"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



David Richerby wrote:

What is this? The World Pot-Kettle Comparison Championships?

You are right. I am black. Thanks for pointing it out.

How old fashioned! These days, BTW, the kettle prefers to be called a
'kettle of color'.

To be on topic, didn't we settle the original question? As far as I can see,
from Maxwell's book, which has the WBCA Official Rules in it, as advised by
DeFirmian, Dlugy, Seriwan, Henley, Kopec, Benjamin, Browne, [2nd Ed, Blitz
Theory, SLP Inc.] there is no difference in this instance from regular
chess, the same rule applies.

Blitz rules are exceptions to, or additions to, the regular rules, and this
instance is neither. I don't know if there is any difference in the FIDE
blitz rules that would except this circumstance, which in summary, was:-

A piece not released is not moved. Therefore :: even though a mate is
possible, and releasing it ends the game even if the clock expires, and even
if the piece is held over the mating square... it is not moved until
released, and therefore the special circumstance of achieving mate to end
the game is not invoked.

Does anyone actually understand anything different from any set of Blitz
rules they can quote from?

Phil Innes

PS: I included a new problem on arbiter interpretation in this week's
forthcoming Parrot column at Chessville, which has naught to do with Blitz,
but much to do with time control and preponderance of material - but where
Guert Gijssen recently wrote in his Chesscafe column that arbiters could
decide the game either way [!]

Maybe they should issue a standard Arbiter 8-ball, OR, let the players
decide the game themselves?

-- Guy "Kettle" Macon

Chess One wrote:

To be on topic, didn't we settle the original question? As far
as I can see, from Maxwell's book, which has the WBCA Official
Rules in it, as advised by DeFirmian, Dlugy, Seriwan, Henley,
Kopec, Benjamin, Browne, [2nd Ed, Blitz Theory, SLP Inc.] there
is no difference in this instance from regular chess, the same
rule applies.

You are correct about there not being any difference in this
situation, so I took the liberty of rewriting the original
question with "blitz game" replaced with "game" and the bogus
red herrings such as the imaginary Eastern European rule
variant deleted. Here it is:

Player A and Player B are playing a game.

Player A has the piece in his hand to make the mating move.

Player B claims a win on time (before A can complete the move).

Who wins?

The original question specifies that the clock falls and the
opponent cliams the win before the mating move is completed,
so we can also ignore the case where there is a disagreement
as to which came first or it cannot be determined which came
first.

A piece not released is not moved. Therefore :: even though
a mate is possible, and releasing it ends the game even if
the clock expires, and even if the piece is held over the
mating square... it is not moved until released, and therefore
the special circumstance of achieving mate to end the game is
not invoked.

I agree. The rules seem clear on that:

Article 5: The completion of the game

5.1 "The game is won by the player who has checkmated
his opponent`s king. This immediately ends the game,
provided that the move producing the checkmate position
was a legal move."

(Note: the rest of 5.1 and all of 5.2 covers resignation
and draws, and thus do no apply here.)

Picking up a piece is not the same as completing a move.
In the situation described, it isn't even clear whether
the player was intending to place his piece on the mating
square. Perhaps he only saw the winning move after the
clock fell and the opponent claimed victory. In order
for Player A to complete making the mating move he has
to place the piece on the mating square and release it.
This is the only case where the time of releasing the
piece is important; in all other cases it is the time
of stopping his clock and starting his opponen't clock
that matters.

The rules seem clear on that as well:

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

4.6 "When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece
has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to
another square. The move is considered to have been made
[...]
1. in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been
removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed
his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing
piece from his hand;
2. in the case of castling, when the player`s hand has released
the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the
player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet
made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move
other than castling on that side, if this is legal;
3. in the case of the promotion of a pawn, when the pawn has
been removed from the chessboard and the player`s hand has
released the new piece after placing it on the promotion square.
If the player has released from his hand the pawn that has
reached the promotion square, the move is not yet made, but
the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to another
square."


Article 6: The chess clock

6.8 "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
Articles 5.1, and 5.2). 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."

6.10 "Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2
(a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the
prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game
is lost by the player."

So player B wins on time.

--------------------------------------------------------

So, how about this situation?

Player A and Player B are playing a game.

Player A has the piece in his hand to make the mating move.

Player B claims a win on time (before A can complete the move).

Player A completes the mating move.

Player B attempts to retract his claim of a win and to
give the win to A. A disagrees and says B won.

Who wins?

Does it matter whether B misunderstands the rules or whether
B understands the rules and is just being charitable? Would
it matter if A agreed that A won?


References:
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE102


--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

On Jun 29, 9:56 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message

Blitz rules are exceptions to, or additions to, the regular rules, and this
instance is neither. I don't know if there is any difference in the FIDE
blitz rules that would except this circumstance, which in summary, was:-

A piece not released is not moved. Therefore :: even though a mate is
possible, and releasing it ends the game even if the clock expires,


In the rare cases where a clock expires (or "dies") during
a blitz game, wouldn't it be fair to just annul the game, find
a suitable replacement timepiece, and then play another in
its stead?

Please note that before discarding any fine wooden clock,
however, check to ensure that it is not just unwound!


and even if the piece is held over the mating square... it is not moved until
released, and therefore the special circumstance of achieving mate to end
the game is not invoked.

Does anyone actually understand anything different from any set of Blitz
rules they can quote from?


I expect that if FIDE has a set of rules governing blitz
play, they ought to take precedence to the Walter Brown
rules. That aside, this looks to be a perfectly reasonable
reading, but one small detail remains: what about where
the man has not yet been released, delivering mate, yet
it has already been set on the checkmating square or
else has already "touched" that square, and is in the
process of being set down there? If there is a legal
obligation binding the player to make said move, then is
it not possible to whine that one is cheated? OTOH, the
loss is attributable to the clock, to time -- a penalty for
not having made one's move quickly enough to avert a
time forfeit. Again, the slow-motion instant replay
camera comes into focus, with chess-as-sport (rather
than as art, science, or simply a waste of time).

-- help bot

On Jun 29, 8:03 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

4.6 "When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece
has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to
another square.


This rule was superseded in the case J. Polgar vs. Kasparov,
a few years back. It was shown that if done quickly enough,
a man *can* be successfully moved to another square. The
Plaintiff, J, Polgar, presented photographic proof of said rule
violation, but it was nevertheless thrown out when the champ
demonstrated his world-beating skills, a few of which were
lying, cheating, and simple denial in conjunction with acting
disoriented and confused. Exiting the courtroom victorious,
as usual, GK was widely quoted by the media: "See: you
*can* fool most of the people, most of the time!"

After losing her case in court, the plaintiff was widely
criticized for not retaining noted attorney Samuel Sloan
instead of representing herself. Mr, Sloan, as everyone
knows, is famous for being the only person to ever argue
successfully before the Supreme Court, which, determining
their moves by majority voting, lost embarrassingly to his
bold, if not reckless, 1.g4 attack. Mr. Sloan then argued
that if they could not even tackle this, the justices had no
right to judge his other activities. Writing for the minority
(which might have won), Justice Kingstone bleated: "I told
them not to let Mr. Sloan have White!"

-- help bot