Time Scramble Blues

What happens in a time scramble when pieces go flying?

This was a question I thought I knew the answer to because of the following game: Keres vs Benko, 1962

The final position is equal, but in making the move 38...Bc5+ Benko knocked over a few pieces. I vividly remember reading that Keres' reaction was to shrug his shoulders at the mess that was presented to him and press the clock back to Benko. It stuck with me, that's what you do. I didn't recall that Benko was very unhappy about this loss on time and went out of his way to beat Keres in the final game of the quadrangular event. I would be interested to see what the New in Chess book "Curacao 1962 - The Battle of Minds that Shook the Chess World" by Jan Timman says about this, but it seems to me that this is entirely the right reaction.

I'm not sure what upset Benko, I can only think that he hoped that Keres would be a gentleman and reset the pieces in his own time given that he'd found the nice drawing idea.

A similar situation occurred in round 10 of the Wijk aan Zee tournament. Radjabov had played a winning sacrifice of a piece but had trouble finishing it off. He then entered an ending that was also winning but he had very little time left. He had about 1 second left when he made the move 39.Re7 but in doing so he also displaced the black bishop on e8.

So what are the rules that cover this situation?

I should point out first of all that there is nothing in the rules that covers the situation of a person starting his opponent's clock when it is still his turn to move. I find this a little amazing to be honest.

However there is a rule that covers the displacement of pieces as in these situations:

7.3 If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter's assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.

This rule is in three sentences but only the first really says what should happen, the other two just allow the arbiter the leeway to intervene.

It seems to me that the only way that the intention of the rule, which is that the player who messes up the board "shall re-establish the correct position on his own time" is going to happen after he presses the clock is if the opponent immediately restarts his clock again. If the arbiter is called, clocks will be stopped, pieces can be adjusted etc without it being on the players time. Now the arbiter could make a determination as to how much time this took and take that time off the player, but in practice they are much more likely to "penalise" the player by giving more time to the opponent, which in both these cases amounts to no penalty at all. Looking at the rule it isn't particularly well written, but its intention that you only press the clock when you are presenting the true position to play is clear. Yet in its application it is always correct in practice for a player who has knocked pieces over in moving to press the clock anyhow.

The preface to the Laws of Chess says: "The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors."

The report on the official site then says that "Just before the arbiters were about to award a time win for the Dutchman (a decision that would have been sure to prompt an appeal), and upon the initiative of the arbiters, the players decided to meet half way and the game was declared a draw." It seems then that the players were encouraged to compromise before making the arbiters decide. In my opinion this makes some sense but if they were asked to decide they would have had no choice but to award the game to Jan Smeets. In simple terms, Radjabov never presented a legal position to his opponent after black's move 38 and lost on time. I actually think it should be made clear that in the future this is what will happen.

12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw.

I don't think Smeets' action came anywhere close to breaching that law. I know that in some minds you are not allowed to speak to your opponent during a game of chess for any reason. But its not in the laws of chess (it is I think in the Sofia rules) and a change would have to be made for that to be the case.