An Arbiter's Notebook 
by Geurt Gijssen 
Touched Pieces

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, Kudos to your wonderful column!
Reading explanations and other information right from the 'horse's
mouth' is really valuable. You are not only expounding the letter,
but also the spirit of the rules! Keep up the good work! I have two
questions concerning a player 'touching a piece with the intention
of making a move with such piece.'

(1) In your column of July 1999, Pierre Denommee (Canada)
submitted a lot of interesting questions and your answers are
equally enlightening. I have only one thing to say about your
answer to his last question where you wrote

"The essential point of the discussion is in my opinion that in
Article 9.1 it is written that a player can reject an offer by making a
move. It is my opinion that we have to change this Article in 2000.
It must be changed to: A player rejects an offer by touching a piece
with the intention of making a move with such piece. Under the
current Laws of Chess the player may accept the offer as long he
has not made his move."

How would an arbiter know whether the player 'intends' to make a
move with the piece touch? Most experienced arbiters would
probably be able to discern a person's intention, but I am afraid
local arbiters may not be up to the task. The player 'on the move'
may simply say that he does not intend making a move and accept
the draw offer.

Article 9.1 focused on 'making a move' being construed as
rejection of the draw-offer, not the other way around. I think it
would be better to be a bit 'liberal' here, without diminishing from
the spirit of the law. By making allowance for both instances in
this manner"...the player may accept the offer as long he has not
completed (in place of 'made') his move."

I see this to be fair to both the player who offered the draw wanted
it while the responding player still has options whether to reject or
accept it until he completes his move. In the meantime, the latter's
clock is running and in the event he oversteps the time limit, he
loses the game.

The 'offer of the draw stands' and should take precedence over the
intentional or unintentional 'touching' of a piece by the responding
player. 

What can you say about the observation and suggestion?

(2) If I could extend the previous question about 'touching a piece
with the intention of making a move', take the following example
(concerning illegal move). A player made an illegal move, the
other player touched a piece. Before completing his move he
realised the mistake made by the former player and summoned the
arbiter. The arbiter stopped both players' clocks, restored the
position to where it was before the illegal move, and applied the
appropriate penalty to the offender. Before the game was resumed,
the arbiter informed the other player that after the first player made
a legal move, he must make a move with the piece he previously
touched as it was the his 'intention' to move that piece. Is the
arbiter's decision in the last instance correct? (I must add that the
complainant got upset with the arbiter's decision, lost his
objectivity and regrettably lost despite having a winning position at
that critical juncture.) Joselito P. Marcos (Philippines)

Answer (1) I agree with the change you suggest for Article 9.1. In
this case, the second sentence of Article 9.1 should be: A player
can propose a draw after making a move on the chessboard. He
must do so before stopping his own clock and starting his
opponent's clock. An offer at any other time during play is still
valid, but Article 12.5 [about distracting the opponent G.G.] must
be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In
neither case the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until
the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a
piece with the intention to play this piece, or the game is concluded
in some other way."

I do not agree at all that the offer of a draw may be accepted as
long as the player has not completed his move. For example, a
player makes a move, discovers it is a blunder and then rapidly
agrees to a draw. Such a rule would create a lot of scandals, this I
can assure you.

Answer (2) The arbiter's decision was in my opinion absolutely
incorrect. There is a new situation on the board. The player who
completed the illegal move has to make another move and in this
situation the opponent cannot be forced to play the touched piece.

Question White has 3 minutes left in a sudden death finish, game
/30. Black has mate on the board but no time left. What is the
result? Bill Murray (USA)

Answer Unfortunately your question is not completely clear. But
let's try to sort it out. Suppose the situation is as follows: Black
mates his opponent, but before he is able to stop his clock, the flag
falls. In this case Black wins the game, because mate (with a legal
move) immediately ends the game. The fact that afterwards the flag
felt is irrelevant. Another situation: Black starts to make his move,
but before he finishes this, his flag falls. Then the game is lost for
Black, because at the moment the flag fell, there was no mate on
the board.

Question Why, in your opinion, does the Netherlands have several
grandmasters and Belgium does not? Robert Pools (Belgium)

Answer Although this is not, strictly speaking about the Laws of
Chess, I do have some thoughts about it. I think we were very
lucky to have a charismatic chess player such as Dr. Max Euwe. As
you know, he was World Champion from 1935 until 1937 and he
created such chess excitement in Holland, that almost every
Dutchman started to play chess. He was also able to make the
media (radio, TV and the newspapers) enthusiastic and they started
columns and programs about chess. In addition, he wrote a lot of
chess books from which the Dutch were able to learn chess. Later
we had Jan Timman. Also a man with charisma and very
successful, doing a lot for the popularity of the game. And finally I
would like to mention Hans Bohm. He has produced a lot of
excellent TV and radio programs about chess that have been aired
in prime time. I really think that we are very lucky to have these
personalities as compatriots. By the way, for the sake of accuracy,
Luc Winants is a Belgian-born grandmaster.

Question I have two questions regarding the "not sufficient
material to mate" situation, where one player runs out of time.
According to the rules available to me (Slovenian Chess
Federation) If one player runs out of time, the game is considered a
draw, when the player, who has some time left, is not able to mate
the opponent, even if he plays the worst possible moves.

(1) What happens if the position is a theoretical draw? For
example, WhiteNe5, Ka2; Black Ka4, pawn a3.

What happens if black runs out of time? I suppose there are two
possibilities: The game is a theoretical draw, so 1/2-1/2; or, White can
win, if black makes the worst possible moves, so 1-0 (mate in the
positionWhiteKc1, Nc2; BlackKa1, pawn a2).

Now, what happens if white runs out of time? The game is a
theoretical draw, so 1/2-1/2; or Black can win, i.e., can promote his a-
pawn, if white makes the worst possible moves, so 0-1.

(2) Given the above, when does the situation with "not sufficient
material to mate" actually exist? When one player cannot mate his
opponent with his own pieces alone (i.e. without opponent's pieces
being in the way of opponent's king); or when the position is
considered a theoretical draw?

I ask this is because I have experienced both things in tournament
play. Once I got a whole point, because my opponent ran out of
time although I had only a bishop left (a theoretical draw); but
another time I received only half a point, when I had K+P and my
opponent had no time and only his King (again in a theoretically
drawn position). Thanks in advance for a possible clarification.
Damijan Marolt (Slovenia)

Answer Thank you for your very interesting question. Please note:
As a chess player, I know what a theoretical draw is, but as an
arbiter, a theoretical draw does not exist. As long as one of the two
players can blunder (see my remark at the beginning of this article)
they cannot claim a draw. Let us now look to the position
mentioned before WhiteKa2, Ne5 BlackKa4, pawn a3. You have
already pointed out that White can win the game if Black plays so
that the following positions is reached: White: Kc1, Nc2, Black: Ka1,
pawn a2. It is also possible that Black will win the game (a queen
promotion). 

So, what does all this mean? I would never declare the game a
draw in the position you gave and I would rule the game lost for
the player who overstepped the time limit. This is the normal
situation. My decision would be different if one of the players had
claimed a draw. Then I would order them to continue the game and
if the opponent did not make any effort to win the game, I would
then declare the game drawn. For instance in your example: White
is short of time and Black makes only King moves, although he has
the possibility to play his pawn to a2.

Question A comment was made that until a player released a
promoted piece he could still change his mind and substitute
another piece. The situation arose in a game where promoting to a
queen would result in stalemate. The promoting player took the
pawn from the board, took the queen and placed it on the
promoting square but did not released and then took the queen of
the board and put a rook in the promoting square.

I would interpret that taking the queen to promote means the piece
was promoted and must stay in the game as long as it is a legal
move. I would have second thoughts if a piece was touched but not
picked up, as if while thinking what to do, and then a second piece
was actually picked up to promote. At which time is a touched
piece be required to promote? Frankie Torregrosa, IA, (Puerto
Rico)

Answer As long as the piece that is to appear in place of the
promoted pawn does not touch the promoting square, the player
may change his mind. The fact that he has a certain piece in his
hand does not mean that he has to promote to that piece. In the
actual situation described by you in the first paragraph the player
cannot replace the Queen with a Rook.

Question I was really surprised to read that draw claims based on
Article 10.2 happen very rarely. At least here in local tournaments
it seldom happens just because most players (and even some
arbiters) are unaware that such a rule exists in FIDE Laws.

I would like your comments about some incidents that happened in
a recent local tournament. The time control was 1 hour for the first
23 moves and then 1 hour for the rest of the game. In one of the
games I had less than 5 minutes (in the second time control) and
my opponent had about 30 minutes. Since I was in time trouble, I
had stopped writing my moves. But then my opponent began to
play very quickly and also stopped writing the moves. When my
time was less than 15 seconds I had this position (I was White):
White: Kh8, Bc7, pawns - a4, b3, c4, g7 Black: Kf7, Nd7, Nf6,
pawns - a5, b6, c5 Play continued: 1.Bd8 Ke8 2.Bc7 Kf7 3.Bd8
Ke8 4.Bc7 Ke7 (to avoid the repetition of moves) 5.g8Q Nxg8
6.Kxg8 Ke6 7.Kg7 Ke7 8.Kg6 Ke6.

Since I had been a piece down for some time, I didn't think it was
proper to claim a draw based on Article 10.2. But now I realised
that the material was equal again and I immediately tried to stop
both clocks to summon the arbiter and make my claim. But
unfortunately my flag had just fallen when I stopped the clocks; so
I had to accept defeat.

My question is, what should the arbiter have done if I had managed
to stop the clock before my flag fell? Can article 10 be applied in
this case? If the arbiter decided to postpone the decision and let the
players continue the game, I guess he wouldn't have seen more than
a few moves because I had only a few seconds left. Then what
should he have done if, for instance, my flag immediately fell just
after he started the clock? And what is the proper penalty for my
opponent for stopping to write the moves when he still had more
than 20 minutes? T. Budiman (Indonesia)

Answer At the moment a player having more than 5 minutes on his
clock stops writing the moves, his opponent has to summon the
arbiter. For this reason he may stop the clocks, because he needs
the arbiter's assistance. Furthermore, when the arbiter sees that his
opponent has not written a lot of moves, he has to give the other
player additional time as compensation. It is up to the arbiter how
much time to give for this. When a player stops the clocks,
summons the arbiter and claims a draw according Article 10.2 and
the arbiter decides to postpone his decision, he must be able to base
the final decision on what takes place during the continuation of
the game. It means, if immediately after the restart of the game the
flag falls, this flag fall is valid and the game is lost.

Question I would also like your opinion about another incident
from the same tournament. It happened in mutual time trouble.
Player A had just promoted a pawn. He shouted "Queen!" and then
as usual replaced the pawn with an upside down Rook because his
original Queen was still on the board. The arbiter who was
watching had anticipated this and he immediately stopped both
clocks and replaced the upside down Rook with a Queen. As play
continued, player B, who had only one Queen, then found a way to
keep checking A's King. The King was trapped in a corner and B
gave perpetual check. Both flags were already rising and both
players played very quickly. I guess the same position must have
occurred about ten times but neither player claimed draw. So the
arbiter intervened and declared the draw. Can he do that? Or
should he wait until one of the player claims the draw?

Answer I repeat what I said already before: in case a player needs
the assistance of the arbiter he may stop the clocks. In this case, he
may ask for a Queen. I think that the action of the arbiter in this
part of the game was not too bad. He stopped the clocks and
replaced the turned down rook by a Queen. But better was of
course to give the Queen to the player at the moment he shouted
"Queen". The second action of the arbiter was completely wrong.
He apparently followed the game, he has seen all the repetitions of
position, but he should not intervene until a player claims for a
draw.

Question And my last question: What software do you recommend
to do the pairing for Swiss System tournaments? 

Answer As you probably know, there is a Swiss Pairings
Committee of FIDE. The Chairman of this Committee is Mr. C.
Krause. He has all the information about the software for Swiss
Pairings. His e-mail address iskrause.forstern@t-online.de .

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen A very interesting thing occurred
during a tournament where I was the Arbiter. The following
happened on board 1The pieces on the board were so arranged that
any good player of standard strength would not lose. The players
were playing with the FIDE DGT. White had 10 seconds left on the
clock. On his turn, he stopped both clocks and summoned the
arbiter. On arriving at the board, White claimed a draw. When I
asked him on what basis he was claiming a draw, he replied that
the position is a book draw. I then asked him to define what a book
draw is. He immediately changed his mind said that he actually
meant a technical draw. I then asked him to define what a technical
draw was. He looked at me and then said"Don't be silly - can't you
see that this is a draw?" I tried to find out from the player why he
was really claiming a draw, but he kept on saying "it's a technical
draw". Eventually I instructed him to play on (without awarding his
opponent an additional 2 minutes). White eventually lost on time.
My decision (letting White play on) was based on the fact that he
did not claim correctly according to 10.2. (He did not claim that his
opponent cannot win by normal means or is trying to win by
normal means). Was my decision the correct one? I would
appreciate it if you could comment on this. Guenther van den
Bergh (South Africa)

Answer Strictly speaking, you are probably right, but to be honest,
I would have accepted his explanation as a claim for a draw
pursuant to Article 10.2. Let me explain why. You have to take
into consideration that these two players had already been playing
for hours. Apparently one of them had only ten seconds on his
clock and it is understandable that the tensions were quite high. To
start a discussion in this situation about what he means with a
technical draw or a book draw is not the most efficient way to
avoid problems. It was better to ask him"Are you claiming a draw
under Article 10?" Or something like this.

Question Dear Mr Gijssen First I must say that I am very pleased to
read your enlightening column. Here is my question: In a recent
game at Sherbrooke Chess Club I was asked, as arbiter, to render a
decision on the following situation: Player A took his Queen and
touched (with the Queen, not his hand) a pawn, the pawn was three
squares away from the original Queen position. The pawn tilted a
bit but then Player A realised that the pawn was covered by a
Knight so he moved his Queen elsewhere Player B claims that
Player A has to take the pawn Player B claims he didn't "touch" it,
he acknowledged that he tilted the pawn with his Queen I ruled that
his intention was to take the pawn (three squares away was no
accident) and that the fact that he touched it with a Queen rather
than his hand was not relevant Does "touching" a piece imply
touching it with a hand? Thank you, Jean-Pierre Grenier (Canada)

Answer What do the laws say about touching? First of all we have
Article 4.1Each move must be made with one hand only. Then we
have Article 4.3: If the player having the move deliberately touches
on the chessboard ... [followed by many examples]. The critical
point is: Did the player deliberately touch the opponent's pawn? If
the arbiter is of the opinion that this is the case, the player has to
take this pawn.