)

My points were:-

1. Findings of the FIDE rules commission automatically become part of the rules unless they are withdrawn. They are not all included in subsequent rule versions but are still valid.
2. A FIDE rule interpretation states that if a game is submitted for adjudication, it can only be considered concluded when the director has made his decision. So FIDE rules allow the possibility that adjudications may take place within FIDE rules.
3. The current FIDE title norm regulations specify that tournaments which have adjudications cannot be included for title norms. That FIDE needed to mention this separately suggests to me that FIDE admits the possibility that games may otherwise have adjudications as all title norm tournaments have to be played under FIDE rules.
4. I dont especially mind whether games are adjudicated or use QPF as long as the rules are clear on the point. No one need play if they dont like any of the rules.
5. The TLA OTB has been in existence for over 40 years and meant that the players make the moves with both players at the board thus distinguishing between correspondence, telephone, telex and ordinary play. Whilst the rules for the first 3 of these are similar and nearly always have adjudication it is a big leap of faith to suggest that this means adjudications arent allowed under OTB.
6. OTB doesnt assume a new meaning prescribed by Stewart and others to support their desire for increment chess.

Incidentally regarding point c) I believe it has been illegal under UK law to burn witches at the stake since 1735.

The ECF indicated later that they will continue to rate adjudicated games for ECF purposes without entering into the debate as to whether FIDE rules allow adjudications.
It should also be remembered that the final authority on rule interpretation is no longer FIDE or any senior official like Stewart or Geurt. FIDE ceded that aspect in 1999 to the General Sports Arbitration Council in Lausanne in order that the IOC would accept chess as a sport. The Lausanne approach is to follow the letter of the Laws and also established practices and customs. I am not suggesting anyone would use Lausanne because their adjudicated league game were not graded but it is useful to bear their methods in mind when making interpretations. Unless this process has changed without me noticing, FIDE frame the Laws but any extreme and important interpretation difficulties can be referred outside FIDE.
If any of the FIDE rule makers can produce meeting minutes or documents which show the intention of the chess laws was to bar adjudications, then this should be advertised or included in the next rule set.
Simon some of your other points have reminded me of a post from a few months ago which contained IMHO a good idea so I will probably raise those in a later post.

[Mike Gunn]

Michael, I disagree with your point about increments. Using a 5 second increment in evening league chess is a good practical way of avoiding 10.2 problems. For example replacing G90 by G80 plus a 5 second increment means that both players must have played 120 moves within the 3 hours. Additionally every club I know allows 10 minutes at the end for sealing a move/clearing up so that takes us up to 180 moves each - surely enough and still in time to catch the last train?

[Simon Spivack]

Simon

I somehow knew you would reply to the adjudications point.

"Depend upon it Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson.

I find this a good metaphor in a challenging debate.

Regarding how the FIDE rules should look, I think this is an age related thing. It seems to me that older players born before about 1943 mostly prefer game rules to be a little vague and for an arbiter to have considerable discretionary powers whereas those born after 1963 usually prefer rules and conditions to be clear so that they know what they are dealing with and where they stand.

Being born between 1943 and 1963, it is good to know that these observations do not apply to me.

I am not convinced that age has much to do with whether an arbiter can reach a good decision in circumstances not explicitly covered. Common sense may not be all that common, but I don't see a generational link.

Fwiw, the one time I had an illegal move played against me I claimed the point. My opponent, let me call him Glass Breaker, and I had about one minute left each, he had a king and a few pawns; I had a king, rook and rather more pawns. He, quite deliberately, moved his king adjacent to mine. My claim was possibly strengthened by Glass Breaker's reputation; it should be clear that he was in breach of the rule not to distract the opponent, his action was also designed to bring the game into disrepute. The arbiter allowed my claim.

Younger players also like to turn up with definite knowledge of how long the session will last to know which trains they can catch. The endless efforts of some players to switch to increment modes conflicts with the desire to know when a session will end to make transport arrangements easier. Wishy-washy statements such as sessions will hardly ever go beyond 10:30 don't help if you are the one there at 11:00 and your last train left at 10:45.

I find the opposite to be true. It is the older players who tend to be more concerned about connecting trains. Perhaps an online poll is in order?

When Stewart Reuben made the statement about 2 years ago that adjudications werent allowed under FIDE rules, I had an exchange of e:mails with him. Stewarts contention was based primarily on three points.

a) That the TLA OTB means all moves and the result have to be decided with both players at the board.
b) He felt that some of the FIDE rules commission interpretation findings of 1958 - 1963 had fallen into disuse although they had never been withdrawn by FIDE.
c) He felt that a UK law still existed that witches could be burnt at the stake but this had fallen into disuse so could not be used as a legal defence. In Stewarts view this justified his stance on point b)

Have you completed your two hours longbow practise today?

See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 251280.ece

I don't know how much you can reveal of what might be private correspondence; however, I have my doubts that Stewart was persuaded by your arguments. In his "Reflections on the Revolution in France" the Member for Bristol argued in his famous letter to his constituent that custom is a very powerful force. Edmund Burke had previously supported the case advanced by the Thirteen Colonies because he considered that they were upholding their customs; he opposed the Jacobins in France, for, amongst other reasons, their breaking of the customary prerogatives, privileges and powers of the French monarch. This is not the place to argue the rights or wrongs of 1789 and all that, but merely to observe that it is a widely accepted principle in Britain to adhere to custom. In some sense what is the Common Law but partly customary practise? It is a custom to ignore old, possibly archaic laws. I see nothing wrong in FIDE ignoring something dating back to the 1950s if it is past its sell-by date. The problem with explicitly banning adjudications is that a member federation, or a part thereof, may well have such a derogation; I prefer tolerance to proscribing.