An Arbiter's Notebook by Geurt Gijssen Conflicting Captains As I have already mentioned several times in prior columns, the Laws of Chess will be revised during the FIDE Congress in Istanbul in November 2000. The Rules Committee will propose some minor changes and a few radical changes. These changes are based on proposals from chess federations, in particular from Scotland, Russia and The Netherlands. And I am very happy with their proposals. But the majority of the changes is based on letters and questions I received from you, the readers at The Chess Cafe. Dear readers, you are very important and I would like to thank you for contributing to the proposals we shall offer to the General Assembly. At least 80% of the changes have come from you. I want to remind you that you may still submit your comments about the proposed revisions until July 22. You will find them at The Chess Cafe at: www.chesscafe.com/catalog/fide.htm In the meantime, I have received a lot of reaction from readers; it is overwhelming and nobody will be surprised when I tell you that Article 10.2, the definition of mating potential and taking the king in Blitz games are the topics. Comment With regards to the touch-move rule, I agree with your response to Richard Evans (Scotland) that a player who uses his own piece to touch his opponent's piece has to capture the opponent's piece, if that is a legal move. We have this situation occur frequently in junior tournaments, and I rule that the player's piece is an extension of his hand in this circumstance. An analogous situation occurs in criminal law, which states that if a person or a part of a tool he is using enters a property, then that person has committed the offence of break-and-enter. John Coleman (Canada) Question Accelerated pairings in a Swiss type of tournament: (1) When should they be used? (2) In the situation when ties need to be broken, would you still use the progression (sum of cumulative scores)? Recall that low-rated players have an easier time in accelerated rounds than the high-rated ones. Michel Arsenault (Canada) Answer I should explain several things before answering your questions. What are accelerated pairings? In a Swiss tournament it is usual that the first half of a group of players plays against the second half with the same score. For instance: we have a tournament with 100 players. We place these 100 players in rating order and in the first round the numbers 1-50 will play against the numbers 51 100. There are two systems for this (I do not consider the colours): 1-51, 2-52, 3-53 50-100 or 1-100, 2-99, 3-98, 4-97, 50-51. In a Swiss tournament with accelerated pairings the group of 100 players are divided in four groups: group A contains players 1-25, group B 26- 50, group C 51-75 and group D 76-100. With accelerated pairings, the players in group A play against the players of group B, the players in group C play against the players in group D. The pairings are in this case: 1-26, 2-27 25-50, 51-76, 52-77 75-100 or 1- 50, 2-49 25-26, 51-100, 52-99 75-76. In my example I made 4 groups, but it is also possible to make 6 groups and then A plays B, C plays D and E plays F. What is the progression (sum of cumulative scores)? Normally we call this score the progressive score. Suppose the score of a player is as follows: The sum of the total scores after each round is the progressive score, in the example: 1 + 1 + 1.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 3 + 4 + 4.5 + 5 = 25 is the progressive score of this player. To be honest, I do not like this criterion to decide the final ranking of a tournament. It only reflects how one's score increases. Players who finish strongly have an advantage. There is only one "advantage" in using this method: the players can calculate, before the start of the last round, how they have to play to guarantee a certain prize. I am not sure that this is an advantage, because it is well known that in many open tournaments the results of the last round are fixed by the players. And the progressive score approach makes their task easier. The most logical way to decide tiebreaks is, in my opinion, the following: if the pairings are based on ratings the final standings must be based on ratings as well, for example, the Tournament Performance Rating (TPR); if the pairings are made with Buchholz scores, the final standings in a score group must also be based on Buchholz scores. This is the only correct way. Question I play many blitz games on the net and am unclear on the exact ruling of a draw. In numerous games an opponent, ahead by a few seconds in a two- or five-minute game where a positional draw is evident, repeats moves and positions thinking if he or she does so fifty times or more that they will win on time. I've insisted the repetition draw rule applies to blitz but they argue that it does not. Secondly, does the repetition draw rule vary according to the differing chess governing bodies such as FIDE, USCF, or the WBCA, etc. If so, how does it differ? Christopher Willard (USA) Answer Let me state what the FIDE Laws of Chess say about it. In the Blitz Rules of FIDE there is no exception regarding Article 9. This means that a player can claim a draw pursuant this Article. He can claim a threefold repetition of position and he can claim a draw pursuant to the 50-move rule. There is only one problem. How to prove this? There is no scoresheet available. In blitz tournaments there are many players but few arbiters, with the result that the arbiters cannot observe all games. In short, I note that theoretically there is no problem, but for practical purposes, there is a problem and I do not see a solution at the moment. Perhaps one of the new proposals in the proposed revised laws could be considered. This proposal is that a player can claim a draw the same way as in Article 10 (Quickplay finish) when he has less than one minute and his opponent is not making any effort to win the game by normal means. However I have the feeling that the majority of the arbiters would be against this proposal. Question In your previous column, you stated that the game in question would have been declared a draw if it had been a blitz game. However, if the white rook were to be placed on b1 for example (with the remaining pieces in the positions shown) wouldn't that meet the requirement for forced mate in 1 with the losing side on move? R-b7 would be forced, with BxR mate to follow. Keith C. Rose (USA) Question Dear Mr. Gijssen: I was wondering if the game presented by Martin Fierz was really a draw under the Laws of Blitz chess when I found the following position (See Diagram): White: Ka8, Ra3; pawn - a7 Black: Kc8, Bh3 Black moves 1...Bg2+ and after White's best move 2 Rf3, Black's 2 Bxf3++ wins by mate. Should the game still be considered drawn under the Laws of Blitz chess? Ramon Etxeberria (Spain) Answer When I saw these two letters about the same subject I asked myself if I had made a mistake. And I have to admit that I was wrong. To illustrate what Article C4 says, let us look to the example giving in this article. It is written that two Knights and a King against a lone King is insufficient, i.e. no mating potential. Let us look at the following position (See Diagram): White: Kg6, Nf6, Ne5. Black: Kg8. If Black plays ...Kh8 he will be mated next move, but ...Kh8 is not forced; Black can avoid mate by playing ...Kf8. And this is exactly what the Article tries to say: Mating potential is defined as adequate material which may eventually produce a mating position legally, possibly by 'helpmate' where an opponent having the move cannot avoid being mated in one move. In the examples given in the letters it is not possible to avoid mate in one, meaning there is mating potential. In the ending King + 2 Knights vs King Black can avoid mate at each move, therefore no mating potential and draw. Question Hi Geurt, I like your column very much. I have a question about time control. But first I want to explain a situation. I am playing on a team (of 8) in the local chess league. Our local rules say that the two team captains together act as an arbiter. This causes some problems, not the least is when each has a different position! Then there is the problem of time controls, because the team captains may have problems with their own time! Well, my question is, how to do a regular time control (40/2) and then any continuation as all moves in 1 hour or 20/1 and then all moves in 30 minutes. Sometimes the players do not know how many moves they have MADE; is the arbiter involved regardless of the wishes of the players? Tom Dette (Germany) Answer: In my opinion there is something wrong in the regulations of the league in which you play. First of all, you state that there are two arbiters (the team captains) with equal responsibility. I am of the opinion that one arbiter should be appointed who would have responsibility for the match. Another one can be his assistant. For instance, the captain of the home team is the chief arbiter and the captain of the visiting team is his assistant. This makes the matters already a little bit clearer. But my next point is: Should a captain also be the arbiter? I do not think so. There is clearly a conflict here. In addition, it appears that the captain/arbiter can also be a player. So we have the combination player/arbiter/captain. In Holland, you may not be both a player and an arbiter. You have already identified one potential problem. If the arbiter himself is in time trouble, how can he observe another game? And what has priority, his game or another game in which two players are in time trouble and are not able to write the moves? I hope it is very clear what you have to do: propose as soon as possible that a player may not be the arbiter of a team match. In Holland we have the rule that the home team must provide a non- playing arbiterg. And if the home team has no arbiter available, the club has to provide a neutral arbiter. I wrote in my previous columns about the Dutch Championship. You may recall that a computer participated in this tournament. Currently there is a grandmaster tournament in Dortmund (Germany) and in this tournament a computer is also participating. I received a phone call from one of the arbiters about the regulations for games between a computer and a human. He remembered the Dutch Championship and thought we had some special regulatioins. When I received this phone call I was in a tournament in Munich and I discussed this with GM John Nunn. Based on the regulations of the Dutch Championship we created regulations for the tournament in Dortmund. It is my opinion that we will see increased participation by computers in tournaments. Therefore it is probably a good idea to publish the regulations we devised. Please let us know what you think of these regulations Regulations for games between a player and a computer. Some remarks: 1. "Computer" means in these regulations the combination of a computer and a computer program. 2. The operator must be sufficiently qualified to operate the computer. 3. The computer may use any resources, which have been programmed before the start of the game and the existence of those resources (e.g. opening books, endgame databases) must be declared in advance. 4. The player should not have any responsibilities above and beyond those he would have against a human being. Laws: 1. The FIDE Laws of Chess will be applied, unless they are overridden by the following Articles. 2. The operator may not be replaced during the game without permission of the arbiter. 3. The game itself will be played on a normal chessboard with normal pieces and the clock prescribed for the event. 4. The operator may have an assistant when he installs the computer program before the game. During the game the installation may not be changed. 5. Only the following actions of the operator are allowed during the game: a) to enter the player's moves into the computer. b) to make the computer's moves on the chessboard and to press the clock. c) to record the moves and the elapsed times of the player and the computer. d) to offer, to accept and to reject the offer of a draw on behalf of the computer. e) to claim a draw according Article 9.2, 9.3 or 10.2 of the Laws of Chess on behalf of the computer. f) to resign the game on behalf of the computer. g) to sign the scoresheets after the game. h) to correct technical errors; this includes the replacement of the computer (see Articles 7 and 8). These actions must take place under the supervision of the arbiter. i) to change the clock times of the computer, if the difference between the clock times of the computer and the official clocks is too big. This must take place under the supervision of the arbiter. 6. If the operator makes a wrong move on the chessboard and therefore the position of the computer differs from the position on the chessboard, the position of the computer must be changed. This change must be made under the supervision of the arbiter. The clocks must be stopped while the change is being made. The player will receive 5 minutes extra time. 7. In cases of external disturbances (for instance or no electric power), extra time will be given, according to the discretion of the arbiter. 8. If an internal disturbance of the computer occurs while the computer's clock is running, then the clock shall continue to run while the disturbance is resolved. If an internal disturbance occurs while the player's clock is running, then the player has the right to stop his clock and to start the computer's clock without making a move. When the disturbance is resolved, the player's clock will be restarted. 9. In cases not foreseen in these regulations, the arbiter will decide. I intend to offer these regulations to FIDE, but before doing so I would be very happy to receive comments from the readers at The Chess Cafe. From June 29 until July 2 I was in Istanbul. As you probably know, this autumn, the 34th Chess Olympiad will be organised in this Turkish city. I know there are some doubts whether this Olympiad shall be organised here or not. Especially after the earthquake last year, many thought that it would not be possible to organise such an event. I was really surprised about the progress the organisers have already made. They are excellent organisers, although not all chessplayers, and I left Istanbul with very positive feelings. The playing hall is nice, although I would prefer one that is a little bit bigger. The hall is in the centre of Istanbul and all hotels are within walking distance to the playing hall. There are good restaurants in the neighbourhood. I am very optimistic. In August I will go to Ankara to train Turkish arbiters for the Olympiad. I will keep you posted. From July 3 until July 15, there was another "dance" tournament in Munich organised by the Association Max Euwe in Monaco. This was the ninth tournament between veterans and ladies, a Scheveningen tournament, this time called the Schuhplattler Chess tournament after a Bavarian dance. The ladies won with a score of 27-23. The star of the tournament was again the 69-year-old Victor Korchnoi, who scored 7.5 out of 10, gaining 12 Elo points. Some players are inclined to make short draws, but Korchnoi plays every game with only one goal: he wants to win. Around his board I, as an arbiter, always feel the tension. In my next Notebook I will give you some examples of what happened in his games. Before closing this month, allow me to mention one incident. After 9 rounds, Hans Bouwmeester, a Dutch IM, had made only 3 draws. In the last round he played against the Chinese top player Zhu Chen. At one point he had a totally won position (several pawns up in the ending) and the lady did not resign. This was probably too much for the veteran and suddenly he said to his opponent: "please be polite". His opponent reacted immediately and told him to be polite and not to speak to her during the game. This incident was related to me after the game by both players. Apparently they spoke so softly that nobody heard them, but it did reflect some of the tension during the tournament.