An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen All the King's Horses From the 2nd until the 9th of May there was a very interesting tournament in Arnhem (Netherlands). It was a double round robin tournament and the participants were Korchnoy, Sadler, Nijboer and Xie Jun. For several reasons, I will remember this tournament for a very long time. There were 12 games in this tournament and there were only 3 draws. I think that 75% of the games being decided is really remarkable. I will also remember that Korchnoy did not draw at all; he won four games and analysed these games very extensively with his opponents, but he disappeared immediately after his two lost games (Sadler and Xie Jun beat him). But strangely enough one of the three drawn games was probably the most interesting one. I refer to the game Nijboer-Sadler, played in the fifth round. . After 63...Nxb6 the following position appeared on the board (See Diagram): White: Ka5; pawn - f4 Black: Kc5, Nb6, Nf5 Players familiar with endgame study literature will recognise immediately one of the positions described by Troitzky and Ch‚ron. Donner Also wrote about this ending; you may find his lengthy article in "The King". Nijboer took a second scoresheet and wrote "114". Sadler came to me and asked me how many moves he has for this ending. I informed him that he had 50 moves. The literature indicates that this ending is won when the pawn is blocked on one of the following squares: a5, b3, c4, d5, e5, f4, g3, h5. So one of the conditions to win this ending is already fulfilled. The "only" problem is to mate the white king within 50 moves. I am not a strong chess player, but I understood that the initial position was very good for white, because the white king is already at the edge of the board. In the game continuation, Black forced the white king to a8 (very good), then to h8 (not good) and finally to h2 (but too late). After 113... Ne3 the position was (See Diagram): White: Kh2; pawn - f4 Black: Kf3, Ne3, Nf2 After 113... Ne3 Nijboer informed me that he intended to play 114 Kf1 and that he was claiming draw. He wrote this move on his scoresheet. Of course, I agreed and Sadler also agreed, but according to Article 9.3(b) of the Laws of Chess White could already claim the draw after 113... Ne3, without announcing his next move. The text of Article 9.3(b) is: The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without the capture of any piece. Recently I received several letters on the same subject. Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: Let me first congratulate you on your unique and highly interesting column! I am curious about the current status of the rule that stated "if 50 consecutive moves occur without a capture or pawn move, the game is drawn". I believe computer analysis has shown that endgames previously thought drawn are now known to be winning, e.g.: (a) R + B vs. R Win in 56 moves at most. (b) B + N vs. N Win, there is no fortress defence as thought earlier. My source for (a) and (b) is Jon Speelman's book "Endgame Preparation", (1989 reprint). He says that in both the above positions, the attacker has 100 moves to win. I would be grateful if you could clarify the rule. Also, has any win been found in the ending 2 knights versus lone king? Santhosh Matthew (India) Answer: In the FIDE Laws of Chess, published in 1984 and 1988, you will find that the 50-move rule is extended to 75 moves for the following positions: (a) King + Rook + Bishop against King + Rook; (b) King + 2 Knights against King + pawn; (c) King + Queen + pawn one square from promotion against King + Queen; (d) King + Queen against King + 2 Knights; (e) King + Queen against King + 2 Bishops; and (f) King + 2 Bishops against King + Knight In 1992 during the FIDE Congress in Manila the Rules Committee suggested establishing one rule for all endings: 50 moves. The General Assembly of FIDE approved this. The same happened in 1996 during the congress in Yerevan. I would like to mention that the Laws of Chess apply to over-the- board-play. This means, for instance, that study composers may ignore the 50-move rule. Concerning your last question, it is still impossible to mate a King with two lone Knights. By the way, there is a nice story about this ending. In the Zurich 1953 Candidates tournament this ending appeared on the board in the game Kotov - Najdorf. After move 50 the following position arose (See Diagram: White: Kf4, Nf4, Ng6 Black: Ke6 "Now Kotov maliciously announced that he intended to play on, to see whether Najdorf might blunder into being mated inside fifty moves. Najdorf complained wildly to the tournament committee against the idea of a Grandmaster being subjected to such an indignity; and finally Kotov agreed to the draw...! (B.H. Wood, The World Championship Candidates' Tournament, published by Chess, Sutton Coldfield, England, 1953/54). Another version says that Kotov informed Najdorf that a Russian chessplayer had found a way to win this ending. Najdorf was shocked, but then Kotov told him that he was joking. Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: A question about the 50-move rule - When assembling a collection of games with knight + bishop vs. bare king endings, I found the following curious game: Milos Jirovsky (2435) - Stefan Neidig (2260) Pardubice Open 1998 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. d4 Nbd7 7. Qc2 c5 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Nc3 Nxc3 10. bxc3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Nb6 12. Bd2 Bd7 13. Ba5 Bc6 14. e3 Bd6 15. Rfc1 Rc8 16. Qe2 Bc7 17. Rab1 Be4 18. Rb5 Bc6 19. Rbc5 Qe7 20. Qe1 Bd6 21. R5c2 Ba3 22. Bxb6 axb6 23. Ra1 Ba4 24. Rxc8 Rxc8 25. Ne5 Bc2 26. Qe2 Qc7 27. Qb5 f6 28. Nd7 Qc3 29. Rf1 Bd3 30. Qxb6 Bxf1 31. Qxe6+ Kh8 32. Bxf1 Qc6 33. Qf7 Rd8 34. Bh3 Qd6 35. Qb3 b6 36. Qb5 g6 37. Qb3 Kg7 38. Qa4 Bb2 39. Qa7 Kh6 40. Nxb6 Bxd4 41. exd4 Qxd4 42. a4 Qc5 43. Bd7 f5 44. Qa6 f4 45. Qb5 Qd4 46. h4 fxg3 47. Qg5+ Kg7 48. Qe7+ Kh6 49. Qe3+ Qxe3 50. fxe3 Kh5 51. a5 Rb8 52. e4 Rb7 53. e5 Ra7 54. e6 Rxa5 55. e7 Re5 56. e8=Q Rxe8 57. Bxe8 Kxh4 58. Kg2 Kg4 59. Nd5 Kf5 60. Kxg3 Ke5 61. Ne3 h5 62. Kh4 Kf4 63. Nd5+ Ke5 64. Ne7 g5+ 65. Kxg5 h4 66. Ng6+ Ke4 67. Bd7 h3 68. Bxh3 (See Diagram) 68... Kd4 69. Kf4 Kd5 70. Bf5 Kd4 71. Ne7 Kc4 72. Ke5 Kc3 73. Kd5 Kb3 74. Kd4 Kb4 75. Be6 Kb5 76. Bd5 Kb6 77. Kc4 Kc7 78. Kc5 Kd7 79. Nf5 Ke8 80. Kd6 Kf8 81. Ke6 Kg8 82. Kf6+ Kf8 83. Bc6 Kg8 84. Ne7+ Kf8 85. Ng6+ Kg8 86. Bd5+ Kh7 87. Bc4 Kh6 88. Bg8 Kh5 89. Ne5 Kh4 90. Kf5 Kg3 91. Bb3 Kf2 92. Kf4 Ke2 93. Ke4 Kd2 94. Kd4 Kc1 95. Kc3 Kb1 96. Nf3 Kc1 97. Nd4 Kb1 98. Nc2 Kc1 99. Ba2 Kd1 100. Nd4 Ke1 101. Kd3 Kf2 102. Bf7 Kg3 103. Ke4 Kg4 104. Ne6 Kg3 105. Bh5 Kf2 106. Kf4 Kg2 107. Ng5 Kf2 108. Bf3 Kf1 109. Ke3 Ke1 110. Ne6 Kf1 111. Nf4 Ke1 112. Nd3+ Kf1 113. Kf4 Kg1 114. Kg3 Kf1 115. Bg4 Kg1 116. Be2 Kh1 117. Nf4 Kg1 118. Nh3+ Kh1 119. Bf3# «-« Most fascinating is the fact that the game ended with 119. Bf3 checkmate, but nevertheless the score was «-« ! This might be because of the 50-move rule: at move 68 - Bxh3 - the last pawn was captured. The move 119. Bf3# is the 51st after that! Now my question: I suppose that 119.Bf3# was actually played on the board. Is it legal for the checkmated player to claim "post mortem" a draw according to the 50-move rule? Dr. Guenther Ossimitz (Austria) Answer: What really happened here is a mystery to me. But let us have a look at the game. At White's 68th move the last capture was made. Black's 68th move is the first move we have to take into account when applying the 50-move rule. After White's 118th move both players had completed 50 moves without moving a pawn or capturing a piece. At that moment Black, who has the move, may have claimed a draw pursuant to Article 9.3b. There was also another way to claim for the same result: He may stop the clocks, write on his scoresheet Kh1, declare to the arbiter that he intends to make this move, which results in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of a pawn and without the capture of any piece. The player who has the move may claim the draw. Article 9.4 is also relevant. It states that if the player makes a move without having claimed the draw, he loses the claim, as in Article 9.2 and 9.3, on that move. It is clear that claiming a draw afterwards is not possible. What probably happened is the following: The game was played on an electronic board and before the arbiter could interfere, White played 119 Bh3. The computer registered this move and it was also published in the bulletin. Therefore, when in a tournament where the games are played on electronic boards, the players have to leave the final position on the board. Otherwise it is very difficult to find out what the real moves are. Question: Mr. Gijssen: The FIDE laws allow for an extension to the 50-move rule provided that a list of special situations is announced at the beginning of the tournament. Would you use such a list or stick rigorously to a 50-move maximum (the basic rule)? Where can I find such a list of special situations? Michel Arsenault (Canada) Answer: Such a list existed until 1992. The consequence is that each arbiter has to stick to a maximum of 50 moves.