An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen Once again the Arbiter takes questions from Chess Caf‚ readers... Question: Dear Geurt: I believe you misread the situation posed in your (excellent) latest column: "Now, suppose Player A has a King and a Knight and Player B has a King and a Rook. Then suddenly Player B's flag falls. From the resulting position it is possible to create a position in which Player B's King is checkmated (Player B: Kh8 and Rh7; Player A: Kf8 and Ng6). Does this mean that Player B should be declared as lost? The game should be a draw if he didn't have the Rook. Is there any different rule in rapid or blitz chess? T. Budiman, Indonesia Answer: Yes, you are right. The game is lost for Player B. For Rapidplay the same rule applies. For Blitz games there is a difference. Article C4 of the Blitz rules says that in order to win, a player must have "mating potential". This is defined as forces adequate to eventually produce a legal position, possibly by "helpmate", where a player on move cannot avoid being checkmated the next move. Thus two knights and a king against a lone king is insufficient, but a rook and king against a knight and a king is sufficient. Question: Obviously N+K v R+K is insufficient for white in normal play but black can be 'helpmated' in the position given. Also with 2 knights against a lone king, the lone king can be helpmated. I find the inclusion of 'possibly by helpmate' and 'cannot avoid being checkmated in 1 move' in the same sentence a little confusing. Nick Jones, UK Answer: Dear Mr. Jones: I have reviewed my answer and I still believe I am right. Article 6.9 says: "...If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves (i.e. by the most unskilled counterplay)." Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: 1. After reading your reaction to Mr. Budiman's question concerning Article 6.9 of FIDE Laws, I decided to ask you your opinion about this: For example, in a Blitz game two knights against a lone King is a draw if the weaker side's flag falls as there isn't "mating potential" but in Rapid and "Classical" games, in the same situation, the stronger side wins as it is possible to "create" a mate. Don't you think this is pretty illogical to assume worse play in rapid and classical games and better play in blitz games? Should not it be the other way around (mating potential enough to win in classical and rapid games and just the possibility to reach mate in blitz games)? One of my arguments for this statement is that mate may in fact be more likely with two knights vs. a king in a blitz game then in rapid and classical games, as one usually expects a higher level of play in rapid and classical game than in blitz games. Have you already discussed this matter in the Rules Committee? What is your opinion? Tomas Micanek, Czech Republic Answer: This matter was not discussed in the Rules Committee. My personal opinion is that you make a valid point. At this time we cannot change the Laws of Chess, but I promise you it will be a point of discussion during the next meetings of the Rules Committee. Also from Mr. Micanek: I also have suggestion about recording the draw offer on a scoresheet: As the evaluation mark "=" was used long time before 1997 FIDE Rules were released and as it is also difficult to change it in all previous databases, books etc., I think change should be done in the FIDE Rules. In the Czech Republic some people use "R" (as Remise) instead. Answer: Your suggestion works perfectly in the Czech Republic, but not, for instance, in English speaking countries, where "R" is the symbol for Rook. But as a result of your letter it occurred to me that there might be a solution. A player may mark the symbol for a draw offer in his own language. So, for example, British and Americans can write a "D" (draw), Germans "R" and so on. The only problem, which remains, is how databases shall mark this. I contacted again the Editorial Board of Chess Informant and they promised me to reply as soon as possible. Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: It is unspecified in the rules whether or not a claim based on Article 10 can be withdrawn if the position on the chessboard has significantly changed since the claim was made. (The withdrawal of the claim without any significant change in the position should most likely be forbidden and treated as misconduct.) White makes a claim based on Article 10 and the game continues under the watchful eye of the arbiter. As the game goes on, black makes a blunder and white has a decisive superiority. White then informs the arbiter that he withdraws his claim. Is this allowed? As soon as white acquires a decisive superiority his claim becomes that the opponent cannot win by normal means. Should the arbiter declare the game drawn without giving a chance to the player to withdraw the claim? Pierre D‚nomm‚e, Quebec, Canada Answer: This is, in my opinion, one of the main problems with Article 10. Before I answer your question, I would like to review the recent history of this Article. Since 1985 we have had so-called Quick Play (Guillotine) Finish Rules. In 1994 these Rules were used for the first time in a FIDE event (Olympiad, Moscow 1994). We also played according to these rules in Yerevan 1996, and in some other FIDE competitions (e.g., zonal tournaments) as well. The main thrust of these rules was: "If the arbiter is satisfied that a player is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that the game may not be won by normal means then he may declare the game drawn. This may still apply even though one player's flag has fallen." I have always understood the meaning of this article is to protect the player, who had a better, even superior position and is short of time. Until 1 July 1997 there was no possibility of claiming a draw. In the new Laws of Chess a player has to make a claim. And still I believe that the intention of this Article (now Article 10.2 of the Laws of Chess) is to protect the player who has a better position and has no time to bring his position to a good end. As a matter of fact at this moment cases like these are not covered in the Laws of Chess. This means it is still up to the arbiter how to decide, but generally I should say, but not as Chairman of the rules Committee, a player who claims a draw, cannot win the game. I do not think that this principle is unreasonable. I am collecting examples of cases of Article 10 in order to prepare a proposal to change or extend it. Withdrawing a claim is, in my opinion, not possible. Question: Dear Geurt: In a recent Blitz tournament, I started to play the move f2-f4, which was illegal, because the pawn was pinned against the king. I put the pawn on f4, but did not release it (nor did I activate my opponent's clock), then, realising my mistake, put it back on f2. My opponent immediately claimed a win, but I insisted on continuing the match. We agreed to get the opinion of our "tournament director" after the match, which would be lost for me if he were to decide that my f4 was a "real" illegal move. I later won on time, and the tournament director noted the win for me, saying that I could continue the match after the attempted f2-f4 and could move any piece, as the f-pawn had no legal move. Now my question is - you guessed it - how would you have ruled? Philippe Leick (South Africa) Answer: Article C3 of the Blitz Games Laws says: "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. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected." The first sentence would be applied to your case. And the situation is very clear. As long as a player has not stopped his own clock and started his opponent's, a player has the possibility to correct an illegal move. My conclusion: the tournament director was right. Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: My question is about one of my recent games. It was played in a Game/120 tournament. The game finished with my flag down but my opponent had only one knight and I had a pawn on h4. I claimed the draw for insufficient material basis and at first the arbiter agreed but later on he changed his decision. What do you think about this? IM Guil Russek, Mexico City Answer: The final decision of the arbiter is right. I will explain to you why. First of all, there are positions that a Knight wins against an a- or h-pawn, but I understand that not all arbiters know this. But there is also another reason. In the first question in this month's column a case of knight against Rook was discussed and as you can read if the flag falls the player with the Knight wins. Well, although not likely, it is still possible the pawn might promote to a Rook. And then there are positions in which the player with the Knight can mate his opponent. Question: I wondered if there is a codified set of rules, or guidelines for best practice for the conduct of simultaneous exhibitions? In my view there needs to be both a formal set of rules that experienced players will agree to abide by and play to, and a somewhat more relaxed set of guidelines for situations where those formal rules might be felt to be inappropriate. My remarks concentrate on the latter situation, but a statement of what the proper rules are would be appreciated, too. I often give simuls in schools against children, who have no experience at any kind of playing under tournament conditions. These are the ones who only play in their school chess club and never go to tournaments. So it is not appropriate to be too strict in applying rules they won't probably know, too rigidly, as that would spoil the mood of the occasion, yet equally you do not want to encourage cheating. Sadly, there are always one or two children, usually cocky boys, who are more motivated to win so as to achieve a respect amongst their friends they don't really deserve, than to win fairly. These are the players who constantly fiddle with the pieces, trying out moves while you are at other boards (which I will tolerate, despite the risk they aren't then put back on the right squares) and then suddenly pounce on the simul-giver demanding that HE adhere to the touch-and-move rule they have been flouting themselves with carefree abandon, should he retract a blunder. Plainly such double standards are not acceptable and I have made it my practice to avoid the possibility arising by announcing the following guidelines: they only work if there isn't pressure to finish games quickly. 1. We will not play strict Touch and Move rules, as this can lead to arguments. 2. If you are not ready to move when I arrive, say "Pass" and I move on. Or I waste time. 3. If you visibly hesitate when I arrive, I will immediately say, "you're not ready" and move on. So as not to waste time. Make your move next time I come. 4. If you move decisively when I arrive, that is your move, unless there is an obvious oversight in which case I will allow you to take it back and point out what you have not seen, and you may make another move instead, next time I arrive. This is to ensure an interesting game is not spoiled by one poor move. 5. Given Rule 4, you may not retract your move once made, unless I offer to let you do so. 6. As regards the simul-giver, once I have made a move at the next board, I may not take a move back at your board. But if I realise I have made an obvious blunder, before making my move on the next board, I may make a different move instead. This is to ensure the same outcome: that an interesting game is not spoiled by one poor move. 7. You will have to trust me to apply Rules 4 and 6 fairly. 8. The aim of these rules is that the winner has to meet reasonable moves with better ones and it is a good game which either player could win rather than a one-sided battle, which is not much fun for you or for me. I want to work for my victory, not have it handed me on a plate, and so should you. It is much more satisfying that way. I have two questions: is this felt to be an elegant solution of the problem of ensuring a good game and good sportsmanship without being too strict or too punitive? Do you know a better one? Bruce Birchall, London, England Answer: First of all, I would like to thank you for your contribution to this column. I think it is very valuable. There are no specific rules for simuls. At this moment each organizer makes his own rules, many times in consultation with the simul-giver. I agree completely with you that it is wise to have a formal set of rules and a flexible one. When Kasparov plays the Israeli team, we need another set as when you play against your pupils. The flexible rules you described I like very much and I am ready to discuss them in the Rules Committee. For simuls with strict rules I like the following: 1. It is forbidden to analyse and to discuss the game with other players and spectators. 2. At the moment the simul-giver appears at a board, the player must make his move. 3. For the player, the rule of touch-move will apply 4. For the simul-giver the rule is: he may change his move before he plays a move at the next board. I await reactions from readers. Question: Dear Mr Gijssen: (i) Some time ago in a mutual time scramble an opponent of mine made an illegal move (quite inadvertently I'm sure). I was so stunned by it (where on earth did that come from? I thought) that it took me some 10 seconds to realise that it was indeed an illegal move. What would have happened if my flag had fallen before I (or an arbiter) had noticed the illegal move and stopped the clock? (ii) Some years ago playing a tournament in Bled, Slovenia, my opponent (a well known time-trouble addict!) had a technically won position but was in the most appalling time trouble needing to play some 20 moves in a minute. (I had plenty of time left.) He had quite understandably stopped writing his moves down in order to play more or less instantaneously. I had laid a small glass case across my scoresheet, which I often do, belonging to the school that writes the move down before playing. At this stage an arbiter intervened to remove the glass case insisting that my score sheet must remain visible to the arbiter at all times. I'm sure he was within his rights to do this, but is it also not the case that a player who is no longer writing the moves has no right to any guidance as to the number of moves played from either the arbiter or his opponent (or anybody else) and must play on until his flag falls and hope that he has made the required number of moves? In this case, my opponent (incidentally a very fair player) could ascertain exactly when 40 moves had been played from a casual look at my scoresheet. Your comments? (iii) A perusal of your column indicates that a large number of disputes arise from illegal moves played in time trouble. In view of the suspicion of many that some of these illegal moves may actually be deliberate, would not the simplest solution be that illegal moves automatically lose in all forms of chess? Together with the introduction of Fischer clocks as standard, I think that would make an arbiter's life much easier. What do you think? Charles Kennaugh, UK Answer: (i) Article 7.4 says: "If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been made... the position before the irregularity shall be re-instated... The clock shall be adjusted according to Article 6.13." Article 6.13 says: "If an irregularity occurs... the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the clocks." These two articles say very clearly what the arbiter has to do. There is only one problem. Article 7.4 says, that the irregularity must be found DURING THE GAME and I can imagine that the opponent will say that the game is over at the moment the player's flag fell. In my opinion this argument is not acceptable. I would like to refer to Article 5.1. It says: "The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king with a LEGAL move." I would therefore say that if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player, provided the last move of the opponent was a legal move. (ii) This has already been discussed several times in my columns. The arbiter should not act this way. (iii) I agree with you that your proposal makes the arbiter's life much easier. But I do not think it is a good proposal. I think the number of deliberately played illegal moves is very small. Only would seem that players do this deliberately only in Blitz games. But in Blitz the penalty is, if the opponent notices this, loss of the game. Question: Dear Mr.Gijssen: I know that many players are not happy with the existing rating system and it is subject to improvement in many ways. However, one drawback is so obvious and easy to correct that it's very strange it has not been discussed by FIDE yet. The problem is that the existing Elo system doesn't consider the piece colours when estimating the expected results of players. For example, if two equally rated players are playing a match of 20 games and one of them has White in all games, the expected score of both is 10 points despite the obvious fact that the White player has a certain advantage (Megabase statistics show White 56-57%). Of course, such a match is just an abstraction but in team tournaments especially it happens quite often that some players have a very uneven combination of Whites and Blacks which do in fact have an impact on their rating. I spoke about this problem with some grandmasters and all of them agreed with my point of view. By the way, the mathematical model to avoid this nonsense is very easy and I can offer this to FIDE like some other improvements to the rating system if there is some chance that my suggestions would be taken seriously. It would be very interesting for me to know your opinion about this matter. Michael Waitz, Technical Director Grandmaster Chess School, St-Petersburg, Russia. Answer: I spoke about this with Mr. Markkula from Finland. He is the Chairman of the Titles and Ratings Committee. And to be honest I was a little bit surprised by his answer. He told me that the statistics show this advantage of 56% only for the absolute top. Let us say the super grandmasters, but on a lower level White's advantage is not clear. The January 1999 FIDE shows more than 30000 names. Probably you can prove that Mr. Markkula's statement is wrong. In this case the discussion will be continued. Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: I read your column at The Chess Cafe and I like it very much. Keep up the good work. I'm only an arbiter in local tournaments. But situations/problems seem to look a lot alike at any level of play. There is a rule I have some difficulty understanding and I'd like you to comment on it please. I'm talking about the rule that states that you cannot "pre-determine" the result of a game before it starts. Meaning that as we see sometimes in Swiss tournaments you cannot set the outcome of a game with your opponent before the start of the game - for money purposes for instance. I understand that and fully agree with it. However there's always those draws in a few moves. A national arbiter here in Quebec wrote a document about the interpretation arbiters should have about this rule. In his interpretation, even draws in 2 moves should be accepted by the arbiter of a tournament. Mainly because, according to him, the rule applies only for PRE-determined issues of a game and not on what is happening DURING the game. As I understand that here in Quebec we are kind of isolated from the rest of the world (chesswise) and that we don't have any chess players that can live from money they can get in tournaments or matches I can deal with giving latitude to the players (mainly during the last round of a tournament). However it's still unclear to me what the arbiter should or can do in such situations. Does he have any alternative? Let me quickly report on something that happened here in 1998. In a provincial tournament in May, two international masters and one fide master were the clear favourites for the prizes in their section. The Swiss tournament had 5 rounds. In the third round one of the international master and the fide masters agreed to a draw in 6 moves. As the arbiter of the section I accepted the draw but asked the two players to play a little more if possible in the next rounds. In the 4th round the other international master and the fide master agreed to a draw in 12 moves. In the 5th round, the 2 international masters agreed to a draw in 18 moves (with no real play in my judgement). And naturally they divided the first 3 prizes among themselves. Is there anything I should have done to prevent this? Make them continue to play their game? Just accept the results as they are presented to me? Is there any rule against this kind of "chess playing"? Should there be any? Serge Archambault, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Answer: I am aware of this practice, but it is very difficult to do much about it. The only thing I can recommend is that organizers publish a list of players who make these quick draws frequently. I know that many organizers invite players who like to fight. A list of players who arrange quick draws can be very useful for organizers. Question: Dear Mr Gijssen: I have several questions in relation to Chess Rules: (i) What happens if, in a blitz and/or rapid game, where players are not required to keep the score, an illegal position arises? Example: It's player A's turn and they find out A has two light-squared bishops, and there have been no promotions. Both players agree in that everything was OK at the beginning of the game. As in blitz and rapid chess rules this case is not covered, we read "normal" chess rules and find that (Article 7.4) "the position before the irregularity shall be re-installed" or if it cannot be, "the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity". Shall we go back then to the beginning of the game, or go on playing, or play a new game? Shouldn't it be specified in blitz and rapid chess rules? (ii) In a blitz game, player A gets a pawn to the eighth rank but cannot find a queen so he takes a rook and puts it upside down and says "Queen!" His opponent B does not say anything, but when the first player moves his "queen", he claims a victory arguing that A has moved his rook as if it were a queen, and that is illegal. What happens here? (iii) In a rapid play game both flags fall. According to B8 the game is drawn. But can the arbiter stop the game to signal that the flags have fallen? B6 says, "the flag is considered to have fallen when a valid claim to that effect has been made by a player. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall" What if players don't summon the arbiter and go on playing indefinitely? (iv) A player having less than two minutes claims a draw arguing that his opponent cannot win by "normal means". The arbiter decides to postpone his answer. Then, the non-claimant's flag falls. What is the result of the game? When does the arbiter declare the game is drawn? (a) When the player whose flag has fallen in trying to (or is able to) win; (b) When the player whose flag has fallen is no trying to (or is unable to) win; or (c) In every case. I think it should be drawn when the position is drawn (i.e., as in "b") and that would be the result if the claimant's flag had fallen. What is your opinion? (v) Finally, I would like to note something. In your answer to Ernesto Pereda about claims for a draw when your opponent cannot win "by normal means" you wrote, "By the way for Rapid and Blitz games these claims are not possible". Well, it is clear for Blitz games, specified in Article C5, but in Rapid games Rules article B5 allows an arbiter to "make a ruling according to either Article 4 or Article 10, only if requested by one or both players". This means that such a claim is possible. Arturo Gonzalez Pruneda, Spain Answer: (i) In a rapid game the "normal" Laws will apply. It means that we have to go back to the situation in which the illegal move was played. I understand very well that this is almost impossible, as there is no scoresheet available. I understand also that the timetable of a tournament does not give one the possibility to play another game. The only practical solution is, in my opinion, to continue the game. By the way, Article 4 of the Laws of Rapidplay says: "Once each player has made three moves, no claim can be made regarding incorrect piece placement, orientation of the board and clock setting." This article is a deviation of the "normal" Laws of Chess. The reason for this deviation is the schedule of the tournament. In a Blitz game the situation is different. Article 3 of the Blitz Game Rules says: "Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected." It means the game will be continued, although there was an illegal move. Therefore a game with two bishops of the same colour without promotion is possible. (ii) I repeat what I already wrote in previous columns. If a player needs a queen after the promotion of a pawn, and a queen is not available, he may stop the clocks and asks for the arbiter's assistance. This applies for normal, rapid and blitz games. (iii) Article B8 of the Laws of Rapidplay says: "If both flags have fallen, the game is drawn." This Article says clearly, that the game is over. The arbiter shall interfere and announce the draw. The case when an arbiter is not present and the players continue the game after both flags have fallen, is in my opinion not likely. The total available time for the round is over and it is quite normal that the arbiter tends to the games that are still in progress. If the arbiter does not show up and the game has a result other than a draw (checkmate or a player resigns), this result stands. (iv) I have discussed this case already in this column. It is not covered in the Laws of Chess. Generally the claimant does not deserve to win the game. (v) You are right. It is possible to claim a draw according to Article 10 in a rapid game. Question: Mr Gijssen: The new layout of the Laws of Chess gave me some searching to do. The rule regarding the late arrival of a player was clearly marked in the section of the completed game (Art 10 in the 1993 Laws). Now I find the Section Chess Clock (Art 6 in the 1997 version). Should Art 6.6 not be moved to Art 5 because that Rule has nothing to do with the chess clock but only with the real time from the start of the game? Albert Van Camp, Belgium Answer: The Articles 1 - 5 cover the general Rules of Play. The Articles 6 - 14 cover the Tournament Rules. It is the opinion of the Rules Committee that the late arrival of a player belongs with the tournament rules.