An Arbiter's Notebook  
by Geurt Gijssen

More Rapid Rules

In this month's column, I will be answering some questions submitted
by Chess Cafe readers...

Brian Karen from the United States asks: If a player seals a move that
creates third repetition of the position and he claims the draw when
the players meet later to resume the game or does he have to do it
before he seals the move (thereby saving his opponent a trip and some
headaches)?

Answer: He has to do it before he seals his move. The reason is very
simple. Article 9.2 says: A game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the
player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third
time (not necessarily by repetition of moves) is about to appear, if the
player first writes his move on his score sheet and declares to the
arbiter his intention to make this move. If a player writes his move,
seals the envelope and stops his clock, he has completed his move.
And only the player who has the move can claim the draw.

There are arbiters who are of the opinion, that it is also correct to
write the claim on the score sheet, but I disagree. By stopping the
clocks the move is completed with all its consequences.

John Burstow, from Winnipeg, Canada writes: In your answer to a
question from Ramon Etxeberria, you note that, according to Article
C3 of the Laws of Blitz games, "an illegal move is completed once
the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is then entitled
to claim a win before making his own move," but that, "once the
opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be
corrected."

But is not the second part of this a foul rule? It means that a player
can benefit from deliberately playing illegal moves. For example, let
us imagine that I am in a dead lost position against you. However, I
pick up my Rook and remove your Queen with a bang. You waste a
second blinking because you had not thought your Queen was under
attack as indeed it was not- my Rook had been a knight's move away.
But time is of the essence in blitz; so you push a pawn to keep the
game going. Ha! Ha! I tricked you. Great fun. But the game of chess
isn't about tricking your opponent exactly that way. Or is it?

My answer: No, no, Mr. Burstow, I do not push a pawn, but stop the
clocks, summon the arbiter, request some witnesses to stay and then
inform the arbiter how you were playing illegally, and claim the
game. And if the arbiter agrees I have great fun. If there are no
witnesses, I have a problem. Also see my answer to Mr. Sangelang's
question, below.

Ramon Etxeberria contacted us with a follow-up to his first inquiry:
Having read the answer you gave to my previous question, I think that
I did not ask it properly. My question was related to the answer you
gave to Alvaro Faria Paz Pereira in your column last month. There, he
asked if a player with a bare king wins the game after an illegal move
by his opponent. You answered citing article C4 of the FIDE Laws of
Chess where it is stated that in order to win a player must have mating
potential (I assume that the result is a draw?). In my example, what I
wanted to point out was the fact that the reason why White did not
have mating potential was Black's illegal move, and therefore I was
wondering whether, after a claim by White, article C4 was still
applied or not. But I have some concerns about article 9.6 as well. It
says, "The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a
checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even
with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game." After
Bxe5 in the example you give, such a position is reached. I assume
that the positions described in 9.6 must appear as a consequence of
legal moves as it is required to checkmate (article 5.1. (a)), however
a clarification would be nice. 

Answer: When a player has completed an illegal move in a blitz
game, his opponent is then entitled to claim a win before making his
own move. Of course, the opponent has to show to the arbiter what
the illegal move is. It means he has to restore the position to what it
was before the player completed the illegal move. And if the opponent
in this restored position has mating potential, the game is won. 

You are completely right with your second question. The position
must appear as a consequence of legal moves. In the year 2000 the
Rules committee will have the possibility to make changes and I
promise you that this will be added. By the way, in Article 5.1 it is
written that checkmating an opponent's king must done with a legal
move. 

From Manuel Lopez Michelone, Mexico - I have a question: In a local
tournament, players A and B were playing a chess game with one
hour per player for the whole game. At the time control, player B
(with black) lost on time. At that particular moment, player A had
only three seconds his clock. When player A noticed that player B
was lost time, he claimed the game, but he was unable to stop the
clocks at the time of the claim. (They were playing with a FIDE
electronic chess clock). Player A didn't know how to stop the clocks.
So, time runs off and player A oversteps the time limit as well. At that
moment, both clocks show 00:00. Player B then claimed a draw,
because no one has time. The arbiter accepted the claim and gave to
both players half a point. The arbiter said that he has no choice, as
FIDE rules do not allow the arbiter to announce that a player lost on
time (in rapid chess), he said.

Was this decision correct? The arbiter and other people saw that
player A had claimed the game with three seconds on his clock. This
game gave us many weeks of endless discussions in the chess club.
What do you think about it?

Answer: According to article B6 of the rapid play rules, the arbiter
shall refrain from signaling a flag fall. Article B8 says that, if both
flags have fallen, the game is drawn. In the situation you described
both flags have fallen and it means the game is drawn. I understand
that in your opinion this is not reasonable. When you play with the
DGT clock, it is absolutely clear which flag has fallen first. So, I can
imagine that people will say: Why not to give the point to the player
whose flag has fallen later. If all games were played with digital
clocks, I would completely agree, but as long as this is not the case,
it is impossible to make different rules for mechanical and digital
clocks. 

By the way, in normal games the rule is different. If it is completely
clear that the flag of one player falls before the flag of his opponent
without having completed the required number of moves, he loses the
game.

Lucianon dos Santos Fier from Brazil sent us the following e-mail:
Congratulations for your column; it is both instructive and interesting.
My question is: I was playing in a sixty-minute knockout tournament
and had a huge material advantage. My time was almost finished and
my opponent was trying to win on time. There was no arbiter
available for us at that moment. Suddenly I promoted a pawn to a
queen with checkmate but I could not find a Queen to place on the
board. So I said "Queen checkmate!" At the same moment my flag
fell and my opponent said that my time is over, so I should lose the
game. The arbiter adjudicated the dispute and awarded the point to
me, but another friend (also an arbiter) told that he would have
decided the matter by giving the point to my opponent. Who is right?

Answer: Your friend is completely right. The game is lost for you,
provided your opponent had mating potential. But you made a big
mistake. When you promote a pawn to a Queen and no Queen is
available, you should stop the clocks (yours and your opponent's),
summon the arbiter and seek the arbiter's assistance. He has to give
you a Queen and then he would restart the game. The instant the
Queen is on the board, the game is over, because you have mated your
opponent. It is not important, that your flag falls after two seconds.

Elmer D. Sangelang Manila, Philippines writes: Greetings from the
Philippines! Relating to the correct procedure for claiming the win
described in your article "The king is en prise", consider the following
situation: Player A, whose opponent (player B) has just left his king
en prise or moved into a check on his last move, stops the clock to
summon the arbiter. In the absence of witnesses and the score (record)
of the game, player B insists that it is now his turn to move and he is
about to move his king out of check. How does the arbiter decide
whose claim, A or B's, to believe?

Answer: To be honest, I was afraid that someone might pose this
question. I had the same question in mind. What can the arbiter do?
In cases like this, there is no solution. There are other cases like this.
For instance, a player plays Nb3-c6 mate. How can the opponent
prove that the knight came from b3 and not from b4? Unfortunately,
if one really wants to cheat an opponent, there will always be a way.
Dear readers, for my column next month, I am thinking about
discussing the recording of moves. As an introduction, let me share
with you a recent story:

During the last Dutch Championship there was a little incident. In the
game Sokolov-Nijboer, black wrote on his score sheet '1-0' and
signed his scoresheet, all while his opponent was absent. The arbiter
saw this and put the white king in the centre of the board, but then, to
the surprise of the arbiter, Nijboer informed him that he wanted
to continue the game. This happened but after one more move Nijboer
resigned (again).

This same situation occurred in the game Kamsky-Judit Polgar
(Buenos Aires, 1994). I was the arbiter. Kamsky wrote on his score
sheet '0-1,' signed it, but continued the game. Due to the fact that
there was Zeitnot in some other games and Kamsky's position was
totally lost, I did nothing at that moment. I was sure that my
intervention would cause an incident and some noise. After the game
I gave Kamsky an official warning for his conduct. What is going on
here? More next month...