In a rated game (g/30), White and Black each have less than ten seconds in an endgame and are playing with a digital clock using a five-second delay. White knocks over several pieces while making a move and then presses the clock. Black presses the clock and instructs White to restore the pieces to the board. White sets up the displaced pieces and presses the clock. Black then stops the clock, summons the TD, and claims a win on time as White could not have restored the pieces before his flag fell except for the extra pressing of the clock which gained several seconds. I understand that this next part shouldn’t matter to a TD, but both players noticed a winning continuation for White while waiting for the TD to arrive at the board. White insists that displacing pieces and pressing the clock were accidents due to time pressure, and that he should have a warning, or at most a penalty of time added to Black’s clock (which both players see as a win for White). White also insists that he would have restored the displaced pieces in time even without the extra pressing of the clock. Black stands by his claim. This is hypothetical; a similar situation had no claims while the game was in progress. How do you rule?
I don’t think that you can claim a win on time with the opponent’s flag still up (or whatever the digital equivalent is). I’m also not aware of players being forced to reset the pieces on their own time in a regular time control, though perhaps someone can point me to that rule. In any event, it is common practice to see the alternative, that is a player moves, and in moving he accidentally displaces a piece or two, hits his clock, and then fixes the position. I’ve never seen the opponent complain. I’m assuming, of course, that the displacement was accidental.
Alex Relyea
From Rule 11C page 24: "“The opponent may press the clock without moving, if necessary, to force the player who knocked over the piece(s) to restore the position on his or her own time.”
Agreed.
11C. Accidental piece displacement. If, during a game, one or more pieces have been accidentally displaced and incorrectly replaced, then the displacement shall be treated as an illegal move. If, during the course of a move, a player inadvertently knocks over one or more pieces, that player must not press the clock until the position has been reestablished. The opponent may press the clock without moving, if necessary, to force the player who knocked over the piece(s) to restore the position on his or her own time. If possible, clocks with move counters should be readjusted.
TD tip: If using increment time control it may not be to a player’s advantage to start the opponent’s clock if the opponent created an illegal position or accidentally displaced pieces. In that case the players may stop or pause the clock until the correct position is reinstated.
Another scenario where a player deliberately fails to do what is required by the rules and puts the opponent in the position of having to press his clock and require the player to do what the rules state he was supposed to do, thereby giving the player the benefit of the delay time, effectively giving him a reward for violating the rules.
We have been discussing another case like this where players don’t bother to replace a pawn on the last rank with the piece to which it has been promoted, in order to gain time. Next thing you know, we’ll have a case where somebody just presses his clock without even bothering to move, so as to gain the delay time or the increment to make the move.
Be that as it may, the situation in the question is covered (somewhat) by Rule 11C, Accidental Piece Displacement. This rule states that a player who displaces pieces must restore them while still on-move (that is, before pressing the clock). If he fails to do so, the opponent may press the clock to force the player to restore the pieces on his own time. The rule states that in this case, if possible, clocks with move counters should be adjusted. There is nothing said about deducting time from the player’s clock if the cycling of the clock (player press, opponent press) adds time, as with a delay. The rule also is silent on the penalty for a player deliberately pressing his clock in violation of Rule 11C with the pieces unrestored, because there is not enough time on his clock to carry out the restoration.
11C does state that accidental piece displacement is to be treated “as an illegal move”. Rule 11D covers Illegal moves in Sudden Death, and states that if a player makes an illegal move in a sudden death time control, then two minutes should be added to the remaining time of the opponent.
Given that the player in this scenario deliberately violated 11C, which places on him a duty to restore the position before pressing the clock, a TD could forfeit the player under 13I (Refusal to comply with the rules), but I think most TD’s would consider this too harsh, at least not before a warning, since 11C is a somewhat obscure rule, and it is hard to call it
13 “refusal to comply” when a player likely doesn’t even know the rule.
So, I think the things I would do in this situation are: (1) warn the player that under Rule 11C, he is obliged to restore the pieces before pressing his clock, that the situation on the clocks does not excuse him from that duty, even if it means he will lose by time forfeit, and that subsequent deliberate violations of Rule 11C will result in forfeiture of the game for failure to adhere to the rules; and (2) add two minutes to the opponent’s clock under 11D.
No, it doesn’t. It says that "If, during a game, one or more pieces have been accidentally displaced and incorrectly replaced [my emphasis], then the displacement shall be treated as an illegal move.
Incorrect replacement is anything other than correct replacement. No replacement is not correct replacement. Therefore, no replacement before completing the move (pressing the clock) is incorrect replacement, and 11D applies.
I disagree with your interpretation of the rule. It’s only an illegal move if pieces are put back on the wrong squares.
It could be argued that stopping the clock to reinstate the correct position could gain time for a player who is not entitled to it. It would gain time to adjust the clock too. I don’t think It’s a good idea to permit under the rules a situation in which someone can benefit from their own, possibly intentional, clumsy behavior.
This would seem to be an argument to bring back the days when all clocks had no delay or increment and the player would lose the time which it takes to reset the pieces and no adjustment to the clock was needed by simply restarting the opponent’s clock. With delay and increment there seems to be no ideal solution in which the player knocking down the pieces has all of the time it took to restore them subtracted from his clock and no need to adjust the clock.
I would like to see a solution with delay or increment which doesn’t potentially benefit the player who knocked down the pieces. The only one I can think of would be to have an option on the clock which is simple and fast to use which doesn’t add increment, delay, or cause a need to adjust the move counter.
Well, you can disagree if you want. Your interpretation means that a player who displaces pieces should not replace them because there is risk in doing it incorrectly and no downside at all to not doing it. (Indeed, with delay clocks, there is an advantage to forcing the opponent to cycle the clock.) This makes a nullity of the 11C requirement that the player replace the pieces before pressing the clock. I don’t think you should adopt interpretations that make a nullity out of part of the rules. So I think you are wrong.
Anyway, you don’t need 11D to get to the penalty. Not replacing the pieces after a piece displacement before pressing the clock is a violation of 11C. It is within the TD’s discretion to penalize violations of the rules, especially deliberate, up to and including 13I forfeiture. Even if 11D does not apply exactly it is reasonable to use analogy to arrive at a penalty: two minutes added to the opponents clock, the same as for an illegal move. Incidentally, under 1C2a that is the “standard” penalty for rules violations.
Rule 11C already provides a remedy for the situation where a player knocks over the pieces and then presses the clock without replacing them. If the authors of 11C had felt that there should also be a two minute penalty they would have said so. For that reason, I don’t agree with your stated policy of imposing a two minute penalty.
Harold does have a point, though, that even if the rules as currently written don’t provide for any penalty other than restarting the player’s clock, maybe the rules should be changed to impose one.
See rule 1C2.a on page 2 in the rulebook.
1C2a. Standard penalty. Expect 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.
The point I was making to Brian was that in this case the rules do provide a specific penalty (restarting the player’s clock) so it’s not a situation where the “standard penalty” should be applied. But if you, as the author of Rule 11C, disagree then I stand corrected.
duplicate
Restarting the player’s clock isn’t a penalty; it is self-help allowed to the opponent. The opponent is allowed to restart the player’s clock in this situation – one where the player erroneously pressed it. If it is a delay or increment clock, this self-help option may actually reward the player for his rules infraction, a possibility mentioned in a TD Tip in the Rulebook Changes version of 11C.
Does the mention of self-help options in the rules mean that a rules infraction cannot be penalized by the TD under director discretion? This is what Bob apparently thinks, but my opinion is that while the existence of self-help options may make it less necessary for the TD to impose penalties, director discretion always permits a TD to penalize rules infractions, as when a player persists in violating rules.
Of course in the hypothetical situation under discussion, adding two minutes to the opponent’s clock (which was suggested by the player) wouldn’t have had any effect, since they had both found what appears to have been a trivial win for the player in the meantime.
Thanks to the above posters for pointing me to the relevant rule.
Alex Relyea
Moving the discussion beyond what is in the rules: the current penalty is too mild to deter the undesirable behavior. What is your opinion on removing 60 seconds or two minutes from the clock of the player who makes an illegal move (expanded to include pressing the clock with displaced pieces)? This may be restricted to games using delay or increment. This penalty in the middle of a game is mild, which fits the nature of the infraction. This penalty in a time scramble can decide the game, which also fits the nature of the infraction.
If there’s a reason to believe that the player did this on purpose, then maybe. Otherwise, it is far too extreme, IMO.
Alex Relyea
You play an opponent eight times (G/30). In four of the games, you win convincingly because you are almost 250 points higher rated. The lower rated realizes he cannot beat you, so he resorts to cheating. How? Well, one of the reasons he loses to you is because he gets into serious time pressure and has meltdowns. So, he decides that from now on he will cheat by knocking over pieces whenever he needs some extra time to analyze the position. He knows from discussions related to this behavior that the TD only plans on awarding his opponent with an extra two minutes, great! While the TD is resetting the clock, I should be able to get several extra minutes to think. The TD has also told the player he has the option to simply press the clock without moving, but even then, I will be rewarded with an extra 5 seconds (the delay time) to accomplish this, and if I need more, I can just illegally press the clock again without penalty. I know that the TD has no intention of forfeiting me, as the TD says that would be too harsh and extreme.
Another two more losses, but this game plan is working. My opponent is getting really pissed off at both me and the TD, and it is seriously affecting the quality of his play. So, now, not only will I knock over pieces, but I will start leaving captured pieces on the board. This should really put him over the edge and really irritate him. Man, that TD is useless and my opponent knows it. I have an 0-7 record against the player so what the hell? Worse case is I just lose again.
This is what is really happening. This is not a made up scenario. And, as a result, the higher rated player has decided that playing under these conditions is both unfair and unsportsmanlike, so he is boycotting all these tournaments so as to avoid any future confrontations with said player. Once again he gets rewarded by eliminating his strongest competitor.
Thanks for the reply, Alex. Applying this ruling unexpectedly would be extreme. However, as a standard rule of which players are aware I see it as a potential improvement. Below I present some arguments for this suggested harsh rule being consistent with the rules of chess.
I solicit feedback from others as well. I can expect situations like the hypothetical in this thread to occur in my club, and I am undecided on how to proceed. Rulings given on the hypothetical rewarded the player who made rules infractions or required that the TD determine intent. I am not enthusiastic about these options.
Argument #1: Chess has harsh rules; this creates order
Losing on time is harsh. A player whose flag falls when he has achieved a forced mate in two (or is up two queens, etc.) still loses. It could be argued that this is extreme: the rule has already achieved its purpose as this game will finish in the time allotted for the round and the player whose time has expired clearly won on the board – but the rule creates order.
The “touch move” rule is harsh – especially when “clock move” is a viable alternative. A player who intends to make an obvious recapture accidentally picks up the wrong bishop, and this likely costs him the game. However, because this rule is so harsh there are few issues with gamesmanship such as starting to make a move to watch the opponent’s reaction, and then saying that it was an accident so you can move another piece.
Deducting sixty seconds for an illegal move is no more harsh than the above rules, but a player often stands to gain more by getting away with an illegal move than by violating the touch-move rule.
Argument #2: The advent of delay/increment has created a need for the rule change
Before delay clocks a player with three seconds remaining would run out of time. With a delay clock a player can win with a small advantage, but they may need a minute to find the right plan. Currently they can violate a rule that will merely add two minutes to their opponent’s time. They may even get a warning but neither penalty affects their chance of winning. In exchange, they get a good look at the position with the clocks stopped while the TD is summoned. If they find a winning plan then the unethical behavior is rewarded. The same goes for saving a draw. If they are lost anyway then they risked nothing. Deducting sixty seconds for the above-mentioned infraction requires the player to complete the game using their remaining time as unethical antics like those discussed here will lose the game. Unintentional blunders in time pressure such as dropping a piece or an accidental illegal move will also lose the game.
Argument #3: The rule removes the need for a TD to determine intent
Under current rules a TD may address similar situations by applying 13I (refusal to follow rules of chess) or other rules which require a judgment of intent. This is not good for a chess club. When a TD makes a call based on intent at least one player will consider it extreme. Players take offense and the club is hurt. Good rules render intent moot.
…and just to be clear
There would be no penalty for displacing pieces when the pieces are restored before the clock is pressed.