Arbiter's Notebook 
by Geurt Gijssen

The Rules Committee

From 1 - 8 October, the FIDE General Assembly was held in Doha, the
capital of Qatar. Before the General Assembly there were among the
many meetings,  two meetings of the Rules Committee and one meeting
of the Swiss Pairings Committee. One of the problems in the General
Assembly was whether a quorum would be present. There finally was. I
myself was very satisfied about the number of arbiters and observers
who attended the meetings of the Rules Committee. We had two
meetings that lasted two hours each and there were twenty people at both
meetings who discussed several matters very enthusiastically.

The reader will not be surprised to know that Article 10.2 was discussed
for quite a long time. It was pointed out that a player who claims a draw
has to convince the arbiter that his opponent is not making real efforts on
the board to win by normal means and not misusing the clock to win on
time. Again I pointed out, that, as long as the player may make a blunder,
the arbiter must not intervene by accepting any claim for a draw. One
proposal was accepted and will be implemented by the Congress in the
year 2000: The claim of a draw cannot be withdrawn and remains valid
until the arbiter makes his decision. By the way, I asked the arbiters
present in Doha how many times they had been summoned for a draw
claim. I was not very surprised when they told me that it happens very
rarely. Personally, I had never had such a case and I am really wondering
why we are putting so much energy into debating this article 10.2.

I made the further suggestion to apply the Fischer modus in all FIDE
events. Everybody agreed. I repeat the time limit: 40 moves in 100
minutes, then 20 moves in 50 minutes, finally 10 minutes for the
remaining moves with an increment of 30 second per move from move 1.

The suggestion to apply Article 10.3 (punishment for illegal moves in
Quickplay finish) in all periods of normal and rapid games (but not in
Blitz) was also accepted. This means that if a player makes an illegal
move, his opponent gets 2 minutes extra; if this happens a second time,
the same penalty; if this happens a third time in the same game, the game
is lost for the player who played incorrectly. But note that in blitz games
the first illegal move is enough to lose the game, provided the opponent
claims this on time.

Article C4 (Blitz games) will be reworded.

I have been very pleased with the comments I have been receiving about
the Arbiter's Notebook. Most arbiters read this column and I would like
to thank the editor of The Chess Cafe for providing a forum for these
questions related to the Laws of Chess. When I started this column I did
not expect such an enthusiastic response. 

I recently received Number 17 of the newsletter Arbiting Matters, and
the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the (British) Chess
Arbiters' Association. I was informed that the Association had decided to
make me an honorary member of the CAA. I feel, of course, very
honoured as this was really unexpected. It was mentioned that this was
done in gratitude for my services to the Laws of Chess. In an article
about the FIDE Laws of Chess 1996 and 2000 the Chief Arbiter of the
British Chess Federation wrote, "During the last year or so, Geurt
Gijssen has contributed 16 erudite articles to The Chess Cafe on the
internet. I think that they should be compulsory reading for all arbiters
and they may save many a player from falling foul of the Laws of Chess.
Most of the readers' letters referred to Quickplay, Rapidplay and Blitz;
our guidance covered many of the points raised."

I have to confess that the support I felt in Doha and the actions of the
CAA have encouraged me to continue with my work.

Now, back to the questions...

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, This is not a question but an answer to two
of your questions. In your previous column you wrote"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."

Those tournaments are very common in Quebec and in North America.
The usual rule is that the player with the black pieces has the choice of
equipment, both chess set and clock, IF he arrives at the chessboard on
time. If the player with the black pieces has the DGT clock there is no
problem. Problems could occurs (although I have never seen it in real
life) if the player with the white pieces has a DGT clock and his
opponent insists on playing with his non-official clock. Normally white
can impose the choice of his clock only if the opponent's clock is in
violation of the standards described in the tournament rule. For example
any player may refuse to play with a clock that has no flag, whose flag is
poorly visible (same colour as the clock background) or which has any
obvious defect. In the United States, a clock with time delay capability
(Bronstein timing) is considered more standard than a clock without it
and can be used if the player with the black pieces has a clock without
time delay capability. Whether or not the DGT is preferable in non-FIDE
rated event depends entirely on the host federation's tournament rules.

In another question Ross Amann (USA) wroteIn 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. 

I live too close to the US border to be unaware of their non standard
Laws of chess. The two insufficient loosing chance claims are the local
version of an article 10 claim. The player asks the arbiter to declare the
game drawn because the probability of loosing is too low. There is a lot
of differences between the FIDE and USCF claims"insufficient loosing
chance" is defined as a position in which a class C player has little
chance to loose the position to a master with both having ample time.
There are four possible answers to this claim 1) The arbiter agrees with
the claim and declares the game drawn; 2) The arbiter is convinced that
the claim is frivolousone minute is subtracted from the claimant's
remaining time; 3) The arbiter delays his decision and watches the game
continuation as in the FIDE case; and 4) The arbiter delays his decision
but does not watch the game continuation and invites the player to
reclaim in case of lack of progress. This is usually done when a player
has a lot of time left (one hour) while the opponent is in time trouble.
The player-to-arbiter ratio is sometime very high. I have seen a single
arbiter dealing with more then 180 players. In this case it would be
inappropriate for the arbiter to give all of his attention to a single game
for a long period of time.

Except in case 4, there is no need to repeat the claim and even then
USCF rules forbid distracting or annoying the opponent in any manner
whatsoever and it also forbids repeated draw offers. If a repeated draw
offer disturbs the opponent, why should a repeated insufficient losing
chances claim be considered legal?

Even with the FIDE laws we are not immune to the problem. A
desperate player could make repeated frivolous article 10 claims because
the only penalty is the addition of two minutes to the opponent's
remaining time. Each time the arbiter stops the game to actually add the
two minutes the faulty player unfairly gains time to think. I would issue
a warning for disturbing the opponent if the claim is abusively repeated
without any significant change in the position. Pierre D‚nomm‚e
(Canada)

Answer First of all many thanks for clarifying the customs in
tournaments in Canada and the USA regarding the clocks. It has of
course nothing to do with the Laws of Chess, but with the Tournament
Regulations. I must say that we do not have tournaments in Europe
where players have to play with their own board, pieces and clocks. But
it is probably appropriate to mention something in the FIDE Tournament
Regulations. 

I would like to point out Article 12.5"It is forbidden to distract or annoy
the opponent in any manner whatsoever; this includes the persistent offer
of a draw." It is my opinion, that persistent claims of a draw must be
treated in the same way. And according to Articles 12.6, 12.7 and 13.4,
the arbiter has a lot of possibilities to deal with such behaviour. Still, we
have the problem that the USCF has its own Laws of Chess. In my
opinion this is very uncomfortable for chessplayers. During the
Executive Board meeting in Las Vegas this was mentioned in the
presence of some representatives of the USCF and I believe that the
FIDE has to start a discussion with the USCF. 

Question Geurt, congratulations on running a very nice World
Championship tournament! I have a question about publishing the
pairings ahead of timegranted that during the event each player will
know who their opponent in the next round will be in advance, but only
by a day or two, if I understand how the tournament was organized.
Publishing the pairings for the first round more than a day or two in
advance seems to give the players too much time to prepare for that
opponent, although granted, both players seem to have an equal
opportunity to prepare for each other. Still, it seems to give an advantage
to the players who excel in advance preparation, and creates
significantly different circumstances for the first round than for the
remaining rounds. Wouldn't it be better to be consistent and only advise
players of their first round pairings the same number of days in advance
as will occur during the rest of the tournament? Thanks for taking time
to consider my question. I appreciate your column immensely; it is
always the first one I read at The Chess Cafe! David Surratt (USA) 

Answer The only real problem we had in Las Vegas was the pairings.
Six players did not show up; four of them (Zsuzsa Polgar, Karpov,
Morozevich and Velimirovic) refused to play for several reasons, two of
them (Hakki and Bagieri) did not receive their visa on time. The last two
players were not replaced; their opponents got a bye, and the other four
players were replaced. And these replacements caused a lot of problems,
as I have already written in my previous column. Bearing in mind that it
is my opinion that published pairings cannot be changed, I think it is the
best choice to announce the pairings one or two days before the start of
the tournament and even to introduce a kind of lottery. For instance; If
there are 64 players, the players will be divided in four groups of 16
players: group A contains the 16 highest rated players, group B the
numbers 17 - 32, group C 33 - 48 and group D 49 - 64. Subsequently the
players of group A play against the players of group C and the players of
group B play against the players of group D. Who from group A will
play against a player of group C will be decided by lot during the
opening ceremony. This avoids also many phone calls from players to
the chief arbiter before the start of the tournament.

Question It is said that when Samuel Reshevsky would get in time
trouble he would play with his hand hovering over the board. Is this
against some rule, and can the arbiter stop people from doing this?
Foster James Pinkney (USA)

Answer It happened twice that Mr. Reshevsky was a player and I was an
arbiter in the same tournament. I never got any complaint from any
player about Mr. Reshevsky's behaviour. It is clear that it can be
disturbing when a player has his hand hovering above the board. It is for
the arbiter to decide whether it is disturbing the opponent or not. In Las
Vegas I saw several times how World Champion Khalifman hovered
with his hand over the board, but I decided not to take any action,
because his hand was so high over the board that I was sure it was not
disturbing his opponent. I would like to add that I intervened twice in
Las Vegas when a player started to fiddle with captured pieces. Neither
player commented and apparently accepted my decision. Finally I would
like to say that it is very difficult to decide when a player might be
disturbing his opponent. Generally an arbiter must follow his intuition.

Question When does according to Article 10.2 claimant's opponent get
extra time? In Article 10 where a player in a quickplay finish makes a
claim that the opponent is only playing to win on time it says "The
arbiter may postpone his decision and may award the claimant's
opponent extra time (up to 2 minutes)" In what circumstances has or
should the arbiter award the claimant's opponents extra time.

I have been in the position of the claimant's opponent many times as I
play most games down to a finish and have had opponents claiming a
draw when the position is clearly not 'dead' - twice when I had a pawn
ahead in a queen ending and was carefully avoiding their checks. And I
felt that the opponent's claim was clearly unjustified at that stage. I asked
the arbiter for some extra time as a punishment for what I considered my
opponent's unjustifiable claim and he denied it to me. OK, I accept that,
but in what circumstances do you envision the player who is trying to
win will get extra time as mentioned in Article 10. Martin Hammond
(England)

Answer Article 10.2 says clearly, that, after the arbiter has postponed his
decision, he MAY award two extra minutes thinking time to the
opponent of the claimant. The word "MAY" is intentional, to give the
arbiter the freedom of judgement to make a correct decision. Therefore
do not expect clear statements from my side. In general, time will be
added when the opponent is really disturbed and he can well use this
extra time. Also see my last sentence of the previous answer. 

Question Dear Mr Gijssen, In a recent tournament in Spain I asked
repeatedly (5 or 6 times) that my opponent writes the moves of the game.
I also asked the arbiter twice to require my opponent to write the moves.
Could you tell me something about the specific international rule?
Thanks. Fabio Casagrande (Italy)

Answer Article 8.4 says"If a player has less than five minutes on his
clock and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added
with each move [i.e. Fischer modus] he is not obliged to meet the
requirements of Article 8.1" [where it is written that the players have to
write the moves]. BrieflyIf the tournament is played pursuant to the
Fischer modus and 30 seconds or more per move is added, the player
must always write the move; in "normal" games the player has to write
the moves when he has more than 5 minutes on his clock. In addition,
you wrote that you told your opponent 5 or 6 times that he should write
down the moves. I understand your actions, but what you did is not
allowed. You may not talk to your opponent. Your opponent has the
right to go to the arbiter and inform him that you were disturbing him.
What should you have done? Simply go to the arbiter and inform him
that your opponent was not recording the moves.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen. I know there is a lot to say about the current
format of the FIDE World Championships, but is a knock-out system
really necessary and does it reflect the "real" new champion? I think so, I
like the system and know that it has a lot of merit. The problem with a
knock-out system is that players travel far just to be knocked out of the
event.

In our local tournament (Eastern Province Closed Championships 1999
to be held during the first three weekends of September) we are applying
the following - this is the format of the tournament1. All together, 20
players participate. 2. The players selected are as followsThe winners of
the 3 major tournaments held previously during the year and the winner
of the "Closed" of the previous year. In other words - they qualify by
right. The next top 12 rated players according to the latest local rating
list. The next top 4 performers. 3. The tournament consist of 6 rounds
(round 6 being the finals). 4. Round 1 is played between the top 12 rated
players and the top 4 performers. 5. The 4 "tournament winners" join the
other players in Round 2. 6. Round 1 is a knock-out event. If the player
loses his match he immediately gets knocked out of the tournament.
From round 2 to round 5, a player only gets knocked out of the event
once he has lost his SECOND match. 7. The final is a single round robin
event played between the 6 players who made it through the knock out
stages. 8. From round 2 onwards, the winners of the previous round(s)
are paired together and the losers of the previous round (excluding round
1) are paired together. This continues until round 5. 9.During all rounds
(except finals) the players play each other twice (white and black each)
at a rate of 30 moves in 1 hours + 30 minutes extra to complete. If the
scores are tied, they play 2 rapid games (20/20). If the scores are still
tied, they play 2 blitz games (5/5). If the scores are still tied, they play
one final sudden death game (white receives 6 minutes and black 5
minutes - if the game is drawn, black is declared the winner of the
match). The time control for the finals is the same as the first two games
of the other rounds.

What do you think about this system? Does it hold more merit than a
normal knock out event? Would grandmasters participate in such a
tournament? I think it to be great as it creates a competitive spirit among
the players and "amazingly" attracts spectators.

I'll be glad if you could respond to this. Gunther van den Bergh (South
Africa)

Answer Your idea is very interesting, but still, the losers of the first
round have to go home immediately. In 1993 the Hoogovens
Tournament introduced a knockout format. Players who were eliminated,
went to an open tournament and, depending on the round in which they
were eliminated, they received some bonus points. After one year the
tournament committee decided to re-instate the round-robin tournaments.
Regarding the World Championship knock-out tournament, I would like
to remark that the losers in the first round received $4800. This
comfortably covered their expenses. Secondly, I did not hear any
complaints from players about the format.

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
and 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 First of all, as long a piece does not touch the board, the player
is allowed to promote to another piece. But consider the followingA
player stops the clocks, summons the arbiter and requests a piece, which
is not available for the player at that moment. The arbiter provides the
player with this piece, but then the player promotes to a piece, which
was available before. In such a situation it is possible that the arbiter
decides that the opponent was disturbed and will punish the player
accordingly. However, I can imagine, that there are situations that a
player acted as I described before and the arbiter will not punish him.
The player discovers for instance at the last moment that he created a
stalemate by promoting to a Queen. Then, in my opinion, it is completely
acceptable that he takes an available Rook instead of the non-available
Queen. You see that I do not like to give a general rule, but I rely on the
common sense of the arbiter. 