An Arbiter's Notebook By Geurt Gijssen Button It Up From February 19-24 the Chess Federation of the United Arab Emirates organised a seminar for chess arbiters in Dubai. I was invited to give lectures about the Laws of Chess, the Swiss System and the organisation of chess tournaments. The federation is not yet so big, but this is fully offset by the enthusiasm shown by the officials of the federation and the support of the government. Seeing the efforts made by chess officials, the financial support of the government and the desire of the chess players to upgrade their chess level, I was not at all surprised that the Asian players achieve fantastic results in e.g. the Olympiad: the women chess team of China won the golden medal as did Mohamad Al-Modiahki from Qatar on board 1. 19 arbiters 10(!) women and 9 men attended the seminar; I have never before had such an enthusiastic group. We discussed a lot of examples taken from the participants' and my practice. And nobody will be surprised that also Article 10 was again a real topic. When you have to organise a seminar about The Laws of Chess, it is quite obvious that you prepare something and have a look to the Laws, although you know them very well. Because I am an arbiter most of the time in "normal" chess tournaments, I have not paid that much attention to the Laws of Rapid and Blitz chess. When I studied these Laws, I discovered something strange. One example: If you were to ask every arbiter what should be done in a Rapid game when a player makes an illegal move, I am sure that 99% of them would answer: "Nothing, it is the responsibility of the chess players themselves." But I cannot find this principle in the Laws of Rapid Chess. I would now expect a lot of reaction from arbiters who may say that I am wrong. We shall see. Anyway, what I would like to point out is that it was also very productive for the lecturer to give such a seminar. Probably somebody will say that in the World Championship Knockout Tournament there were also Rapid and Blitz games played. But, as I have already previously written, in this tournament we applied the "normal" Laws of Chess, the only exception being that players were not obliged to record the moves. It is probably superfluous to mention that the seminar was excellently organised by Dr. Hesham Elgendy, the secretary- general of the UAE chess federation. And, I have to make one final remark: I visited the building of the chess club of Dubai. I have seen many chess clubs, but in my whole life I have never seen such a wonderful chess building. From a distance, you see a very big Rook. It is very clear what kind of building it is. There are two playing halls, one for about 200 players, one for about 100 players; there are rooms where people can analyse after the game; there are rooms in which training sessions can be organised; there is a special room for arbiters; there are rooms for all staff members; there is a good library; and there is a room for smokers. I was really very impressed. Question Dear Mr Gijssen, I must admit that your column was always neglected by me partly because so many interesting chess articles are to be read and partly because of my preconception believing that An Arbiter's Notebook must be dull stuff. Amazingly once I read your latest article "What shall we do with a Sleeping Chess Player" I was very much entertained and educated at the same time. Take this as a compliment! Perhaps I can contribute to your list of curiosities. A rather funny and bizarre incident happened during a "vierkamp" (tournament with 4 players) at the latest Corus tournament in Wijk aan Zee. As I am left-handed but not always consistent (meaning many activities are carried out with my right-hand) I usually do not mind which hand I use for pressing my clock. Having spent two games in two days behind the black pieces I had become used to pressing the clock with my right hand diagonally reaching out with my left for the clock. During my last game I had the white pieces on the other side of the table and found myself in an exciting and nerve-racking game. As I had used a lot of time, I was rather annoyed with myself when I noticed that my opponent had pressed his clock while my clock was still running! How could I have neglected to press the clock was beyond my imagination. Then, all of a sudden my neighbours on my right got into a terrible argument. One player had apparently taken a stroll to enjoy the world's best players. On his return he had noticed that his time had elapsed more than was technically possible. He accused my neighbour on my immediate right of having pressed his clock without having made a move using his clock- time. Still the incident did not ring a bell for me, as I was still very much in a trance with my own game. It was not until my next move that I noticed that my left-hand went to my right-hand neighbour's clock. I checked the situation myself and it finally dawned on me what had happened: I had pressed the wrong clock, selling myself short and creating a nasty incident that was not over yet. I tried to restore the peace, but it did not work. After my last attempt, I said I was sorry and offered both players a drink. I then concentrated on my own game and left them to deal with it, recalling that the man that had taken this peaceful stroll had also gotten into fierce fight with the arbiter claiming he should have received more time than he was granted. Obviously my question is what are the rules in such a case? Frits Dijkstra (The Netherlands) Answer Probably I have to explain first to the readers something about the placement of the clock. The arbiter decides where the chess clock is placed (Article 6.4) It is usual to place the chess clock on the right side of the black player. Therefore Mr Dijkstra, although left-handed, pressed the clock in game 1 and 2 as black with his right hand. In game 3 he played white; therefore "his" clock was now at his left side. And the fact that he pressed the wrong clock in the next game is quite understandable. The case is completely clear, but how to correct the situation? There are no rules for cases like this. The best thing to do is to call the arbiter, explain to him the situation and hope that he finds a solution (if the players are unable to do so). One thing is of course very evident: there was not enough space between the boards. Saying this I understand that I am in fact saying that this was a mistake of the organisers, not giving enough space to the players. But I also know very well that a lot of players wanted to play in this tournament, much more than the organisers could admit. And they made the choice to admit probably too many players in a hall that was too small. I repeat I do not want to criticise the organisers, but the arbiters must be prepared for such situations. Once again, the arbiters have to use their best judgement to determine the correct times on the clocks. Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, A team-mate of mine in a recent team tournament in the United States related the following incident to me: My team-mate was on move and picked up his opponent's Knight in order to capture it. Next he picked up his own King and proceeded to capture the knight with it - except it turned out that capturing the Knight with the King was illegal because the King would have been in check on the square that was occupied by the Knight. His opponent pointed this out and my team-mate replaced his King to its original square and proceeded to complete the transaction by capturing the Knight legally this time with another piece. My team-mate's opponent argued that he was obliged to make another, legal, move with his King since he had touched it. My team-mate argued that since he had removed the Knight from the board first that he could complete the capture with another piece. Who is right in this instance according to FIDE rules and do you know if the USCF rules conflict with FIDE on this count? Thank you for time in addressing this inquiry. Respectfully yours, Glen Hart (USA) Answer Under FIDE rules, your team-mate was completely right. If he can take the Knight with another piece and apparently he could he has to do so. The USCF regulations state the same. Question Mr. Gijssen, In the sixth round of a seven-round 30/30 tournament, two players end up with the following material: White with a King and Black with a King and Rook. Black was three moves away from mating White. Black's flag fell but his opponent did not notice it. A spectator noticed it and made a remark to direct White's attention to it. White then claimed a draw. Black objected and called the Arbiter for a decision because of the interference from a spectator (External interference?). The Arbiter ruled in favour of Black and awarded a full point. Was the Arbiter's decision correct? What should a player do with interferences such as these? Marcus Atterbury (South Africa) Answer When spectators interfere, the situation always becomes unpleasant. The problem is that officially they do not play any role, but as a matter of fact, their actions can be decisive and produce a different result. The actual situation in the game was that Black overstepped his time and his opponent did not have mating potential. Then the decision of the arbiter is very easy: draw. The fact that Black was three moves from mate is not important. Therefore the conclusion is that the arbiter's decision was wrong, although understandable. The only thing the arbiter could have done was to expel the interfering spectator from the playing hall. Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, In the Belgian Club Competition an arbiter made what seemed to be an extreme decision. He declared a game lost for an East European player because his mobile phone rang during the game; nothing more. I mentioned that he came from East Europe, because he did not understand the arbiter's message about mobile phones before the start of the round. I would like to add that the game was very important, it was possible to make an IM norm based on the result of this game. What is your opinion about the arbiter's decision? G. Kool (The Netherlands) Answer The matter is more complicated than might seem from Mr. Kool's inquiry. I spoke with the arbiter who was involved and he also showed me some documentation. I also made some telephone calls. First, I would like to report what, as far I can determine, are the facts: In October 1999 there was an official message from the official of the Belgian Chess Federation who appoints the arbiters, to all arbiters and clubs. This is the text: It happens frequently that the matches between clubs are disturbed by GSM-users. Therefore I request all arbiters to take the following measures from now on: 1. Before the start of the match you ask everybody to switch off completely the mobiles. 2. If a player refuses to do so and he makes a phone call (incoming or outgoing), the arbiter declares the game lost for the player who makes a phone call. I spoke with Mr. De Ridder, who was responsible for this measure, and he explained me the reasons. He had three articles in mind on which he based this measure: 1. Article 12.2: During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or to analyse on another chessboard. In his opinion it is very easy to get information about the actual situation on the board through the mobile. The player goes to the bathroom and makes a phone call. 2. Article 12.5: It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever; this includes the persistent offer of a draw. This is very reasonable, because these ringing mobiles are really disturbing. 3. Infractions of any part of the Articles 12.2 to 12.5 shall lead to penalties in accordance with Article 13.4. Declaring the game to be lost is one of the penalties open to the arbiter. I must say that the measures seem quite reasonable, although you can discuss if declaring the game to be lost is a proper penalty. Another point of discussion is whether this measure is an addition to the Laws of Chess is or not. And if the answer is "Yes", is it then in conflict with a part of the Preface of the Laws of Chess, especially point (c). Point (c) of the Preface says: A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they are not valid for any match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament. My personal opinion is that the steps taken by the Belgian Chess Federation were not an addition to the current Laws of Chess, but only an explanation how some Articles of the Laws of Chess can be applied. Finally I would like to highlight one other sentence of the Preface of the Laws of Chess: Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. Apparently the current situation in Belgium is now: the mobile phone rings, the player says one word, and the game is lost. Perhaps another penalty might also be considered. In the match mentioned by Mr. Kool, the arbiter made this announcement in three languages (English, French and Dutch) before the match started. During the match the mobile phone of one of the players made only one beep. Immediately, the arbiter declared the game lost. His argument is that it is possible to give information not only by a conversation, but also via the phone's display, perhaps even moves. The arbiter declared also that he had no choice to take another decision. The arbiter told me also that he had a discussion with the fined player afterwards in Dutch. Summarising I think that the arbiter may penalise as he did, although it is very dangerous to announce in advance which penalty should be given in specific cases. Question Dear Geurt, I enjoy your column very much. During a flurry of moves at the end of a blitz game, with both players having only seconds left to play, there is a series of exchanges culminating in the capture of a (black) pawn on the fifth rank. White, who has captured the pawn, fails to remove it from the board. A few moves later, with the pawn still on the board, black advances it to the sixth rank and punches his clock. White immediately stops the clock and claims an "illegal move" win, reasoning that the pawn was not "really" on the board, and hence cannot be moved. Black argues that he has in fact, made a legal move of a piece on the board, and is being punished for failing to keep track of which pieces his opponent has failed to remove from the board. The arbiter rules in favour of White. Do you agree? Michael Ratliff (USA) Answer I disagree completely with the arbiter's decision. Let us analyse the situation. On move 'x' White captures a black pawn, let us say on e4, with his Bishop. I understand that the black pawn was not taken from the board and the Bishop went to another square. (Two pieces on the same square is very unlikely.) White stops his clock and starts Black's clock. At that moment, Black could claim a win, because White did something illegal. Black did not claim. He played a move, stopped his clock and started White's clock. By completing his move, Black waived the right to claim a win and the game must be continued in the position, which is now on the board, including the pawn on e4. It means that Black could play, at some later move, his pawn from e4 to e3 without any legal consequence. I would like to emphasise that this is the Law for Blitz games. In "normal" and rapid games, you have to go back to the move when the irregularity occurred. Finally, I end this month's column with a very sad message. On February 19, 2000 my very good friend and colleague Boris Samuelovich Ravkin passed away in Moscow. Boris Samuelovich, born on May 2, 1925 was a veteran of the World War II, an officer of the USSR Army. His great love was chess and he was involved in the organisation of many chess events. In 1968 he became an International Arbiter. I met Boris for the first time in Moscow during the GMA Qualification Tournaments 1990 and from the first moment we became friends. I will remember Boris as a friend who was always very helpful to everyone. He was a happy man, always in a good mood and worked with a lot of energy. When his wife, also an International Arbiter, passed away a few years ago, he changed completely. Apparently, life became very difficult for him and he was often quite ill. "What is life without Katja?" he asked me many times. When I was in St. Petersburg in 1995 for the match Zsuzsa Polgar Maya Chiburdanidze, he came for a few hours by train from Moscow to St Petersburg, only to say "Halloo" to me. He became lonelier and lonelier. The last time I met Boris was during the 1998 Olympiad in Elista. He was the already quite ill. He was very tired. We had many talks and when he left Elista, the last word we spoke to each other from face to face was, as always: "Mazzeltov". After Elista I spoke him several times by phone and it was clear to me that he had more or less given up. However, it was a shock for me, when I got the message that Boris passed away. May he rest in peace.