

An Arbiter's Notebook
by Geurt Gijssen

Conflicting Captains

As I have already mentioned several times in prior columns, the
Laws of Chess will be revised during the FIDE Congress in Istanbul
in November 2000. The Rules Committee will propose some minor
changes and a few radical changes. These changes are based on
proposals from chess federations, in particular from Scotland,
Russia and The Netherlands. And I am very happy with their
proposals. But the majority of the changes is based on letters and
questions I received from you, the readers at The Chess Cafe. Dear
readers, you are very important and I would like to thank you for
contributing to the proposals we shall offer to the General
Assembly. At least 80% of the changes have come from you. I want
to remind you that you may still submit your comments about the
proposed revisions until July 22. You will find them at The Chess
Cafe at: www.chesscafe.com/catalog/fide.htm In the meantime, I
have received a lot of reaction from readers; it is overwhelming and
nobody will be surprised when I tell you that Article 10.2, the
definition of mating potential and taking the king in Blitz games are
the topics.

Comment With regards to the touch-move rule, I agree with your
response to Richard Evans (Scotland) that a player who uses his
own piece to touch his opponent's piece has to capture the
opponent's piece, if that is a legal move. We have this situation
occur frequently in junior tournaments, and I rule that the player's
piece is an extension of his hand in this circumstance. An analogous
situation occurs in criminal law, which states that if a person or a
part of a tool he is using enters a property, then that person has
committed the offence of break-and-enter. John Coleman
(Canada)

Question Accelerated pairings in a Swiss type of tournament: (1)
When should they be used? (2) In the situation when ties need to be
broken, would you still use the progression (sum of cumulative
scores)? Recall that low-rated players have an easier time in
accelerated rounds than the high-rated ones. Michel Arsenault
(Canada)

Answer I should explain several things before answering your
questions.

What are accelerated pairings? In a Swiss tournament it is usual
that the first half of a group of players plays against the second half
with the same score. For instance: we have a tournament with 100
players. We place these 100 players in rating order and in the first
round the numbers 1-50 will play against the numbers 51 100.
There are two systems for this (I do not consider the colours): 1-51,
2-52, 3-53   50-100 or 1-100, 2-99, 3-98, 4-97, 50-51. In a Swiss
tournament with accelerated pairings the group of 100 players are
divided in four groups: group A contains players 1-25, group B 26-
50, group C 51-75 and group D 76-100. With accelerated pairings,
the players in group A play against the players of group B, the
players in group C play against the players in group D. The pairings
are in this case: 1-26, 2-27   25-50, 51-76, 52-77   75-100 or 1-
50, 2-49   25-26, 51-100, 52-99   75-76.

In my example I made 4 groups, but it is also possible to make 6
groups and then A plays B, C plays D and E plays F.

What is the progression (sum of cumulative scores)? Normally we
call this score the progressive score. Suppose the score of a player is
as follows:

The sum of the total scores after each round is the progressive score,
in the example:
1 + 1 + 1.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 3 + 4 + 4.5 + 5 = 25 is the progressive
score of this player.

To be honest, I do not like this criterion to decide the final ranking
of a tournament. It only reflects how one's score increases. Players
who finish strongly have an advantage. There is only one
"advantage" in using this method: the players can calculate, before
the start of the last round, how they have to play to guarantee a
certain prize. I am not sure that this is an advantage, because it is
well known that in many open tournaments the results of the last
round are fixed by the players. And the progressive score approach
makes their task easier.

The most logical way to decide tiebreaks is, in my opinion, the
following: if the pairings are based on ratings the final standings
must be based on ratings as well, for example, the Tournament
Performance Rating (TPR); if the pairings are made with Buchholz
scores, the final standings in a score group must also be based on
Buchholz scores. This is the only correct way.

Question I play many blitz games on the net and am unclear on the
exact ruling of a draw. In numerous games an opponent, ahead by a
few seconds in a two- or five-minute game where a positional draw
is evident, repeats moves and positions thinking if he or she does so
fifty times or more that they will win on time. I've insisted the
repetition draw rule applies to blitz but they argue that it does not.
Secondly, does the repetition draw rule vary according to the
differing chess governing bodies such as FIDE, USCF, or the
WBCA, etc.  If so, how does it differ? Christopher Willard (USA)

Answer Let me state what the FIDE Laws of Chess say about it. In
the Blitz Rules of FIDE there is no exception regarding Article 9.
This means that a player can claim a draw pursuant this Article. He
can claim a threefold repetition of position and he can claim a draw
pursuant to the 50-move rule. There is only one problem. How to
prove this? There is no scoresheet available. In blitz tournaments
there are many players but few arbiters, with the result that the
arbiters cannot observe all games. In short, I note that theoretically
there is no problem, but for practical purposes, there is a problem
and I do not see a solution at the moment. Perhaps one of the new
proposals in the proposed revised laws could be considered. This
proposal is that a player can claim a draw the same way as in Article
10 (Quickplay finish) when he has less than one minute and his
opponent is not making any effort to win the game by normal
means. However I have the feeling that the majority of the arbiters
would be against this proposal.

Question In your previous column, you stated that the game in
question would have been declared a draw if it had been a blitz
game. However, if the white rook were to be placed on b1 for
example (with the remaining pieces in the positions shown)
wouldn't that meet the requirement for forced mate in 1 with the
losing side on move? R-b7 would be forced, with BxR mate to
follow. Keith C. Rose (USA)

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen: I was wondering if the game presented
by Martin Fierz was really a draw under the Laws of Blitz chess
when I found the following position (See Diagram):

White: Ka8, Ra3; pawn - a7
Black: Kc8, Bh3

Black moves 1...Bg2+ and after White's best move 2 Rf3, Black's
2 Bxf3++ wins by mate. Should the game still be considered
drawn under the Laws of Blitz chess? Ramon Etxeberria (Spain)

Answer When I saw these two letters about the same subject I asked
myself if I had made a mistake. And I have to admit that I was
wrong.

To illustrate what Article C4 says, let us look to the example giving
in this article. It is written that two Knights and a King against a
lone King is insufficient, i.e. no mating potential. Let us look at the
following position (See Diagram): 

White: Kg6, Nf6, Ne5. 
Black: Kg8. 

If Black plays ...Kh8 he will be mated next move, but ...Kh8 is not
forced; Black can avoid mate by playing ...Kf8. And this is exactly
what the Article tries to say: Mating potential is defined as adequate
material which may eventually produce a mating position legally,
possibly by 'helpmate' where an opponent having the move cannot
avoid being mated in one move. In the examples given in the letters
it is not possible to avoid mate in one, meaning there is mating
potential. In the ending King + 2 Knights vs King Black can avoid
mate at each move, therefore no mating potential and draw.

Question Hi Geurt, I like your column very much. I have a question
about time control. But first I want to explain a situation. I am
playing on a team (of 8) in the local chess league. Our local rules
say that the two team captains together act as an arbiter. This causes
some problems, not the least is when each has a different position!

Then there is the problem of time controls, because the team
captains may have problems with their own time! Well, my question
is, how to do a regular time control (40/2) and then any continuation
as all moves in 1 hour or 20/1 and then all moves in 30 minutes.
Sometimes the players do not know how many moves they have
MADE; is the arbiter involved regardless of the wishes of the
players? Tom Dette (Germany)

Answer: In my opinion there is something wrong in the regulations
of the league in which you play. First of all, you state that there are
two arbiters (the team captains) with equal responsibility. I am of
the opinion that one arbiter should be appointed who would have
responsibility for the match. Another one can be his assistant. For
instance, the captain of the home team is the chief arbiter and the
captain of the visiting team is his assistant. This makes the matters
already a little bit clearer.

But my next point is: Should a captain also be the arbiter? I do not
think so. There is clearly a conflict here. In addition, it appears that
the captain/arbiter can also be a player. So we have the combination
player/arbiter/captain. In Holland, you may not be both a player and
an arbiter. You have already identified one potential problem. If the
arbiter himself is in time trouble, how can he observe another game?
And what has priority, his game or another game in which two
players are in time trouble and are not able to write the moves?
 
I hope it is very clear what you have to do: propose as soon as
possible that a player may not be the arbiter of a team match. In
Holland we have the rule that the home team must provide a non-
playing arbiterg. And if the home team has no arbiter available, the
club has to provide a neutral arbiter.

I wrote in my previous columns about the Dutch Championship.
You may recall that a computer participated in this tournament.
Currently there is a grandmaster tournament in Dortmund
(Germany) and in this tournament a computer is also participating. I
received a phone call from one of the arbiters about the regulations
for games between a computer and a human. He remembered the
Dutch Championship and thought we had some special regulatioins.
When I received this phone call I was in a tournament in Munich
and I discussed this with GM John Nunn. Based on the regulations
of the Dutch Championship we created regulations for the
tournament in Dortmund. It is my opinion that we will see increased
participation by computers in tournaments. Therefore it is probably
a good idea to publish the regulations we devised. Please let us
know what you think of these regulations 

  Regulations for games between a player and a
                   computer.
 Some remarks:
    1.   "Computer" means in these regulations the combination of a
    computer and a computer program.
  2.     The operator must be sufficiently qualified to operate the
  computer.
    3.   The computer may use any resources, which have been
    programmed before the start of the game and the existence of
    those resources (e.g. opening books, endgame databases)
    must be declared in advance.
    4.   The player should not have any responsibilities above and
    beyond those he would have against a human being.
Laws:
       1.     The FIDE Laws of Chess will be applied, unless they are
       overridden by the following Articles.
       2.     The operator may not be replaced during the game
       without permission of the arbiter.
       3.     The game itself will be played on a normal chessboard
       with normal pieces and the clock prescribed for the
       event.
       4.     The operator may have an assistant when he installs the
       computer program before the game. During the game the
       installation may not be changed.
       5.     Only the following actions of the operator are allowed
       during the game:
          a)  to enter the player's moves into the computer.
          b)  to make the computer's moves on the chessboard and
          to press the clock.
          c)  to record the moves and the elapsed times of the
          player and the computer.
          d)  to offer, to accept and to reject the offer of a draw on
          behalf of the computer.
          e)  to claim a draw according Article 9.2, 9.3 or 10.2 of
          the Laws of Chess on behalf of the computer.
          f)  to resign the game on behalf of the computer.
          g)  to sign the scoresheets after the game.
          h)  to correct technical errors; this includes the
          replacement of the computer (see Articles 7 and 8).
          These actions must take place under the supervision
          of the arbiter.
          i)  to change the clock times of the computer, if the
          difference between the clock times of the computer
          and the official clocks is too big. This must take
          place under the supervision of the arbiter.
       6.     If the operator makes a wrong move on the chessboard
       and therefore the position of the computer differs from
       the position on the chessboard, the position of the
       computer must be changed. This change must be made
       under the supervision of the arbiter. The clocks must be
       stopped while the change is being made. The player will
       receive 5 minutes extra time.
       7.     In cases of external disturbances (for instance or no
       electric power), extra time will be given, according to the
       discretion of the arbiter.
       8.     If an internal disturbance of the computer occurs while
       the computer's clock is running, then the clock shall
       continue to run while the disturbance is resolved. If an
       internal disturbance occurs while the player's clock is
       running, then the player has the right to stop his clock
       and to start the computer's clock without making a
       move. When the disturbance is resolved, the player's
       clock will be restarted.
       9.     In cases not foreseen in these regulations, the arbiter will
       decide.

I intend to offer these regulations to FIDE, but before doing so I
would be very happy to receive comments from the readers at The
Chess Cafe.

From June 29 until July 2 I was in Istanbul. As you probably know,
this autumn, the 34th Chess Olympiad will be organised in this
Turkish city. I know there are some doubts whether this Olympiad
shall be organised here or not. Especially after the earthquake last
year, many thought that it would not be possible to organise such an
event.

I was really surprised about the progress the organisers have already
made. They are excellent organisers, although not all chessplayers,
and I left Istanbul with very positive feelings. The playing hall is
nice, although I would prefer one that is a little bit bigger. The hall
is in the centre of Istanbul and all hotels are within walking distance
to the playing hall. There are good restaurants in the neighbourhood.
I am very optimistic. In August I will go to Ankara to train Turkish
arbiters for the Olympiad. I will keep you posted.

From July 3 until July 15, there was another "dance" tournament in
Munich organised by the Association Max Euwe in Monaco. This
was the ninth tournament between veterans and ladies, a
Scheveningen tournament, this time called the Schuhplattler Chess
tournament after a Bavarian dance. The ladies won with a score of
27-23. The star of the tournament was again the 69-year-old Victor
Korchnoi, who scored 7.5 out of 10, gaining 12 Elo points. Some
players are inclined to make short draws, but Korchnoi plays every
game with only one goal: he wants to win. Around his board I, as an
arbiter, always feel the tension. In my next Notebook I will give you
some examples of what happened in his games.

Before closing this month, allow me to mention one incident. After
9 rounds, Hans Bouwmeester, a Dutch IM, had made only 3 draws.
In the last round he played against the Chinese top player Zhu Chen.
At one point he had a totally won position (several pawns up in the
ending) and the lady did not resign. This was probably too much for
the veteran and suddenly he said to his opponent: "please be polite".
His opponent reacted immediately and told him to be polite and not
to speak to her during the game. This incident was related to me
after the game by both players. Apparently they spoke so softly that
nobody heard them, but it did reflect some of the tension during the
tournament.

