An Arbiter's Notebook
by Geurt Gijssen

The Right Hand

In this Arbiter's Notebook I will again answer questions from
readers of The Chess Caf‚.

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: What happens in the following case?
Player A offers a draw to player B. Before player B can accept the
offer his flag falls and player A claims a win. However, player B
says that the draw offer is still valid and accepts the draw. Is this
game a draw or a win for A? Dennis Breuker (The Netherlands)

Answer: The game is a win for player A. Article 6.9 says: "If a
player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the
allotted time, the game is lost by the player. 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: Dear Mr. Gijssen: I write to congratulate you for your
excellent column, maybe the only place where chess arbiters can
share our opinions, and get a fresh update of the discussions of the
rules committee. 

My suggestion is making a condensed table of the rules that
includes the most practical rules in each time control. We can use it
for easy reference, and even distribute it to the players, as there is a
dismal lack of knowledge of the rules, even among very
experienced players. In my opinion, such table should include 4
columns 1. Normal and Fischer clock; 2. Quickplay finish; 3.
Rapidplay; and 4. Blitz. 

The issues suggested are: 1. Time allotted; 2. Three repetitions of a
position; 3. 50 moves without movement of pawn nor capture; 4.
Illegal move; 5. Arbiter should interfere to point a flag fallen; 6.
Minimum material to claim a win in time; 7. Possibility of
claiming draw for a player short in time with winning position
(example: a full piece ahead in the middlegame); and 8. Possibility
of claiming a draw for a player short in time in a clearly drawn
position. (Any other suggestions?)

With this table, most of the doubts could be easily answered, and
the players soon will get a better understanding of the rules.
Besides, this could point up some of the inconsistencies of the
current chess rules. In my opinion, there are two clear ones:

1. The "minimum material" to win on time is far more liberal in
slower time controls than in fast ones. In my opinion, the rule used
in blitz (possibility of forcing mate in the next move) is the best for
all the tournaments. 2. The player can claim a draw for issues
numbers 7 and 8 (above), in quickplay finish and Rapidplay, but
not in blitz. This should be corrected in the next rules. The
proposal of IA Keles looks like a good practical possibility, even
though I would like one only rule for quickplay finish, Rapidplay
and blitz. Still, I think Keles' proposal is better suited to the
dynamic of the blitz tournaments.

If you can post that table (and even including in the preface to the
rules), it would be a great help. IA Eduardo Sauceda (Mexico)

Answer: Your idea is very good. I intend to make such a table and,
after it has been approved by the Rules Committee, I will publish
it.

Question: Thank you for your most excellent column - a must for
all organisers and players. I played in a Rapidplay tournament this
last weekend and was involved in two incidents in successive
rounds. In round 3, I was winning, as white, a bishop v knight
ending. (See Diagram)

White: Kh5, Bd3; pawns - a4, g4
Black: Kc5, Ne5; pawns - a5, b6

Black had stopped the clocks with 2 minutes left and claimed a
draw. The game continued, all the time White was playing for a
win and indeed was winning, the winning procedure being to keep
the bishop on the f1-a6 diagonal, push the g-pawn, and force Black
to sacrifice the Knight. Black had the very bare minimum of time
left here, but White made the incredible error 1 Bc2? Black then
played 1...Nxg4 2. Kxg4 b5 and claimed a draw. White took the
pawn on b5 and the Black flag fell. If he had had time to play
another move, he would undoubtedly have played 3...Kxb5 and a
draw ensues. However White has mating material on the board. 

For me what was significant was that all of the time I had playing
for a win, at no stage were moves repeated (in retrospect this might
have been an easier option in view of Black chronic time shortage,
though 1. Bf1 might have induced resignation). So because White
makes one slack move, Black gets a draw; what is to stop Black
making one too - however unlikely? The TD was very poor (this
was agreed upon by most players) and seemed incapable of making
a decision. Unfortunately other players became involved, which the
TD should not have allowed, and certainly a lot of bad feeling was
aroused (but not between the two players themselves). The TD
ruled a draw.

In the next round a mutual time scramble occurred. My flag fell,
my opponent had a little time left when a schoolboy spectator
pointed out that I had lost on time. I was very annoyed and stated
that I was not prepared to accept a loss as my opponent's flag might
have fallen. My opponent suggested that both players be given two
extra minutes. The TD, in his wisdom, awarded me a zero! I later
discovered that this same TD had, the week before, awarded a draw
to a two-fold repetition! He is apparently a qualified TD but is
short on experience. Was I unlucky, stupid or should I have had
more points from this unfortunate double? Laurence Ball (South
Africa)

Answer: Let us analyse what happened in the third-round game.
First of all, one of the players stopped the clocks and claimed a
draw, apparently using Article 10 of the Laws of Chess. A player
has the right to claim such a draw, also in rapid games, but this is a
very clear case where the arbiter should postpone his decision. I
understand that the arbiter ordered the game to continue. This was
a correct decision. The game continued and then we had the
following position: White: Kg4, Bc2, pawn b5 Black: Kc5, pawn
a5. Black has the move and at this moment his flag fell. After
Kxb5 the position is a draw. I myself would also have declared the
game a draw. The arbiter's decision was completely correct.

The incident in the fourth round is also interesting. Signalling a
flag fall is the responsibility of the player. Even the arbiter shall
refrain from it. Unfortunately an innocent (?) schoolboy pointed
out that your flag had fallen and your opponent claimed a win. I
understand that you were very annoyed, because the game is a
draw when your opponent's flag has fallen as well. If there was
enough time for another game, my decision would have been to
play another game, even with less time on the clocks for both
players. If this is impossible - and in rapid tournaments this is often
the case - I do not see another decision other than that which the
TD made. I agree with his decision, although I must say that I can
see how this made you feel very unhappy.

Question: Dear Mr Gijssen: Thank you for your outstanding Chess
Caf‚ column and especially your attempts to inform arbiters of the
many pitfalls of Rule 10.2. On Stewart Reuben's comments about
who the rule is meant to protect, I have had some players with
clearly won positions forced to claim draws under Rule 10.2 after
their opponents (who were in win-or-nothing positions in the
event) refused draw offers. If the arbiter defers his decision and the
claimant's flag later falls, what (apart from the final position and
the game up to then) do you think the arbiter should take into
account in making a final decision? 

Firstly, should the claimant be allowed to say why his opponent
couldn't win the final position by "normal means"? I am wary of
this because any analysis the claimant presents might have been
done after flag fall. Secondly, is it fair to take the claimant's
playing strength into account? In a club event there was a claim by
White (with 40 seconds left), to move, in this position (See
Diagram):

White: Kf1, Ba3 
Black: Kh3; pawns - f3, g3.

I knew, even before White claimed, that after 1.Bd6, Black could
make no progress. Even after 1. Bc5 White can still force a draw.
Doubting that White would see 1. Bd6, I deferred my decision and
White played 1. Kg1 f2+ 2. Kf1 g2+ 3.Kxf2 Kh2 4.Bd6+ Kh1 0-1.
But what if White had claimed earlier and his flag had then fallen
in the starting position above? Should such positions be ruled
drawn in GM tournaments where players would (hopefully) draw
routinely, but not in much lower level chess where many players
would lose whatever their time situation? Kevin Bonham
(Australia)

Answer: Let me digress briefly. I remember the Olympiad in
Yerevan 1996 very well. The time limit in this Olympiad was 40
moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour and finally 30 minutes
for the remaining moves. In the third phase of the game we used an
Article like Article 10 of the current rules. Every time there was a
claim for a draw, GM Yuri Averbakh, probably the greatest expert
of endgames - and a good friend of mine - had to rush over and to
decide whether it was a draw or not. He took a chair, sat down,
investigated the position, did not move any piece and after several
minutes he said: "Draw". In almost all cases his decision was
accepted. To be honest, I was surprised and I disagreed, as there
were several positions in which both players could make a lot of
mistakes and the final result in this cases should not have been a
draw. What I want to say is, as long there are still possibilities to
make blunders, the arbiter should not declare the game draw.

Now to your question: If the starting position you described above
was the position at the moment of the flag fall, I would not declare
the game a draw, unless the situation on the board had not changed
during the last, let us say, 15 moves. The level of the players is not
important, but the moves, made before the flag has fallen, are the
first criterion. 

Question: I played in a non-USCF sponsored league in New York.
We had a dispute a few weeks ago: A teammate stopped recording
his game as the game got interesting. He had recorded about 16
moves and then 16 moves later he had checkmated his opponent.
The game was not even close to the time limit. His opponent
claimed that the game was invalid. My teammate said he was just
"caught up" in the game. What would you rule in this matter?
Thomas Sroczynski (USA)

Answer: Checkmate finishes a game. This means the result stands.
But I would like to make several observations. First of all, the
opponent should, during the game, go to the arbiter and should
demand that the arbiter require the player to record the moves.
Secondly, the arbiter also did not do his job. Article 13.1 says that
the arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed;
one of the Laws is that the players must record the moves. In this
context I would like to mention Article 8.2: The scoresheet shall be
visible to the arbiter at all times.

Question: I have a question that perhaps you can answer for me. A
friend of mine and I were playing a series of 3-minute games
against each other. In one game I got ahead and was one move
away from mating with 2 seconds to show on my clock. When my
friend pushed the clock, I completed the mating move and then the
clock ran out. My friend said that he won because the clock ran
out. I said I won because I completed the move with one second
left on the clock and the mate makes the clock immaterial. If this
had occurred in a tournament, what would have been the ruling?
Jose Olivera Jr. [COUNTRY??]

Answer: First, please allow me to correct you on one point. You
wrote that you completed your move. The definition of completing
a move is: you make the move, you stop your clock and you start
your opponent's clock. You mean that you made your move, this
move mated your opponent's king and you did not press the clock.
In this situation the clock is indeed immaterial, because a
checkmate finishes the game immediately. The same is also the
case when stalemate occurs.

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: I would like to know about the FIDE
laws concerning rapid chess - one hour per person per game. How
many rounds can be organized in a day? How do you think this
kind of tournament should be organized? Abdul Karim
(Pakistan)

Answer: From 1 January 1999 FIDE established FIDE Rapid
Rating Regulations. These regulations were sent to the federations.
I quote from these regulations:

1. For a game to be rated each player must have 15 to 59 minutes
in which to complete all the moves. 2. Alternatively a rate of play
such as: all the moves in 10 minutes but each time a player makes
a move an additional 10 seconds is added to the clock time. In
principal, the initial time plus the add-on time for 60 moves must
be at least 15 minutes. 3. The most usual rates of play are: all the
moves in 25 or 30 minutes; or, all the moves in 20 or 25 minutes,
adding on 10 or 20 seconds each time a move is made. 4. The
FIDE Laws of Chess Annex B. 5. Smoking is banned. 6. Amount
of chess permitted per day: a total playing time of no more than 12
hours. 7. Duration: A period not greater than 30 days, unless
agreed beforehand with the administrator. 8. Unplayed games are
not counted.

You will find the answer to your question in No. 6.

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: In a University blitz tournament I
witnessed the following incident: Player A used his right hand to
capture player B's piece, put his (A's) piece with his right hand to
the destination square but at the same time removed the captured
piece with his left hand. Then he pressed the clock with his right
hand. (So he only used his left hand to remove the captured piece,
but did everything else with his right hand). Player B told him:
"This is not allowed, don't do this again". Later player A did the
same thing a second time and was again blamed in the same way
by player B. When player B's position was hopeless some moves
later, player A again used his left hand to remove a captured piece.
Player B stopped the clock and replied: "Now the game is lost for
you. I have told you twice not to do this." And he insisted to get
the full point for his (according to the position lost) game. Player A
replied: "No, this is not correct. If I have done anything wrong,
then the arbiter can only add a minute to my opponent's clock (to
compensate him for the loss of time by my behaviour) or reduce
my time by a minute. In both cases this will be by far enough to
deliver checkmate." Player B insisted on getting the full point
straight away, put the pieces together and said: "There is no further
discussion".

Now my questions: 1) Is one really not allowed to use the
non-clock hand to remove captured pieces? I remember seeing
even some grandmasters blitzing and doing this. Article 4.1 says:
"Each move must be made with one hand only." So does this apply
also to removing the captured piece or only to the piece that is
moved to another square? 2) If it is not allowed, what is the
punishment in a blitz tournament for this? Was player B right to
claim a win after three of these incidents? Or was player A right
with the time punishments and the game should go on? Or what
else? Achim Engelhart (Germany)

Answer: You have already quoted Article 4.1: Each move must be
made with one hand only. I would also like to call your attention to
Article 6.7b: A player must stop his clock with the same hand as
that with which he made his move. These two Articles are very
clear. Even castling must now be done with one hand.

About the punishment, it is the arbiter, not the player who decides.
It is up to the arbiter which kind of penalty he will impose. Article
13.4 says: Penalties open to the arbiter include: a) a warning b)
increasing the remaining time of the opponent c) reducing the
remaining time of the offending player d) declaring the game to be
lost e) expulsion from the event. In the example you described, I
would increase the remaining time of the opponent and reduce the
remaining time of the offending player, if there is a claim from one
of the players.

Question: Dear Mr Gijssen: According to the new laws of chess
after an illegal move by the opponent in a blitz game one can claim
a win. Why is it no longer allowed to hit the king; this law had
worked well for many years? What happens if the player does hit
the king? R. Coenjaerts (The Netherlands)

Answer: Please refer to the very first Arbiter's Notebook for the
answer to this question.