If a director sees a player touch one piece and then move another, and immediate after this the opponent makes a move. Can a director reinstate the position and force the first player to move the piece originally touched? According to 10J, a player can only claim touch-move before touching a piece (or making a move). But if one construes the touching of one piece then moving another an “illegal move,” then according 11H, a director can reinstate a position before an illegal move was made. This doesn’t sound right to me, but when I was asked about it, I was hard pressed to explain why touching one piece and then moving another isn’t an “illegal move.” What do you think?
Steven Craig Miller (Lincoln-Way West High School chess coach)
An illegal move is a move that violates the way pieces are allowed to move. Some examples are a rook move that ends on a different rank and file, a bishop move that ends on a different color, a knight move that ends on the same color, moving and uncovering a check on your own king, moving and leaving your king n an existing check, etc.
One way to think about it is that a move is illegal if it would be illegal even if the only pieces touched are involved in the move.
A touch move is different. It is a declaration of an intent to move. Changing that intent makes it the responsibility of the opponent to call the initial touch. A TD should not make that call. For that matter, it may be that the new move is actually weaker than the original move, and interference from the TD to force the original move would actually be helping the player that the TD is supposedly ruling against.
Changing a move after hitting the clock (and hitting the clock is what completes a move) crosses the boundary from touch move to illegal move. At that point it really becomes one move during the player’s time and then two more illegal moves during the opponent’s move. There have been times when TDs have made rulings to reinstate the position even if the move-changer is a GM and the opponent was away from the board and never saw the original move anyway.
P.S. An illegal move is not actually illegal until the clock is hit. Until then the player can correct it to a legal move (with normal touch move considerations) even if the piece has been released or the opponent’s piece has been touched (which for a legal move makes the move determined and unchangeable).
The definition of “illegal move” could get extremely complicated. What about moving two pieces at the same time? What about making a move when it is your opponent’s move? What about making a move, and in the process accidentally brushing another piece onto the floor, then accidentally putting it back on the wrong square? What about simply removing an opponent’s piece without moving one of your own? What about moving your opponent’s piece instead of your own? What about putting two pieces on the same square? Etc etc.
According to the situation cited, another question is whether the TD should be making a ruling at all. It was not posited that a claim was made to the TD concerning the illegal move or a touch move. Is the TD interfering or stepping beyond the bounds of his authority to act? Under FIDE rules an arbiter can initiate action. But under USCF rules, are we to follow the letter and wait for a claim or should we execise the old standard “TD discretion” to correct a wrong? I would prefer the latter, especially in the case of a player not being at the board to see the transgression. In scholastic chess illegal moves happen all the time and often are uncaught by the opponent. I have even seen a 2400+ player miss opponent’s moving a knight like a bishop (wonderfully helping the defense!) in a time scramble.
Out of curiosity – I played a close game a while back that was going down to the wire. Unfortunately, we both had very low clocks and after my opponent made his move, I immediately reached for my rook, grabbed it, and sadly realized I was in check. My rook couldn’t do anything to stop the check, so, out of confusion, I took my hand off, told my opponent to pause the clock, and we went over to talk to a TD. To be honest, I don’t remember what the ruling was, but I believe the end effect was that my opponent got 2 (or more, I don’t remember) minutes (he ended up winning, though I believe he was ahead before my accident). Barring my calling myself on the rules, what is the correct ruling in this situation?
If the situation was as you describe, and if the TD awarded your opponent 2 minutes, then you were robbed. There is no penalty (or time adjustment) for touching a piece which has no legal move. Just put the piece back and make a legal move with a different piece.
Even if you had moved the rook (illegally), but had not yet pressed the clock, there would still be no penalty or time adjustment. Again, just put it back and move a different piece.
If you had moved the rook (illegally) and pressed the clock, then your opponent would be entitled to 2 minutes.
I suppose, though, that if you deliberately or repeatedly touch pieces which have no legal moves, you could be penalized for annoying your opponent.
I disagree, assuming that both players immediately went to find a TD and present the situation. (In fact, I disagree even if only the player who asked his opponent to pause the clock went to find a TD.) USCF rules explicitly allow a player to stop both clocks to seek a TD in order to make a claim. In this case, it is true that the player was not making a claim against his opponent; if anything, he was making an illegal move claim against himself.
You are indeed correct that a TD may penalize a player who stops both clocks without justification. In this case, based on the description of the situation (which is the only information I have), I would not assess a penalty. I do not see that the player has “given himself loads of extra time” if both players immediately walked away from the board to consult with a TD. Yes, the players should have known the difference between determining a move and completing a move; if they did, the player who moved the rook would have understood no penalty applied and he could correct the situation simply by making a legal move before pressing the clock.
Having said all that, I agree that a player is not allowed to stop both clocks to find a TD just to ask a rules question. Perhaps I am being too generous in placing the line between asking a rules question and thinking an “illegal move” violation had happened.
OK, I’ll buy that the TD might have discretionary power here to add 2 minutes.
If the player immediately went to the TD as soon as the clock was paused, he was hardly giving himself any useful time. My discretion here would probably be not to impose a time penalty.
Under the question as originally posted, it’s a touch move and not an illegal move violation. That would require a player complaint as far as I can tell.
Under your later examples, where actual illegal moves are made not in time pressure, it falls under 11D/11H and 21D2. The TD clearly has authority to intervene in the game, according to the letter of the law, to correct illegal moves which were not made under time pressure. However, my experience in scholastics has been that variation 11H1 (directors serve as witness only and do not correct illegal moves) is frequently employed.