An Arbiter's Notebook
by Geurt Gijssen

Does Anyone Know the Score?

There are, from the point of arbitrating chess tournaments, some areas
of concern: first of all rapid and blitz games and second the recording
of moves in "normal" games. Judging by the questions that I receive
from Chess Cafe visitors, you would think that people are only
interested in rapid and blitz games. However, in this Arbiter's
Notebook I would like to discuss the recording of chess move -
keeping score.

Article 8.1 of the Laws of Chess says: In the course of play each player
is required to record his own moves and those of his opponents, move
after move, as clearly as possible, in the algebraic notation, on the
scoresheet prescribed for the competition.

A player may reply to his opponent's move before recording it, if he so
wishes. He must record his previous move before making another.

The offer of a draw must immediately be recorded on the scoresheet by
both players.

If a player due to physical or religious reasons, is unable to keep score,
an amount of time, decided by the arbiter, shall deducted from his
allotted time at the beginning of the game.

The second, third and fourth paragraph of this Article have been in
effect since 1 July 1997 and they are completely new.

The second paragraph says in fact that the player is allowed to write the
moves as a pair. Until 1 July 1997 a player had to write his move after
he had made his own, and after his opponent had made his move, the
player had to write this move before making his own move. Many
players were in the habit of writing the moves as a pair, but in 1973 the
Rules Committee declared: Technically speaking, this is a breach of
the Laws of Chess. However, the arbiter should intervene only when
the arrears in scorekeeping are more than one move for White and one
move for Black. 

This interpretation caused a lot of confusion. I remember very well an
incident in the World Youth Championship, at Duisburg in 1992. I
gave someone permission to write the moves as a pair, but after of Ian
Rogers, chief of the Australian delegation, protested, I was forced to
announce publicly that the players have to follow the letter of the Law
and not the 1973 Interpretation. So, could the moves be written two at
a time or not? It is still hard for me to believe that was almost 25 years
before the Laws of Chess officially permitted a player to write the
moves as a pair.

For several reasons, it is good that the offer of a draw must be recorded
on the scoresheet. When a player has offered a draw there is now a
proof of this offer. Making draw offers also are part of the history of
the game and history should be recorded. But more and more I am
starting to like Canadian Jonathan Berry's proposal to make an offer
much clearer. He suggested that each of the players have a card; on this
card would be written "0.5" and the player would show this card to his
opponent when he offers a draw. In the Women's Candidates
Tournament (Groningen 1997) Galliamova offered Peng a draw, but
Peng did not react; the game was continued and Peng lost. When
Galliamova asked her opponent why she did not accept her draw offer,
Peng replied that she did not know that Galliamova had offered a draw.
I remember the same thing happened in the game Korchnoi-Tal,
Brussels 1988. Tal offered a draw and Korchnoi did not react. Tal
repeated his offer several times and each time louder. Finally Korchnoi
heard it and accepted.

The fourth paragraph of Article 8.1 may be quite useful, especially
when Jewish players have to play on the Sabbath. There are some
players who will play on Sabbath but will not write down the moves.
With this new provision, it is possible to appoint an assistant, who will
write the moves. A certain amount of time will be deducted from the
player's time. So, for example, if the first time control is 2 hours for 40
moves, normally 10 minutes will be deducted. 

But as I later found out, there may still be some small problems.
Suppose the Sabbath starts at 17.30 hrs and the game starts at 13 hrs
with a time control of 40 moves in 2 hours, 20 moves in 1 hour and
finally 30 minutes for the remaining moves. Then, in my opinion, it is
better to require the player to write the moves during the first time
period, appoint an assistant for the second and third periods, but then
deduct 5 minutes from the beginning of the second time control. The
Rules Committee did not consider this situation and the Rules
Committee should, in my opinion, do something about it during the
FIDE Congress in Elista.

Article 8.2 says: 

The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter at all times.

A fair and simple provision, apparently, but the arbiter must be careful.
There are some players, for instance Hungarian Grandmaster Lajos
Portisch and the late former world champion Tigran Petrosian, who
write their move, start to think again and then make the move. In cases
like these the player usually covers his intended move with a watch
(Miles!), a pen or a pencil. I think the arbiter has to respect this habit
and should not make any attempt to ascertain what the player has
written on his scoresheet. Generally the arbiter must not disturb the
player who is on move in any way. When I discuss Article 8.5 I will
elaborate.

Article 8.3 says:

The scoresheets are the property of the organisers of the event.

In 1980, when I was an arbiter for the first time in a tournament with
several top players like Karpov, Timman, Larsen and so on, I collected
the scoresheets and brought them to the press room. The press officer
took these scoresheets, created the bulletin and threw them away. I was
really astonished and could not believe that scoresheets written by the
World Champion himself were tossed in the trash. But it really
happened!

Kamsky was, as far as I know, the only player who refused to give his
scoresheet to the arbiter. I read that it happened that he even left the
tournament hall with his own and his opponent's scoresheet during an
Open tournament in Switzerland. Only after long discussions did he
give the scoresheets to the arbiter. Robert Huebner also once refused to
give his original scoresheet to the arbiter. He wrote all the moves on
another scoresheet and gave this "copy" to the arbiter. The arbiter did
not accept this and insisted that Huebner should turn over the original.
Huebner refused and the arbiter declared the game lost for Huebner. By
the way, the real result was a draw. Personally, I do accept a copy from
the player. I can imagine only one exception. In games of great
historical significance, for example games played for the world
championship, the scoresheets should go to the organiser.

The Articles 8.4 and 8.5 describe situations, which have to do with
Zeitnot (time pressure). First of all I am very happy that Article 8.4
states, that in tournaments with the Fischer clock - i.e. after each move
30 seconds are added - Zeitnot does not technically occur. This means
that the players are obliged to record the moves throughout the entire
game. This is very clear to the players and very easy for the arbiter.

However, in tournaments with the "old" time limits we still have
problems when a player has less than 5 minutes until the time control.
In the last game of the match Kasparov-Karpov, Seville 1987, Karpov
had, at move 32, about two minutes for the remaining moves until time
control; Kasparov had about 8 minutes. Karpov stopped recording the
moves. Kasparov did the same. I told Kasparov that he has to record
the moves and he did so immediately. 

Nine years later Helmut Pfleger interviewed Kasparov and I was
present. When they discussed the Laws, Kasparov suddenly pointed at
me and said to Pfleger: "You know, he forced me to write the moves
and due to this action I almost lost the world championship title". I
explained to him again that I had to do this according to the Laws of
Chess as the same were in effect in 1987 and would do it again today.
I have fought many years to change this Article, but every time I end up
the loser. It means there are still situations in which opponents are
playing under different conditions.

If only one player has an incomplete scoresheet and the time trouble is
over, he must complete his scoresheet, using the arbiter's scoresheet
and/or his opponent's. But as long the opponent has the move, an
arbiter must not give his scoresheet to the other player. As we have
seen before, it is possible that the opponent may have written his next
move on the scoresheet and of course it would be very unfair in a
situation like this to give the other player the scoresheet. By the way,
when a player writes his next move on his scoresheet before making
his move, he may change the move on his scoresheet. But if he does it
too many times, the arbiter should give him a warning, because it is
possible that he is only "checking" his next move. When he finishes
"checking" this move, he writes the next move he wishes to "check"on
his scoresheet, then the next move and so on and so forth. In my
opinion, this constitutes the player using notes; this is forbidden.

As Chairman of the Rules Committee, I recently received a letter from
grandmaster Vladimir Epishin. He wrote that he had been playing in the Chicago
(USA) Open. At move 40 his opponent overstepped the time and under
FIDE Laws of Chess the game was won for Epishin. However, under
the USCF Rules, he had to produce a complete scoresheet, indicating
that his opponent had actually overstepped the time limit.
Unfortunately Epishin had also been in Zeitnot and had an incomplete
scoresheet. The arbiter did not accept Epishin's claim and informed
him that he had to continue the game; of course, Epishin lost the game.
Otherwise there was not a problem.

Another case for the Rules Committee in Elista and probably also for
the rating officer. Dear reader, rest assured I will keep you informed
about the decisions of the Rules Committee...