Maybe it is not always as utterly simple as implied.
Here are two possible weaknesses in the rule phrasing that “simply” requires the player to move and release his king first before proceeding to touch his rook:
It is legal for Black to make a reply move before White presses White’s clock. Therefore there is the possibility that a quick-handed Black could determine Black’s reply move between the time that White releases his king on g1 but before White touches his h1-Rook. Then there is a muddle about whether White has made an illegal move, or whether White can proceed to move White’s rook to castle.
At least in Blitz, White loses if he makes an illegal move; although I am unsure whether Black loses the right to claim such a victory if Black makes a subsequent reply?
Things change over decades. Aronian, Svidler, and Nakamura are just some of the big names that have competed in chess960-FRC tournaments. And I believe that the FIDE rules of chess at least mention chess960. In any case, it is easy to imagine that masters will play some chess960 in the foreseeable future.
The castling rule that says the king must be touched first is brittle in that it only works if the king and rook have certain start squares. My offered phrasing for the castling rule was partly an attempt to avoid that brittle-ness.
.
That reconciliation is unnecessary, as this discussion concerns USCF rules, not FIDE rules.
This is a good example of why Gijssen’s writings should not be construed as unilaterally applying to events conducted under USCF rules.
Under USCF rules as currently constituted, in a position where castling is legal, the move is NOT determined when the rook is moved first in the castling maneuver. So, the scenario above does not apply to events under USCF rules until January 1, 2015.
It is unclear to me why this is so crucial.
This rationale was part of the reason why the Delegates changed USCF castling rules.
Yes, yes, and yes. I was thinking about using the “variant” when I direct, but this is a very good point. Lots of potential headaches are removed if I don’t have to worry about what a player’s “intent” was. Also keep in mind that the TD usually doesn’t witness the disputed move – he is called over after the dispute arises. In any event, it’s much easier to determine what a player actually did, as opposed to what he intended to do. I think I will be enforcing the new rule.
This has been discussed in the past. The rulebook is ambiguous (unless that has been improved in the new edition), but the way I interpret it is that it is not legal for Black to move until White’s move has been completed, and that hasn’t happened until he presses the clock. I have had NTDs back me up on this.
Of course, I don’t insist on this if the player has simply forgotten to press the clock (and usually, this is pretty obvious), but I do insist on it if one player is trying to “blitz” the other by never allowing him to press his clock.
No player has the right to make a move in the middle of his opponent’s making a move to determine that opponent’s move. So the above scenario would have Black making an illegal move, not White. When a player moves his King 2 squares toward a Rook with all the other legalities of a Castling move in existence, that is the beginning of the Castling move. Placing the Rook on the adjacent square on the other side of the King is another part of that same move.
These are the rules for Classic Chess. The rules for any variant, including Chess960 are separate and distinct from the rules of Classic Chess.
When I teach the kids in my scholastic club how to castle, I tell them the action is to, “Move the King 2 squares toward the Rook and place the Rook on the other side of the King and the square right next to the King.” This obviously is the method for Castling on either side of the board, Kingside or Queenside.
Moving the Rook first and which square to place the Rook is more ambiguous when the King is still on its original square. It is not a logical norm. If a person is going to Castle on the Kingside then the Rook is moved 2 squares toward the King and the King is placed on the adjacent square on the other side of the Rook. However, if it is a Queenside Castle then the Rook is to be moved 3 squares toward the King. This is inconsistent and complicated in explanation and execution.
Yes, better is to have the King move first in either direction and move the consistent 2 squares with the Rook going on the adjacent square to the King and on the opposite side.
Of course, Mr. Kosterman is correct here. I’m not entirely sure where Mr. Milener came up with the idea that it is legal for a player to move before his opponent’s move is completed. A player must be allowed to press his clock before his opponent moves.
Only because your explanation is complicated. What about - Slide the rook over until it is next to the king and then put the king on the other side of the rook. For this explanation you wouldn’t even need to understand numbers.
I’ve directed thousands of tournaments and never had a “headache” using the rule in which castling by moving the rook first is permitted.
Despite numerous posts by others since I posed the question about what the intent was when the rook and then immediately the king are moved, no one has dared answer directly. I suspect it’s because the new rule is more likely to create a problem where none exists and answering honestly would substantiate that.
To be honest, I’ve never had a problem either. Once I had a kid complain that his opponent touched/moved the Rook first, and I said “So what? That’s allowed.” That’s the only time it has ever come up. So I suspect this is mostly a solution without a problem.
Nevertheless, I appreciated the spirit of the comment (that I was responding to). I’d rather not have to try to figure out what a player’s intent was.
I’ve pointed out (in this and other threads) two recent, separate instances where this ambiguity has occurred in a live tournament, and has caused a dispute.
The question of why it would be good for an arbiter to not have to determine intent in such situations is left as an exercise for the reader.
Well that is a good way if moving the Rook first was allowed.
I have had very young kids at Kindergarten or even pre-school age and the, “Move the King over 2 (squares) toward the Rook and put the Rook on the other side of the King.” has worked fine with complete understanding.
Honestly, I have always seen it the way I described.
Also, if the King is moved the 2 squares first, there is no doubt that a Castling move is occurring, unless the player doesn’t remember the King can normally only move one square at a time. But that’s not practically the case after any person has played for awhile.
If a player moves the rook, sits and stares, in my view that’s a rook move.
In the past when I got a complaint about the rook moving first followed immediately by the king (maybe 5 to 10 times in my 38 years as a very active TD) I’ve allowed castling but explained that the king move is less ambiguous. This TD doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the player’s “intent”. When explained the players usually understand and it’s not a future problem. This new rule should not be a punishment.
This FIDE rule as about as childish as their other one claiming that replacing a pawn with an upside down rook on the 8th rank is illegal. Again, it’s an issue of intent. I hope the USCF is not planning on copying FIDE on that one too.
Correct where he wrote (a) “the rulebook is ambiguous”, or where he wrote (b) “it is not legal”, or both a & b (although both is impossible by definition)?
I came up with the idea because…
A.
If it is illegal to move between the time your opponent determines his move on the board and then completes his move by pressing his clock, then I have made perhaps 10 or 20 illegal moves during my years of tournament play.
As I occasionally forget to press my clock, my opponents have made similarly illegal moves. Yet none of us feel we were breaking any rule.
People occasionally forget to press their clock, and sometimes nobody notices for awhile as play proceeds. It will always be so, not because our trainers taught us any bad habit, but because to err is human.
I feel confident that these “illegal” moves are happening in your tournaments, all you TDs on these forums. Are you getting called over to boards to hear requests for you to penalize the opponent who moved after the complaining player determined his move without completing? If not, your customers seem to not agree that these moves are illegal.
B.
Extensive discussions by Geurt Gijssen of why FIDE abandoned the flawed idea of simply ruling that it is illegal to move between the opponent’s determination and completion.
For example, in Blitz any illegal move is grounds for the opponent to claim instant victory. Yet in Blitz players routinely ignore whether their opponent has completed after determining, even though in Blitz one illegal move is grounds for instantly declaring victory.
When was the last time that a TD on these USCF forums stopped a Blitz game and declared a player lost because he moved between his opponent’s determination and completion?
.
Technically, according to the Official Rules of Chess, it is illegal to move while the opponent’s clock is running. Rule 6B states that a player has the move when the opponent’s move has been completed. Rule 9G defines completion of the move as pressing the clock. Thus, a player is not on the move until the opponent has pressed the clock.
As a practical matter, of course players occasionally forget to press the clock. Again, the Official Rules of Chess require the opponent to make a claim before the TD takes any enforcement action. If the opponent forgot to press the clock, it is highly unlikely the opponent will make such a claim.
Note that USCF Blitz rule 15 states "a legal move is completed when the hand leaves the piece. Therefore, in Blitz, it is not necessary to wait for the opponent to press the clock before moving.
The FIDE Laws of Chess do not have the concept of “determination” and “completion” of the move. Instead, the FIDE rules just use the phrase “made a move.” This is only speculation on my part, but I’m guessing the reason is that this allows FIDE to separate the rules into “Basic Rules” (articles 1 through 5) and “Competition Rules” (articles 6 through 12). There is no mention of chess clocks or time controls in the basic rules, so articles 1-5 of the FIDE Laws of Chess apply to any chess game whatsoever, whether a rated tournament game or a casual game. (In other words, articles 1-5 constitute “how to play chess.”) The price the USCF rules pay for the concept of determination and completion of the move is that the clock becomes an inseparable part of the rules.
It is generally a mistake to rely on Geurt Gijssen’s An Arbiter’s Notebook column for advice about non-FIDE rated USCF events. The FIDE Laws of Chess and the USCF Official Rules of Chess differ in significant ways. IA Gijssen answers questions based on the FIDE Laws of Chess, not the USCF rules.
It is surprising to see a response (particularly from one who wishes to be exacting) that snips out the portion of the quote which would have comprehensively answered the above question. I refer to the following wording, repeated here verbatim: “A player must be allowed to press his clock before his opponent moves.”
Mr. Ballou’s most recent post in this thread comprehensively addresses the remainder of Mr. Milener’s most recent post; thus, no further comment is required from me. I will state again, however, that relying on Mr. Gijssen’s column for interpretation of USCF rules is an error in judgment.
I guess that we shall have to get the TD every time we play children and adults who move pieces before we have a chance to press the clock. This is something I see all the time, and not only in the murky time pressure situations. Very often some players blitz out moves in the opening, just so that they can save time. It is almost a fetish for them to use only their delay time to rattle off a dozen or more moves. Hardly have you placed your piece and reached for the clock and they have already moved. Once you press the clock they are ready to press it right back. Please explain what the TD will do in this situation if called over to rule. What is the penalty if any for moving before the other player presses his clock? How does FIDE rule on this matter and what penalty do they assess?
This habit comes from playing lots of blitz chess where the rules are slightly different. I am not sure that most players know that tournament rules differ from blitz rules. Even so, the practice of moving while the opponent is moving is common. Since in USCF rules you can skip a couple of move pairs in writing down the moves, this even enhances and rewards moving before the opponent presses the clock. With touch sensors, it often happens that the player will try to press his button, have the other player press his immediately, and the first player presses his button again, which leads to the other player pressing his again to complete the move. Imagine what this would do to move counters.
In both cases, the offender is warned initially. As with any other similar rules violation, director discretion applies if repeated violations occur. The only difference I can discern between USCF and FIDE in this scenario is that the TD in a USCF event should not step in unless a player first lodges a complaint.
Of course, this doesn’t generally happen in events with 30-second increment, because players are required to keep score every move (ergo, not typically a problem in FIDE events). That said, I know an IM/FA from England who sometimes finishes his classical games with more time on his clock than he had when the game started.
Players are responsible for knowing how the features of their clocks work. Adjusting a move counter is no different than adjusting the main time on a clock, or fixing issues with a delay/increment setting.
So, under TD discretion, I can add time to the offended player’s clock (how much?), take time off the offender’s clock, or forfeit the offender. I can see adding 10 minutes or so as long as the extra time does not cause the round to go too long. There is no standard time penalty, so that is up to the TD. I don’t particularly like taking time off a clock, but once again there is no standard time penalty so the discretion of the TD is important. Forfeiting the offender is easier in the short run. After the 1st warning, the player risks losing the game upon a second offense.
1C2. Director discretion.
In areas in which the director has discretion, it is appropriate to be strictest with rules enforcement and penalties in events that are stronger or offer larger prizes. Being harshly penalized over a trivial rules violation can be sufficiently upsetting to deter a beginner from future chess participation.
1C2a. Standard penalty.
Except where specifically noted in the rules, the standard penalty assessed by the director is to add two unused minutes to the remaining time of the opponent of the player not following the rules of chess.
1C2b. Non-standard penalties.
Except where specifically noted in the rules, the director may assess penalties either more or less severe than the standard penalty (1C2a). It is often more appropriate for a director to issue a warning(s) before applying 1C2a in cases involving young or inexperienced players. A director may assess a more severe penalty in cases involving players who repeatedly do not follow the rules of chess.
I disagree with Mr. Reed here on the FIDE rule. IA Gijssen has stated that the player is always entitled to press his clock after he moves. This means, IMO, that the opponent has acted properly.
