ChessCafe.com

An Arbiter’s Notebook

Geurt Gijssen

Translate this page

What if a Player Does Not Stop the Clock?

Question: Dear Geurt, Let me suggest a way to avoid most of the problems that can be caused by failing to complete a move. In principle, this problem can arise from one of the following situations:

The player is going to press the clock, but the opponent is faster in executing his next move.
The player simply forgot to press the clock (once or several times) and the game continued with next move(s).

Article 6.7.a gives the definition of a "completed move":

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock, and start his opponent's clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See the Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c and 9.6)

The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent's clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.

I suggest to change it as follows (changes in italic and bold):

"During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, should stop his own clock, and start his opponent's clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game (See the Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c and 9.6), or the opponent made his next move.

"The time between making the move on the chessboard, stopping his own clock, and starting his opponent's clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player."

By the way, in Articles 1.1 and 6.7 the use of the word "made" seems ill-defined. If my suggestion were accepted, "made" could be substituted with "executed." Best Regards, Sergio Pagano (Italy)

Answer I have a meeting with the counsellors of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Commission (RTRC) at the end of this month and will discuss your proposal. I am almost certain that it solves the problem. Personally, though, I prefer "made" instead of "executed," but it is not a principal point.

Question Dear Geurt Gijssen, You always state that a player has the move when his opponent made his move, even if the opponent did not press the clock. The player having the move may also make his move in the thinking time of the opponent and that the following sequence is perfectly OK:

1. Player A makes a move.
2. Player B makes a move.
3. Player A presses his clock.
4. Player B presses his clock.

You also stated in one of your columns:

A sequence of three times only pressing the clock without any move by one of the opponents is forbidden. However, what do you think of the following scenario:

1. Player A has the move and his clock is running.
2. Player A makes a move (doesn't press clock).
3. Player B very quickly answers with his move (cannot press clock).
4. Player A makes another move and presses his clock.
5. Player B would like to press the clock without moving, for his move in step three (as well as for receiving his time increment perhaps), but since he has the move, this would lead to the clock being pressed three times in a row. According to you, this is forbidden.

It seems that Player B did not have the possibility to stop his clock after his move in step three and maybe he lost one increment. Was it his own fault, because he moved on the opponent's time? Or can he press the clock anyway? Can he summon the arbiter and demand one extra increment of time for him and his opponent? Thank you very much! Jörg Weisbrod (Germany)

Answer I had not foreseen this particular situation. Nevertheless, I will try to solve this problem. Player A cannot be blamed for the fact that Player B could not press his clock. You are right that Player B lost an increment, provided the game was played with an increment. As to whose "mistake" it was: in my opinion, it was Player B's error. If Player B had requested this extra increment from me, I would refuse it. The only problem I see is the move counter, provided it was used.

To make it more complicated, I refer to Article 13.6 of the Laws of Chess:

The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess. He shall not indicate the number of moves made, except in applying Article 8.5, when at least one flag has fallen. The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed a move or that the player has not pressed his clock.

This means that the arbiter cannot intervene in the given situation.

Question Dear Geurt, I have some comments on a question from the February 2012 column. To repeat: In all the following cases Player A is white and Player B is black.

Case One As in the question from Jörg Weisbrod (Germany):

1. White makes move forty and presses clock.
2. Black (low on time) makes move forty and doesn't press clock (forgets it in trouble or thinks he isn't obliged to because of step three).
3. White makes move forty-one (cannot press the clock, since Black did not press it in step two).
4. Black's flag falls.

The whole scene is observed by the arbiter.

My Question: Did Black lose on time according to Article 6.9? He did not complete forty moves.

It is clear to me that Black did not complete his fortieth move and the arbiter observed the fact. But does that mean he did not complete forty moves? What does that actually mean? If he completes every single move, and makes and completes his fortieth move, there is no argument that he wouldn't have completed forty moves. It is when he, or both players, don't complete some moves that doubts can arise. This is because Article 6.9 does not precisely define when a player has completed forty moves.

Let's look at some situations that raise even more doubts about the definition in 6.9:

Case Two Player A and B are both in time trouble from move thirty-seven. They blitz out moves without bothering to complete their moves by pressing the clock. At move forty-three, Player B's clock is still running, and then his flag falls. Player A claims Player B lost on time. In fact, Player B did not complete his moves thirty-seven to forty-three. According to current rules, it seems that Player A's claim should be upheld.

Case Three Same as Case Two, except after move forty-three Black finally completes his move by pressing the clock, and then Player A's flag falls. Player B now claims that Player A has lost on time, since he did not complete any of his moves thirty-eight to forty-three. It seems that Player B's claim should be upheld, unless somehow Player B's completion of move forty-three also completes Player A's previous moves (there is nothing in the laws of chess to indicate that). However, Player A might feel that the claim is unfair, because he never had a chance to complete his moves, as Player B's clock was running all that time.

Case Four Suppose Player B (black) is the mischievous one. Player B makes his thirty-ninth move without pressing the clock. Player A quickly responds with his move forty, obviously without pressing the clock (he can't). Now Player B responds correctly by making his move forty and pressing the clock. Suppose the arbiter is watching this interchange and so is a vital witness, because he can't deny what he saw. Player A starts thinking about his move forty-one, unaware that Black's move forty has been completed, but White's move forty has not. He thinks he has an hour, but in reality he has only a few minutes. His flag falls and Player B immediately claims the flag fall. The arbiter must admit that he saw clearly that Player A did not complete his move forty, and that Player B did not complete his thirty-ninth move. He might feel uncomfortable about saying Player A loses on time, but the flag fall is indisputable. And apparently White didn't complete forty moves? Black did but his flag didn't fall. It seems that Player A, according to the rules, has lost on time?

My suggestion is to amend Article 6.9 with a clearer definition of when the prescribed number of moves have been completed by a player. I suggest to revise Article 6.9 as follows (with added phrase in bold):

"Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. The player needs to complete the last move with a clock press without flag fall, or that his opponent makes one move in response. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves."

With this definition we can exonerate all the flag falls in Cases One to Four. With regard to Case One, it means that when Player B is thinking about his forty-first move, his clock is actually running for move forty-one, not for move forty (which he already made but was not completed). I think that corresponds to the common sense of how a player would view that situation.

The definition has the additional advantage of making explicit the requirement to make the last move without flag fall. Many players think that since they made forty moves in two hours, it doesn't matter if the flag fell right at the moment of making and completing their fortieth move. That has to do with the imprecise definition "complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time," what does "in the allotted time" mean? With the amendment to 6.9, it is now clear.

Let us look at a situation that is similar to Case One to see how it fits with the new rule:

Case Five Player B makes his fortieth move and in that moment his flag falls, but none of the players nor the arbiter notices it. Player A thinks for a couple of minutes on his forty-first move, and then moves a piece to a new square, but, without releasing it, he notices Black's flag has fallen, and claims the game to the arbiter. (A variant could be he released the piece, but that would result in an illegal move, so it is not actually a "made move" yet.) The claim should be granted as he has not actually made a move in response. If the piece was released to a legal move (without pressing the clock), then he can no longer claim the flag fall of Player B. Jesper Nörgaard (Mexico)

Answer

Case One "The whole scene is observed by the arbiter." This means, in my opinion, that the arbiter was present, followed the game, saw that the player of the white pieces completed his fortieth move, saw that the player of the black pieces made his fortieth move, and that the flag of the player of the black pieces has fallen.

Article 6.7 defines what it means to complete a move:

I agree with you that Article 6.7 does not give an exact definition as to what completing a move means, but the combination of sentences two and three makes it very clear, at least for me. A move has been completed after a player has stopped his clock (only his clock and not both clocks!).

Article 6.9 seems clear:

Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves.

I purposely wrote "seems clear," because we probably need to add something to make it very clear. However, I am not sure that your proposal is the solution to all these problems. We will discuss it in the meeting of the counsellors of RTRC at the end of this month.

Case Two According to the text you are right, but all arbiters – this is at least what I hope – will rule for the game to continue, because more than forty moves were made.

Case Three See Case Two.

Case Four Let me congratulate you with this case. It is really funny and the opponent is very mischievous. But I think you made a mistake. A player is always allowed to press the clock after he had made his move, but it is not written that he is obliged to press his clock. You assume that the pressing of the clock after the fortieth move is the pressing of the clock connected with the thirty-ninth move. I think this is wrong. When the clock is pressed after the fortieth move, it is connected with the fortieth move and therefore the player does not overstep the time limit.

Case Five I agree with you regarding the first part of Case Five. The player of the black pieces did not complete the required number of moves. Therefore, he lost the game.

I do not agree with your conclusion in the last paragraph of Case Five. You mentioned that the player of the white pieces didn't press his clock and the flag is down. Then, in my opinion, it is still clear that he did not complete his fortieth move. Therefore, the game is lost for the player of the black pieces.

If the player of the white pieces had pressed the clock after his forty-first move, the situation is different. In that case, it is not clear whether the flag fell after his fortieth or forty-first move. Then we have to apply Article 6.8: a flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect. Since the claim is made after White's forty-first move, the game continues.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I am a Sri Lankan arbiter and a fan of your column. I have a question about your February 2012 column where it is written

1. "White makes move forty and presses clock.
2. "Black (low on time) makes move forty and doesn't press clock (forgets it in trouble or thinks he isn't obliged to because of step three).
3. "White makes move forty-one (cannot press the clock, since Black did not press it in step two).
4. "Black's flag falls.

"The whole scene is observed by the arbiter."

My questions:

1. To complete a move a player should stop his clock; just moving the piece is not enough according to FIDE. So before Black completed his move, White played another move. Is this an illegal move by White, because a player should play his move after his opponent completed his move? If that is a not illegal, then

2.1. The arbiter observed the whole game, so he knew that they completed the fortieth moves. (But Black didn't press the clock after playing the fortieth move.) Thus, they receive their extra one hour to continue the game.

2.2. Black will lose the game because he did not complete his fortieth move.

I was confused by the two answers because at first I though Black would lose the game, but then because "the arbiter observes the flag fall" the game is to continue. Please clarify, and thanks for continuing this column. Regards, Malith Akalanka (Sri Lanka)

Answer Probably the word "observed" is misleading in this case. Apparently, he saw the flag fall, but did not react or did not realise it was after the fortieth move. In my opinion, he has to intervene. If he doesn't or the opponent doesn't claim, the game has to be continued. Furthermore, I advise you to read the two previous questions and answers very closely. The questions are very interesting. I am not sure regarding the answers.

Question Dear Geurt, Can a player claim a win or a draw with an incomplete scoresheet? There is no provision in the FIDE laws that indicates that a player can claim a win with an incomplete scoresheet but on the result of the game only. Thank you for the clarification, because most players just submit an incomplete scoresheet with the corresponding result of the game only. What penalties should be imposed on these players? James Neo (Philippines)

Answer You are right. Nothing has been written in the Laws of Chess that the claiming player has to show a complete scoresheet. The consequence is that the arbiter, in many cases, has to find out what had happened in the game. This applies to draw claims and to situations in which a player claims that the opponent has overstepped the time control. The most difficult case is when two incomplete scoresheets are submitted after the game and the results on the scoresheets are different. However, such cases are very rare. It happened to me only once, in an open tournament; fortunately, I found the players and they completed the scoresheets and confirmed the correct result.

I am not one who imposes immediate penalties for all kind of "violations," but sometimes it must be done. In the case of an incomplete scoresheet, I summon the players to complete it. This in itself can be a very harsh penalty.

With regard to your first question, I have made a proposal for the meeting with the counsellors of the RTRC to discuss the possibility that a player who makes a claim has to present a reasonably complete scoresheet, as the Rules of the USCF states. It is, in my opinion, a logical point that a claimant has to present a document that proves that his claim is correct.

Question Dear Geurt, In your March 2012 column, you mention that a player does not have to announce that the opponent's king is check. But is it allowed to announce a check? I find that habit annoying and disturbing, especially if an opponent makes several consecutive checking moves and announces each of them. I think that a chess player should only talk to his opponent during a game in cases sanctioned by the laws of chess, such as draw offers, resignations, and when adjusting pieces. Do you agree? Thanks, B. Jensen (Denmark)

Answer You are right, but I can understand that some (mostly older) players are only being polite by announcing that they checked the opponent's king. I am fairly certain that they have no intention to irritate the opponent in any way. The simplest way is to inform your opponent when it first happens that you are grateful for the announcement, but there is no reason to repeat them.

Question Hi, Geurt. An arbiter must see that the rules are strictly adhered to. One rule is that a scoresheet must be clear and legible. I have often seen very poor and/or completely illegible scoresheets and yet I have never seen or heard anyone penalized for the scoresheet not being clear and legible. Has this happened; if so what penalty was applied or what do you think is appropriate. Have a good day. Bruce Pollard (New Zealand)

Answer Whether something is legible is of course subjective. In general it is possible to read the written moves. I know of only one player whose writing is not very legible in the course of the game. He starts to write the moves in a reasonable way, but after his twentieth move, and especially when he is short of time, his writing is almost impossible to read. Furthermore, he forgets to write the moves and, as a matter of fact, when the arbiter summons him to write the moves, he does it. In my opinion, this player is so nervous that he may ask for an assistant to write the moves. Of course, in that case some minutes shall be deducted from his thinking time.

I have never penalised a player for bad handwriting and I never heard about such a case. What kind of penalty is appropriate? A warning or deducting some time or giving the opponent some extra minutes could be appropriate, but certainly not losing the game.

Question Dear Geurt, In a national tournament in Egypt one player, while in time trouble, told an arbiter that he had to go to the toilet. The arbiter, who holds the FA title, told him: "On your time." I was the chief arbiter in this tournament, and when I went to see the situation, I saw that the player had a lost position. I did not intervene. A few minutes later he lost the game. What is your opinion about the arbiter's decision? Best regards, IA Ahmed Yehya (Egypt) and Yehya (Egypt)

Answer You write, "The arbiter told him: 'On your time.'" What is the meaning of this answer? There are several possibilities:

OK, but during your absence your clock must run.
OK, you may only go when your clock is running and it is your move.
OK, but when it is your move, your clock is running and we do not stop your clock.
OK, you have to wait for your opponent's move and then you may go.

Answer three is the only correct one. If the explanation of the arbiter is one of the other possibilities, his action was wrong.

Finally, I refer to the last sentence of Article 12.2 of the Laws of Chess:

The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter.

A PDF file of this month's column, along with all previous columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.

Have a question for Geurt Gijssen? Perhaps he will reply in his next ChessCafe.com column. Please include your full name and country of residence.

Yes, I have a question for Geurt!

Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses will be posted below daily.

Purchases from our
chess shop help keep ChessCafe.com freely accessible:

ECE: Pawn Endings
by Chess Informant

Chess Informant 113
by Branko Tadic

1000TN!!
by Chess Informant

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [ChessCafe Archives]
[ChessCafe Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com]
[Contact ChessCafe.com] [Advertising]