An Arbiter's Notebook By Geurt Gijssen Flying Rooks In my previous column I promised to tell you something about the Schuhplattler Tournament between the Ladies and the Veterans in July, and especially about Victor Korchnoi. It was organised in Munich by the Association Max Euwe in Monaco. During the whole tournament I was sitting only about two meters from Korchnoi's board. Therefore I had a lot of opportunities to observe him. Korchnoi's most remarkable quality is, in my opinion, that he plays all his games with a lot of energy and a tight-lipped face. During a game the word "relax" does not exist for him. On free days and during the closing ceremony, particularly if he has a chance to dance, he is a totally different person. In the first round he met Nana Ioseliani. It was a draw in 39 moves. The next day he told the press officer of the tournament, IM Paul Boersma, that the final position was lost for him. Here it is (See Diagram): Ioseliani, N-Korchnoi, V White: Ke2, Ra8, Be3, pawns c3, c4, d5, f3, g4 (8) Black: Kf6, Rc7, Nc8, pawns b6, c5, d6, e5, g5 (8) He explained that White's best plan is to bring her King to b5 and then to switch the Rook to the h-file. From the first round, he ate a lot of chocolate. This is, of course, not a problem, but he always made so much noise with the chocolate wrappers that the arbiters had to warn him each round to stop it. Several players complained about this. In the second round he won quite easily against Sofia Polgar. In the third round Alisa Galliamova was his next opponent. Their game was one of the most exciting games of the tournament. Galliamova, A-Korchnoi, V 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. Ne5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 11. Bd2 Nbd7 12. f4 Be7 13. 0-0-0 c5 14. Bc3 0-0 15. Nxd7 Qxd7 16. f5 Qd5 17. b3 Rac8 18. dxc5 Qxc5 19. Bd4 Qa3+ 20. Kb1 Nd5 21. c4 Nb4 22. Qe2 b5 23. f6 Bxf6 24. Bxf6 gxf6 25. Nh5 f5 (See Diagram) In this position 26 Rd2 Nxa2 27 Qd3 looks very good for White 26. Nf6+ Kh8 27. Rd2 Rfd8 28. Qe3 Kg7 29. Nh5+ Kg6 (See Diagram) In his daily report Paul Boersma showed the following variation: 30 Qg3+ Kxh5 31 Qg7 (threatening 32 g4+ fxg4 33 Qxf7 mate) 31...Rc7 32 Rg1 and 33 g4+ or 31...Rg8 32 g4+ fxg4 33 Qxf7+ Rg6 34 Re1 30. Rh3 Rxc4 31. Rg3+ Rg4 32. Rxg4+ fxg4 33. Nf4+ Kf5 34. Qc5+ e5 35. Rxd8 Qxa2+ 36. Kc1 Qxb3 37. Rd2 Na2+ 38. Rxa2 Qxa2 39. Nd5 Qc4+ 40. Qxc4 bxc4 41. Kd2 a5 42. Kc3 Ke4 43. Nf6+ Kf4 44. Kxc4 (44 Nh5+ is probably better) Kg3 45. h5 Kf4 46. Kb5 e4 47. Nd5+ Ke5 48. Ne3 g3 49. Kxa5 f5 50. Kb4 f4 51. Ng4+ Kd4 52. Nxh6 f3 53. Nf5+ Kd3 54. h6 fxg2 55. h7 g1Q 56. h8Q Qb6+ 57. Ka4 Qa6+ 58. Kb4 Qc4+ 59. Ka3 Qc5+ 60. Kb3 Qb5+ 61. Ka2 Qxf5 62. Qh1 Qf2+ 63. Kb3 g2 64. Qh3+ Ke2 0-1 Round 4: Korchnoi, V-Zhu Chen 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. b3 Ne4 6. Bd3 Bb4+ 7. Kf1 Qe7 8. Qc2 f5 9. Bb2 Nd7 10. Nc3 0-0 11. Ne2 Bd6 12. g3 Ndf6 13. h3 dxc4 14. bxc4 c5 15. g4 b5 16. gxf5 exf5 17. d5 Bb7 18. Rg1 bxc4 19. Bxc4 Qe8 20. Nc3 Rb8 21. Nxe4 fxe4 22. Bxf6 Rxf6 23. Ng5 Bc8 24. Ne6 Qh5 In this position both players had only 3 minutes left on the clocks and I expected some dramatic moments (See Diagram) 25. Rxg7+ Kh8 26. Rg2 Qxh3 27. Ng5 Qh1+ 28. Rg1 Bh3+ 29. Nxh3 Qxh3+ 30. Ke1 Be5 31. Rb1 Rbf8 32. Qxe4 Bc3+ 33. Ke2 Rxf2+ 34. Kd3 R2f3 (See Diagram) 0-1 Here Korchnoi overstepped the time limit. The games were played with the electronic DGT clocks and Korchnoi started to argue with me, asking me whether I was sure that it was not he but his opponent Zhu Chen who had overstepped. I tried to explain to him that the DGT clocks show clearly who has exceeded the time control. But I could not convince him and I stopped trying. Then he started to explain quite loudly that the final position was won for him and his opponent, always polite, agreed with him (35 Rh1, Qd7, 36 Kxc3). Finally he argued, again, that he did not understand why he had lost on time. My colleague, Mr. Krause, had the courage to try to explain this to him again, but I told him to do so outside of the playing hall and this is what happened. In Round 5 he drew with Xie Jun and analysed with her for a very long time; in round 6 he played a game with chances for both players against Ioseliani and won. Round 8 was again very special. Galliamova was his opponent. After the opening Korchnoi was better, but in the endgame he missed his chance and Galliamova was able to achieve a hard- fought draw Korchnoi, V-Galliamova, A After 67... Kf3 Bd6 the following position was reached (See Diagram) White: Kf3, Bc4, pawns a6, e3, f4, g4, h3 (7) Black: Kc7, Bd6, pawns f6, g5, h6 (5) In this position 68 f5 is winning. After the move played, Korchnoi is not able to win the game 68. fxg5 hxg5 69. Ke4 Ba3 70. Kf5 Bb2 71. Kg6 Be5 72. Bf1 Kb6 73. Kf5 Bc3 1/2-1/2 Korchnoi left the playing hall immediately without going to the analysis room. As in the first cycle of the tournament, his next game against Zhu Chen was full of drama. Zhu Chen- Korchnoi, V Position after 39...Qg6 (See Diagram) White: Kg1, Qb2, Rc4, Bf1, pawns a4, b4, g2, h2 (8) Black: Kg7, Qg6, Rd5, Ne5, pawns b6, e6, f7, h4 (8) 40 f4 wins a pieces. 40. Rxh4 Qf6 and wins immediately because White will lose her Queen or a Rook. 0-1 Korchnoi did not analyse after the game and Zhu Chen left the playing hall with tears in her eyes. In Round 10 Korchnoi won quickly against Xie Jun. His final result was 7,5 out of 10 and he earned 12 rating points. Something else: I sent an 89-page document to the FIDE office with the comments of readers about the published draft of the Laws of Chess. We hope to publish the final draft soon. Now, on to the questions Dear Geurt, I have two questions: Question (1) The term "mating potential" is not quite appropriate, in my opinion. Perhaps, it should be replaced with the following: When one of the players exceeds the time limit the game is considered to be winning, if pieces are on the chessboard in such a way that it is impossible to repulse the mating threat on the next move (even if this position results in helpmate). Answer Thank you for your proposal for a definition of helpmate. The readers know that for a very long time Article 10 and especially Article 10.2 was one of the hot topics of this column. And there was a good reason for this. After I published a new draft (not mine) of the Laws of Chess, it seems we have a new item for discussion. And it is probably my fault, because I wrote in the preface to the draft that I am not happy with the definition of "mating potential". On the website of www.worldfide.com all proposals to improve the current rules of chess and the comments have been published. So, everybody can see what the actual situation is. As a matter of fact, I am not happy with any definition that includes helpmate. We shall see what happens in Istanbul at the Congress. Question (2) I have been asked how P. Tregubov managed to obtain the best Buchholz tiebreaks in the European championship when one of his points (in round 1) was as a result of a bye (that was, without an opponent). If the results of round 1 are not considered, then Tregubov's Buchholz index is far from being the best. The crosstable on the official site of the tournament shows Tregubov having a Buchholz index of 78, which is possible only when his overall tournament score (8 points) is added to the total score of all his opponents (70 points). It remains a mystery to me what criteria were used to declare Tregubov the winner. Vladimir Dvorkovich, (Russia) Answer Vladimir, I am very happy that I am able to solve your problem. On the other hand, I am little bit disappointed that you yourself could not find the solution to it, although I have to admit that it was not very obvious and I have my doubts about the criterion used. But first let me give you the solution. For this I would like to refer to one of the best books ever written about arbiters' matters, The Chess Competitors Handbook published in 1979 by Batsford. Its authors, B.M. Kazic, D. Djaja, M.E. Morrison and A. Elo, all are very well known in the chess world. In Chapter 12, Tie-Breaking Systems, there is a little paragraph on page 63 entitled Adjusting Scores for Tie-Breaking: "It is customary in those systems to make adjustments in the final scores used for tie-breaking to compensate for opponents who won or lost points as a result of unplayed games (byes and games won or lost by default). Every player who won or lost a point for a game that was not played for any reason receives one-half point as the adjusted score for that game. This adjusted score is used only for the purpose of breaking ties among the players' opponents." So, what does this mean for the Buchholz co-efficient of Grandmaster Tregubov? The sum of the scores of his opponents is 70.5, and not 70 as you calculated. Tregubov's own score was 8 points, but in this score one point was included for the bye in the first round. For tiebreak purposes we consider this free point as a draw, therefore his score for tiebreak calculations is 7.5 points. To the 70.5 we add these 7.5 points and we get the 78 points mentioned on the website of the tournament. By the way, two pages later in this book I saw your name mentioned... Question Dear Mr.Gijssen! In a recent youth blitz tournament we had an interesting incident. One player made an illegal move and stopped his clock, but the clock of his opponent was not started (the players used analogue clocks and there is a position in which neither clock will run). An argument started whether the player was allowed to take back his move and to make a legal one or not. We decided to let him take back his move, because the Laws of Chess say that a move is completed when a player has stopped his own clock and started the opponent's clock. Were we right? Axel Eisengraeber-Pabs (Germany) Answer This is an interesting question, not specifically covered in the Laws of Chess. It means we have to use sound judgement, as noted in the Preface of the Laws of Chess. It is not clear whether you were right or wrong. Had I been the arbiter I would have first asked the young boy or girl: "Why didn't you start your opponent's clock?" If he had answered that he made an illegal move and he did not know what to do in such a situation, I would have accepted this answer and I would have handled it the same way you did. But if the answer had been that he did not know, I would have declared the game lost because he had made an illegal move. By the way, it was, as you wrote, a youth tournament. You may know from my previous articles, that I hold the view that we should be flexible in youth tournaments. Question Hi Geurt: In a German chess-newsgroup the following (actually, well-known) case was controversially discussed: In a Blitz game, Player A has already a piece in his hand to make the move which checkmates Player B. At this moment, the flag falls and player B claims the win. I would expect that Player A wins by checkmate (FIDE rules 6.7 and 5.1). However, Player B could argue that the move is not finished and so (a) there is no checkmate; and (b) Player A may not have seen the checkmating move. So, the question is: How would you decide the matter? If you decide a win for Player A, then the question arises: can Player A do his checkmating move AFTER the flag falls - where in the FIDE rules is the point which clarifies this (at the first glance, I do not see a contradiction to 5.1 and 6.7)? If you decide a win for Player B, wouldn't this result in a huge number of arguments during Blitz games? Thank you in advance for your answer. With compliments for your column, An Arbiter's Notebook. Torsten Schaller, (Germany) Answer Article 5.1 says, that the game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king with a legal move. To checkmate the opponent's king the move must be made before his own flag has fallen and this is not the case here. Player A has overstepped the time limit and Player B wins. Question Dear Geurt Gijssen, I would like to know what happens if one player claims his opponent touched a piece but the opponent disagrees and says he never touched the piece. In one tournament the TD decided to proclaim the game a draw. However this does not seem to be a practical solution because next time the player is losing he can just accuse his opponent of having touched a piece and then he will get a draw. Can I please hear your views on this? Thank you very much. Janus Theron (South Africa) Answer I agree with you that the TD's solution is not a good one. When we have no witnesses, the game must be continued, without forcing the accused player to play the piece that his opponent claimed he had touched. In my arbiter's career I once had a similar case. In a game between Miles and Polugajevsky, Miles claimed that Polu had castled touching the rook first. Unfortunately I was the only arbiter and was not at that board at the time. I asked Polu and he told me that it was not the case. The game continued with a castled king. Question Dear Mr Gijssen, Here is a question based on a little whimsy and on an incident I read about. A player in desperate time trouble grabbed at his Rook but it flew from his hand and sailed across the room. In the incident I read, the player lost on time while retrieving it. Would it have been legal for him to complete the move using a Rook that had previously been captured and was now at the side of the board? If so, how about using a Rook that had previously been captured on his neighbour's board? Phil Roe (France) Answer Well, I do not see any problem when the player replaces the piece with a piece that has already been captured. Taking a captured piece that belongs to his neighbour can cause some problems, provided the neighbour is still playing, because I can imagine that he might be disturbed by the player's action. Question My query relates to scorekeeping in events with sudden death time controls. In the game in question the time control was the whole game in ninety minutes for each player. My opponent was about to cease writing down moves as he had less than five minutes to play on his clock. At this point he claimed that my scoresheet was inaccurate, as I had missed a move. I solved the problem by offering a draw, which was accepted. (The position was drawn). How should the problem have been resolved? David Flude (USA) Answer: As a matter of fact a player who has more than five minutes left on his clock has to write all moves as per the rules; apparently you missed one or two moves on your scoresheet and your opponent saw this at the moment he stopped writing the moves because he had less than minutes left on his clock. It was not against the rules that he claimed so, but I am wondering whether it is fair action of your opponent to claim this at the precise moment he has the right to stop writing the moves. I assume that your opponent went to the arbiter and that the arbiter informed you that you have to do your duty. Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I am writing to you on behalf of the Rules- and Arbiter-committee of the Swedish Chess Federation. We have encountered a question that has to do with illegal moves during a blitz-game. When, exactly, has the other player (i.e., the one not having made the illegal move) lost his/her right to point out the illegal move? Is it when this player has made a reply (let go of the piece in question) or only when the clock has been started? It seems to us that this matter is not totally clear under the rules (C3) at the present time. The critical wording is obviously "has made his move". If you look at the rules in Article 3 and 4 (4.7), one gets the impression that it is sufficient that the piece is moved to the square and released there. The clock would therefore have nothing to do with the making of the move. But on the other hand, C3 says that the move is not "completed" in a blitz-game (not the same as made?) until the clock has been started. This is of course a very practical rule as the starting of the opponent's clock is final and easy to see. So, how should the rules be interpreted in this case? And - do you agree that the rules should be clarified? Johan Sigeman (Sweden) Answer You are right, there is a difference between "making" and "completing" a move. Your definition of "making a move" is very correct: a piece is moved to another square and the player's hand released this piece on the new square. "Completing a move" means: a player made a move (see definition above), stopped his own clock and started the opponent's clock. Let us now go to Article C3 of the Blitz rules: "An illegal move (of player A) is completed once the opponent's clock (this is player B's clock) has been started." With the explanation above it is now clear there is no point of return for player A, who completed an illegal move. "The opponent (player B) is then entitled to claim a win before making his own move" This means that player B can claim a win as long as his hand has not released the piece he is playing. At the moment the piece is released, the right to claim a win is over. The last sentence of Article C3 reads: "Once the opponent (player B) has made his own move, an illegal move (of Player A) cannot be corrected." This means that the illegal move stands and the game will be continued in spite of the irregularity. This is the rule in Blitz games!