An Arbiter's Notebook
By Geurt Gijssen

Button It Up

From February 19-24 the Chess Federation of the United Arab
Emirates organised a seminar for chess arbiters in Dubai. I was
invited to give lectures about the Laws of Chess, the Swiss
System and the organisation of chess tournaments. The
federation is not yet so big, but this is fully offset by the
enthusiasm shown by the officials of the federation and the
support of the government. 

Seeing the efforts made by chess officials, the financial support
of the government and the desire of the chess players to
upgrade their chess level, I was not at all surprised that the
Asian players achieve fantastic results in e.g. the Olympiad: the
women chess team of China won the golden medal as did
Mohamad Al-Modiahki from Qatar on board 1.

19 arbiters   10(!) women and 9 men   attended the seminar; I
have never before had such an enthusiastic group. We
discussed a lot of examples taken from the participants' and my
practice. And nobody will be surprised that also Article 10 was
again a real topic.

When you have to organise a seminar about The Laws of
Chess, it is quite obvious that you prepare something and have
a look to the Laws, although you know them very well.
Because I am an arbiter most of the time in "normal" chess
tournaments, I have not paid that much attention to the Laws of
Rapid and Blitz chess. When I studied these Laws, I discovered
something strange. One example: If you were to ask every
arbiter what should be done in a Rapid game when a player
makes an illegal move, I am sure that 99% of them would
answer: "Nothing, it is the responsibility of the chess players
themselves." But I cannot find this principle in the Laws of
Rapid Chess. I would now expect a lot of reaction from arbiters
who may say that I am wrong. We shall see. 

Anyway, what I would like to point out is that it was also very
productive for the lecturer to give such a seminar. Probably
somebody will say that in the World Championship Knockout
Tournament there were also Rapid and Blitz games played.
But, as I have already previously written, in this tournament we
applied the "normal" Laws of Chess, the only exception being
that players were not obliged to record the moves.

It is probably superfluous to mention that the seminar was
excellently organised by Dr. Hesham Elgendy, the secretary-
general of the UAE chess federation. And, I have to make one
final remark: I visited the building of the chess club of Dubai. I
have seen many chess clubs, but in my whole life I have never
seen such a wonderful chess building. From a distance, you see
a very big Rook. It is very clear what kind of building it is.
There are two playing halls, one for about 200 players, one for
about 100 players; there are rooms where people can analyse
after the game; there are rooms in which training sessions can
be organised; there is a special room for arbiters; there are
rooms for all staff members; there is a good library; and there is
a room for smokers. I was really very impressed.

Question Dear Mr Gijssen, I must admit that your column was
always neglected by me partly because so many interesting
chess articles are to be read and partly because of my
preconception believing that An Arbiter's Notebook must be
dull stuff. Amazingly once I read your latest article "What shall
we do with a Sleeping Chess Player" I was very much
entertained and educated at the same time. Take this as a
compliment!

Perhaps I can contribute to your list of curiosities. A rather
funny and bizarre incident happened during a "vierkamp"
(tournament with 4 players) at the latest Corus tournament in
Wijk aan Zee. As I am left-handed but not always consistent
(meaning many activities are carried out with my right-hand) I
usually do not mind which hand I use for pressing my clock.
Having spent two games in two days behind the black pieces I
had become used to pressing the clock with my right hand
diagonally reaching out with my left for the clock. During my
last game I had the white pieces on the other side of the table
and found myself in an exciting and nerve-racking game. As I
had used a lot of time, I was rather annoyed with myself when I
noticed that my opponent had pressed his clock while my clock
was still running! How could I have neglected to press the
clock was beyond my imagination. 

Then, all of a sudden my neighbours on my right got into a
terrible argument. One player had apparently taken a stroll to
enjoy the world's best players. On his return he had noticed that
his time had elapsed more than was technically possible. He
accused my neighbour on my immediate right of having
pressed his clock without having made a move using his clock-
time. Still the incident did not ring a bell for me, as I was still
very much in a trance with my own game.

It was not until my next move that I noticed that my left-hand
went to my right-hand neighbour's clock. I checked the
situation myself and it finally dawned on me what had
happened: I had pressed the wrong clock, selling myself short
and creating a nasty incident that was not over yet. I tried to
restore the peace, but it did not work. After my last attempt, I
said I was sorry and offered both players a drink. I then
concentrated on my own game and left them to deal with it,
recalling that the man that had taken this peaceful stroll had
also gotten into fierce fight with the arbiter claiming he should
have received more time than he was granted. Obviously my
question is what are the rules in such a case? Frits Dijkstra
(The Netherlands)

Answer Probably I have to explain first to the readers
something about the placement of the clock. The arbiter
decides where the chess clock is placed (Article 6.4) It is usual
to place the chess clock on the right side of the black player.
Therefore Mr Dijkstra, although left-handed, pressed the clock
in game 1 and 2 as black with his right hand. In game 3 he
played white; therefore "his" clock was now at his left side.
And the fact that he pressed the wrong clock in the next game
is quite understandable.

The case is completely clear, but how to correct the situation?
There are no rules for cases like this. The best thing to do is to
call the arbiter, explain to him the situation and hope that he
finds a solution (if the players are unable to do so). One thing is
of course very evident: there was not enough space between the
boards. Saying this I understand that I am in fact saying that
this was a mistake of the organisers, not giving enough space to
the players. But I also know very well that a lot of players
wanted to play in this tournament, much more than the
organisers could admit. And they made the choice to admit
probably too many players in a hall that was too small. I repeat
  I do not want to criticise the organisers, but the arbiters must
be prepared for such situations. Once again, the arbiters have to
use their best judgement to determine the correct times on the
clocks.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, A team-mate of mine in a recent
team tournament in the United States related the following
incident to me: My team-mate was on move and picked up his
opponent's Knight in order to capture it. Next he picked up his
own King and proceeded to capture the knight with it - except
it turned out that capturing the Knight with the King was illegal
because the King would have been in check on the square that
was occupied by the Knight. His opponent pointed this out and
my team-mate replaced his King to its original square and
proceeded to complete the transaction by capturing the Knight
  legally this time   with another piece. My team-mate's
opponent argued that he was obliged to make another, legal,
move with his King since he had touched it. My team-mate
argued that since he had removed the Knight from the board
first that he could complete the capture with another piece.
Who is right in this instance   according to FIDE rules   and do
you know if the USCF rules conflict with FIDE on this count?
Thank you for time in addressing this inquiry.
Respectfully yours, Glen Hart (USA)

Answer Under FIDE rules, your team-mate was completely
right. If he can take the Knight with another piece   and
apparently he could   he has to do so. The USCF regulations
state the same.

Question Mr. Gijssen, In the sixth round of a seven-round
30/30 tournament, two players end up with the following
material: White with a King and Black with a King and Rook.
Black was three moves away from mating White. Black's flag
fell but his opponent did not notice it. A spectator noticed it and
made a remark to direct White's attention to it. White then
claimed a draw. Black objected and called the Arbiter for a
decision because of the interference from a spectator (External
interference?). The Arbiter ruled in favour of Black and
awarded a full point. Was the Arbiter's decision correct? What
should a player do with interferences such as these? Marcus
Atterbury (South Africa)

Answer When spectators interfere, the situation always
becomes unpleasant. The problem is that officially they do not
play any role, but as a matter of fact, their actions can be
decisive and produce a different result. The actual situation in
the game was that Black overstepped his time and his opponent
did not have mating potential. Then the decision of the arbiter
is very easy: draw. The fact that Black was three moves from
mate is not important. Therefore the conclusion is that the
arbiter's decision was wrong, although understandable. The
only thing the arbiter could have done was to expel the
interfering spectator from the playing hall.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, In the Belgian Club Competition
an arbiter made what seemed to be an extreme decision. He
declared a game lost for an East European player because his
mobile phone rang during the game; nothing more. I mentioned
that he came from East Europe, because he did not understand
the arbiter's message about mobile phones before the start of
the round. I would like to add that the game was very
important, it was possible to make an IM norm based on the
result of this game. What is your opinion about the arbiter's
decision? G. Kool (The Netherlands)

Answer The matter is more complicated than might seem from
Mr. Kool's inquiry. I spoke with the arbiter who was involved
and he also showed me some documentation. I also made some
telephone calls. First, I would like to report what, as far I can
determine, are the facts:

In October 1999 there was an official message from the official
of the Belgian Chess Federation who appoints the arbiters, to
all arbiters and clubs. This is the text:
 
It happens frequently that the matches between clubs are
disturbed by GSM-users. Therefore I request all arbiters to take
the following measures from now on:
  1. Before the start of the match you ask everybody to
  switch off completely the mobiles.
  2. If a player refuses to do so and he makes a phone call
  (incoming or outgoing), the arbiter declares the game lost
  for the player who makes a phone call.

I spoke with Mr. De Ridder, who was responsible for this
measure, and he explained me the reasons. He had three articles
in mind on which he based this measure:

1. Article 12.2: During play the players are forbidden to make
use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or to analyse
on another chessboard.
In his opinion it is very easy to get information about the actual
situation on the board through the mobile. The player goes to
the bathroom and makes a phone call.
2. Article 12.5: It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent
in any manner whatsoever; this includes the persistent offer of
a draw.
This is very reasonable, because these ringing mobiles are
really disturbing.
3. Infractions of any part of the Articles 12.2 to 12.5 shall lead
to penalties in accordance with Article 13.4.
Declaring the game to be lost is one of the penalties open to the
arbiter. I must say that the measures seem quite reasonable,
although you can discuss if declaring the game to be lost is a
proper penalty. 

Another point of discussion is whether this measure is an
addition to the Laws of Chess is or not. And if the answer is
"Yes", is it then in conflict with a part of the Preface of the
Laws of Chess, especially point (c). Point (c) of the Preface
says: 
A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules
provided they are not valid for any match, championship or
qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament.

My personal opinion is that the steps taken by the Belgian
Chess Federation were not an addition to the current Laws of
Chess, but only an explanation how some Articles of the Laws
of Chess can be applied. Finally I would like to highlight one
other sentence of the Preface of the Laws of Chess:

Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of
judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a
problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

Apparently the current situation in Belgium is now: the mobile
phone rings, the player says one word, and the game is lost.
Perhaps another penalty might also be considered.

In the match mentioned by Mr. Kool, the arbiter made this
announcement in three languages (English, French and Dutch)
before the match started. During the match the mobile phone of
one of the players made only one beep. Immediately, the arbiter
declared the game lost. His argument is that it is possible to
give information not only by a conversation, but also via the
phone's display, perhaps even moves. The arbiter declared also
that he had no choice to take another decision. 
The arbiter told me also that he had a discussion with the fined
player afterwards in Dutch.

Summarising I think that the arbiter may penalise as he did,
although it is very dangerous to announce in advance which
penalty should be given in specific cases.

Question Dear Geurt,
  I enjoy your column very much. During a flurry of moves at
the end of a blitz game, with both players having only seconds
left to play, there is a series of exchanges culminating in the
capture of a (black) pawn on the fifth rank. White, who has
captured the pawn, fails to remove it from the board. A few
moves later, with the pawn still on the board, black advances it
to the sixth rank and punches his clock. White immediately
stops the clock and claims an "illegal move" win, reasoning
that the pawn was not "really" on the board, and hence cannot
be moved. Black argues that he has in fact, made a legal move
of a piece on the board, and is being punished for failing to
keep track of which pieces his opponent has failed to remove
from the board. The arbiter rules in favour of White. Do you
agree? Michael Ratliff (USA)

Answer I disagree completely with the arbiter's decision. Let
us analyse the situation. On move 'x' White captures a black
pawn, let us say on e4, with his Bishop. I understand that the
black pawn was not taken from the board and the Bishop went
to another square. (Two pieces on the same square is very
unlikely.) White stops his clock and starts Black's clock. At
that moment, Black could claim a win, because White did
something illegal. Black did not claim. He played a move,
stopped his clock and started White's clock. By completing his
move, Black waived the right to claim a win and the game must
be continued in the position, which is now on the board,
including the pawn on e4. It means that Black could play, at
some later move, his pawn from e4 to e3 without any legal
consequence. I would like to emphasise that this is the Law for
Blitz games. In "normal" and rapid games, you have to go back
to the move when the irregularity occurred.

Finally, I end this month's column with a very sad message. On
February 19, 2000 my very good friend and colleague Boris
Samuelovich Ravkin passed away in Moscow. Boris
Samuelovich, born on May 2, 1925 was a veteran of the World
War II, an officer of the USSR Army. His great love was chess
and he was involved in the organisation of many chess events.
In 1968 he became an International Arbiter. I met Boris for the
first time in Moscow during the GMA Qualification
Tournaments 1990 and from the first moment we became
friends. I will remember Boris as a friend who was always very
helpful to everyone. He was a happy man, always in a good
mood and worked with a lot of energy. When his wife, also an
International Arbiter, passed away a few years ago, he changed
completely. Apparently, life became very difficult for him and
he was often quite ill. "What is life without Katja?" he asked
me many times. 

When I was in St. Petersburg in 1995 for the match Zsuzsa
Polgar   Maya Chiburdanidze, he came for a few hours by train
from Moscow to St Petersburg, only to say "Halloo" to me. He
became lonelier and lonelier. The last time I met Boris was
during the 1998 Olympiad in Elista. He was the already quite
ill. He was very tired. We had many talks and when he left
Elista, the last word we spoke to each other from face to face
was, as always: "Mazzeltov". After Elista I spoke him several
times by phone and it was clear to me that he had more or less
given up. However, it was a shock for me, when I got the
message that Boris passed away. May he rest in peace.
