The first sentence of blitz rule 7e says “An illegal move doesn’t negate a player’s right to claim on time, provided it is made prior to the opponent’s claim of an illegal move.”
Does this rule apply to regular chess?
No. In regular chess a first illegal move is almost never going to result in losing the game, which is what this wording is trying to cover (player makes an illegal move in blitz, notices the opponent has run out of time, calls the time before the illegal move is called; both players have lost the game in different ways at this point, so it’s a race).
That is, sure you can still call the flag after an illegal move in regular chess, you don’t need to say that here.
My question was meaning to ask that in regular chess, if a player completes an illegal move and then their opponent runs out of time without first calling out the illegal move, can the player claim a win on time?
It seems that it is logical when in Regular chess one opponent calls time on the other opponent before the claim of an illegal move was claimed by the timed out opponent that the TD counts the time out claim.
Do not forget rule 11J. If a player is intentionally making an illegal move to rattle an opponent long enough to claim a flag then the TD is allowed to impose penalties, which could include loss of game by the person making the intentional illegal move. Chronic offenders might face ejection or an Ethics complaint.
1 Like
The general idea behind a proposed change to Blitz rule 7e was supported by the rules committee but referred back to the rules committee at the delegates meeting this year to work on the language of the rule. Perhaps the rules committee could propose some language in the regular rules in addition to the blitz rules.
The proposed change is: “7e.) A player whose opponent’s time has expired can claim a win on time if the player’s last completed move was a legal move. A player who completes an illegal move cannot claim a win on time unless and until the opponent determines a subsequent move. If it is not possible to establish whether the opponent determined a move before or after theplayer claimed a win on time, or if they both happened simultaneously, the player who completed the illegal move loses, provided the opponent has sufficient mating material as defined in rule 7c.”
It seems to me the best thing to do would be to eliminate rule 7e and incorporate the change into rule 7c.
How about this:
“7c.) Who correctly 𝗉̶𝗈̶𝗂̶𝗇̶𝗍̶𝗌̶ 𝗈̶𝗎̶𝗍̶ claims that the opponent’s flag has fallen 𝖿̶𝗂̶𝗋̶𝗌̶𝗍̶,̶ 𝖺̶𝗍̶ any time before the game is otherwise ended, provided the player’s last move was legal and the player has mating material (see rule 14E in Chapter 1 for what constitutes sufficient mating material to win on time). 𝖬̶𝖺̶𝗍̶𝗂̶𝗇̶𝗀̶ 𝖬̶𝖺̶𝗍̶𝖾̶𝗋̶𝗂̶𝖺̶𝗅̶ 𝖼̶𝗈̶𝗇̶𝗌̶𝗂̶𝗌̶𝗍̶𝗌̶ 𝗈̶𝖿̶ (̶𝖺̶𝗍̶ 𝖺̶ 𝗆̶𝗂̶𝗇̶𝗂̶𝗆̶𝗎̶𝗆̶)̶ 𝗍̶𝗐̶𝗈̶ 𝗆̶𝗂̶𝗇̶𝗈̶𝗋̶ 𝗉̶𝗂̶𝖾̶𝖼̶𝖾̶𝗌̶,̶ 𝖺̶ 𝗉̶𝖺̶𝗐̶𝗇̶,̶ 𝖺̶ 𝗋̶𝗈̶𝗈̶𝗄̶,̶ 𝗈̶𝗋̶ 𝖺̶ 𝗊̶𝗎̶𝖾̶𝖾̶𝗇̶ 𝗉̶𝗋̶𝗈̶𝗏̶𝗂̶𝖽̶𝖾̶𝖽̶ 𝗂̶𝗍̶ 𝗂̶𝗌̶𝗇̶’̶𝗍̶ 𝖺̶ 𝗉̶𝗈̶𝗌̶𝗂̶𝗍̶𝗂̶𝗈̶𝗇̶ 𝗐̶𝗁̶𝖾̶𝗋̶𝖾̶ 𝗈̶𝗇̶𝖾̶ 𝖼̶𝗈̶𝗎̶𝗅̶𝖽̶ 𝖼̶𝗅̶𝖺̶𝗂̶𝗆̶ 𝖺̶ 𝖽̶𝗋̶𝖺̶𝗐̶ 𝗎̶𝗇̶𝖽̶𝖾̶𝗋̶ 𝗋̶𝗎̶𝗅̶𝖾̶ 𝟪̶.̶ A player who completes an illegal move cannot claim a win on time unless the opponent determines a subsequent move. If it is not possible to establish whether the opponent determined a move before or after the player claimed a win on time, or if they both happened simultaneously, the player who completed the illegal move loses, provided the opponent has sufficient mating material. If a player who claims a time forfeit states the claim with claimant’s flag still up, but then fails to stop the clock in time to avoid also exceeding the time limit, the claim will be void, unless the flag fall was observed by a director or independent witness.”
In addition to incorporating the proposed rule change, it also cleans up the language and clarifies what constitutes mating material to win on time since the current blitz definition is confusing. It makes it seem like two knights is considered sufficient mating material to win on time and a lone bishop or knight with a forced win is not sufficient mating material.
You’re watching the game and White makes an illegal move. Black’s flag falls and White claims a win on time. Black has not touched any pieces since White made their move.
What would you do in this scenario if this new rule passes?
If you point out that White made an illegal move and therefore cannot win on time, you’re basically informing Black that White made an illegal move and therefore they can now claim a win because of that illegal move. I’m not sure US Chess rules want us to be so informative to Black.
It’s also going to be very confusing if you say nothing and wait for Black to determine a move just so that you can then rule White won on time.
Perhaps just always ask the person who has the flagged if he agrees on the claim? It would always give the chance to point out the illegal move without directly telling him about it or just accepting the loss on time.
I’m always more worried about a spectator blurting something out before players get to decide what is happening in these types of situations. Unfortunately, it happens too often.
This is a good point.