By Jesper Nørgaard 2018-07-14

In the current Laws of Chess (as of 1.st. of January 2018) in a Standard game, an illegal move is
taken back by the arbiter, and punished with a 2-minute addition of time to the opponent's clock.
Not only does that actually increase the time that the game may last, but the penalty does not feel
like a penalty, neither for the offender nor for his opponent. With this rule it simply becomes more
difficult to keep a schedule.

In Blitz it has been the rule since 2001 that an illegal move loses the game if claimed. Since 2014
also Rapid games were managed this way. Even in Standard games since 2014 the second illegal
move loses the game. Before 2014 it was allowed to make 2 illegal moves in Standard games, and
only the third illegal move would lose the game. In 2018 Standard and Rapid games are given the
same penalty for illegal moves, and Blitz only differs by specifying a penalty of one minute instead
of two minutes.

In my opinion chess games should consist of legal moves from a known initial position, and nothing
should get in the way with that concept. There are numerous problems with allowing illegal moves
to stand as it works for Rapid and Blitz chess, if the move is not objected to instantly. If you make a
return move, even without pressing the clock, the previous illegal move can no longer be corrected.
Allowing illegal moves to stand in chess games is not only inconvenient because these games will
now be rejected by software that handles chess games, but things can happen like king capture that
will make the games unrecognizable to most chess players. Letting illegal moves stand is a
miscarriage of justice, it is ugly. Have you no decency, FIDE?

If a player is determined to lie and cheat about what happened, we cannot always protect from
injustice. Yet I have in more than 10,000 OTB games (including Blitz) never experienced a chess
player deliberately lying about what had happened in our game. In my view, we should therefore
make rules that can make just and proper corrections if both players are honest and truthful. Illegal
moves will happen, and will sometimes go unnoticed, we cannot guarantee that they won’t. But we
can set up the framework so that illegal moves can be corrected, in any mode of play.

The way to enable such corrections is right there in the laws already present for Standard games,
paragraph 7.5.1. Why would it be impossible to implement 7.5.1 for Rapid and Blitz games? One
argument is that then there is no score sheet, we don’t have a reliable way to reconstruct what
happened. But if my experience of player honesty holds true, there is no need for a score sheet to be
able to correct illegal moves. The arbiter may have to determine whether an illegal move was
actually made, if he didn’t see it himself, by evaluating the testimony of the players. If they can
come to an agreement that an illegal move was played, 7.5.1 must be used to return to the first
identifiable position before the illegal move. If one player denies having made an illegal move, he
should be able to tell what happened instead in a credible way. An implicated witness may be
deceiving, but that should not prevent the arbiter from making his conclusions, which could be to
trust the player claiming an illegal move, or just let the game continue, since it is word against
word.

I would like to suggest we return to the original idea of allowing 2 illegal moves in a game, and
only declare a player lost by the third illegal move, but still punish the player severely for the illegal
move, and reducing the time that the game may last in this situation. I propose to punish the first or
second illegal move by cutting in half the visible time of the player making the illegal move. Only

Page 1 of 8
after the third illegal move within a game, does the arbiter declare the game lost for that player.

This penalty will ensure that the total time of a game will be reduced for each illegal move that is
made, and the penalty is perceived to be real and severe for that player. The extra time the arbiter
spends on correcting illegal moves, is compensated by shorter thinking time for the offender, and
will on average benefit the schedule. The player who in current rules was receiving 2 minutes extra
time, quite possibly with little benefit for that player if he had plenty of time, will most likely see
the reduction in half of the opponents time as a real punishment, not just a token penalty.

It is a compromise between the offender, who wants a time deduction of zero for himself, and the
opponent, who wants a time deduction for the offender of all his time, meaning a loss. That is the
Solomonic split between all and nothing. It makes sense to have an upper limit for how much time
can be deducted. If this limit is 5 minutes, it means that all Blitz games will use the cut of visible
time in half, while games where the offender has more than 10 minutes, the offender will only be
cut 5 minutes. Few players will find it reasonable to be deducted a whole hour if they have 2 hours
on the clock.

The following changes to the Laws of Chess are implementing this idea for 7.5.5, the new 7.7 and
A.4 (the latter covering Rapid and Blitz).
I suggest to modify 7.5.3 so that it is allowed to press the clock without making a move, if the
previous move by the player had not been completed with a clock press.

I suggest to include the point of article 1.4.1 about capturing the opponent’s king explicitly in the
new Article 3.9.3. It makes sense to have all definitions of illegal moves in Article 3, since this is
the premise of Article 3.10.

7.5.5 before
After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a
player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move
by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this 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.

7.5.5 suggestion 2018-05-07

After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first two completed illegal moves by a
player the arbiter shall cut his visible time on the chessclock in half; for the third completed illegal move by
the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this 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. The time deducted shall not exceed 5 minutes.

It is not my recommendation to cut his increment time or delay time in half, only to cut his visible
time in half. The reasons are:
1. Organizers would want to preserve 30 seconds increment because they are guaranteed full game
scores
2. If the Blitz increment 2 seconds halved to 1 second halved to 0.5 second, drawn positions are no
longer survivable on the increment
3. Digital clocks can't handle half seconds.
4. Some clocks cannot handle a different increment/delay for each player.

Page 2 of 8
The future periods are left unaffected because many chess clocks (including DGT 2010) do not
allow for a different time for each player for future periods. Only for the visible time is it
guaranteed that you can change it on all clocks.

If time for the current period was used in 7.5.5 instead of “visible time” then there is a problem how
to determine in which period the illegal move happened, because the only safe way to determine the
move number is in fact by reconstructing the whole game, which would be an unwelcome burden
for arbiters and players, as well as doubling the efforts if there is also a reconstruction at flag fall to
determine if sufficient moves had been completed. Some players may dislike that an illegal move
just before the time control may be cheap in terms of cut time, while when the extra time has been
added to the clock for the next period, it will be expensive to make an illegal move, but it seemed
the most practical definition. When the player has plenty of time on the clock, he has less of an
excuse to make the illegal move, so the more severe penalty is due. The penalty can range from a
few seconds, if only a few seconds is left on the clock, to a maximum penalty of 5 minutes
deducted. The penalty is exactly the same no matter if it is a Standard or Rapid or Blitz game.

Old article A.4.4

If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he
shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare
the game drawn.

New article 7.7 to handle illegal positions:

If the arbiter observes an illegal position as defined in article 3.10.3, he shall wait until the next move is
completed. Then, if the position is still illegal, he shall intervene to resolve the earlier illegal move(s) in the
game according to article 7.5.1.

This new article 7.7 can be seen as a replacement

for A.4.4 which is eliminated, and article 7.7 would
then be functional for Standard, Rapid and Blitz
games. It is important that the arbiter only needs to
intervene if the position is absolutely sure to be
illegal. If White has two white-squared bishops, it
would be strange, but not impossible as a pawn
could have promoted to a bishop on a white square.
If White has 8 pawns, of course we know that it is
impossible he has two white-squared bishops.

It is also necessary to wait for the next completed

move, because there is a chance one of the players
is in the middle of making a move, which can Diagram 1 illegal position from moving wrong bishop
correct the illegal position.

Page 3 of 8
1.e4, e5 2.Nf3, Nc6 3.Bc1-b5

The arbiter should intervene according to Article 7.5 if he sees the move 3.Bc1-b5 being completed,
or according to Article 7.7 if he sees the next move being completed (for instance 3…a6), because
the position is still illegal according to Article 3.10.3.

Currently the illegal move in Rapid or Blitz is handled by A.4 given here in full, which I suggest
should be modified:
A.4 Otherwise the following apply:
A.4.1. From the initial position, once 10 moves have been completed by each player,
A.4.1.1 no change can be made to the clock setting, unless the schedule of the event would be adversely
affected.
A.4.1.2. no claim can be made regarding incorrect set-up or orientation of the chessboard. In case of
incorrect king placement, castling is not allowed. In case of incorrect rook placement, castling with this rook
is not allowed.
A.4.2. If the arbiter observes an action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4, he shall act according
to Article 7.5.5, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the
opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the opponent does
not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once
the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the
players without intervention of the arbiter.
A.4.3. To claim a win on time, the claimant may stop the chessclock and notify the arbiter. However, the
game is drawn if the position is such that the claimant cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible
series of legal moves.
A.4.4. If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting
position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he
shall declare the game drawn.
A.4.5 The arbiter shall also call a flag fall, if he observes it.

Article A.4.1 is not changed.

Article A.4.2 is eliminated because handling of illegal moves can be handled by 7.5.1 when we
don’t allow illegal moves to stand.

Article A.4.3 is eliminated because there is no difference to the Standard games handling in 6.4, 6.9
and optionally III.3.1. In previous versions of the Laws of Chess where the arbiter was not allowed
to intervene at flag fall in Rapid and Blitz, there existed a reason to handle this in the article A.4.3,
because only the player himself could claim the flag fall, which is no longer true thus making A.4.3
obsolete.

Article A.4.4 is eliminated because it is not fair to declare a draw for such a flimsy reason. In the
following position we can see how this would appear to work unfairly

Page 4 of 8
White completes the illegal move 1.b8P, he
leaves the pawn without replacing it with a
promotion piece. At this point the arbiter
passes by and notices that it is Black’s clock
running and apparently this is an illegal
position. However he cannot know if it should
be White’s clock running, or White really
committed an illegal move. Now Black
completes the move 1…f1Q+ unaware that
the white promotion piece was not put on the
board. According to rule A.4.4 the arbiter
must declare a draw, even though Black has
not committed any illegal move. A pretty
drastic change of fortune from a position that Diagram 2 Draw imposed by A.4.4
should win for Black, in fact a result White
could even scheme to achieve by deliberately making the illegal move 1.b8P. He is guaranteed
success if Black responds instantly completing a move before the arbiter has time to react. Black
would of course be winning after 1…f1Q+ 2.Kc2 Qd3+ 3.Kb2 Rxb8+ no matter what white piece
was present on b8. In fact Black is unwillingly being penalized with a draw, his sole offence being
not to have acknowledged that White made an illegal move. It has long been arbiter practice that a
player should not be penalized for not seeing his opponent’s illegal move, but that is exactly what
happens here.

It is better to use 7.7 and 7.5 to revert the illegal move(s) instead, which would now be available in
all modes of play. In this case the diagram would be imposed again where White according to touch
move rules and 7.5.2 would be obliged to 1.b8Q. White would lose half his visible time as well.

Article A.4.5 is renamed to A.4.2

The effect is that illegal moves are handled identically in Standard, Rapid and Blitz. The general
incentive is to replace the illegal move with a legal move.

The full article A.4 after modification can be summarized here:

A.4 Otherwise the following apply:
A.4.1 From the initial position, once 10 moves have been completed by each player,
A.4.1.1. no change can be made to the clock setting, unless the schedule of the event would be adversely
affected.
A.4.1.2. no claim can be made regarding incorrect set-up or orientation of the chessboard. In case of
incorrect king placement, castling is not allowed. In case of incorrect rook placement, castling with this rook
is not allowed.
A.4.2 The arbiter shall also call a flag fall, if he observes it.

Page 5 of 8
Here are some helpful examples to what will happen if a player makes an illegal move, in terms of
reduction of thinking time in half. Since the handling is essentially the same in all modes of play,
the mode is not mentioned. Note that halving a single second will round up 0.5 second to 1 second.
When halving 7 seconds, the result after rounding is 4 seconds (rounding up from 3.5).
Case 1: The player has 3:35 left on the clock and no increment. His time is cut in half to 1 minute
and 48 seconds (30+18).
Case 2: The player has 4:55 and an increment of 2 seconds. First 2 seconds of increment is
removed (because he must still complete a legal move and not receive increment both for the illegal
move and the legal move). Thus 4:53 is then cut in half to 2 minutes and 27 seconds (2:27), and
retained increment of 2 seconds.
Case 3: The player made an illegal move with 5 seconds on the clock, and pressed the clock. The
player has 35 seconds left for the first 40 moves, then 30 minutes for the next 20 moves, and then
15 minutes for the rest of the game, and an increment of 30 seconds per move from move 1. His
illegal move has completed move 40. The increment is first removed so 35 becomes 5 seconds,
which is then cut in half to 3 seconds left for the first 40 moves, then 30 minutes for the next 20
moves, then 15 minutes for the rest of the game and retained increment of 30 seconds per move.
If the illegal move had instead happened after the time for the next period had been added to the
clock, whether this happened when the clock had registered 40 clock presses, or when the opponent
had used up all of the time for the first period. In either case, the clock would have shown 30:35,
and after removing the increment to 30:05, 5 minutes would be deducted to 25:05 for the next 20
moves (till move 60), then 15 minutes for the rest of the game and retained increment of 30 seconds
per move.
Case 4: The player is Black in an Armageddon game, where White initially has 5 minutes for the
whole game, and 3 seconds of increment per move from move 61, while Black has only 4 minutes.
Black makes an illegal move with 3:45 on the clock on move 12. His time is cut in half to 1 minute
and 53 seconds on the clock (30+23), still with 3 seconds per move from move 61.
Case 5: The player started with 90 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 30 minutes for the rest of
the game, with 30 seconds increment from move 1. He has passed move 40 and has 55:55 on the
clock after receiving the 30 minutes for the rest of the game. After removing the increment, his time
is 55:25 and then deducted 5 minutes to 50:25, and retains an increment of 30 seconds per move.
Case 6: For visible time (after removing the increment first) above 10 minutes, the maximum
penalty of 5 minutes will be applied. For a Rapid game with 10:08 visible time, and 10 seconds of
increment, after removing the increment we get 9:58, so this time shall be halved as in Blitz, to
4:59. If however the time was 10:12, there is 10:02 after removing the increment, and 5 minutes
should be deducted instead, to 5:02.

A note for arbiters: It is unwise to perform the reconstruction of a game on the same board, a
separate board should be used, so the original position is maintained, even if the reconstruction is
flawed. This rule of thumb goes for correcting the time as well. If the times are 5:24 for White and
25:17 for Black (no increment), it is best to note both of these on a piece of paper before continuing.
If the white time is halved, it would be 2:42 for White and 25:17 for Black. However, after the
reduction White protests because it was Black who made the illegal move. Instead the times are
corrected to 5:24 for White and 20:17 for Black. This is easy if the original times were written
down before correcting the clock. This is also important if the offender complains that his time was
modified incorrectly.

Page 6 of 8
For analog clocks it is not possible to correct the clock as precisely as with digital clocks, but a
reasonable correction is possible. The same situation is currently unfolding when the arbiter adds 2
minutes to the opponent’s clock, which cannot be done very accurately on an analog clock.

7.5.3 before
If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered and penalized as if an
illegal move.

This corrected version clarifies that it is allowed to complete a previous move with a clock press if
that hasn’t been done yet:

7.5.3 new suggestion 2018-05-07:

If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered and penalized as if an
illegal move, except if the previous move of the same player had not been completed with a clock
press.

It is recognized that the following sequence of events is perfectly legal: The white player starts with
1.e4, and Black responds with 1…c5 without waiting for White’s clock press. White now presses
his clock to complete 1.e4 (A), and Black now presses his clock to complete 1…c5 (B). If however
Black complains at A that White is not allowed to press his clock without making a move, the
answer is yes because his previous move 1.e4 had not been completed with a clock press. Similarly
if White complains at B that Black is not allowed to press his clock without making a move, the
answer is yes because his previous move 1…c5 had not been completed with a clock press.
Suppose that after B White presses his clock again, despite having pressed it once in A. In this case
it would be considered and penalized as if an illegal move which must be penalized according to
7.5.5 (no correction of the position with 7.5.1 is necessary).

Definition of a new article 3.9.3 to emphasize that capturing the king is illegal:
It is not allowed to capture the opponent‘s king.

After the addition of 3.9.3 all definitions of what constitutes an illegal move is contained in Article
3. Only Articles 7.5.3 and 7.5.4 defines two more situations that shall be penalized as if an illegal
move was made, but they are not considered illegal moves themselves.

There are several solutions for the arbiters to figure out how much time is half the time of the
offender applied for the illegal move. If calculating half of 3-4 digit numbers is a challenge, I have a
couple of solutions. The easiest is perhaps to carry a lookup values sheet where you browse for the
old seconds and then get the new seconds which should replace, and then you guesstimate how
many minutes should remain. The sheet has the name “Blitz_penalty_lookup_values.pdf”. For
instance for “8:04” half of that is “4:02” that is obvious. For “8:45” a lookup in the table shows 45
seconds will be replaced with 23 seconds, so “4:23”. For “1:36” the lookup will show 36 seconds
corresponds to 47 seconds, and the result is “0:47”. It is straightforward once you get used to it. The
middle page contains an explanation and some examples.

Page 7 of 8
I have developed a Windows program that can calculate it as well:

Diagram 3 Halftime can calculate new time for offender

You type in “136” in the input box and press Enter, and the resulting screen is seen above. The time for the
offender was 1:36 and it must be reduced to 0:47. With more time than 10 minutes on the offender’s clock,
one increment is deducted, and then 5 minutes is deducted. If the time is 12:17 and the increment is 30
seconds, the new time is 6:47. Note that the deduction of the increment is not a penalty, it is just a
correction of the clock when the offender had completed an illegal move, gaining an increment that he had
not “earned” by making a legal move.

Page 8 of 8