World Blitz.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

So does that mean that if a player castles, the move is considered to have been 'made' when he releases the king, so his opponent may make a reply before the first player has even touched the rook?

I wonder what would happen if his opponent, in the time between player A letting the king go on g1 (while castling kingside) and moving his hand to pick up the rook, quickly moved a piece and captured the rook on h1 before his opponent had a chance to move it!! Similarly, when capturing en passant, if you move the capturing pawn to the square behind the pawn being captured, there might be time to move that pawn-that-is-about-to-be-captured somewhere before the capturing player has time to pick it up. The lesson seems to be to pick up the captured pawn first when capturing enpassant, or do one of those "pick both pieces up at the same time with one hand" trick. I'm sure some here have seen the "rapid" way of castling using one hand where the king is picked up and moved beyond or to h1 (but beyond the rook) and then both pieces grasped in the same hand are moved sideways in a sliding motion until they end up on f1 and g1.

[Alex Holowczak]

So does that mean that if a player castles, the move is considered to have been 'made' when he releases the king, so his opponent may make a reply before the first player has even touched the rook?

I wonder what would happen if his opponent, in the time between player A letting the king go on g1 (while castling kingside) and moving his hand to pick up the rook, quickly moved a piece and captured the rook on h1 before his opponent had a chance to move it!!

It couldn't, read 4.6b again:

The move is then considered to have been made in the case of castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal.

You can only move after your opponent's move has been made. The move hasn't been made when castling until he lets go of the rook. When he lets go of the King, he is still in the process of moving. So the person taking on h1 is at fault, because the part of the King move he played was a perfectly legal thing to do.

Similarly, when capturing en passant, if you move the capturing pawn to the square behind the pawn being captured, there might be time to move that pawn-that-is-about-to-be-captured somewhere before the capturing player has time to pick it up. The lesson seems to be to pick up the captured pawn first when capturing enpassant, or do one of those "pick both pieces up at the same time with one hand" trick.

That's not so much a lesson as the way the rules say you have to capture. 4.6a:

The move is then considered to have been made in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand.

So first you take the captured piece off the board, then replace your piece on the square. No need to pick both pieces up with one hand at all.

I'm sure some here have seen the "rapid" way of castling using one hand where the king is picked up and moved beyond or to h1 (but beyond the rook) and then both pieces grasped in the same hand are moved sideways in a sliding motion until they end up on f1 and g1.

In lieu of my earlier comment about 4.6b), there's absolutely no need to do this, because you haven't finished moving until you've let go of the rook.

However... the best way of castling quickly that I saw was to pick the King up on e1, put it beyond the rook on h1, then slide drag both pieces over to their squares on e1 and f1. Technically that's probably against the rules, but really, who cares?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

However... the best way of castling quickly that I saw was to pick the King up on e1, put it beyond the rook on h1, then slide drag both pieces over to their squares on e1 and f1. Technically that's probably against the rules, but really, who cares?

Is that not the same as what I described in the post you were replying to? Though you should really try and make sure the pieces end up on f1 and g1, not e1 and f1...

PS. No opinion on the reply I made about increment play and obligations to press the clock?

[Alex Holowczak]

However... the best way of castling quickly that I saw was to pick the King up on e1, put it beyond the rook on h1, then slide drag both pieces over to their squares on e1 and f1. Technically that's probably against the rules, but really, who cares?

Is that not the same as what I described in the post you were replying to? Though you should really try and make sure the pieces end up on f1 and g1, not e1 and f1...

Whoops! You're right, but that's the gist of what he did.

PS. No opinion on the reply I made about increment play and obligations to press the clock?

One of my failings on this forum is to always view the last page, not the first unread comment... So I probably missed it.

Increments do muddy the waters a bit. I guess if A forgets to press his clock, and B wants to press it but can't, then B is gaining more time relative to A than he would have done anyway. So in that regard, it's a bit of a non-issue. If you have a move counter switched on though, and another block of time is being added at move x, then you're going to be in trouble. (This is why I favour x minutes + y seconds per move rather than x moves in y minutes, followed by z minutes + an increment of w seconds per move from move 1; any issue related to forgetting to press the clock is less of an issue as the move counter doesn't need to be switched on.)

Alternatively, you can interpret the time control rules to mean x seconds per move you complete, as opposed to x seconds per move you make.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Increments do muddy the waters a bit.

In blitz more than in games with 30s/move. When you are playing at 2 seconds a move and you are down to the last 5 seconds, you really, really will want to get the extra 2 seconds you are entitled to. Otherwise your opponent (with maybe 30 seconds), may delay pressing his clock until the position on the board is complicated enough that the absence of the additional time will lead to a fatal blunder.

This is not theoretical. In the World Blitz, Carlsen-Nakamura saw Carlsen miss a win with g5 after Nakamura had played Rxh6. The point being that the pawn advance both cut off Nakamura's rook from the bishop protecting it, and also allowed White bishop to protect the white rook on h5 (and recapture with check and ultimately win the bishop on b7). But Carlsen only had three seconds, took the rook instead, and after the reply, ran out of time.

And of course it is in blitz that moves happen rapidly enough that your opponent may well be pressing his clock before you have done so. Possibly someone may try and set things up so that the electronic boards register the move and stop and start the clocks for the players. There are problems with that approach as well (most players instinctively want to press a clock so you may need to introduce a touchscreen instead), but if those can be ironed out, it may help.

[Alex Holowczak]

The rules only state that you should be allowed to stop your clock. Since your clock is already stopped, a request for your opponent to stop his clock (for you to gain the time) could easily be ignored - after all, the player is not forced to stop his clock, he is only "allowed" to. I guess if that's the case, don't move until your opponent has actually stopped his clock. If he doesn't, he loses on time!

I'm sure future versions of the laws will have a law accounting for this sort of situation. FIDE have had incremental time controls for some time now though, so I'm surprised they haven't already got around to putting something in the Laws about it.

[Ian Thompson]

I guess if A forgets to press his clock, and B wants to press it but can't, then B is gaining more time relative to A than he would have done anyway. So in that regard, it's a bit of a non-issue.

It would matter to B if he is short of time and can make his next move immediately. For example, B has 10 moves to make to reach the time control, currently with 40 seconds on his clock, plus 30 second increments to come. A moves but doesn't press his clock. B's reply is forced, so could be made in a second or two. If B moves then he doesn't get his extra 30 seconds, so his time remains at 40 seconds when it should have gone up to about 68 seconds. B's only option is not to move until A does press the clock.

[Alex Holowczak]

B's only option is not to move until A does press the clock.

Yes, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. You're allowed to move after your opponent has made the move, but before he has completed it. With an incremental time control, it may not be desirable to do so.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

B's only option is not to move until A does press the clock.

Yes, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. You're allowed to move after your opponent has made the move, but before he has completed it. With an incremental time control, it may not be desirable to do so.

I would make the move and then press my opponent's clock and then my clock! (after thinking about what my next move would be, of course).

[Michael Jones]

So first you take the captured piece off the board, then replace your piece on the square. No need to pick both pieces up with one hand at all.

I remember when I started playing at school, our usual method of capturing was to pick up the capturing piece, use it to shove the piece being captured out of the way (or in the case of some players, knock the piece in question halfway across the room) before placing the capturing piece on the square, and only then removing the captured piece from the board (if it was still on the board by that point). We found it a bit odd when we played the school up the road and saw that all their players removed the captured piece first!

Technically that's probably against the rules, but really, who cares?

Those last four words could probably be applied to most of the discussion on here...

[Simon Spivack]

Forumites will be aware that I am always urging them to check their facts and not to accept as total truth someone's throwaway remark.

Yes, it maybe a little overkill putting so many letters "chtch" to represent just one in Russian - "щ": Ян Непомнящий. The trouble is, there is no equivalent letter or sound in English. This sound is something between sh and ch, or in other words a softer version of sh. So, it's probably more correct to use the spelling as used in GM Shcherbakov's case. Incidentally, Nepomnniachtchi means forgetful.

I'm sure Bernard Cafferty told me it meant 'I don't have a name'

James, you may think you are sure but I am sure you are quite wrong! Bernard has told me several times that it means 'not remembering'.

It is puzzling that Maria writes that the Yan Nepomnniachtchi name means 'forgetful'. Try checking that in a good English-Russian dictionary and you will find that 'forgetful' is given as Забывчивый (ZABYVCHIVY) from the verb to forget - забыть.

James Pratt has clearly suffered from a false memory, and also from a failure to check facts, as I urge above. It would have been much more 'tactful' if he had simply said 'I got it wrong', but how often do you see those words on the Forum?

[Alex Holowczak]

how often do you see those words on the Forum?

I use them quite often.

[Alan Walton]

It is puzzling that Maria writes that the Yan Nepomnniachtchi name means 'forgetful'. Try checking that in a good English-Russian dictionary and you will find that 'forgetful' is given as Забывчивый (ZABYVCHIVY) from the verb to forget - забыть.

I think we can take Maria as a decent source of the Russian language considering she is from there, so it is more puzzling that you doubt her interpretation

[Maria Yurenok]

It is puzzling that Maria writes that the Yan Nepomnniachtchi name means 'forgetful'. Try checking that in a good English-Russian dictionary and you will find that 'forgetful' is given as Забывчивый (ZABYVCHIVY) from the verb to forget - забыть.

Simon, unlike you I don't need to check a dictionary for the translation. I know that my translation is correct. If you know a bit about translation between languages you'd know there are often more than one ways to transalte something. Good translators try to convey the meaning in the simplest way rather than confuse the audience with word for word literal translation. I chose the most "ear friendly" translation. I think most English speakers can imagine "forgetful" being a surname, while "not remembering" is also the correct translation in this case but would sound a bit silly as a surname. Now, if you want to argue that "forgetful" and "not remembering" don't mean the same thing - we can start a philosophical discussion elsewhere.

[LozCooper]

It is puzzling that Maria writes that the Yan Nepomnniachtchi name means 'forgetful'. Try checking that in a good English-Russian dictionary and you will find that 'forgetful' is given as Забывчивый (ZABYVCHIVY) from the verb to forget - забыть.

I think we can take Maria as a decent source of the Russian language considering she is from there, so it is more puzzling that you doubt her interpretation

Agreed. Even allowing for freedom of speech it's the first time I've heard a Russian being told to use an English-Russian dictionary before posting on the forum about her native language