An Arbiter's Notebook
by Geurt Gijssen

This month we shall look at some of the questions submitted by Chess
Cafe readers concerning the Laws of Chess.

Dear Mr. Gijssen:

First of all, congratulations for your column! My question is: "Is it legal
for one of the players to hide the scoresheet under the table, for example,
if the opponent, in time trouble, is following the number of moves on
this scoresheet? Thanks. David Borensztajn, Brazil.

Answer: Article 8.2 says: The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter
at all times. The way you set up your question, do you think the arbiter
can see it? Of course not. But I understand your question. You would
like to hide your scoresheet from your opponent. If you can find a way
to hide the scoresheet for your opponent, still keeping it visible to the
arbiter, it is OK.
 
Dear Mr Gijssen:

I was wondering if the choice of writing an equal sign (=) to indicate a
draw offer has been made, was the best.  The problem is that in chess
analysis (Informant notation), this sign indicates the position is equal.
When I enter my games in a database, I don't want to include this equal
sign, since I'm analysing it at the same time, but I like to include the fact
that a draw offer has been made (since it is part of the history of the
game, as you mentioned in your last column).  I end up writing the full
text "draw offer", which is a little painful. Now my question is: are there
any projects to modify one of these two signs? Best regards, Damien
Andre, Belgium

Answer: At this time there are no projects to modify either one of these
two signs. I think your problem can be solved easily, when you enter a
game into a database and a draw offer has been made. What do you
think about "=?"  or  "DO"? If you have any another suggestion, please
let me know. I intend to contact the editor of the Informant about this
question.
 
Hello: I play a bit of chess, but my main involvement is with junior
chess. I have a 10-year-old boy who does pretty well at it. I was very
interested in your column on Article 8 of the Laws of Chess, and was
wondering if you would consider covering Article 12, The Conduct of
the Players. Regards, R. Edwin Phillips, South Africa

Answer: It is my opinion that Article 12 can be applied in many
situations that are not covered in other Articles. For instance, when a
player writes his next move on his scoresheet, before making the move
and then he changes his intended move several times, the arbiter can step
in and not allow this, based on Article 12.2, where it is written that it is
forbidden to make use of any notes. And, Article 12.5 states that it is
forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. 

Dear Mr. Gijssen:

When I started reading your article on keeping score, I immediately had
to think about one incident during my last tournament (First Saturday in
Budapest). It relates to the habit of first writing down the move,
covering it and then making it. Later on in your article you addressed
this problem, too, (stating that even famous players as Portisch,
Petrosian and Miles have done it), but I nevertheless would like to ask
you a question.

As I said, I played in Budapest this April, and as usual I applied the
procedure of first writing down my move before making it, which
shortly distracts me from my previous "deep considerations" and brings
me "back to earth", so that I now see the position with fresh eyes and am
able to notice that I was just about to hang my Queen or commit some
other gross blunder (which you sometimes fail to notice, when you are
some moves deep into your variations and have "lost contact with
reality"...). Then in one of the later rounds - I had just written down my
move and covered it with my pencil and was checking the position once
again for blunders - the arbiter came up to me, took away my pencil and
said to me "You can't do this, we are playing under FIDE rules here!" Of
course I felt disturbed!

Now can an arbiter do this? If he forces me to show my scoresheet
openly, this is certainly a big advantage for my opponent, who can start
thinking on my time, as I most of the time don't need to change the
move written down anymore. And also how then can I prevent an
opponent, who is not keeping score in his Zeitnot, from using my
scoresheet to find out whether 40 moves are completed yet? 

Another thought about whose property the scoresheets are: in most of
the tournaments I've played in the last few years, they had scoresheets
with a blueprint [a no-carbon-required duplicate] attached to it. After the
game the arbiter would just collect both blueprints and the players could
keep their original. I think this is a good idea! Don't you?

By the way, in case someone refuses to give his scoresheet to the arbiter
and forfeits the game because of this (like what happened to Huebner),
how would this game then be rated? After all, this has nothing to do with
"chess strength", which the rating is supposed to measure, but only with
"stupid politics". For the purposes of the Elo rating this game should still
be considered as a draw or whatever the real result was! With best
regards, Ulrich Schmidt, Germany
 
Answer: I am very pleased with your e-mail, because it describes
situations I was worried about when we made the new Laws of Chess.
As I wrote in my previous Notebook, the arbiter must not disturb the
player when he is thinking about his next move. In my opinion such an
arbiter does not understand the spirit of the Laws of Chess, but sticks to
the letter of it. Personally I have no problems when a player hides his
scoresheet from the opponent, provided the arbiter can see it. (See my
reply to David Borensztajn, above.)

The Laws state very clearly who is the owner of the original scoresheet.
But as already noted, the arbiter and/or organiser should be flexible
regarding the ownership. The problem is that some arbiters insist that the
players have to turn over their scoresheets. If a player refuses to so this,
the arbiter has the ability to forfeit the game pursuant to the Laws of
Chess. The problem is that no definition of misconduct exists. And there
is another problem. How to rate such a game.

For example, when the game is finished, the result of the game stands.
Look at Article 5 of the Laws of Chess. But what happens if a player
refuses to give up his scoresheet and the arbiter declares the game lost
for him, although he was present when a stalemate situation arose? How
should this game be regarded for the purposes of ratings? This is not
covered by the Laws of Chess, but it should be covered in the Rating
regulations. My suggestion is that for rating calculations it be counted as
a draw, but for the tournament table as a win for one of the two players.
I intend to discuss this case with the chairman of the rating Commission
of FIDE.

Dear Mr Gijssen:

Article 6.3 of the Laws of Chess states that "...  Immediately after a flag
falls, the requirements of Article 8.1 must be checked."

What must an Arbiter do if the player claiming the win on time has not
complied with Art 8.1?  Naturally his unfortunate opponent did not keep
score due to Art 8.4 and the claimant cannot copy the moves from his
opponent's scoresheet.  Will such a player be penalised and if so, how? 

Also, Is it possible to claim a draw in terms of Articles 9.2 & 9.3 in a
Rapidplay tournament, where no score is kept? Riaan du Plessis, South
Africa

Answer: In the first version of the Laws of Chess, approved in Yerevan,
September - October 1996, there were some printing errors. One of these
errors was made in Article 6.3. The correct text of Article 6.3 is: Each
time display has a 'flag'. Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements
of Article 6.2 must be checked.

Article 6.2 further states that when using a chess clock, each player must
make a certain number or all moves in an allotted period of time and /or
may be allocated an additional amount of time after each move...
Generally, the arbiter has to check when a flag falls whether a  player
made the number of moves. How he shall check this, is not described in
the Laws of Chess. 

Now back to your question. A player oversteps the time, the opponent
claims a win, but is not able to produce a complete scoresheet. The
procedure is the following one: under the supervision of the arbiter or an
assistant, the players must reconstruct the game on a second board. If
after this reconstruction it is clear that a player has overstepped the time
limit, the game is lost. If the scoresheets cannot be brought up to date
showing that a player has overstepped the allotted time, the next move
shall be considered as the first of the following time period, unless there
is evidence that more moves have been made. (Article 8.6)

As for your second question, Annex B of the Laws of Chess applies to
Rapidplay. Articles B2 says: Play shall be governed by the FIDE Laws
of Chess, except where they are overridden by the following Laws.
As a matter of fact, in those Laws there is nothing about Articles 9.2 and
9.3 (Draw claims). This means a player can claim, but (!!) he has to
prove that the claim is correct. If the arbiter watched the game and he is
of  the opinion that the claim is correct, then there is no problem. If there
is another neutral reliable witness, the same result, but in all other cases
I am afraid the claimant has problems. 

Dear Mr. Gijssen:

My question is about the way one must record his games. I like to
annotate my scoresheet in Informator mode: without x in captures, or
without + in checks. Some players draw little icons like the pieces (a
rectangle for the rook for example) instead of letters. Is there a correct
syntax or a problem in recording the moves a different way? Thank you
very much. Luciano dos Santos Fier, Brazil 

Answer: Appendix E of the Laws of Chess is called Algebraic Notation
and it says:
FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system
of notation, the algebraic System, and recommends the use of this
uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals....

The system you describe in your letter is an algebraic system and
satisfies, in my opinion the requirements of the algebraic system.

Article E2 states that for the first letter of a piece, each player is free to
use the first letter of the name which is commonly used in his country. In
printed periodicals, the use of figurines for the pieces is recommended.
As you can see, there is a certain freedom to indicate the pieces. The
capture and check signs are not essential.

Dear Mr Gijssen:
Here are two situations, which occurred, recently in Malaysian chess. I
would like to have your comments on them.

Situation 1
There was a team match using a 90-minutes time control (play to finish).
In one of the games, both players were very short of time and they were
blitzing. Player A's flag dropped and two or three seconds later, Player B
noticed it. But as he was about to stop his clock, his own flag dropped.
The arbiter saw everything and gave the win to Player B. How correct
was this, and would the decision be any difference if no arbiter was
present?

Situation 2
Another team event. One of the games ended but one of the players did
not leave the roped-off playing arena. The arbiter asked him to leave but
the player was very slow to leave. The arbiter got angry and now asked
the player to leave the playing hall. The player left but stood in the
doorway of the hall to watch. Now the arbiter became really angry and
he disqualified the whole team. Was it justified? Was there any other
measure he could have taken? I will really appreciate your opinion. 
Regards, SS Quah, Malaysia
 
Answer: Situation 1: A 'game in 90' time control means the game is not
a rapid game, but is conducted under the "normal" Laws of Chess. The
provisions of Article 10: (Quickplay Finish) must be applied. Article
10.1 states that a 'quickplay finish' is the last phase of a game, when all
the remaining moves must be made in a limited time. And, such is the
case  in 90-minutes games. What the arbiter has to do when a flag falls
is described in several Articles:

Article 6.8: A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes
the fact or when a valid claim to that effect has been made by either
player.

In light of the above, it is clear that the arbiter was right when he gave
the win to Player B. But what would have  happened, if the arbiter had
not seen Player A's flag fall but Player B's flag had also dropped?
 
Article 6.11 states: If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to
establish which flag fell first, the game shall continue.

But this is impossible in a 90-minutes gam. Now we will look to Article
10.4, the Quickplay finish. It states:
If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell
first the game is drawn.

By the way, if in such games DGT clocks are used - and this is not an
endorsement of DGT clocks - there are no problems, because the DGT
clock indicates clearly which flag fell first. One final remark: the arbiter
has no discretion in rapid and blitz games. If both flags are down, the
game is a draw, even when the arbiter observed which flag fell first.

Situation 2: It is very difficult to answer questions like this one. I would
want to get the arbiter's version of this matter also. Only when all the
parties have had the opportunity to give their opinion is it  probably
possible to judge the situation. To be honest, it sounds to me that there
was something else going on here. I find it hard to believe that the arbiter
decided to exclude a whole team based on what you described.
