I dont know the other thread, but its plain wrong.
It goes under illegal or erroneous move which loses the game immediately.

Organizers of blitz chess tournaments not sanctioned (Extremely few are.) by FIDE can use whatever rules they like though. Most use FIDE:s where premoving is not allowed.

Thats what Ive been saying all the time. Thats why I dont consider IRL blitz and Internet chess the same game.
Mouse skills, Premove, screen setup, game selection alone can easily make an internet blitz specialist another 400 rating points.

Btw, In otb 5min games, I still consider Garry Kasparov at his prime to be the best player ever.

From my understanding of the situation: you aren't allowed to complete a move before your opponent does. But until you hit your clock, you haven't finished your move and can therefore move a piece in advance -- premoving.

I have to go, but can someone find the actual rule and post it?

QFT

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044338

Fischer vs. Uhlmann

If it doesnt break this rule, it certainly breaks this rule, also resulting in a loss

I don't see the bit where that rule says "if you move before your opponent hits his clock you lose". It's possible that I am illiterate and the rule you cited does in fact say that.

More likely is that you are wrong. This also fits with almost everything else you have posted in this forum.

That may be the nicest ownage I've read on these forums, RT. Well done.

Let's go over part of the rule you quoted.

So you can move a piece on the board and let go of it, but your move is not over until you hit your clock. Just like I said already.

Now, there should be a rule somewhere which states you can't complete a move before your opponent does, but there is no rule that states you can't start a move before your opponent completes his move. If there is, you haven't posted it at least. Based on what you posted and previous knowledge, it is perfectly legal to start a move while it is the opponent's turn and then complete that move (hit the clock) after your opponent completes his move (hits the clock).

swingdoc is a fanboy!!!!!!

j.k

Yeah good post RT

Ok, lets take it again, but a bit slower this time.

The main reason why this premove rule even exists is because of internet lag, making the game too unfair sometimes.
It took a very long time before premove became standard even there.
People were using these time-stamp softwares, winning on time easily and it was nothing they could do to prevent it, so they made it standard instead.

Actually this issue is even more clearcut than this.

Even on the first sentence on the first page in the laws of chess, there is:

BASIC RULES OF PLAY

Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of chess
1.1

The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces alternately on a square board called a ‘chessboard’

It should be fairly difficult to premove while not breaking this extremely basic rule

Yeh, except for the fact that the so called "owner" now is drawing dead, I think.

International Arbiter Geurt Gijssen writes a monthly column for chesscafe.com where he discusses some of the rules of chess. You can find his back issues here.

Let's just say I'm with him on this one.

You are right, it is extremely clearcut. And I'll save you the trouble of searching through RT's link to find out why.

Here is the relevant pdf: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt123.pdf

Go to page 4. The question at the top of that page and the answer that follows clearly states how an International Arbiter (who according to an awkwardly translated German wiki page is also "Chairman of the Commission of the rule FIDE") thinks you're wrong.

done already

Relevant info??? The moron with white erred first by starting blacks clock after which black made another error by doing the first move.
And Gijssen thinks it is reasonable to restart the game after this mess, like pretty much anyone would.

I dont think white can claim a win ever in cases like this cause he has already pressed the clock.
Only question is whether black can claim the win due to "illegal move", but before even the first move, I have some doubts about it.

Its pretty far from the kind of premoving were talking about.
You gotto find something better next time you gonna post here.

It would had been far more interesting to know what he would think if it had happened in the middle of the game or in a serious time scramble.

Regarding the disputed U.S. Women’s Championship, I think there were many time during the end of that game where both players could had claimed the win due to "illegal move".
However, I dont find it that interesting because none of the players stopped the clocked and asked for the arbiter at any time.

Just note that because Gijssen interprete the rules like this, it does not mean that every other international arbiter will agree with him.

Question I’m sure you will receive many questions regarding the
disputed U.S. Women’s Championship, and I would like to ask two
questions about moving the piece and then pressing the clock.
1. Is the scenario outlined below legal on Player’s B part?
● Player A picks up piece.
● Player B picks up piece.
● Player A releases piece.
● Player B releases piece.
In other words, can Player B begin determining his/her move prior to
Player A finishing the determination of his/her move? If it is illegal, what
is the penalty?

2. Here is a scenario that you have claimed is legal:
● Player X moves piece.
● Player Y moves piece.
● Player X presses clock (since a player must be allowed to press his/
her clock).
● Player Y presses clock.

3. Imagine this same scenario and notice how deliberate manipulation of
the rules can disadvantage a player:
● Player X moves piece.
● Player Y moves piece.
● Player X waits until Player Y gets up from the board.
● Player Y leaves the board (for a walk, rest room, etc).
● Player X presses clock (since a player must be allowed to press his/
her clock).
In such a case, Player Y’s clock is running, while it is Player X’s turn. If
Player Y comes back to the board, there is a good chance that confusion
will result.
It would be a good idea to stipulate that you must press your clock
immediately after you move. Then such manipulation of the rules would
be illegal? Thanks. Rob Bernard (USA)

Answer First, let me again define “making a move.” It means to move a
piece from one square to another and to release the piece on the second
square. “Completing a move” means that the player has made a move (see
previous definition), has stopped his own clock and started the opponent’s
clock. As I mentioned before, my interpretation is that after a player has
made a move, the opponent can make his and then the first player still
has the right to press his clock. This means,
1. Player B acts incorrectly and it is the arbiter who decides the penalty,
because a player may start to make his move after the opponent has made
his move
2. You are right.
3. I do not see any illegality. If Player Y knows the rules, then he is aware
that Player X still had the right to press the clock. By the way, Player Y
has the same possibility for manipulation.
I am not sure about instituting a rule that the player who made his move
has to complete it immediately. What is “immediately”? There are already
proposals to delete this word from certain Articles in the Laws of Chess,
and this is probably correct. One thing is sure, we recently had some
problems in tournaments, and these will be discussed in Dresden.

Question Dear Geurt, I would like to comment on the recent discussion
about making a move before the opponent has pressed the clock. In my
view, this should be illegal and in fact, until I saw your comments, I
assumed it was illegal. I believe that the Laws of Chess state that the
players move alternately. I think the natural meaning of this is clear;
White makes a move, then Black makes a move, then White again, and so
on. It seems perverse to interpret this as meaning that both sides may
execute a move at the same time. According to your interpretation (if I
have understood it correctly), the following is legal: we have the position
White plays Ra8+ and then, before
Black has even touched his king, White
plays Ra8-b8 on the board (without
touching the clock). Black then plays ...
Kg8-h7, presses his clock and then
White, without touching a piece, presses
his clock. The chaos that this type of
behaviour might cause with virtually all
the Laws of Chess (suppose Black plays
a move that makes White’s pre-executed
move illegal, what about draw offers and
claims of repetition, etc.). I can’t believe
that this is really intended. Best wishes, John Nunn (UK)

Answer Dear John, I believe I clarified my view on this matter in my
answer to the previous question. The case you mention is illegal. To start
a move before the other has made his move is illegal. Finally, let me refer
to Article 1.1 of the Laws of Chess:
The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their
pieces alternately on a square board called a ‘chessboard’. The player
with the white pieces commences the game. A player is said to ‘have the
move’, when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.

Please note the last word here, cause its exactly here that FIDE leave some room for some serious angle shooting, thanks to "rule experts" claiming a big difference between having made a move and completed a move.

How does any of the last 2 posts have Anything to do with who is the Best Blitz Player Ever?

Just my 2 cents.

So let's make sure we're clear: you disagree with Gijsen and the rest of us, but still think you're right? Can you find anyone who's even close to an authority on the rules that supports your view? Can you at the very least admit that premoving is not clearly illegal as you've claimed?

He surely has been this week!

Do also note that Mr Gijssen is never really talking about premoving here, so I dont see how you can refer to this article as some kind of proof that premoving in OTB chess is allowed.

In fact he clearly states: To start
a move before the other has made his move is illegal

It started with this one:

After I said no, I got the whole forum going after me, and since you guys can never admit that youre wrong in anything here, It looked like I had to prove it conclusively

I said exactly the same thing, quoting exactly the same rule like Gijssen did in this article and you guys still said I was wrong

Now when I can quote Mr Gijssens own words in the post above, does it sound better to you guys???

Let's go back over your previous post that actually quotes the man. First are the questions and then the answers.

Are you that incapable of admitting that you have made mistakes in the past?

I thank you for answering me so quickly.

but I honestly don't care. I'd rather have a blitz players discussion.

wait so Gijssen said that?