An Arbiter's Notebook By Geurt Gijssen What shall we do with a sleeping player ? Question Recently at a blitz tournament at my local club a game was played where Black called the flag as White was delivering checkmate. White was moving his queen to the mating square but had not yet released the piece. The arbiter didn't know what to do, and I was the only one with a rulebook (1987 USCF). I distinctly remember reading that mate would overrule the flag call, but now I can't find it anywhere. The rules seem to say that white lost on time, as the move isn't completed until the queen was released. This doesn't seem right to me. In any case, the arbiter ruled that white had won. Black still had enough material to mate. Is my memory really that bad? Joshua Allen (Canada) Answer I understand that White had not completed his move at the moment his flag fell. In this case there is only one correct decision: White lost the game, unless Black has no mating material left. Your memory is perfect - mate takes precedence over the flag falling, but the mate must really be effectuated at the board, and this was not the case here. This is according to the FIDE rules. I do not know what is written in the USCF Rulebook. As you probably know, there are some USCF rules that conflict with the FIDE rules. Therefore it is quite dangerous to rely on this book, except for tournaments that are exclusively under the jurisdiction of USCF rules. Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, in fact I have two questions, which are closely related and which maybe belong to chess curiosities. In a blitz game I was very short on time. So I mated my opponent and offered a draw at the same time, not seeing that it was checkmate. Win or draw? (Of course my opponent gladly accepted the draw). In another blitz game, I was again very short on time. In preparation of a pawn promotion I held my queen in my right hand. In all the hectic state, I pushed my pawn to the 7th rank, mating the opponent, but then exchanged the pawn against my queen! My opponent claimed a win by illegal move and had to explain the whole situation to me, a totally confused player, because I completely had lost track of what has happened. Was he right? Ralf Linnemann (Germany) Answer You are a very unlucky person, Mr. Linnemann. In the first game, a point should have been awarded to you. You mated your opponent and everything that happened afterwards is irrelevant, even your draw offer. You spoiled a half-point. And for the second game, I have to say the same. You checkmated your opponent's king. At that very moment the game was over. Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I had following situation in a team competition. The time at which team captains had to submit the team line-ups was 10.00 a.m. The round was scheduled for 3 p.m. The captain of team X (made up of players A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H) did not change the team line-up (6 boards), so the team should have played as listed. But when they arrive, the team was in a different order and this is how they started to play. What is the procedure of the arbiter in that situation whether or not the opponent's claim? How would you proceed in that case? Ales Drinovec (Slovenia) Answer I am familiar with this kind of problem in team competitions and have encountered them several times, for instance in the Olympiads. Until 1997, the captains delivered the team line-ups in the morning and about 13.00 o'clock they were published. If a captain did not deliver a line-up, the basic team was supposed to play. It happened many times that the Chief Arbiter did not receive a team line-up and proceed posting the names of the basic team, but afterwards the team captain claimed that he had timely delivered another line-up. And the Chief Arbiter had no proof that the team captain was right or wrong. I tried to find a solution and in 1997, during the European Team Championship in Pula, we implemented the following procedure: Each captain has to deliver the signed team line-up in duplicate. The arbiter responsible for the team line-ups signed both copies and wrote the time that it had been given to him on both copies. One copy was for the arbiter, the second copy for the team captain. I followed the same procedure in the 1998 Elista Olympiad and the 1999 Batumi European Team Championship. There were no problems in either event with the team line-ups. If the arbiter follows this procedure, incidents as you described above should not happen. Back to your question. I understand that you were acting pursuant to the old procedure. There is no evidence who was wrong. Was the arbiter wrong because he lost the team line-up delivered by the captain? Or was the team captain wrong because he did not deliver it but wanted to play with a reserve player? I once had such a case in the 1994 Moscow Olympiad and decided to start the match two hours later, but both teams agreed to start only 30 minutes later. A similar case happened in the individual World Championship Tournament in Las Vegas, 1999. The drawing of colours for the next round was done in the evening immediately after the finish of the round, but wrongly published on Internet. At the start of the round two players came to me and informed me that they had prepared for the wrong colours. I made the same decision and postponed the start of these two games. I can tell you that one player who was the opponent of the wrongly informed player was not happy with this delay and protested strongly, but I did not change my decision. Question Dear Mr Gijssen, in a recent tournament the following happened: In the quickplay finish phase both players were very short of time in a complex double-rook endgame. I was writing down the moves, being a friend of one of the players (not in any official capacity). Both players had stopped writing many moves ago. The arbiter was watching. Then one of the players stopped the clock to claim a draw due to three- fold repetition of position. (This claim was correct; in fact, the same position was on the board for the fifth time). The arbiter refused this claim due to the fact that it could not be proven. He then re-interpreted it as a draw claim according to article 10.2 and decided to continue watching. The game was drawn later anyway; both players were satisfied with this outcome, so this is a purely theoretical question. Should the arbiter have consulted my notes? (As I did not make them in any official capacity - probably not). Should he have consulted his own eyes? He later said that he had seen the position in question occurring several times. Was he correct in re-interpreting the claim or should he have waited for the player to make it? In the latter case, should there have been a penalty for wrongly claiming a draw? In the former case, should he not have accepted it as "repeating the position," means "not winning by normal means" in my opinion? Ingrid Voigt, Aachen (Germany) Answer I have the feeling that discussions about Article 10 shall never stop. Does it mean it is a bad article? I do not think so, because the fact that somebody should lose a "normal" game in a won position due to a lack of time is not acceptable. The same applies to the fact that a player cannot win with normal means and only can win if his opponent oversteps the time. The main reason that we have this article was to eliminate adjourned games. With the help of computers, you can now analyse all types of positions and therefore it is reasonable to finish the games in one session. The price we have to pay for this is Article 10. And the consequence of this Article is increased pressure on the arbiter. Each arbiter has his own opinion how he shall handle this Article and this is the cause of these discussions. Your letter is very interesting because several subjects are raised: (1) A spectator writes the moves, the arbiter does not write the moves, but is watching the game. Shall the arbiter use the scoresheet of this spectator? What do the Laws say about this? Article 8.5 says: If neither player is required to keep score, the arbiter or an assistant should try to be present and keep score. When the arbiter had followed the game - and this was the case - then I do not see any reason why he should not use the scoresheet of the spectator as help. Of course, this scoresheet is not decisive, but with the assistance of the two players involved and his own observations it must be possible to reconstruct the game. (2) The arbiter mentioned that there was no proof that the position had appeared for the third time. If he means that a scoresheet must be available, he is wrong. The arbiter has to check it, and I repeat that he may use this scoresheet, the opinion of the players and his own observations. (3) The arbiter was also wrong when he interpreted the claim as a claim under Article 10. And I can show this easily. A wrong claim according to Article 9 (the same position three times) shall be punished with a reduction of half of the remaining time up to a maximum of three minutes. A claim according to Article 10 may be "penalised" with two minutes. The word "may" indicates that there are situations in which the arbiter has the discretion not to punish the claimant. Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I greatly enjoyed your "Report from Batumi". It is not often that one has such detailed insider information of big tournaments. I was surprised to hear that "there were no incidents during the tournament"! How is that possible? Alex Zamorano (Canada) Answer I probably have to define what, in my opinion, constitutes an incident. An incident is a situation that two players completely disagree about what happened and they need the immediate help from an arbiter to solve the problem. Even the match arbiter is not able to solve this problem and he requests the help from a higher authority, e.g., a deputy chief arbiter or the chief arbiter. This kind of incident did not occur. The main reason was that there were not severe time trouble situations thanks to the Fischer mode. There were no situations that players were banging on the clocks. I have concluded that Zeitnot situations cause the majority of problems. Players get nervous; they do not write the moves in this situation; they do not know how many moves they have made; and at the moment the flag falls, they have to rely on the scoresheet of the opponent, provided he has recorded the moves or, finally, on the observation of the arbiter. Another point is that the tournament itself was quite well organised. This really helps to avoid problems. When chess players have the feeling that the organisers are doing their utmost, they appreciate it and they feel more relaxed. Question Dear Mister Gijssen, I need your advice in an incident related to the application of FIDE Laws of Chess: In a Rapid Team Tournament (4 main players for each team - one hour for each player for the whole game) Team A was playing against Team B. Players 1 & 3 of team A were playing with white pieces. They were playing the same moves like their opponent's players on board 2 & 4 who were playing white too! I think there are similar cases in the past, when Alekhine was playing a simultaneous match - when the champion was playing one game with white pieces and the other with black pieces - But Alekhine succeeded in overcoming this cheating by his skill. Here in our case, the arbiter noticed the cheating of players 1 & 3 of team A. They were laughing after making their moves. They were creating a lot of distraction and annoyance to other players in the playing hall. After about 8 moves, the games on boards 1 & 3 were exactly similar to the games on boards 2 & 4 with opposite colours! According to article 13.4, the arbiter warned the players of the cheating team to respect the FIDE Laws. But they continued their cheating, laughing and leaving their board - on their time - without making their moves, waiting for their opponents' players on Board 2 & 4 to play their moves. Then they went to their boards to play the same moves! My first question: Can the arbiter terminate the match by declaring that the cheating team loses 0-4 by applying article 12.7? Anyway, our arbiter decided to continue the match .He decided to separate the tables 2 & 4 from tables 1 & 3 (about 15 meters away), and ordered the players to continue the match. All players of team A refused to comply with the decision of the arbiter and didn't continue their games. The arbiter left all chess clocks running until all players of team A had lost on time, then he declared the match lost 0-4 in favour of team B. What is your opinion about this strange case? Was the arbiter right in his decision to separate tables 1 & 3 away from tables 2 & 4? Was the team A right to refuse this decision of the arbiter? What is your opinion about the final result of the match? Hesham Elgendy, Secretary General United Arab Emirates Chess Federation (UAE) Answer You referred to a simul game of Alekhine, but there is also a recent example of this. In the Corus Tournament (before it was named Hoogovens Tournament) Wijk aan Zee 2000 the same happened in Round 7. It concerned the games Kasparov Anand and Van Wely Short According to the newspapers Van Wely and Short were copying very carefully the moves made by Kasparov and Anand. But at the moment Anand sacrificed a pawn Short chose another move. After the game he declared with a big smile, that he had proven that he was much stronger than Anand. By the way, both games ended in a draw. And the arbiter did nothing. I think this arbiter was right not to take any measure against these players. This seems to answer one of your questions. Another point is the behaviour of the players. It is clear that the behaviour of the players is awful: laughing and distracting the opponents and also the other players in the playing hall is not acceptable. The arbiter was right in fact to take some measures to stop this. If in his opinion separating the tables could solve the situation, I agree with his decision. I understand that the players disagreed and they let their clocks run out of time. This is their responsibility and they have to bear the consequences of this. They overstepped the time and the consequence was that they lost the match 0-4. In short, there is nothing to do against this kind of cheating, but I am not opposed to the measures of the arbiter based on the behaviour of the players. It would also be helpful to know if an Appeals Committee was appointed. Question Dear Geurt, A situation occurred in a match I had recently. My opponent fell asleep. I was looking at the position, with my opponent to move, and suddenly heard him snoring. One of his teammates poked him, he woke up and continued the game. As a matter of interest, (I raised no complaint during the match), does the waking of a player by a teammate amount to interference such as when a teammate points out an illegal move or that a flag has fallen etc? Dave Burtonshaw (London, England) P.S. I know that I play solid openings, but I didn't think the position was boring enough for my opponent to fall asleep! Answer Article 13.6 says: "The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has made a move, or that he has failed to press the clock." Article 13.7 says: "Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game." The question is whether waking up a sleeping player is interfering in a game? I can imagine that some people have this opinion. But I can also imagine that a snoring player disturbs his opponent. The only way to stop this is to wake up the player. But to be serious, I believe it is not a problem to wake up a sleeping player. I, for sure, would never blame someone who woke up a sleeping player. Question Dear Mr Gijssen, If a player knocks over a piece accidentally on his/her move without saying "I adjust" does the rule touch and move still apply? What happened in one of my games? A Rook was knocked clean off the table and replaced on its original square. The player didn't say, "I adjust" then castled (King first) with the touched Rook - is that not against the rules? P. Dallas (England) Answer Article 4 2 of the Laws of Chess says: "Provided that he first expresses his intention (e.g. by saying "j' adoube"), the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares." Article 4.3 starts as follows: "Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard (a) One or more pieces... (b) One piece of each colour " The key here is the word "deliberately". It says, if a player touches a piece with the intention to play or to take this piece, he has to play or to take this piece. It is very clear that your opponent had no intention to play the Rook he knocked off the table. It happens sometimes that a player touches a piece. Then he sees that playing this piece, he makes a blunder, but he tries to avoid this by saying "j'adoube". This is of course not acceptable. He has to play this piece. The only problem is always that the opponent has to prove that this happened. With an arbiter present, it is not a problem. Question Article 10. I note much discussion and confusion about arbiters during blitz games, and also for limited-time endings of regular games, especially time delay protocols using Fischer mode. Kasparov-Kramnik played their 24-game blitz match in Moscow in an entirely different way, and in a system recently tested to the satisfaction of half a dozen Petersburg GMs. Kasparov/Kramnik developed the following: At 30 seconds remaining, each player shall have 3 seconds to make a move without time penalty. (Kasparov said that anyone with 20 seconds and 2 seconds per move could complete a game, Kramnik demurred and said 30/3). There is now a clock with this mode built into it. It has the advantage of not requiring an arbiter to interfere, and avoids the somewhat ludicrous situation of a player making nonsense moves in Fischer mode in order to gain time. This Kasparov- mode works in conjunction with a (digital) clock linked to a sensory board, for a local opponent, or a remote one, linked via the Internet. I would say because of the interest expressed by strong players in determining the game themselves; the reception of this new time-delay mode will become the default system, obviating much of the current rules and arbiter intercession. Has a set of rules been developed to accommodate Kasparov-mode time delay and in preparation for the regular broadcasting of these games on the Internet? Phil Innes (USA) Answer Before answering your question, I should explain a few things to the readers about several time limits used in different chess tournaments. First of all we have the "classical" time limit: 40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour and finally 30 minutes for the remaining moves. When we use this time limit we apply Article 10 in the last period of 30 minutes for the rest of the game. A player, who has the move and less than 2 minutes at his clock, may apply this article. Furthermore we have the so-called Fischer-mode. After each move a certain amount of time will be added. In FIDE events this amount is 30 seconds, but there is an option to add more or less time after each move. In the annual Amber Tournament in Monaco, 20 seconds are added in the blindfold games and only 10 seconds in the rapid games. The same happens in the tie- break games of the World Chess Championship tournament: 10 seconds after each move. I have also to mention, that the time saved by a player is added to his time for the next move. What does it mean? Suppose in a game 20 seconds are added after each move. At the moment a player starts to think about his move the clock shows 18'31". The player uses 12". At the moment he stops his clock the clock will show 18'19". Then 20" will be added. This means that 18'39" are available for his next move. The next option is the so-called Bronstein-mode. It is quite similar to the Fischer-mode, but with one big difference. And the best way to explain this system is to use the example of the Fischer-mode, mentioned above. The clock shows again 18'31", the time the player uses, is again 12". The clock will show 18'31". It means the 8" the player "saved" are "lost". As long a player thinks during 20" or less than 20" his clock will not change. The big difference between the Fischer- and the Bronstein mode is that in the Fischer mode, a player, by making some quick moves or a repetition of moves gains some time; with the Bronstein mode, this is impossible. I have the impression that especially in Blitz games more and more players prefer the Bronstein mode. The Kasparov mode starts out in a more or less "classical" way and then, at a certain point in time, it switches to the Bronstein mode. I think it is a very good idea to avoid situations in which players with a winning position will lose on time. For over- the-board games, the current Laws of Chess cover the Fischer, Bronstein and Kasparov modes. At the present time, FIDE has Regulations for International Clock-Controlled Telechess Contests. I am not sure that these regulations are also valid for Internet play. I try to find out and will you inform as soon as possible. Remark Dear Mr. Gijssen, before asking two questions I would like to make a general remark. The archives of The Chess Cafe now contain a large number of your past articles, each of which addresses plenty of different topics. Wouldn't it be a good idea for The Chess Caf‚ to offer some kind of search tool so that readers can find past articles where you already might have already discussed questions? Or alternatively some kind of topic index that gives the corresponding articles date? Answer Your idea is excellent and we are considering several alternatives, but not until after the FIDE congress in Istanbul. The reason is the following: I am sure there will be some modifications in the Laws of Chess. But more important is that there will be a renumbering of the Articles of the Laws of Chess. We can then use the new numbering of the Articles. Question But now my questions, both about electronic chess clocks: (1) in many open tournaments the first boards (often twenty or so) are equipped with electronic chess clocks. I know many players that are not happy using these electronic devices and would prefer to use a mechanical clock instead. Older players especially find it clearer to see the hands of a mechanical clock than only an anonymous "1:35" when it is not at once clear if this means 95 minutes or only 95 seconds. So my question: Does the player in an open tournament have any right to claim the use of a mechanical clock if the majority of the boards in this tournament is also equipped with mechanical clocks (and of course if an additional mechanical clock is available)? Or can the organizer force you to use an electronic clock? (In tournaments with usual time control like 2 hours/40 moves and 30 minutes/rest) (2) With mechanical clocks it is common to restart the opponent's clock again if the opponent upsets some pieces (e. g. when carrying out his move), so that my time is not affected while the opponent is repositioning and adjusting the pieces. What can I do in such a case with an electronic clock if there is a time increment for each move (because restarting the opponent's clock would give him an undeserved time increment then)? Achim Engelhart (Germany) Answer (1) As far as know, FIDE had never in its history approved of any privately manufactured clock until a small company in Holland produced the so-called DGT clock. In my opinion, it is impossible to refuse to play with the DGT clock. But if I am an arbiter in a tournament in which digital and mechanical clocks are used and the two players agree to play with a mechanical clock, I shall not oppose this decision. It may even solve a problem. As you know from one of my previous columns, it is forbidden for some Jewish players to play on holy Jewish days with a digital clock. Well, in this way the problem can be solved. But if any mode with an increment is involved, this solution does not work (2) You refer to Article 7.3. It says: "If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. If necessary the opponent has the right to restart the player's clock without making a move in order to make sure the player re-establishes the correct position on his own time." It is clear that this is not possible with electronic clocks if there is a time increment after each move. In a tournament with one of these modes, the opponent of the player who has to re-establish the position should call the arbiter. This is also my opinion in tournaments with mechanical clocks. I will propose to change this Article of the Laws of Chess in this regard. Question Dear Geurt, Firstly keep up the great work - I enjoy your articles very much. Both players are in time trouble (the time limit is 40/90 + All 30). One player releases his piece but does not press his clock. The second player makes his move and tries to press his clock but finds that his button is still down. The first player now claims to the arbiter that his opponent is making a move on his time. What should the ruling be? What penalties should apply? When is a player allowed to start making his move? Is it after the opponent has "made" his move - Article 4.7 - [after releasing the piece] "... The move is considered to by made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled." or after his opponent has "completed" his move - Article 6.7(a) "... A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to be completed until he has done so..." My view is that, in time trouble, it is too difficult to keep track of whether your opponent has pressed his clock while concentrating on the position on the board. I think that as long as a player does not prevent his opponent from pressing the clock he should be allowed to start making his move as soon as his opponent has released his piece. John Mazzieri (Australia) Answer First of all I cite Article 6.7(a): "During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent's clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the made move ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3)." This means, that if a player made a move and did not press his clock immediately and his opponent answers, the player has still the right to press his clock. And, of course, his opponent may do the same. I think, if this happens very incidentally in a game, I would not interfere. But if this happens many times, I would give a warning to the opponent and tell him that he has to wait until has opponent has completed his move, i.e., made his move and pressed his clock.