Interpreting USCF Blitz Rule #16

[MichaelAtkins]

The terminology of this K vs K rule comes straight from the old WBCA rules and probably reflected either Walter Browne’s or someone on the GM committee’s frustration with the situation. The cheap shot idea came from Player B who moved next to player A’s King, who moved elsewhere and Player B took player A’s King.

The wording was accepted when the Rules Committee re-wrote the USCF blitz rules after my ADM in 2007. It would be easier to just have the rule reflect: Moving your king next to your opponent’s king is an illegal move, the opponent should stop the clock and claim a win.

The committee did introduce many compromises from the original WBCA rules in order to get it out of committee. The old WBCA rules used to say that a legal move was complete when it left your hand (not just determined, but completed) and an illegal move was complete when the clock was punched. This rule got changed back to something reflecting the USCF touch move rules but that became a problem after the dispute in the 2008 US Women’s Championship. The rules committee did another evaluation and at that point changed it back to what the WBCA rules stated. However, when you look online at the rules, it doesn’t reflect this change. Posted is

14.) A player who has played an illegal move must retract it and make a legal move with thepiece touched prior to pressing the clock. If no legal move exists with that piece then he may make any legal move. Illegal moves unnoticed by both players cannot be corrected afterwards. An illegal move is completed when the player presses the clock, whereupon the opponent may claim a win.
15.) A legal move is determined when the hand leaves the piece and completed when the clock is pressed.

What this rule is supposed to say now is
15. A legal move is complete when the hand leaves the piece (piece leaving the hand sounds better).

A player is supposed to be able to move when someone makes a legal move and releases it from their hands. Player A releases the piece and hits the clock, followed by player B making a move and hitting the clock. Player B can be moving while and before Player A hits the clock as long as he allows Player A to hit the clock first. If player A moves and does not hit the clock, player B moves as normal and allows A’s clock to run.

Regular USCF rules shouldn’t be applied to Blitz situations which are stipulated in Blitz rules as they are different creatures. The rule 9 idea of not being able to move until your opponent punches the clock only applies to illegal moves. It is not supposed to apply to Legal moves as Blitz rules were meant to be different here.

This was supposed to address the problem and complaints from the US Women’s issue, that one player was moving before the other punched the clock. That is normal blitz play and one area where blitz differs from Quick and regular chess. Rule 15 ,as written, makes no sense in the progression of the rules as it doesn’t differ from Rule 14’s concept of completion of move.

World Open blitzes always used WBCA rules except for one year (2003 or 2004) when the new rulebook came out and the USCF Blitz rules (sudden death) were used and it was a disaster. Time penalties were enforced in the opposite direction, time was taken off the clock, and it became clear that WBCA rules were better and required fewer directors to manage the floor. It went back to WBCA rules as I ran WO blitz from 1997-2005/6 and then Harold took over. I know WBCA rules were used prior to 2007 as Steve once read the entire WBCA rulebook to all the players before the tournament

Mike

[Windrider]

As long as it can be proven that this illegal/impossible move took place in the game, I say forfeit the game for whoever made the move even if no one observed it until it was too late. If someone moved there bishop or rook to an illegal square during a game, but no one caught it until after the game was over, I would still call it an incorrect game (though I don’t know uscf policy on what I just described). I mean is the rule there to eliminate the possibility of the move, or is it there to sometimes stop the move under the right conditions? I think the former is what is intended.

[MichaelAtkins]

@Windrider

As long as it can be proven that this illegal/impossible move took place in the game, I say forfeit the game for whoever made the move even if no one observed it until it was too late. If someone moved there bishop or rook to an illegal square during a game, but no one caught it until after the game was over, I would still call it an incorrect game (though I don’t know uscf policy on what I just described). I mean is the rule there to eliminate the possibility of the move, or is it there to sometimes stop the move under the right conditions? I think the former is what is intended.

How can you prove any move was played without a scoresheet?
Since it wasn’t observed, How do you know that player A isn’t fabricating a story about Player B and trying to turn a loss into a win?
How can you trust one player over another without any evidence?
In a blitz game, once the pieces are put away and the score marked up, how can you change anything unless both players agree?
Without a scoresheet and no one catching the illegal move during the game, how can they catch it after the game?

[Harold_S]

If someone moved there bishop or rook to an illegal square during a game, but no one caught it until after the game was over, I would still call it an incorrect game (though I don’t know uscf policy on what I just described).

There has to be a statute of limitations on a game. Usually a claim must be made while the game is in progress. To allow otherwise gives a player a second chance to win by seeing how the game goes before making a claim.