I like the following two notes and I think something along these lines would make good additions to the US Chess rulebook.
“It is essential to write down the times shown on the two clocks and the number of moves made before making any adjustment.”
“The arbiter’s have to follow the uniformity in reducing the increment (in general 30 seconds) for the player who completed the illegal move by pressing the clock and adding two minutes for his opponent.
In Rapid and Blitz also the increment obtained by pressing the clock has to be reduced accordingly.”
I think it’s just saying “if a player makes an illegal move, in addition to adding two minutes (or one minute, if applicable) to the opponent’s clock, you should reduce the player’s clock by the increment so they don’t get extra time as a result of their illegal move.”
…with the two sentences inartfully noting that the times are different between Classical and Rapid/Blitz.
It reads like a (really) bad Google translate. What is the source of this “note”?
But don’t both players likely get an extra increment? It probably depends upon how the clock handles pause and restart. It might also depend upon whether the clock is add before or add after.
Yuck. It looks like the rule itself was carefully written but the added “TD tip” wasn’t. As a TD, I wouldn’t bother with undoing the increment if both players had plenty of time. I guess if “follow the uniformity” means anything it would be to always do that rather than use discretion.
I just had one instance here at the Chess Olympiad where one of my Match Arbiters (I am a Sector Arbiter in charge of 15 matches and Match Arbiters) failed to do this for an illegal move on White’s 40th move when they had very little time. The player with the Black pieces complained about this after White’s 41st move, trying to get me to check whether they would have lost on time had the arbiter indeed removed the increment from White when they added 2 minutes to her clock. Thankfully the answer was no, but that could have been quite a mess thanks to the arbiter forgetting to also deduct the increment from White’s clock for that move.
I don’t know about what happens with other clocks, but I tried mimicking this with my Chronos with Ch-P5 setting (which adds after). White makes illegal move, punches clock. Time is added to White. Black pauses. Arbiter adjusts White’s time to deduct increment, adds two minutes to Black’s time (following the arbiter “tip”). Pushes Black’s button to put White back on move. At that point it adds increment. In effect, Black has 2:30 more than before White made the illegal move. If Black runs down to under 30 seconds before making the next move, could Black (who hasn’t done anything wrong) be considered to have flagged? (I’m not a great fan of flagging anyone “mathematically” but I think it’s patently unfair if it’s due to a arbiter error).
I also do not believe we could have awarded a win on time due to the arbiter error. There would be no way to figure out if the player would have moved quicker if the clock had shown the correct amount of time they should have had, but the situation would certainly have been more messy and could have led to a possible appeal.
Understanding how increment should work is important. The +30 seconds you get after completing a move is not the 30 seconds for that move you just completed, but for the next move you are going to make. This is why the clocks should start with 1:30.30 on them at the start of a G/90;+30 time control. The 30 seconds is for move 1, then when you complete your 1st move, the 30 seconds that is added is for move 2, etc.
In my scenario above, White completed an illegal move on move 40, which got them the additional 30 seconds that should be for move 41, but because their move was illegal and we needed to reset everything (position and clock) back to prior to making their 40th move, we should remove the increment they got for move 41 as they have not completed a legal 40th move yet.
I think a good habit to develop for games involving increments is that if something happens like this, you get used to removing the increment the player incorrectly received, regardless of what stage of the game you happen to be at.
How about adding something like this after rule 11D:
TD Tip: If a player completes an illegal move with an increment time control, the increment time they received by pressing the clock needs to be removed.
11D gets a little more complicated given that the standard penalty does not apply if the opponent has completed a subsequent move. In this case both players may have got an increment, or multiple increments depending on how far back you go to correct the illegal move, that they should not have received so making any adjustment to the times on the clock in those cases might not be necessary.
Remember that 11A states “The players do not recover the time used after the illegal move.”
In this case a general reminder just stating something like this could be added to the end of the existing TD Tip after 11D “If an increment time control is being used, it may also be necessary to remove any increment the player incorrectly received after completing an illegal move.”
Removing the increment from the just completed move is one thing. No further moves have been made to muddy the water.
If a player under time pressure waited until down to two seconds before making the illegal move then putting the clock back down to two seconds and requiring a legal move is valid.
In a 30-second increment game if a player made an illegal move with 10 seconds left and then spent 20 seconds on each of the next three moves (having 1 minute and 10 seconds on the clock) removing two minutes of increment gained from the illegal move and subsequent moves would cause the person to flag. A claimant who noticed an illegal move could intentionally wait until time was spent on the next move before making the claim, flagging the opponent, while claiming that the illegal move was not noticed until then. If the claimant was in time pressure and claimed after six moves then even a TD incorrectly adding the 2-minute penalty and removing the 3 minutes of increment might cause the claimant to flag. If the claimant made the claim two moves later when under a minute then removing the increment could again cause the claimant to flag.
I could easily see a weaker TD or a strict TD enforcing the flagging of players while removing increments. Would that tip need the additional comment given to other time deducting penalties and include a phrase like “but leaving at least half of the time on each players’ clock after deducting the increment from the most recently completed move from the player not on the move”. That also encourages waiting until it is your move before making a claim.
Upon further consideration, I would change that to simply “but leaving the greater of at least half of the time on each players’ clock or the increment time if the claim was not made before another move was played by either player”. Otherwise I can see a person making an illegal move one turn and claiming it (well, admitting it) the next turn when the opponent had received a 30 second increment to get back up to 32 seconds. Without the proviso of at least one increment the person who did not make an illegal move would start the next move with only 16 seconds.
Look at the issues around the time control edge cases and then decide what type of instructions should be given in the general tip.
7.1 If an irregularity occurs and the pieces have to be restored to a previous position, the arbiter shall use his/her best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the chessclock. This includes the right not to change the clock times. He/She shall also, if necessary, adjust the clock’s move-counter.
Apparently they haven’t gotten around to inserting an “arbiter’s tip” which defines what the best judgment should be.
Note that the “though shalt adjust times for unwarranted increments” is not actually in the rules, but is in a (very) poorly written commentary. You can divine it in Talmudic fashion from
6.3.1 When using a chessclock, each player must complete a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time including any additional amount of time added with each move. All these must be specified in advance.
However, taking that literally (and, of course, we don’t have players and TD’s that want to take everything absolutely literally), the proper response in Jeff’s scenario is to time forfeit, since the player in fact didn’t make the required number of (legal) moves in the allotted period of time.
If both players have 40 minutes or so on the clock, putting 30 seconds one way or the other will have no effect on the game. What might very well have an effect on the game is fussing with a clock to take off a couple of seconds in a blitz game giving a player (in this case the offending player) a chance to think about the position with the clock stopped.
