An Arbiter's Notebook
by Geurt Gijssen

Once again the Arbiter takes questions from Chess Caf‚
readers...

Question: Dear Geurt: I believe you misread the situation posed
in your (excellent) latest column:
"Now, suppose Player A has a King and a Knight and Player B
has a King and a Rook. Then suddenly Player B's flag falls.
From the resulting position it is possible to create a position in
which Player B's King is checkmated (Player B: Kh8 and Rh7;
Player A: Kf8 and Ng6). Does this mean that Player B should
be declared as lost? The game should be a draw if he didn't
have the Rook. Is there any different rule in rapid or blitz
chess? T. Budiman, Indonesia 

Answer: Yes, you are right. The game is lost for Player B. For
Rapidplay the same rule applies. For Blitz games there is a
difference. Article C4 of the Blitz rules says that in order to
win, a player must have "mating potential". This is defined as
forces adequate to eventually produce a legal position, possibly
by "helpmate", where a player on move cannot avoid being
checkmated the next move. Thus two knights and a king
against a lone king is insufficient, but a rook and king against a
knight and a king is sufficient.

Question: Obviously N+K v R+K is insufficient for white in
normal play but black can be 'helpmated' in the position given.
Also with 2 knights against a lone king, the lone king can be
helpmated. I find the inclusion of 'possibly by helpmate' and
'cannot avoid being checkmated in 1 move' in the same
sentence a little confusing. Nick Jones, UK

Answer: Dear Mr. Jones: I have reviewed my answer and I still
believe I am right. Article 6.9 says:
"...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 (i.e. by the most unskilled counterplay)."

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: 1. After reading your reaction to
Mr. Budiman's question concerning Article 6.9 of FIDE Laws,
I decided to ask you your opinion about this: For example, in a
Blitz game two knights against a lone King is a draw if the
weaker side's flag falls as there isn't "mating potential" but in
Rapid and "Classical" games, in the same situation, the stronger
side wins as it is possible to "create" a mate.

Don't you think this is pretty illogical to assume worse play in
rapid and classical games and better play in blitz games?
Should not it be the other way around (mating potential enough
to win in classical and rapid games and just the possibility to
reach mate in blitz games)? One of my arguments for this
statement is that mate may in fact be more likely with two
knights vs. a king in a blitz game then in rapid and classical
games, as one usually expects a higher level of play in rapid
and classical game than in blitz games. Have you already
discussed this matter in the Rules Committee? What is your
opinion? Tomas Micanek, Czech Republic

Answer: This matter was not discussed in the Rules
Committee. My personal opinion is that you make a valid point.
At this time we cannot change the Laws of Chess, but I promise
you it will be a point of discussion during the next meetings of
the Rules Committee. 

Also from Mr. Micanek: I also have suggestion about recording
the draw offer on a scoresheet: As the evaluation mark "=" was
used long time before 1997 FIDE Rules were released and as it
is also difficult to change it in all previous databases, books
etc., I think change should be done in the FIDE Rules. In the
Czech Republic some people use "R" (as Remise) instead.

Answer: Your suggestion works perfectly in the Czech
Republic, but not, for instance, in English speaking countries,
where "R" is the symbol for Rook. But as a result of your letter
it occurred to me that there might be a solution. A player may
mark the symbol for a draw offer in his own language. So, for
example, British and Americans can write a "D" (draw),
Germans "R" and so on.
The only problem, which remains, is how databases shall mark
this. I contacted again the Editorial Board of Chess Informant
and they promised me to reply as soon as possible. 

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: It is unspecified in the rules
whether or not a claim based on Article 10 can be withdrawn if
the position on the chessboard has significantly changed since
the claim was made. (The withdrawal of the claim without any
significant change in the position should most likely be
forbidden and treated as misconduct.) White makes a claim
based on Article 10 and the game continues under the watchful
eye of the arbiter. As the game goes on, black makes a blunder
and white has a decisive superiority. White then informs the
arbiter that he withdraws his claim. Is this allowed? As soon as
white acquires a decisive superiority his claim becomes that the
opponent cannot win by normal means. Should the arbiter
declare the game drawn without giving a chance to the player to
withdraw the claim? Pierre D‚nomm‚e, Quebec, Canada

Answer: This is, in my opinion, one of the main problems with
Article 10. Before I answer your question, I would like to
review the recent history of this Article. Since 1985 we have
had so-called Quick Play (Guillotine) Finish Rules. In 1994
these Rules were used for the first time in a FIDE event
(Olympiad, Moscow 1994). We also played according to these
rules in Yerevan 1996, and in some other FIDE competitions
(e.g., zonal tournaments) as well. The main thrust of these rules
was:
"If the arbiter is satisfied that a player is making no effort to
win the game by normal means, or that the game may not be
won by normal means then he may declare the game drawn.
This may still apply even though one player's flag has fallen."

I have always understood the meaning of this article is to
protect the player, who had a better, even superior position and
is short of time. Until 1 July 1997 there was no possibility of
claiming a draw. In the new Laws of Chess a player has to
make a claim. And still I believe that the intention of this
Article (now Article 10.2 of the Laws of Chess) is to protect the
player who has a better position and has no time to bring his
position to a good end.

As a matter of fact at this moment cases like these are not
covered in the Laws of Chess. This means it is still up to the
arbiter how to decide, but generally I should say, but not as
Chairman of the rules Committee, a player who claims a draw,
cannot win the game. I do not think that this principle is
unreasonable. I am collecting examples of cases of Article 10 in
order to prepare a proposal to change or extend it. Withdrawing
a claim is, in my opinion, not possible.

Question: Dear Geurt: In a recent Blitz tournament, I started to
play the move f2-f4, which was illegal, because the pawn was
pinned against the king. I put the pawn on f4, but did not
release it (nor did I activate my opponent's clock), then,
realising my mistake, put it back on f2. My opponent
immediately claimed a win, but I insisted on continuing the
match. We agreed to get the opinion of our "tournament
director" after the match, which would be lost for me if he were
to decide that my f4 was a "real" illegal move. I later won on
time, and the tournament director noted the win for me, saying
that I could continue the match after the attempted f2-f4 and
could move any piece, as the f-pawn had no legal move. Now
my question is - you guessed it - how would you have ruled?
Philippe Leick (South Africa)

Answer: Article C3 of the Blitz Games Laws says: "An illegal
move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started.
The opponent is then entitled to claim a win before making his
own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an
illegal move cannot be corrected."

The first sentence would be applied to your case. And the
situation is very clear. As long as a player has not stopped his
own clock and started his opponent's, a player has the
possibility to correct an illegal move. My conclusion: the
tournament director was right.

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: My question is about one of my
recent games. It was played in a Game/120 tournament. The
game finished with my flag down but my opponent had only
one knight and I had a pawn on h4. I claimed the draw for
insufficient material basis and at first the arbiter agreed but
later on he changed his decision. What do you think about this?
IM Guil Russek, Mexico City 

Answer: The final decision of the arbiter is right. I will explain
to you why. First of all, there are positions that a Knight wins
against an a- or h-pawn, but I understand that not all arbiters
know this. But there is also another reason. In the first question
in this month's column a case of knight against Rook was
discussed and as you can read if the flag falls the player with
the Knight wins. Well, although not likely, it is still possible
the pawn might promote to a Rook. And then there are
positions in which the player with the Knight can mate his
opponent.

Question: I wondered if there is a codified set of rules, or
guidelines for best practice for the conduct of simultaneous
exhibitions? In my view there needs to be both a formal set of
rules that experienced players will agree to abide by and play
to, and a somewhat more relaxed set of guidelines for situations
where those formal rules might be felt to be inappropriate. My
remarks concentrate on the latter situation, but a statement of
what the proper rules are would be appreciated, too.

I often give simuls in schools against children, who have no
experience at any kind of playing under tournament conditions.
These are the ones who only play in their school chess club and
never go to tournaments. So it is not appropriate to be too strict
in applying rules they won't probably know, too rigidly, as that
would spoil the mood of the occasion, yet equally you do not
want to encourage cheating.

Sadly, there are always one or two children, usually cocky boys,
who are more motivated to win so as to achieve a respect
amongst their friends they don't really deserve, than to win
fairly. 

These are the players who constantly fiddle with the pieces,
trying out moves while you are at other boards (which I will
tolerate, despite the risk they aren't then put back on the right
squares) and then suddenly pounce on the simul-giver
demanding that HE adhere to the touch-and-move rule they
have been flouting themselves with carefree abandon, should he
retract a blunder. Plainly such double standards are not
acceptable and I have made it my practice to avoid the
possibility arising by announcing the following guidelines: they
only work if there isn't pressure to finish games quickly. 

 1.   We will not play strict Touch and Move rules, as this can
 lead to arguments.
 2.   If you are not ready to move when I arrive, say "Pass" and I
 move on. Or I waste time.
 3.   If you visibly hesitate when I arrive, I will immediately say,
 "you're not ready" and move on. So as not to waste time.
 Make your move next time I come.
 4.   If you move decisively when I arrive, that is your move,
 unless there is an obvious oversight in which case I will
 allow you to take it back and point out what you have not
 seen, and you may make another move instead, next time I
 arrive. This is to ensure an interesting game is not spoiled
 by one poor move.
 5.   Given Rule 4, you may not retract your move once made,
 unless I offer to let you do so. 
 6.   As regards the simul-giver, once I have made a move at the
 next board, I may not take a move back at your board. But
 if I realise I have made an obvious blunder, before making
 my move on the next board, I may make a different move
 instead. This is to ensure the same outcome: that an
 interesting game is not spoiled by one poor move.
 7.   You will have to trust me to apply Rules 4 and 6 fairly. 
 8.   The aim of these rules is that the winner has to meet
 reasonable moves with better ones and it is a good game
 which either player could win rather than a one-sided battle,
 which is not much fun for you or for me. I want to work for
 my victory, not have it handed me on a plate, and so should
 you. It is much more satisfying that way.

I have two questions: is this felt to be an elegant solution of the
problem of ensuring a good game and good sportsmanship
without being too strict or too punitive? Do you know a better
one? Bruce Birchall, London, England

Answer: First of all, I would like to thank you for your
contribution to this column. I think it is very valuable. There
are no specific rules for simuls. At this moment each organizer
makes his own rules, many times in consultation with the
simul-giver.

I agree completely with you that it is wise to have a formal set
of rules and a flexible one. When Kasparov plays the Israeli
team, we need another set as when you play against your pupils.
The flexible rules you described I like very much and I am
ready to discuss them in the Rules Committee. For simuls with
strict rules I like the following:
 1. It is forbidden to analyse and to discuss the game with other
 players and spectators.
 2. At the moment the simul-giver appears at a board, the player
 must make his move.
 3. For the player, the rule of touch-move will apply
 4. For the simul-giver the rule is: he may change his move
 before he plays a move at the next board.
I await reactions from readers.

Question: Dear Mr Gijssen: (i) Some time ago in a mutual time
scramble an opponent of mine made an illegal move (quite
inadvertently I'm sure). I was so stunned by it (where on earth
did that come from? I thought) that it took me some 10 seconds
to realise that it was indeed an illegal move. What would have
happened if my flag had fallen before I (or an arbiter) had
noticed the illegal move and stopped the clock? 

(ii) Some years ago playing a tournament in Bled, Slovenia, my
opponent (a well known time-trouble addict!) had a technically
won position but was in the most appalling time trouble
needing to play some 20 moves in a minute. (I had plenty of
time left.) He had quite understandably stopped writing his
moves down in order to play more or less instantaneously. I had
laid a small glass case across my scoresheet, which I often do,
belonging to the school that writes the move down before
playing. At this stage an arbiter intervened to remove the glass
case insisting that my score sheet must remain visible to the
arbiter at all times. I'm sure he was within his rights to do this,
but is it also not the case that a player who is no longer writing
the moves has no right to any guidance as to the number of
moves played from either the arbiter or his opponent (or
anybody else) and must play on until his flag falls and hope that
he has made the required number of moves? In this case, my
opponent (incidentally a very fair player) could ascertain
exactly when 40 moves had been played from a casual look at
my scoresheet. Your comments?

(iii) A perusal of your column indicates that a large number of
disputes arise from illegal moves played in time trouble. In
view of the suspicion of many that some of these illegal moves
may actually be deliberate, would not the simplest solution be
that illegal moves automatically lose in all forms of chess?
Together with the introduction of Fischer clocks as standard, I
think that would make an arbiter's life much easier. What do
you think? Charles Kennaugh, UK

Answer: (i) Article 7.4 says: "If during a game it is found that
an illegal move has been made... the position before the
irregularity shall be re-instated... The clock shall be adjusted
according to Article 6.13."
Article 6.13 says: "If an irregularity occurs... the arbiter shall
use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on
the clocks."

These two articles say very clearly what the arbiter has to do.
There is only one problem. Article 7.4 says, that the irregularity
must be found DURING THE GAME and I can imagine that
the opponent will say that the game is over at the moment the
player's flag fell. In my opinion this argument is not acceptable.
I would like to refer to Article 5.1. It says:

"The game is won by the player who has checkmated his
opponent's king with a LEGAL move." I would therefore say
that if a player does not complete the prescribed number of
moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player,
provided the last move of the opponent was a legal move.

(ii) This has already been discussed several times in my
columns. The arbiter should not act this way.

(iii) I agree with you that your proposal makes the arbiter's life
much easier. But I do not think it is a good proposal. I think the
number of deliberately played illegal moves is very small. Only
would seem that players do this deliberately only in Blitz
games. But in Blitz the penalty is, if the opponent notices this,
loss of the game.

Question: Dear Mr.Gijssen: I know that many players are not
happy with the existing rating system and it is subject to
improvement in many ways. However, one drawback is so
obvious and easy to correct that it's very strange it has not been
discussed by FIDE yet. The problem is that the existing Elo
system doesn't consider the piece colours when estimating the
expected results of players. For example, if two equally rated
players are playing a match of 20 games and one of them has
White in all games, the expected score of both is 10 points
despite the obvious fact that the White player has a certain
advantage (Megabase statistics show White 56-57%). Of
course, such a match is just an abstraction but in team
tournaments especially it happens quite often that some players
have a very uneven combination of Whites and Blacks which
do in fact have an impact on their rating. I spoke about this
problem with some grandmasters and all of them agreed with
my point of view. By the way, the mathematical model to avoid
this nonsense is very easy and I can offer this to FIDE like
some other improvements to the rating system if there is some
chance that my suggestions would be taken seriously. It would
be very interesting for me to know your opinion about this
matter. Michael Waitz, Technical Director Grandmaster Chess
School, St-Petersburg, Russia.  

Answer: I spoke about this with Mr. Markkula from Finland.
He is the Chairman of the Titles and Ratings Committee. And
to be honest I was a little bit surprised by his answer. He told
me that the statistics show this advantage of 56% only for the
absolute top. Let us say the super grandmasters, but on a lower
level White's advantage is not clear. The January 1999 FIDE
shows more than 30000 names. Probably you can prove that
Mr. Markkula's statement is wrong. In this case the discussion
will be continued.

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: I read your column at The Chess
Cafe and I like it very much. Keep up the good work. I'm only
an arbiter in local tournaments. But situations/problems seem to
look a lot alike at any level of play. There is a rule I have some
difficulty understanding and I'd like you to comment on it
please.

I'm talking about the rule that states that you cannot
"pre-determine" the result of a game before it starts. Meaning
that as we see sometimes in Swiss tournaments you cannot set
the outcome of a game with your opponent before the start of
the game - for money purposes for instance. I understand that
and fully agree with it.
However there's always those draws in a few moves. A national
arbiter here in Quebec wrote a document about the
interpretation arbiters should have about this rule. In his
interpretation, even draws in 2 moves should be accepted by the
arbiter of a tournament. Mainly because, according to him, the
rule applies only for PRE-determined issues of a game and not
on what is happening DURING the game.

As I understand that here in Quebec we are kind of isolated
from the rest of the world (chesswise) and that we don't have
any chess players that can live from money they can get in
tournaments or matches I can deal with giving latitude to the
players (mainly during the last round of a tournament).
However it's still unclear to me what the arbiter should or can
do in such situations. Does he have any alternative?

Let me quickly report on something that happened here in
1998. In a provincial tournament in May, two international
masters and one fide master were the clear favourites for the
prizes in their section. The Swiss tournament had 5 rounds. In
the third round one of the international master and the fide
masters agreed to a draw in 6 moves. As the arbiter of the
section I accepted the draw but asked the two players to play a
little more if possible in the next rounds. In the 4th round the
other international master and the fide master agreed to a draw
in 12 moves. In the 5th round, the 2 international masters
agreed to a draw in 18 moves (with no real play in my
judgement). And naturally they divided the first 3 prizes among
themselves.

Is there anything I should have done to prevent this? Make
them continue to play their game? Just accept the results as they
are presented to me? Is there any rule against this kind of "chess
playing"? Should there be any? Serge Archambault, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada

Answer: I am aware of this practice, but it is very difficult to do
much about it. The only thing I can recommend is that
organizers publish a list of players who make these quick draws
frequently. I know that many organizers invite players who like
to fight. A list of players who arrange quick draws can be very
useful for organizers.

Question: Dear Mr Gijssen: I have several questions in relation
to Chess Rules: (i) What happens if, in a blitz and/or rapid
game, where players are not required to keep the score, an
illegal position arises? Example: It's player A's turn and they
find out A has two light-squared bishops, and there have been
no promotions. Both players agree in that everything was OK at
the beginning of the game. As in blitz and rapid chess rules this
case is not covered, we read "normal" chess rules and find that
(Article 7.4) "the position before the irregularity shall be
re-installed" or if it cannot be, "the game shall continue from
the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity". Shall we
go back then to the beginning of the game, or go on playing, or
play a new game? Shouldn't it be specified in blitz and rapid
chess rules?

(ii) In a blitz game, player A gets a pawn to the eighth rank but
cannot find a queen so he takes a rook and puts it upside down
and says "Queen!" His opponent B does not say anything, but
when the first player moves his "queen", he claims a victory
arguing that A has moved his rook as if it were a queen, and
that is illegal. What happens here?

(iii) In a rapid play game both flags fall. According to B8 the
game is drawn. But can the arbiter stop the game to signal that
the flags have fallen? B6 says, "the flag is considered to have
fallen when a valid claim to that effect has been made by a
player. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall"
What if players don't summon the arbiter and go on playing
indefinitely?

(iv) A player having less than two minutes claims a draw
arguing that his opponent cannot win by "normal means". The
arbiter decides to postpone his answer. Then, the non-claimant's
flag falls. What is the result of the game? When does the arbiter
declare the game is drawn? (a) When the player whose flag has
fallen in trying to (or is able to) win; (b) When the player
whose flag has fallen is no trying to (or is unable to) win; or (c)
In every case.

I think it should be drawn when the position is drawn (i.e., as in
"b") and that would be the result if the claimant's flag had
fallen. What is your opinion?

(v) Finally, I would like to note something. In your answer to
Ernesto Pereda about claims for a draw when your opponent
cannot win "by normal means" you wrote, "By the way for
Rapid and Blitz games these claims are not possible". Well, it is
clear for Blitz games, specified in Article C5, but in Rapid
games Rules article B5 allows an arbiter to "make a ruling
according to either Article 4 or Article 10, only if requested by
one or both players". This means that such a claim is possible.
Arturo Gonzalez Pruneda, Spain

Answer: (i) In a rapid game the "normal" Laws will apply. It
means that we have to go back to the situation in which the
illegal move was played. I understand very well that this is
almost impossible, as there is no scoresheet available. I
understand also that the timetable of a tournament does not give
one the possibility to play another game. The only practical
solution is, in my opinion, to continue the game. 

By the way, Article 4 of the Laws of Rapidplay says: "Once
each player has made three moves, no claim can be made
regarding incorrect piece placement, orientation of the board
and clock setting." 
This article is a deviation of the "normal" Laws of Chess. The
reason for this deviation is the schedule of the tournament.

In a Blitz game the situation is different. Article 3 of the Blitz
Game Rules says: 
"Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move
cannot be corrected."
It means the game will be continued, although there was an
illegal move. Therefore a game with two bishops of the same
colour without promotion is possible.

(ii) I repeat what I already wrote in previous columns. If a
player needs a queen after the promotion of a pawn, and a
queen is not available, he may stop the clocks and asks for the
arbiter's assistance. This applies for normal, rapid and blitz
games.

(iii) Article B8 of the Laws of Rapidplay says: 
"If both flags have fallen, the game is drawn."
This Article says clearly, that the game is over. The arbiter shall
interfere and announce the draw.
The case when an arbiter is not present and the players continue
the game after both flags have fallen, is in my opinion not
likely. The total available time for the round is over and it is
quite normal that the arbiter tends to the games that are still in
progress. If the arbiter does not show up and the game has a
result other than a draw (checkmate or a player resigns), this
result stands.

(iv) I have discussed this case already in this column. It is not
covered in the Laws of Chess. Generally the claimant does not
deserve to win the game.

(v) You are right. It is possible to claim a draw according to
Article 10 in a rapid game.

Question: Mr Gijssen: The new layout of the Laws of Chess
gave me some searching to do.
The rule regarding the late arrival of a player was clearly
marked in the section of the completed game (Art 10 in the
1993 Laws). Now I find the Section Chess Clock (Art 6 in the
1997 version). Should Art 6.6 not be moved to Art 5 because
that Rule has nothing to do with the chess clock but only with
the real time from the start of the game? Albert Van Camp,
Belgium

Answer: The Articles 1 - 5 cover the general Rules of Play. The
Articles 6 - 14 cover the Tournament Rules. It is the opinion of
the Rules Committee that the late arrival of a player belongs
with the tournament rules.