The Time Limits They Are a-Changin'...

During the 1983 European Team Championship in Plovdiv,
Bulgaria, I was the captain of the Dutch team. I remember very
well one of the team meetings several weeks before the event. One
of the items on the agenda was who should take which chess book
with him. Clear agreements were made who should take care for
the latest issues of  Chess Informant, who was responsible for the
Encyclopedia of Openings, who should bring the endgame books
of Cheron and so on. Now each top player has his own laptop and
arrangements similar to those of 1983 are completely unnecessary. 

But even more things have changed in the chess world.
In 1987 I was the Chief Arbiter of the Kasparov-Karpov world
championship match in Seville. The time limit in this match was
forty moves in two and one-half hours and then one hour for every
additional sixteen moves. After five hours the games were to be
adjourned. The same time limit was applied in the next match in
1990 between Kasparov and Karpov in New York/Lyon. But there
was something new. Both players used the help of computers for
adjourned games and to analyse the games after they had been
played. And from time to time the computer showed some
improvements to the moves played in the games, even in the
opening. Tom Fuerstenberg has written several interesting articles
concerning the help of the computer.

To diminish the influence of the computer, the match
Karpov-Timman (Zwolle, Arnhem, Amsterdam, Djakarta 1993)
was played according to the same time limit (forty moves in two
and one-half hours and then one hour for every additional sixteen
moves), but this time the games were not to be adjourned until
there had been seven hours of play. It is clear that this time limit
reduced the number of adjourned games and therefore the
influence
of computers.

Immediately after the opening ceremony of the Karpov-0Kamsky
match (Elista 1996) there was an unexpected incident. Rustam
Kamsky, the father of Gata Kamsky and chief of his delegation, got
into a furious dispute with Anatoly Karpov. According to Rustam
Kamsky, in a press conference about four weeks before the start of
the match, it had been announced that the time limit would be forty
in two, then twenty in one, and finally thirty minutes for each
player for the remaining moves. 

However Karpov said that there was a letter signed by both Gata
Kamsky and himself, which had been sent from Groningen during
the Koop Tjuchem tournament in December 1995. In this letter
both players suggested that the time limit should be forty moves in
two hours, then one hour for every additional sixteen moves, with
adjournments after six hours of play. After prolonged negotiations
in Elista, it was finally decided that they would play with this time
limit. Since the first forty moves would be played more quickly
than in the match Karpov-Timman, the probability for adjourned
games was less.

In the last world championship tournament, i.e. the knock-out
tournament in Groningen 1997 and Lausanne 1998, there were no
adjourned games. The time limit was totally different: 100 minutes
for forty moves, then 50 minutes for twenty moves and finally 10
minutes for each player for the remaining moves. After each move,
thirty seconds were added. For the first time control this effectively
meant forty moves in two hours and for the second time control
twenty moves in one hour. 

Before the start of the tournament many people were afraid of
incidents and of possibly very long games. During the entire
tournament there were no incidents and the games were generally
shorter than before. I think that it had to do with the time limit.
When a player had a lost position he resigned. With the "old" time
limit players who found themselves in a lost position sometimes
tried to take advantage of the opponent's "Zeitnot". With this new
time limit it is almost impossible to do so.

In this regard, I would like to mention another development. In the
1991 Candidates Matches at Brussels it was decided that, in the
event a match finished 4-4, the match would be continued with
rapid games (60 minutes for forty-five moves and then 15 fifteen
minutes for each series of twenty moves). The Yusupov-Ivanchuk
match, required the rapid games to break the ties. The first game of
this mini-match is probably one of the most fascinating games of
the last decade. This game was chosen as the best game in Chess
Informant No. 52. In 1996 the Informant published a book entitled
"640 Best Games - 64 Golden Games". The best games of the
period 1966-1996 were published in this book. A jury of
grandmasters and readers voted again for the best game. The result
was that the game Ivanchuk - Yusupov finished second. Here are
the moves of this remarkable game:

Ivanchuk - Yusupov:
1 c4 e5 2 g3 d6 3 Bg2 g6 4 d4 Nd7 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 Nf3 Ngf6 7 O-O
O-O 8 Qc2 Re8 9 Rd1 c6 10 b3 Qe7 11 Ba3 e4 12 Ng5 e3 13 f4
Nf8 14 b4 Bf5 15 Qb3 h6 16 Nf3 Ng4 17 b5 g5 18 bxc6 bxc6 19
Ne5 gxf4 20 Nxc6 Qg5 21 Bxd6 Ng6 22 Nd5 Qh5 23 h4 Nxh4 24
gxh4 Qxh4 25 Nde7+ Kh8 26 Nxf5 Qh2+ 27 Kf1 Re6 28 Qb7 
Rg6 29 Qxa8+ Kh7 30 Qg8+ Kxg8 31 Nce7+ Kh7
32 Nxg6 fxg6 33 Nxg7 Nf2 34 Bxf4 Qxf4 35 Ne6 Qh2 36 Rdb1
Nh3 37 Rb7+ Kg8 38 Rb8+ Qxb8 39 Bxh3 Qg3 0-1.

It was decided that in the match Karpov - Kamsky, in case of a tie,
tie-break games should also be played.

As you probably know, in Groningen and Lausanne, rapid
mini-matches of two (Rounds 1 -6), four (Round 7) or six games
(the final) were played. If after two, four or six games the standings
were still level additional games would be played. The time limit
was as follows: 25 minutes per player for the whole game with the
addition of ten seconds per move; if after two games there was no
decision, two more games were played; the time limit in these two
games was 15 minutes per player for the whole game with the
addition of ten seconds per move. If these games did not produce a
match winner, sudden death games would be played. White
received four minutes for the whole game and black five minutes.
Once again ten seconds per move were added. The first decisive
game would end the match. I was very surprised that even in these
sudden-death games there were no incidents.

Personally I was very happy that the last World Championship was
not played using the time limits currently being used in many
tournaments. By this I am referring to a final time control in which
all remaining moves must be completed, e.g. 30 minutes. The
problem I have often encountered is related to Article 10.2:

If  the player has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may
claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and
summon the arbiter.

(a) If the arbiter is satisfied the opponent is making no effort to win
the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by
normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he
shall postpone his decision.
(b) If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be
awarded two extra minutes thinking time and the game shall
continue in the presence of the arbiter.
(c) Having postponed his decision, the arbiter may subsequently
declare the game drawn, even after a flag has fallen.

All incidents during the Olympiads in Moscow and Yerevan had to
do with Article 10.2 of the FIDE Laws of Chess.

In my next column at The Chess Cafe, I will show just how
dangerous the provisions of this article can be.

Now for Readers' Questions...

Robert Spieler (USA) asked whether it is considered
unsportmanslike or illegal, to use two hands when time is almost
spent? In other words, is there a rule mandating that the same hand
that moves a piece must also hit the clock?

Until 1 July 1997, the rule that you may not use two hands for
moving a piece and hitting the clock was applicable only to one
hour, rapid and blitz games.

When the Rules Committee met in Paris in 1995 to consider some
rule revisions, it had as a central theme to have, if at all possible,
the same rules applying to all forms of the game: 'normal' chess,
quick-play finish, rapid and blitz chess. With this in mind, you may
not be surprised that we have now the following rule: 

Article 6.7(b):
A player must stop his clock with the same hand as that with which
he made his move. It is forbidden to keep the finger on the button
or to 'hover' over it.

Alvaro Faria Paz Pereira (Portugal) sent the following inquiry:

Mr. Gijssen:
I found your "The King en Prise" article in "The Chess Cafe" very
interesting. It reminded me of something that happened in a blitz
(five- minute) tournament, here in Portugal, a couple of years ago:

1.Two players were in time trouble. Player A had a winning
advantage in the endgame. Player B tried a little trick: he slid his
king next to his opponent's king. Player A, not noticing that, just
pushed a pawn on its way to queen. Player B played KxK (or may
be he just claimed a win by irregular move, I don't remember
exactly; anyway, this is not relevant, because, in that tournament it
was allowed to take a king "en prise", as a traditional way of
claiming a win by illegal move). The arbiter was called and neither 
player disputed the underlying facts. The arbiter, supported by the
tournament director, decided to award player B the win. She
considered that, after player A's last move, an illegal position had
appeared on the board, so player B could claim a win.  Arbiters
who present agreed, but others have disagreed, citing two reasons: 

In fact, it had been player B who had made the irregular move; and,
prior to his claim of a win, player B had also engaged in what
could be called "bad conduct" (the trick itself). How would you decide if you were the
arbiter?

2. A related question (again in a blitz game): Player A makes an
illegal move, but player B only has his king. It's a win for player B
or a draw?

Your questions may be answered with the help of  the new Laws of
Chess.

1. Player B made an illegal move and player A did not notice this
and played a move. This move was also illegal and now player B
can claim the win. 

2. A player having only a king cannot win. Article C4 says:

In order to win, a player must have 'mating potential'. This is
defined as adequate forces eventually to produce a position legally,
possibly by 'helpmate', where an opponent having the move cannot
avoid being checkmated in one move. Thus two knights and a king
against a lone king is insufficient, but a rook and king against a
knight and king is sufficient.

Finally, as an update to last month's column I would like to
announce that the Rules Committee in the meeting during the
Olympiad in Elista shall decide what the penalty will be when a
player captures the opponent's king. 


