An Arbiter's Notebook #17 By Geurt Gijssen

Digital vs. Analog

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I would like to know if the use of a
digital clock could be forbidden by an arbiter based on the
assumption that the opponent may refuse to play with it. The same
arbiter said FIDE did not regulate the use of the digital clock.
David Borensztajn (Brazil)

Answer I was present when FIDE started to negotiate with the
producers of the DGT clocks in 1993 during the match
Karpov-Timman in Holland. The result of these negotiations was
that FIDE announced that the DGT clock was the official FIDE
clock. In the Olympiads in Moscow 1994, Yerevan 1996, Elista
1998, the match Karpov-Kamsky (Elista 1996), World
Championship Tournaments Groningen 1997 and Lausanne 1998
and the World Championship 1999 in Las Vegas, all games were
played with the DGT clock. If FIDE did not regulate the DGT
clock officially, I think that it has de facto. Although I do not like
to make any advertisements for the DGT clock, I have to mention
that other digital clocks that I tested at the time were of inferior
quality.

I understand that the first part of your question concerns itself with
tournaments in which the players bring their own clocks to the
tournament. To be honest, I do not know the regulations for these
tournaments, but based on what I mentioned in the first paragraph,
I think it is impossible to refuse to play with a DGT clock.

Question I write in response to your discussion of Article 9.5 and
the proper penalty for an invalid claim of a draw. Imposing a
meaningless penalty when the claimant's remaining time is less
than one minute only encourages such claims when the player is
most desperate. I speak as one who plays quickly and whose
opponents are often in time trouble. It is unrealistic to expect
considerations of fairness to override feelings of desperation.
When you have 30 seconds to the opponent's 30 minutes, how
much of a penalty is his extra 3 minutes? Even if 15 seconds are
removed, the claimant has had several minutes of analysis, which
his opponent was sure to deny him. (As an aside, I attribute the
decline of soccer as a sport to the neglect of penalties). Allow me
to suggest the loss of the game as a justified penalty when an
invalid claim is made in the last minute. In the USA we have not
only the draw claim but also the "insufficient losing chances"
claims, which can be repeated move after move and with NO
penalty when refused.

Such rules make chess a timed event only for the polite and/or
soft-spoken. If you wish examples of "insufficient losing chances"
claims (both honoured and denied) I will gladly supply them. Ross
Amann (USA)

Answer When I consider questions, I often think it might be better
to have different regulations for professional chess and amateur
chess. But at the same time, I realise it is impossible to have
different rules. Many incidents discussed in this column happen in
non-professional tournaments. Incorrect claims are very rare in
professional chess tournaments. 

In my 25 years experience as an arbiter, I have had only one
improper claim and I was prepared for this. It happened in a game
Karpov-Miles (Tilburg 1986). I saw what happened in the game
and I felt that Karpov wanted to claim a triple repetition of the
position. And I was also aware that his claim was wrong. It was not
difficult to follow as in round robin tournaments with 12 players
the arbiter can reasonably follow all the games. At the moment he
sees a repetition, he immediately begins his investigation so that he
is able to react immediately in case of a claim.

I agree with you that there are situations (big Swiss tournaments or
many games with time pressure at the same time) the arbiter needs
some time to investigate the claim, but it is still my opinion that
improper claims, made deliberately to get more time, are very rare.
I do not see any reason to change the Laws, although I understand
your point that it is very difficult to adjust the clock when the game
is played with an analog clock. I would be happy to consider your
examples of "insufficient losing chances" claims.

Question Mr. Gijssen: This is not as much a question as an
observation (and suggestion) about the way move-counters have
been implemented in the new digital clocks. First, the problem as I
see it: Most of the digital clocks deal with multiple time controls
by detecting when a specified number of moves has occurred and
moving automatically to the next time period by adding the amount
of time allotted for the next time control to the time remaining
from the previous period. As logical as this seems, it causes
significant disruptions when the move counter is in error!

When that occurs, play must be stopped (frequently when close to
a time control limit) and the clock adjusted. And the owner of the
clock is often the only one capable of making the adjustment, and
may be under time stress himself and fail to correct the move
counter properly. And so on.

So, how does the move counter get "off"? Unfortunately, all too
easily: (1) A player may fail to punch his clock. If undetected, the
move counter is one move shy. Then the "flag" could fall even
though the players have recorded the proper number of moves to
reach the next time control.

(2) Another way the counter gets "off" is for a player to be
inexperienced in the proper way to "pause" the clock to refer to the
TD. He may try to "level" the buttons. On most digital clocks, this
doesn't "pause" them, it just causes extra moves to be recorded so
the time for the next time control gets added to the clock before the
proper number of moves have been made. What a mess that is!

(3) Still another way the move counter gets "off" is when an illegal
move is detected by one player, who restarts the opponent's clock
to have the move corrected on the opponent's time. Once again, the
move counter is "ahead" of recorded moves and will subsequently
move to the next time control too early. And the move counter is
rarely useful to the TD anyway! I forget the exact conditions under
which the move counter can be referred to, but they are uncommon
in my experience.

So, basically the move counter is a dangerous way to detect when a
time control has been passed, and has negligible value to the TD or
players. Yet the digital clocks have contributed the "delay" feature
to practical tournament chess, so we want to keep using them.

As a consequence, I have traded my first digital clock for a new
one that has an option to NOT use a move counter to trigger the
transition to the next time control. Instead, it simply counts down
the first time period to zero, then moves to the next time period
while showing an indication (a "flag") as to which time period the
clock is in. In other words, it acts exactly as an analog clock. (But
with the possibility of a "delay" when appropriate). This has
reduced my "move counter" anxiety to zero. But I miss the "move
counter". So my suggestion is that digital clocks have the option to
be set as above, but also count moves has a secondary function, to
be used officially only when the TD has need of an automated
move count, rather than having to record the game, or make "tick
marks" on a score sheet. Bob Anderson (USA)

Answer I agree with many of your points.. The move counter can
be a problem. The two main problems are (1) A player does not
press his clock. This happens very seldom in professional chess.
(2) A player completes an illegal move, presses his clock and his
opponent then presses his clock without making a move.

Actually, I have discussed these points in previous columns. If the
game is played according to the Fischer modus, the problems are
even bigger. This is the reason that I strongly urge the player to
stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.

In the World Chess Championship in Las Vegas I had a related
problem: the clock had been set up improperly. 50 minutes were
added after 20, not 40 moves. After determining why this had
occurred, we adjusted the clocks after both White and Black's 20th
moves. At this time there is a discussion with the producer of the
DGT clock to show the number of moves made by each side in the
display.

Question I have a question, but it is not a particular rule question. It
is about the job itself. I am currently the lowest tier (local TD). I
have often thought about taking the steps needed to advance, but is
it worth it? Are you able to support yourself just being an arbiter?
Is there work to go around? Is it a difficult task to become
certified? I do not mean to get personal or pry, but I am curious. It
seems to me that I would enjoy being an arbiter very much, as I
have an intense love affair with the game. I realise I will never be
world champ, so is international arbiter a worthwhile goal? Any
thoughts would be appreciated. Jamie Millman (India)

Answer A very difficult question. As you like chess very much, I
advise you to play instead of being an arbiter. Let me explain. You
should know that an arbiter's job generally is quite boring. An
arbiter sits for hours in a playing hall and he has nothing to do for
quite long periods. And then suddenly, there is a lot of work to do.
Many cases of time trouble occur. He makes decisions and in the
players' opinion he is always wrong. To make a living from it is
very difficult. In my opinion it is better to be a coach, trainer or
chess teacher. You have to realise that there are more than
thousand international arbiters and only a very few get the
opportunity to ply their trade at the highest levels. If all this does
not discourage you, then I would advise you to do the following:

1.Start your arbiter's career in youth tournaments. 2.Contact your
federation and ask for information about arbiter's courses. 3.Attend
chess tournaments and watch how arbiters conduct themselves in
these tournaments; and when they make decisions, ask them the
basis of their decisions. But be diplomatic, as there are those
arbiters who may feel attacked by such an approach. 4.Try to get a
job as an assistant arbiter. 5.Read tournament reports and pay
attention to any reported incidents.

Question Hello Mr. Gijssen! In a local tournament here the
following incident happened: (a) We were both in time trouble, my
opponent moved, said, "draw?" and punched the clock (b) While
reflecting whether I should accept the draw offer, my flag fell (we
used an analog clock), after which I at once said, "OK, draw!" (c)
Now my opponent declared: "Too late; you overstepped the time; I
have won". d) The arbiter decided in my favour: the game was
drawn, he argued, after I accepted the draw. So the claim of my
opponent that I lost on time came too late.

Well, of course I liked the half point, but was it well deserved? Did
the arbiter also have the choice to argue the other way, e.g., "After
your flag fell the game was over and you had objectively lost the
game, so your acceptance of the draw was meaningless. The game
was over and you had already lost!" Claus van de Vlierd
(Germany)

Answer You may not have felt happy when you got your
half-point. And your bad feeling is justified, because the arbiter's
decision was incorrect. 

The rules say very clearly that a player loses his game when he has
not completed the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time.
And this was simply the case in your game. The draw offer is not
relevant. There is only one exception, also mentioned in Article 6.9
of the Laws of Chess: "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."

Question This question relates to last month's question about
asking the arbiter to find a piece to complete a pawn promotion. Is
the player obligated to place that piece on the board, or does the
player retain the option of placing another piece on the board? The
USCF rules that the player may touch a piece off the board without
being obligate to play it, that the move is not determined until a
piece is released on the board. Would the piece supplied by the
arbiter be considered just another piece off the board? Stopping the
clock and asking for assistance could provide time to realise that
another piece may avoid stalemate, or just provide time for
thinking. Gary L. Janssen (USA)

Answer Let us clarify the situation. There is for instance no spare
queen available for a player who is about to promote a pawn. He
stops the clocks and asks the arbiter for assistance. He would like
to have a queen. The arbiter provides a queen and the player put
another piece, that was already available on the board. In this case I
would deduct the player's thinking time and give compensation to
the opponent. Obviously there was no reason to stop the clocks.
Suppose that putting the piece on the board finishes the game
(mate or stalemate), then, of course, the arbiter cannot deduct the
player's time, but he still has the possibility to penalise him and to
give him a warning. I agree with you that a player may touch any
piece off the board without the obligation to put this piece on the
board, but the moment the piece touches the board it cannot be
changed.

The subject of my next column shall be the FIDE World
Championship in Las Vegas...