An Arbiter's Notebook
By Geurt Gijssen

Again, Article 10

Question Dear Geurt, Because of a draw claim under Appendix D, 
it has come to my attention that 10.2 does not state that it must be a 
player's move when he makes a claim. It is irrelevant to the actual 
claim made as that was in a position that looks clearly lost to me. I 
can't believe we intended to allow claims when it was the 
opponent's move. Stewart Reuben (England)

Answer Of course, you are completely right. Claims regarding the 
position on the board are only possible for the player who has the 
move. We have to correct this during the next congress in Istanbul. 
For the moment, a reference to the Preface of the Laws of Chess is, 
in my opinion, sufficient: it should be possible to reach a correct 
decision by studying analogous situations that are discussed in the 
Laws.

Question Dear Sirs, I am member of the Arbitrage Court of the 
Swiss Chess Federation. I should be grateful if you could send me 
documentation about jurisprudence related to the application of the 
official FIDE Laws of chess. Furthermore do you know a good 
book on this topic? Guy Sauberli (Switzerland)

Answer There is no "official jurisprudence" about the FIDE Laws. 
As we have the ability to change the Laws every four years (and 
this year we have again this possibility), we do not need such 
jurisprudence. When we have new cases or we need an 
interpretation of the Laws, we change them. But I have to add the 
following: every year, during the FIDE congress, there are 
meetings of the Rules Committee. In these meetings, actual 
situations are discussed and sometimes the Rules Committee takes 
a decision about how to interpret a Law. These very rare decisions 
are published in the minutes of the Congress and sent to all 
federations. Another, but unofficial, way is the Arbiter's Notebook 
at The Chess Caf‚ - the Chairman of the Rules Committee gives 
his personal opinion to readers' questions about the Laws of Chess. 
There exists one book about the Laws of Chess, with explanations 
of the Laws and some other interesting topics for arbiters:
Stewart Reuben: The Chess Organiser's Handbook, published by 
Cadogan, London and New York.
I also like very much FIDE Schachregeln 1997, published by the 
Swiss Chess Federation. There are a lot of practical examples in 
this booklet.

Question Wooden chessboards come in all sizes with the most 
popular individual square size ranging from 2 inches to 2 1/2 
inches. I was wondering if someone can tell me if there is an 
official size for the individual board squares, chess piece height 
and chess piece base diameter. If there is no official size can you 
tell me about the sizes used in recent or past world championship 
and/or candidates events? Thanks. David Ridge (UK)

Answer There is no official size for the individual board squares 
and pieces. But in all official FIDE events, we use now 
chessboards with squares of 5.5 cm x 5.5 cm and the whole board 
is 52 cm x 52 cm. The height of the King is 9.6 cm. The base 
diameter of a pawn is 2.75 cm.

Question Dear Mr Gijssen, Can you resolve an incident that 
occurred in a speed game but could also be relevant to a sudden 
death finish? I am ahead on material but very short of time. I am 
trying to capture pieces so that my opponent will not have mating 
material. I touch his last pawn and lift it from the board but my flag 
falls before I can complete the capture. My argument (disallowed 
by the arbiter) is that my only legal move, having touched his 
Pawn, will bring about a drawn position. By analogy with the 
situation where mate is given before the flag falls, an event on the 
board has made the clock irrelevant. What is your opinion? Phil 
Roe (USA)

Answer Unfortunately for you, the arbiter made, in my opinion, 
the correct decision.
You may not compare your case with a given checkmate. The 
Laws say that a checkmate finishes the game immediately and all 
that happens afterwards is therefore irrelevant.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I was deputy arbiter in the "World 
Cup of Active Chess" in Cap d'Agde (France), one year ago. The 
players (Karpov, Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Polgar and others) were very 
nice and correct, and we had no problems. But during a tiebreak 
(blitz in 5 min.) a strange situation occurred in the game Karpov-
Adianto. The game was almost finished and Karpov had only a few 
seconds on his clock. He found a perpetual check, and Adianto 
accepted the draw. As Karpov won the first game, this draw meant 
he qualified. What would happen if a player refuses the draw and 
continues to play a perpetual check in blitz? In the Laws of Chess, 
perpetual check doesn't exist and according to blitz rules C5. 
"Article 10.2 does not apply". The player can move his king, 
waiting for his opponent's flag to fall. This situation is absurd, 
maybe it is absurd to play blitz and you must accept that time is 
more important than the position. My question is simple: Can I 
punish a player who refuses an obvious draw in blitz? Stephane 
Escafre (France)

Answer No, you cannot punish such a player, because he is not 
doing anything wrong. First of all, I have to emphasise that in blitz 
games, the clock plays a more important role than in normal 
games. But also important is that almost all "normal" Laws are 
valid in blitz chess. A player can claim a draw on the basis of triple 
repetition of the position or the 50-move rule. And he does not 
have to show a scoresheet. The arbiter must check the claim and 
this is the problem. How to check it? In prestigious tournaments -
and I consider the tournament you mentioned a prestigious one - all 
games are played on computer boards, which register all the 
moves. In the Amber tournament in Monaco, we even have a 
crosscheck: all games are recorded on videotape. Every incident 
(touched piece) can be checked. I agree with you that there is a big 
problem if you do not have this help. But in general, if you expect 
this a kind of a problem, try to count at least the number of moves 
played (50-move rule) or try to write the moves down (triple 
repetition).

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I never ceased to be amazed by the 
imagination of those who want to win at all cost. I have witnessed 
the following situation: in an ending, white is a pawn up in a 
theoretically won position but the player has clearly no knowledge 
of the technique required to win. Black has about 5 minutes left on 
his clock. The player with the white pieces starts playing a long 
series of useless moves; he is obviously making no effort to win by 
normal means. When there are about 2 minutes 30 seconds left on 
black's clock, the player suddenly launches an attack and black 
must defend in time pressure. White's tactic has effectively 
removed half of black's remaining time. White's attempt at a win 
was reckless and should have failed if met with a perfect defence, 
but under time pressure black committed a terrible blunder that lost 
instantly. Black could not made any claim because he had more 
than 2 minutes left on his when his opponent did not make any 
effort to win by normal means. 

I'm concerned because there seems to be no limits: if there were 20 
minutes left on black's clock, some unsportsmanlike person might 
want to play 100 useless moves to reduce the opponent's time to 
very near two minutes before attacking. This brings us to an 
interesting question: Article B5 states that "The arbiter shall make 
a ruling according to Articles 4 and 10, only if requested to do so 
by one or both players". It can be inferred that in a normal game 
the arbiter can apply article 10 even without any claim from a 
player, otherwise there would be no need to forbid the arbiter from 
doing so in rapid play. According to article 10.2, the player cannot 
claim unless he has less then 2 minutes on his clock, but does this 
restriction applies to the arbiter when he decides to apply article 10 
in the absence of a claim from one of the player? In other words, 
could the arbiter, who was standing near the board and saw 
everything, have decided to stop this game and declared the game 
drawn?

The arbiter wasn't sure if the two minutes limit applies to him, so 
he let the players play even if he would have declared the game 
drawn if there would have been less than two minutes left when the 
sequence of useless moves has been played. If a Fischer clock had 
been used there would have been no problem because it was an 
easy task to reply to the useless moves in less then 30 seconds. 
Black's remaining time would have increased as long as white 
continued to engage in  "dirty tricks". Pierre Denomm‚e 
(Canada)

Answer I can understand that you were not happy when you saw 
this game, but White did nothing wrong in my opinion. These 
tactics may not be entirely out of place in chess. It is a pity that you 
did not attend the meetings of the rules Committee when we made 
the new Laws of Chess. The main issue was how far the 
responsibility of the arbiter should go. There were two opinions: 
the game is the responsibility of the two players only and the 
arbiter shall not interfere at all - even notifying the players that a 
flag has fallen is the responsibility of the players in all kind of 
chess: normal, rapid and blitz chess. The other opinion was that the 
arbiter should interfere in rapid and blitz chess. After this 
introduction, you may understand how a compromise was reached. 
Article 4 (The act of moving the pieces) and Article 10 (Quickplay 
finish) will be applied in Rapid chess only after a claim from one 
of the players. Notifying the players about a flag fall is not the 
responsibility of the arbiter. 

But I have to add something: in the World Championship 
Tournament we have different rules. In the tiebreak games (Rapid 
and Blitz games) we use the normal Laws of chess with only one 
exception: the players are not obliged to write the moves. It is also 
very important that for each tiebreak game an arbiter is available. 
And I must say that this system is perfect. It was my proposal to 
use the normal Laws of chess in these tiebreak games. The reason 
is that it should be a shame that the title should go to a player due 
to the fact that his opponent had not seen that the flag of the player 
had fallen. By the way, claims based on article 10 were not 
possible (Fischer modus!)

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen I would like to ask you the following: 
(1) is a suggestion to the Laws and (2) & (3) are problems I hope 
you can help me with. Melody van den Bergh (South Africa)

(1) This was mentioned in a previous article and I feel it worth 
mentioning again. Article 10.2 does not apply to Blitz games 
(Appendix C5: "Article 10.2 does not apply.").
I have witnessed many blitz games where the player who is totally 
winning (more material and complete winning position) actually 
lost on time. Does it make sense that this player must also be 
protected from losing the game purely on time, as is the case with 
Rapidplay games where a player (with less than 2 minutes left on 
his clock and who is winning the game) may claim a draw?

Maybe for blitz games the following rule can be applied: "If a 
player has less than 1 minute left on his clock, he may claim a draw 
before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the 
arbiter. 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 the arbiter shall declare the game drawn. 
Otherwise the arbiter shall declare the game lost to the player who 
made the claim".
What do you think? The biggest problem with this is: imagine the 
accusations and insults to an arbiter who declares a game lost while 
the player actually thinks that he is winning! 

Answer In your last sentence you mentioned already one of the 
problems, but there are more. In blitz tournaments there is usually a 
very strict schedule. The application of Article 10 causes many 
(sometime) long discussions and I am very afraid that organisers 
are not able to maintain a proper schedule; this is a practical 
problem. Furthermore blitz games are very special and the winning 
chances in one game often switch many times from one to the other 
one. I think it is quite clear that I am against your suggestion.

(2) Article 12.4 reads: "The players are not allowed to leave the 
'playing venue' without permission from the arbiter. The playing 
venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, 
area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the 
arbiter. The player having the move is not allowed to leave the 
playing area without permission of the arbiter." My problem is: 
What is the playing area? Is it the board, table and chairs or does it 
include the whole playing hall?

Answer The playing area is the area in the playing hall where the 
boards are situated. Only players, arbiters and stewards are allowed 
to enter this area. For instance, the spectators' area in the playing 
hall does not belong to the playing area.

(3) What to do in the following situation: Players A and B are about to start their 
game. Player A informs the arbiter that due to religious reasons, he cannot write 
the moves or press the clock for the duration of the game. Player B also refuses 
to press Player A's clock. There is also no one (spectators, helpers, etc.) available 
who can press Player A's clock for him. Due to the tournament schedule it is also 
impossible to play the game at some other time. What action must an arbiter take 
under these circumstances? This actually happened to me once - out of 
desperation, in order not to disturb the other players and disrupt the tournament 
schedule, I declared the game drawn. Luckily both players were happy with my 
decision. But what action should have been taken if both players objected? 

Answer First of all, I should mention that it is not at all acceptable 
that the arbiter is informed by a player at the moment the game is 
about to start. An arbiter must have the possibility to take needed, 
timely measures. This means in your case, that the arbiter has to do 
his utmost to find an assistant, but if he is unable to find somebody, 
the game is forfeited. When you ask me what action the arbiter 
should take in case he cannot find an assistant, then my answer is 
very simple: start the clock and see what shall happen.

The fact that a player is not allowed to write the moves is covered 
in the Laws of Chess. Article 8.1 says: "If a player, due to physical 
or religious reasons, is unable to keep score, an amount of time, 
decided by the arbiter, shall be deducted from his allotted time at 
the beginning of the game".

That a player is not allowed to press the clock is a new 
phenomenon. It happened to me for the first time during the 
Olympiad in Elista 1998. GM Boris Gulko (USA) informed me 
that he was not allowed to press the clock during some special holy 
Jewish days. Whenever this happened, I spoke with the captain of 
the opponent. Almost every time the captain agreed that a 
Kalmykian boy should press the clock of the player who was not 
allowed pressing the clock. In one case the opponent's captain 
refused and I told the American captain, Larry Christiansen, that a 
reserve player should play instead of Gulko. And this is what 
happened.

Question Sir, For many years now, we have experimented with the "sudden 
death": Say, 1 hour for each player in the last part of the game. Since now the 
duration of the game (in time) is strictly limited, why keep the obligation to play 
a definite number of moves in the first part (say, a time control of 40 moves/2 
hours)? Giving instead 3 hours to mate to each player (4 hours at the 
international level, maybe), would allow them to use more time in a complex 
middlegame, if they wish, provided they play faster afterwards. Players would 
enjoy more freedom, including the freedom to err. And making decisions, good 
or bad, is the core of life, and chess also! Removing intermediate time controls 
would also make it easier for the arbiter and put an end to disputes about losses 
on time around the 40th move. I have put this question on a few forums already, 
and I can't believe this idea has never been tried before. What is your opinion? 
Richard Sauve (Canada)

Answer I am not so sure that your idea is a good one. Let me tell 
you why. It is my opinion that with a time limit of 3 or even 4 
hours for the whole game per player and one session we shall have 
more problems. It may happen in many games that players shall 
play very slowly and that in these 3 or 4 hours more or less the 
same number of moves will be played as in 2 hours. With more 
time controls, the players are forced to play 40 moves in the first 
period, again 20 moves in the second period, meaning that we have 
a guarantee of at least 60 moves at the start of the third period with 
very probably an endgame position. If we should have only one 
overall time control, I am sure that the arbiters would have to make 
decisions about claims with middlegame positions on the board. 
The simplest solution is still to play the Fischer modus.
