An Arbiter's Notebook
By Geurt Gijssen

Silicon Silliness
   
From Kevin Kane (USA): Thank you for answering my
question in your most recent article At the end you asked what
kind of tournament it was as far as time control. I know it was
40 moves in 90 minutes and then all remaining moves in 1
hour. I believe that is "rapid", but not sure. I do assume that one
player's flag fell first, but the other player didn't stop the clock
and claim his win before his flag also fell. I know this job of
stopping the clock to be the player's and not the TD's in that
time control. Thus both flags were down.

Comment: A game with the indicated time limit is not a rapid
game, but a normal game with a quick-play finish. In games
like these, the arbiter (or TD   Tournament Director - as you
call him), is responsible for calling the flag. If both flags are
down before the 40th move and it is not clear which flag was
first, the game is continued. If both flags are down and it is
clear who overstepped the time first, that player will lose the
game. The same applies at the end of the second control if it is
clear who overstepped first. If it is not clear who was first the
game will be declared drawn. In rapid games (all moves in 15-
60 minutes) and blitz games (all in15 minutes or less) the
arbiter is not responsible for calling the flag. Only the players
are responsible. Even when it is clear which flag fell first and
the arbiter has seen everything, the game is still a draw.

Question: Dear Geurt, If during a rapidplay tournament an
arbiter witnesses a player touching a piece then moving another
piece whilst his opponent is away from the board, what should
he do? Peter Worsley (England)

Answer: Article B5 of the Rapidplay Laws says that the arbiter
shall make a ruling according to Article 4 and 10, only if
requested to do so by one or both players. Article 4 deals with a
touched piece and Article 10, as everybody knows, the
quickplay finish of a game. The arbiter must make a decision
only if requested by a player. If a player leaves the board, he
can do so, but he assumes the risk that his opponent may do
something as described in your letter. The arbiter can act only
after a claim. If there is no claim, the arbiter shall do nothing.

Question: With regard to the "stinking player" problem... Last
September in the Braintree tournament (Essex, UK) a
competitor complained to one of the arbiters that his opponent
was disturbing his concentation by continually breaking wind.
The arbiter concerned had never been put in this delicate
position before, but did his job correctly and asked the
offending person not to do it any more. The gentleman
concerned was very apologetic and embarrassed, and this was
clearly not a deliberate infringement of the rules! Peter Walker
(UK)

Answer: Thank you for your reaction. It confirms what I wrote
in my previous column: Many situations are better handled
diplomatically rather than with the Laws of Chess.

Question: Dear Geurt Gijssen: In the book Chess for Dummies
it states the quickest checkmate from the starting position is
forced mate in three. 1.e4 f5 2.Nc3 g5 3.Qh5. When in fact if
Black is to checkmate White in the same fashion, black will do
it in two. 1.f4 e5 2.g4 Qh4. Black doesn't have to waste a move
waiting for both pawns to move up.(White had to with 2.Nc3.)
Why would a book written by a grandmaster have such a big
mistake in it? Does everyone know about this? (I'm sure I am
not the first to discover it.) Does everyone just assume that
when someone says "quickest mate" they mean White mates
Black? Just I was wondering if you could clear things up for
me. Thanks. Adam Hall (USA)

Answer: Well, I am afraid I cannot clear up this case. You are,
of course, 100% right, stating that the game 1. f4, e5 2. g4, Qh4
++ is one move shorter. By the way, there is a funny story
about the mate given in the book. In the open Dutch
Championship several years ago, there was a player, playing
Black, who wanted to attend a pop concert. Before the game, he
offered his opponent a draw, but the opponent refused. The
game went as follows: 1. e4 f6 2.Nc3 g5 and the music lover
expected an immediate 3. Qh5++, but what happened? His
opponent did not move for about two hours and when he had
just one minute left on his clock, he played 3. Qh5++.
Everybody was really surprised that the Black player waited 
for his opponent's mating move. I know that another Dutch
player, who has since become a grandmaster, played the same
moves with Black to demonstrate that he was unhappy with the
organisation of the tournament.

Question: Dear Mr Gijssen, I just played a chess tournament in
Lucerne where the time control was 90 minutes for 36 moves +
1 hour for the rest of the game. The following incident
happened in a game I observed: The players were down to two
minutes each on the clock in the rapid-play phase in this
position (See Diagram):
 
White: Kb4, Ra1; pawn - a5
Black: Ka6, Be2. 

This is an easy win for White, since Black has the "wrong"
Bishop. However, in the game White was unable to find the win
and the position didn't change very much (the pawn didn't
advance down) when White's flag fell. Black claimed a win on
time but didn't stop the clock. There were many witnesses
around. Discussions started  because White claimed it was a
draw because Black only had a bishop left. When the arbiter
arrived both flags were down. The arbiters decided on a win for
Black.

My questions: (1) If both flags are down when the arbiter
arrives, and Black says White's flag fell first and White says he
only saw both flags down, are observers allowed as witnesses?
(2) The win for Black was based on the fact that a mate was
still possible (See Diagram): 

White: Ka8, Ra1; pawn - a7
Black: Kc8, Bd5
 
(The other possibility would be an underpromotion to a
Knight). Obviously it is not very probable that any of these
possibilities would actually happen. And if White had no a-
pawn, there would be no mate, so it could be a draw. Was the
decision of the arbiters correct? And if so, are changes to this
rule (win if a mate is still possible) planned? (3) Is there a list of
positions in which the weaker side can claim a draw? For
instance, it is obvious that he may claim a draw playing against
two Knights only. But how about Rook + Knight versus Rook
(draw, rather easy), or Rook + Bishop versus Rook (draw, but
not so easy), or the position above, modified to white pawn on
a6 and Black with a black-squared Bishop (draw too). Would
you accept a claim of a draw in this kind of position or not?
Martin Fierz, Zrich (Switzerland)

Answer: You call the last phase of a normal game the rapid
phase, but you mean "Quickplay finish". I mention this to make
it very clear that we do not apply the Laws for Rapid Chess, but
the normal Laws of Chess. Furthermore you mentioned that the
players were down to less than two minutes, but neither player
claimed a draw. When reliable witnesses see which flag
dropped first, why not to use these persons to achieve the
correct result? The arbiter declared the game won for White.
With the Laws of Chess this decision is completely correct. The
decision is based on the Articles 10.4 and 6.9: Article 10.4: "If
both flags are down and it is impossible to establish which flag
fell first the game is drawn." Well, in this case it was clear, but
if no witnesses are available and one player says some different
from the opponent, then the game must be declared drawn.

Article 6.9: "Except where Article 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 apply, 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,
even with the most unskilled counterplay." As you yourself
show, it is possible to checkmate the white King and although I
have to admit white has to play very stupidly, it is still
nevertheless possible. 

If this game had been a blitz game the decision would be that
the game is a draw. The reason is Article C4 of the Laws of
Blitz chess, which says: In order to win a player must have
'mating potential'. This is defined as adequate forces eventually
to produce a position legally, possible by 'helpmate', where an
opponent having the move cannot avoid being checkmated in
one move. Thus two Knights and a King against a lone King is
insufficient, but a Rook and King against a Knight and King is
sufficient. In the mate position you give the last move was a
blunder, for instance a6-a7 or Rb1-a1. If White does not play
one of these moves, but Rb1-c8+ instead, White will not be
checkmated. In other words, there is no forced mate. Therefore
the game is a draw.

You ask if we intend to change the Laws of Chess regarding
this point. The answer is yes. I intend to have this rule, which
now only applies to Blitz games, extended to all kinds of chess.
This means that in the example, the game would be declared a
draw, but we will have to wait until November 2000 when it
will be decided in Istanbul during the FIDE Congress.
Regarding your last question about a list of positions, I would
like to say that it is, in my opinion, incorrect to publish such a
list. The point is that it is not important whether the position is a
draw or not. It is important that the player who has an inferior
position must demonstrate that he knows how to hold the draw
or the player with the better position has to prove how to win
the position. I of course would direct the players to continue the
game.

Question: Thanks for the brilliant advice and the clear way you
appear to handle very extreme interpretations of the rules. My
question regards the touch-move rule. The other day a friend of
mine lifted his king and used the king to move a bishop with
the obvious intent to capture it; at this moment the opponent
claimed touch move forcing my friend to take the piece,
delivering stalemate. Has he touched the Bishop? Richard
Evans (Scotland)

Answer: If I understand you correctly, your friend intended to
capture the opponent's Bishop with his King. He touched the
King intending to take the Bishop not with his hand, but with
the King. As you yourself say, he intended to take the Bishop. I
personally would require the player to take the Bishop. It is a
bit much for me to rule that he did not touch the Bishop with
his hand, and therefore he does not have to take it. I am aware
that another arbiter might say that he did not actually touch the
Bishop, but in any case, the player deserves a warning, because
it is clear that his action is disturbing.

In last month's Arbiter's Notebook I mentioned the Dutch
championship and the participation of a computer called Fritz
SSS*. It was remarkable that the majority of journalists were
completely against the participation of the computer. IM Gert
Ligterink and GM Hans Ree were strong opponents and did not
hide their feelings in their daily reports in their newspapers. But
almost as remarkable for me was the fact that they usually
started their articles with the games of the computer and wrote
very extensively about these games. 

The approach of the players was very different. I have already
written that GM van der Sterren did not show up. The GMs
Piket and Van der Doel tried to play a kind of opening they
normally never play. Piket drew his game and Van der Doel
was beaten in a miniature. Bosboom resigned in 4 moves as
sign of protest. Very good positions were achieved by GM
Nijboer, who drew after a blunder and IM Grooten, who had a
completely winning position, but blundered and lost. Tiviakov
played a very good game, had a winning position, but was at
the end very short of time. In this position the operator offered
the GM a draw, because the operator did not want to win on
time. Tiviakov refused, blundered two moves later, and offered
a draw which was accepted. After the game Tiviakov protested.
It was his opinion that the operator had to resign if he did not
want to win on time if the opponent had a winning position.
The Appeals Committee rejected his protest. The most
interesting games were played by the GM Van der Wiel and
Van Wely who became champion of Holland for the first time.
Here are the two games:

White: Van Wely,L - Black: Fritz SSS
1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. a3 Bxc3 6. bxc3 0-
0 7. e4 a6 8. a4 d6 9. d3 Bg4 10. f3 Bd7 11. Ne2 Qc8 12. h3 b6
13. f4 Be6 14. f5 Bd7 15. g4 Ne8 16. Ng3 Qd8 17. g5 Bc8 18.
h4 f6 19. Qh5 Na5 20. Ra3 Qe7 21. Nf1 Nc6 22. Ne3 Qd7 23.
g6 h6 24. Ng4 Ra7 25. Rg1 1-0

White: Van der Wiel,J - Black: Fritz SSS
1. d4 d5 2. c3 Nf6 3. Bg5 Ne4 4. Bf4 g5 5. Bc1 h6 6. e3 Bg7 7.
Bd3 Nd7 8. c4 Ndf6 9. f3 Nd6 10. c5 Nf5 11. Ne2 g4 12. f4
Qd7 13. Nbc3 Qe6 14. Qd2 Bd7 15. b4 h5 16. a4 0-0-0 17. Kd1
h4 18. b5 Kb8 19. Rb1 h3 20. g3 Be8 21. a5 Ka8 22. Ke1 Bd7
23. Kf2 a6 24. Qc2 Rb8 25. Bd2 axb5 26. Nxb5 Bxb5 27. Rxb5
Ne4+ 28. Bxe4 Qxe4 29. Qxe4 dxe4 30. Nc3 e6 31. Nxe4 Ne7
32. Ng5 Rhf8 33. Rhb1 Ka7 34. a6 bxa6 35. Rxb8 Rxb8 36.
Rxb8 Kxb8 37. Nxf7 Kc8 38. Ng5 Kd7 39. Ke2 Nf5 40. Ne4
Kc6 41. Nf2 Nh6 42. Ba5 Bf6 43. Kd3 Kd7 44. e4 Bg7 45. Kc4
Kc6 46. Bd2 1-0

Van der Wiel received a special prize for this game. A jury
decided that this game was the best one against the computer.

From May 27 until June 14 I was in Batumi (Georgia) for the
First Women's European Championship. 32 women
participated. It was a knockout tournament. In the first three
rounds, 2 games were played; in the semi-finals and the finals,
4 games. In case of a tie, the players had to play 2 more games
at 25 minutes plus 10 seconds per move. If the score after these
extra games was still equal, they had to play 2 games with 15
minutes + 10 seconds per move and finally, to break any
remaining tie, 5-minute games with an addition of 10 seconds
per move.

In those tiebreak games the normal Laws of Chess were
applied. The players were not obliged to keep score, but were
allowed to consult the arbiter's scoresheet when they wanted to
claim a draw. Before each tiebreak round, I informed the
players about this, explaining the rules, giving them a written
copy of the rules (in English and Georgian) and really thought
everything was clear. But see what happened in the second
round 
.
White: Khurtsidze,N (GEO) - Black: Radziewicz,I (POL)
1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. c4 Nf6 4. e3 d5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. a3 Bd6
7. d3 0-0 8. Nf3 Qe7 9. Nbd2 Bg4 10. Be2 Rad8 11. Qc2 Nb6
12. b4 a5 13. b5 Nb8 14. 0-0 N8d7 15. Rfe1 Bf5 16. e4 Bg6 17.
d4 exd4 18. Nxd4 Nc5 19. Nf5 Bxf5 20. exf5 Bxh2+ 21. Kxh2
Qd6+ 22. Kg1 Qxd2 23. Qxc5 Qxb2 24. Qxc7 Rd2 25. Bf1 Qd4
26. Qg3 Nd5 27. Qf3 Nf6 28. Rad1 Rd8 29. Rxd2 Qxd2 30.
Qe3 Qd5 31. Qb6 Rc8 32. Qxa5 h5 33. Qb4 Rc2 34. Qf4 Qc5
35. Qe3 (See Diagram)

35...Qd6 36. Qd3 Qc5 37. Qe3 Qd6 38. Qd3 Qc5 39. Qe3 Qd6 

The position repeats itself, as it did after 37 Qd6. I would like
to ask the readers how many times and in which positions
White could claim a draw. What actually happened was that
White offered a draw after 40 Qd3. Black refused; White
subsequently lost the game and was eliminated.


40. Qd3 Qc7 41. Rd1 Kh7 42. Qd6 Qc3 43. a4 Rxf2 44. Qd4
Qxd4 45. Rxd4 Ra2 46. Rc4 Kh6 47. Rc7 Rxa4 48. Rxb7 Ng4
49. Rxf7 Ra1 50. Re7 Rb1 51. g3 Kg5 52. Rxg7+ Kxf5 53. Re7
Kf6 54. Re8 Kf7 55. Re4 Kf6 56. Kg2 Rb2+ 57. Be2 Kg5 58.
Re8 Kf5 59. Kh3 Nf6 60. Bd3+ Kg5 61. Re5+ Kh6 62. Re6
Kg5 63. Re5+ Kh6 64. Be2 Kg6 65. Rc5 Rxe2 66. b6 Rb2 67.
Rc6 Kg5 68. Rc5+ Kg6 69. Rc6 Kf5 70. Rc5+ Ke6 71. Rc6+
Ke5 72. Kh4 Rb4+ 73. Kg5 Rg4+ 74. Kh6 Rxg3 75. b7 Rb3 76.
Kg6 Nd5 77. Kxh5 Rxb7

At this point I thought that we might have to invoke the 50-
move rule, but look how the Polish player qualified for round
3 

 78. Rc5 Rg7 79. Kh6 Rg1 80. Ra5 Ke6 81. Ra6+ Kf7 82. Kh5
Nf6+ 83. Kh4 Kg6 84. Kh3 Kf5 85. Ra8 Kf4 86. Rf8 Rg3+ 87.
Kh2 Rg6 88. Kh3 Kf3 89. Kh4 Kg2 90. Rg8 Nxg8 0-1

After the game I asked Khurtsidze why she did not claim a
draw instead of offering one. She told me that she knew she
could claim, but that she did not know why she did not.

In the semi finals the matches Kovalevskaya (RUS)  
Chiburdanidze (GEO) and Zhukova (UKR)  Stepovaia (RUS)
were played. Although the Georgians like chess very much,
they in fact are only primarily interested in the performances of
their own players. The women Georgian players are very
popular and for a very long time they were the leading women
chess players in the world. Nona Gaprindashvili, 5-time world
champion, and Maya Chiburdanidze, also an ex-world
champion are national heroes in this country. I have visited
many countries but I have never seen such a chauvinistic public
as the Georgians. When Maya lost the fourth game in her match
with Kovalevskaya and was eliminated, there was the silence of
a funeral in the playing hall. It seemed that all the spectators
were completely paralysed and could not believe that no
Georgians were in the final. The final was played by Zhukova
(UKR) and Kovalevskaya (RUS). The Ukranian player won the
match (2.5-1.5). In the third game there was an interesting
moment. Almost everybody saw what could happen in the
diagrammed position: Mate in 2. (You will find the solution at
the end of this column.)

White: Zhukova,N (UKR)
Black: Kovalevskaya,E (RUS)
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5 4. e4 exd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qd2 g6
7. b3 Bg7 8. Bb2 0-0 9. f3 Nd7 10. h4 h5 11. 0-0-0 Nc5 12.
Nd5 Ne5 13. Nh3 c6 14. Ne3 Bxh3 15. Rxh3 Qb6 16. Kc2 Ne6
17. Nf5 gxf5 18. exf5 Nd8 19. f6 Bxf6 20. Qxd6 Ne6 21. Rg3+
Ng7 22. Bxe5 Bxe5 23. Qxe5 f6 24. Qf4 Qf2+ 25. Kb1 Rad8
26. Bd3 Rf7 27. Bh7+ Kxh7 28. Rxd8 Re7 (See Diagram)

29. Rd2 Qe1+ 30. Kb2 Re2 31. Rxe2 Qxe2+ 32. Ka3 Qe7+ 33.
b4 Qd7 34. Qe4+ f5 35. Qc2 a5 36. Rg5 Qe7 37. Qc3 axb4+ 38.
Qxb4 Qe3+ 39. Ka4 Qf2 40. Kb3 Qxh4 41. Qe7 Qd4 42. Rxh5+
Kg8 43. Rg5 f4 44. Rxg7+ Qxg7 45. Qxg7+ Kxg7 46. Kc3 Kf6
47. Kd4 Kf5 48. c5 1-0

Even during the closing ceremony the Georgians did not hide
their feelings and stated frankly onstage that they were very
disappointed that no Georgian woman had become European
champion. Both finalists were accorded honorary citizenship of
the Autonomous Republic of Adjara.

Solution: 29 Qh6+ Kxh6 30 Rh8++. Zhukova considered only
29 Rh8+ and could not find a quick mate.