What happens in a time scramble and pieces go flying?

This was a question I thought I knew the answer to because of the following game:

Keres,Paul - Benko,Pal C [B35]

Candidates Tournament Curacao (20), 09.06.1962

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Na5 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0 d6 10.f4 Bd7 11.Nb3 Bc6 12.Qd3 Nd7 13.Bf3 Nxb3 14.cxb3 Nc5 15.Qc2 Qd7 16.e5 Rac8 17.Rad1 Qe6 18.Bxc6 Rxc6 19.Qf2 b6 20.exd6 Rxd6 21.Rxd6 exd6 22.Rd1 Ne4 23.Nxe4 Qxe4 24.h3 Rc8 25.Rxd6 Re8 26.Bd4 Bh6 27.Rd7 Bxf4 28.g3 Qe6 29.Rxa7 Bb8 30.Rb7 Bxg3 31.Qf3 Bd6 32.Kg2 Bc5 33.Bc3 Bf8 34.Ra7 h5 35.a4 f5 36.b4 g5 37.Qxh5 Qd5+ 38.Kg1 Bc5+ 1-0

This final position is equal but in making the move 38.Bc5+ Benko knocked over a few pieces. I vivdly 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 A fresh look at the games of the legendary Candidates Tournament 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.

See the game:

Radjabov,T (2761) - Smeets,J (2601) [A11]

Corus A Wijk aan Zee NED (10), 28.01.2009

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 c6 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.c4 dxc4 5.0-0 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Nb6 7.a4 a5 8.Na3 Be6 9.Ng5 Bg4 10.Nxc4 Bxe2 11.Ne5 Bh5 12.b4 Nbd7 13.Bb2 axb4 14.a5 Ra6 15.Rfe1 Nxe5 16.Rxe5 e6 17.Bf1 Bg6 18.Qb3 Bd6 [18...Be7 19.Bxa6 bxa6 20.Rae1] 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Rxe6+ Kd7?

[20...Kf8 21.Bxa6 bxa6 22.Qf3]

21.Rxd6+! Kxd6 22.Qxb4+ c5 23.Qxb7 Rc6 24.Bb5 Rc7 25.Qb6+ Ke7 26.Re1+

[26.Be5 Rd7 27.Bxf6+ gxf6 28.Re1+ Kf7 29.Qe6+ Kg7 30.Qxd7+ Qxd7 31.Bxd7 Ra8 32.Ra1 Bd3 33.f4]

26...Kf8 27.Be5 Rc8 28.Bd6+

Oddly enough this throws it all away. [28.Qb7 Bf7 (28...Bh5 29.Re3 c4 30.Bd6+ Kg8 31.Re7) 29.Bd6+ Kg8 30.Re7]

28...Kg8 29.Re7 h6 30.Bc4+ Kh7 31.Qb7 Qf8 32.Rd7 Rb8 33.Bxf8 Rxb7 34.Rxb7 Rxf8 35.d3 Ng4 36.a6 Ne5

White seems to have the advantage again. [36...Ra8 37.a7 Nf6]

37.Bd5 Ra8 38.a7 Be8 39.Re7

[and here the incident occurred with the bishop on e8 becoming displaced] ½-½

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." (There is another lengthy account by Peter Doggers http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/aronian-grabs-sole-lead-in-10th-round-corus/

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.

There was a lengthy Discussion on Mig's Daily Dirt covering these issues. I did rather enjoy Alexei Shirov's joke that "Actually Radjabov's decisive mistake was 39.Re7. 39.Rc7 would be faster to complete and no pieces would fall."

There was also some suggestion that Smeets said something like "you should correct the piece first" and that this broke some law of chess about talking to your opponent. The only law that's close is this:

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.

The Official Rules of Chess are online http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article (or BCF website with 2005 rules)

I think it would be helpful if FIDE issued some guidance on this as I don't think the situation is all that rare. There is also the complication that if you restart your opponents clock in this electronic era the move count would be out. If, as I understand the arbiters at Corus believe, the correct proceedure for Jan Smeets was to stop the clock and call them, then in return, I believe, their only correct course of action would have been to deduct time from Radjabov's clock and flag him, as he really didn't have time left to reach time control and correct the position as proved in the game. I really don't think they would have done that.