An Arbiter's Notebook
by Geurt Gijssen

Standing Pat

As you probably know, each year in the month of March, there is a
very special tournament in Monaco, organised by the Max Euwe
Association and sponsored by the Dutchman Joop van Oosterom.
This tournament is named after his oldest daughter Melody Amber.
This year was the ninth edition of this tournament. There are
always 12 top grandmasters who play two games against each
other, one game with Fischer modus (25 minutes per player with
10 seconds added after each move) and a blindfold game, also
Fischer modus (25 minutes per player plus 20 seconds after each
move). In the blindfold games each player has a monitor with an
empty chessboard and on this empty board he makes his move
with the mouse. When he completed his move, it appears in
written form on the opponent's monitor. The computer also
registers the remaining times of the players and shows them on the
monitors. When a player oversteps the time limit, the computer
announces this. If a player makes an illegal or impossible move -
sometimes the players forget the position - the computer gives the
message: Illegal move, make another move. It also announces mate
and stalemate. The arbiter has a monitor, which shows him exactly
what happens in the games. Also the spectators have the possibility
to follow on monitors, hidden for the players, the games. I can
assure the readers that it is very fascinating to follow the games.

Before the second round, I discussed with GM John Nunn Article
3.4(d) of the Laws of Chess. The text of this Article is: "A pawn
attacking a square crossed by an opponent's pawn which has
advanced two squares in one move from its original square may
capture this opponent's pawn as though the latter has been moved
only one square. This capture can be made only on the move
following this advance and is called an 'en passant' capture." What
me puzzled was the word "may" in the first sentence. What does it
mean? Has the player a choice in certain positions? If such a
capture is the only move in a position, has the player then the right
to say: "Sorry, I do not choose to take en passant"? I asked this
question, because in a Swiss booklet, FIDE Schachregeln 1997,
which I have already recommended several times, I found the
following position, white to move (See Diagram):

White: Kf6; pawns - f2, g2, h3
Black: Kh6, pawns - h4, h7

White plays in this position 1. g4. The only Black move is 1...hxg3
e.p. Is Black obliged to take en passant? If not, the position is
stalemate, and I certainly understand that Black, if he has a choice,
would not like to take en passant. John Nunn told me that the
English text is really unambiguous, therefore Black must take.
Later, Stewart Reuben had a slightly different opinion and told me
that it is better to replace "may" by "can". I probably tempted fate
a little bit too much. See what happened in the following blindfold
game a few hours after I discussed the position above with John
Nunn:

Jeroen Piket - Vesseli Topalov 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4. d5
d6 5. h3 g6 6. Nc3 exd5 7. cxd5 Bg7 8. e4 0-0 9. Bd3 b5 10. Bxb5
Nxe4 11. Nxe4 Qa5+ 12. Nfd2 Qxb5 13. Nxd6 Qa6 14. N2c4 Nd7
15. 0-0 Nb6 16. Nxb6 Qxb6 17. Nxc8 Raxc8 18. Rb1 Rfd8 19. Bf4
Qb7 20. d6 Bf8 21. Qd3 Bxd6 22. Bxd6 Rc6 23. Rfd1 Qd7 24.
Qa3 Rxd6 25. Rxd6 Qxd6 26. Qxa7 Re8 27. Qa3 Re2 28. Qc3 Qb6
29. a4 c4 30. Rf1 Qb3 31. Rc1 Qxa4 32. Qd4 Qa6 33. Rxc4 Rxb2
34. Qd8+ Kg7 35. Rc8 Rb1+ 36. Kh2 Qe6 37. Qd4+ Kh6 38. Rg8
Qe7 39. h4 f6 40. Qd2+ g5 41. f4 gxh4 42. f5+ Kh5 43. g4+ (See
Diagram)

At this moment all monitors displayed the following message:
Checkmate! Topalov was in a panic! He tried to capture the pawn
en passant, but the computer would not accept this. I stopped the
game immediately. Fortunately the operator had the ability to
override the computer and the players finished this game as
follows.

43...hxg3ep+ 44. Rxg3 Qe5 45. Qd7 Qe2+ 46. Rg2 Qe5+ «-«.

Many people asked me in the past years why Kasparov does not
take part in this tournament. The answer is very simple: He does
not like to play blindfold chess.

After the Amber Tournament, I went to Italy for a seminar with
Italian arbiters. It was very fruitful for my Italian colleagues and
for me. I was informed about many problems which occur in big
open tournaments and I could tell them something about applying
the Laws of Chess. And, of course, Article 10.2 was again a topic.

I have again received many questions about the Laws of Chess.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, First, my congratulations to you for
your very unique and invaluable Q&A service to chess. Secondly,
I have a small suggestion to make about your archived articles.
These articles are in text form which makes it rather difficult to
read. Perhaps it will be better if you can request The Chess Caf
webmaster to archive your articles in html format. That way, even
though your archived files are larger, it will allow the reader to
breeze through the questions and your answers much more easily. 

Thirdly, I come to my question which I hope you can answer soon.
In high-level tournaments (as opposed to the open Swiss events),
there is usually a technical meeting between the organisers,
arbiters and players before the start of the first round to set the
ground rules, so to speak. I know that it is at this meeting that the
Appeals Committee is selected. I have also heard of incidents that
there were occasions when the players take this opportunity to grill
the arbiters on the rules of chess. However, I wish to know what
exactly are discussed at these meetings. I shall be glad if you can
really elaborate on this meeting as I am sure there are arbiters who
may be invited to run such a tournament. M.J. Quah (Malaysia)

Answer Your first question is answered by The Chess Caf
webmaster Hanon Russell: Thank you for your suggestion. We are
constantly trying to balance file size versus file format in the
Archives. There is an additional technical problem with archived
html pages: the graphics they contain will not be able to be viewed
off-line unless they are all re-set, something which is not now
practical.

Now your question about the meeting before the start of the
tournament. The type of meeting that takes place depends on what
kind of tournament is about to start. Let me share with you
something about team tournaments in which I was an arbiter:
Olympiads and European Team Championships. Before the start
there is a so-called captains' meeting. In this meeting the chief
arbiter discusses a lot of technical questions: how to deliver the
team line-ups before the round, how to act in case of a protest, how
to act in case of an incident, the time limit, the role of the captain,
new regulations, how and at what time the pairings will be
published and so on. In Olympiads, an Appeals Committee is
appointed by the President of FIDE and in continental
championships, by the continental President. Players meetings
before the start of a top level tournament are very rare. 

There is one players meeting I remember very well. It was at the
start of the Immopar Tournament, Paris 1992. In this meeting I
discussed each article of the regulations of the tournament with all
participants. In fact we made the regulations in this meeting, which
lasted about 2.5 hours. We also discussed who should be the
members of the Appeals Committee. But to my surprise, the
players did not want to create an Appeals Committee. I agreed
with this, but I pointed out, that this meant that they had to accept
all my decisions, even if they were completely wrong. This was
accepted. 

About Appeals Committee in high level tournaments I can add the
following: I know that players do not like to have meetings, but a
tournament needs an Appeals Committee. I always make a list of
candidates and I ask these candidates if they want to be a member
of the Appeals Committee; I distribute this list to all players and
ask them whether they accept these candidates as members of the
Appeals Committee or not. Generally they agree. I remember one
case when a player informed me that he had nothing against my
candidates, but if he were involved in an appeal with one of them,
there should be another way to resolve the dispute. This meant that
one of the reserve members would replace him. An Appeals
Committee in international tournaments normally has 3 members
and two reserve members. If possible, they all belong to different
federations.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, A week ago I was playing a couple of
blitz games against Fritz - the longest one ending on move 159
when my time (white) expired. I missed the 50-move-rule by a
single move (if I had completed move 159 the game would have
been drawn). My questions are: (keeping in mind that Article 10.2
does not apply in blitz games): What would have happened if this
was a "real" game (played against another human in competition).
(a) Am I allowed to claim a draw under the 50-move rule? (b) If
neither player is making a winning attempt (both are just moving
their pieces around waiting for the opponents flag to fall while
both have ample pieces left on the board) may a player claim a
draw through the arbiter? and (c) If an arbiter observes such a
game, may he in any way interfere (if it is obvious to him that both
players are making no winning attempt) and declare the game
drawn? I have many times observed such games in competitions
where the "wrong" player wins while the games actually should
have ended in draws. If I offer my opponent a draw (during such a
game) and he refuses to accept it (while the game is theoretically
drawn - neither player will make a mistake) can such a player be
regarded as unethical (no sportsmanship)? Gnther van den
Bergh (South Africa) 

Answer Well, here we go again: Article 10.2. I repeat: this article
will apply only in that phase of the game where all moves must be
completed in a limited time. Now to your questions: (a) If I
understand your question, you mean: You claim a draw pursuant
Article 10.2, the arbiter orders you to continue the game, you do so
and if you have time enough, you can claim a draw pursuant to the
50-moves rule. But unfortunately, your flag falls before you can
make your 50th move. If the arbiter has done his job well, he will
declare the game drawn, even after the flag fall. It is very clear that
the position is a draw. 

(b) My answer is "Yes", because this is the exact meaning of
Article 10.2. Neither player is making an attempt to win by normal
means. (c) The arbiter may only interfere when there is a claim
based on Article 10.2. I once had such a case. There was no prior
claim from the player who overstepped the time limit. The game
was simply lost. If he had claimed, I would have had the game
declared drawn. If a player continues to play, I would not say that
he is unfair. He does not violate the Laws and in my opinion his
opponent is protected by the Laws of Chess, if the arbiter applies
them correctly.

Question (1) A player makes a legal pawn promotion but
exchange the pawn for an inverted rook instead of a queen because
the original queen is still on the board. The player action is clearly
illegal :his opponent could clearly stop both clocks and call the
arbiter. Instead of doing that, the opponent says "J'adoube" and
puts the rook back in the normal position, claiming that it is not a
queen but a misplaced rook. The opponent keeps insisting that he
has just replaced a piece on its square as permitted by article 4.2. "
Provided that he first expresses his intention (e.g. by saying
"J'adoube"), the player having the move may adjust one or more
pieces on their squares."

Answer During the last 20 years many changes in the Laws of
Chess forced players to change their habits. I give you some
examples: castling starting with the rook was possible for a very
long time, but when this Law was changed - the King had to be
moved first when castling - it was accepted by all players and they
acted accordingly. Currently, no player moves the pieces with one
hand and presses the clock with the other one. And, even I have the
impression that taking the King in blitz games is over. In the same
way we, as arbiters, have to teach the players that they have to
promote correctly. If the desired piece is not available, the player
shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter's assistance. I am sure,
that incorrect promotions will disappear completely when the
arbiters are very consistent.

Question (2) The DGT clock acts illegally when used in Fischer
rapid mode : in both blitz and rapid play games played in mode 18
to 20 on a DGT 2000+ it is impossible to have a double flag down
situation because the clock jams when the first flag fall. This is a
serious rule violation for a FIDE approved product because the
game is drawn when both flags are down in rapid play and blitz
(B8. If both flags have fallen, the game is drawn.). On the other
hand, the feature is great for playing rapid play tie-break because
they are played under the Laws of chess which apply to normal
games, but a simple (-) on the clock whose flag has fallen first
would have been sufficient.

Answer To be honest, I am very happy with your question,
because it gives me the opportunity to correct some of my previous
statements. Let us have look to the Laws of Chess and see what
they say about the definition of Rapid and Blitz games. Article B1:
A 'rapid game' is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed
time between 15 to 60 minutes. Article C1: A 'blitz game' is one
where all the moves must be made in a fixed time less than 15
minutes. When we play Fischer modus, we have no fixed time.
This means, that all games with Fischer modus are played under
the "normal" Laws of Chess. and in these Laws the first flag fall is
decisive. In the tie-break games of the World Championship
Knock-Out tournaments (Groningen/Lausanne 1997/1998 and Las
Vegas 1999) we indeed played these games with the "normal"
Laws, with only one exception: the players were not obliged to
record the moves. My conclusion: the DGT clock is completely
legal in the options 18/20.

Question (3) According to the FIDE code of ethics, players are
responsible for the actions of acknowledged members of their
delegations. Also article 12.2. clearly states that "During play the
players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of
information, advice, or to analyse on another chessboard." Near
the end of a quickplay finish involving a young child, his father
gave his son the following unsolicited advice, "When you go under
two minutes on your clock go to the arbiter (me) and ask for a
draw." I'm sure the father thinks that he did nothing wrong because
he said that in my presence and he was aware that I was the arbiter.
I warned the father about article 12.2 because I considered that
what he said constituted advice, even though he did not
recommend a move. The father explained to me that his son was
unaware of the existence of Article 10 and that he might lose the
completely drawn position that was on the board if his opponent
continued the game with the sole intention of winning on time. I
explained to the father that a player might be penalized for doing a
phony Article 10 claim and that his advice could have made a
considerable difference if the position on the chessboard had been
different and also had the father clearly indicated to the child that
the game was a theoretical draw, information which the child
might not have been able to find using his own playing skill, but in
the case at hand this wasn't an issue. The players involved agreed
to a draw without my intervention, so I never had to make any
decision on the game. I didn't see the need to declare the game lost
for the player who has received the advice because I was quite sure
that the child was aware of the situation: he had been keeping his
king on a square that the enemy bishop could not attack and had
moved only his bishop during the last few moves, so he most
likely knew that the position was drawn before receiving the
unsolicited advice. In fact, the advice had no effect whatsoever on
the actual game result, so no penalty could be imposed to the
player. 

Was I right assuming that it is illegal to inform a player that the
position is such that an Article 10 claim should be made? My real
question is: what should an arbiter do with advice coming from the
parents and coaches in cases when such advice plays a significant
role in the outcome of the game? Should we consider that the
parents and coaches are members of the child's "delegation" and
thus penalise the child for the actions of the parents and/or coaches
or should we treat the parents and the coaches as ordinary
spectators, and thus not penalising the child. Pierre Dnomme
(Canada)

Answer Yes, generally you are right. The father should not do this.
But I think that especially in youth tournaments the arbiter should
be a little flexible. I mentioned once before that I started my
arbiter's career in youth tournaments and my biggest problems
were the parents. Your decision not to declare the game lost for the
boy, who was informed by his father, is of course completely right.
One can say that players should never suffer due to the mistakes of
coaches, parents and so on. And, of course, for young players this
is even more valid. It is my opinion we should penalise players if
there is really a reason to do so, but as a matter of fact, it is our
main job to create an atmosphere in which players have fun
playing chess. And the arbiter can contribute to this.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, It's a really pleasure to write you. I'm
very interested in being a chess arbiter. I have studied the chess
rules and FIDE handbooks very well. But unfortunately I face
many problems - one of them being our sleepy federation.
Anyway, I would like to know what does "FIDE official language"
means? Ahmed Sharata (Libya)

Answer The FIDE Statues mention the official FIDE languages:
Arabic, English, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and
Spanish. In case of divergence in FIDE documents issued in
different languages, in general the English version is the valid one.
However, if a document was originally in one of the other
languages, that version will be considered as the authentic one.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, What is your opinion of the following
blitz trick: A player has a king left, so tries a last-ditch attempt of
moving his king next to the opponent's king. If the opponent is off-
guard and doesn't claim an illegal move, then the first player plays
king takes king. Since taking the king doesn't win per se, but is just
proof that an opponent has made an illegal move which does
indeed lose, can the claim of a win be valid? What does an 'illegal
move' mean if the position with two adjacent kings is itself illegal?
The Chief Arbiter at an Australian Lightning Championship
disallowed such a claim because he thought it was unethical for a
number of reasons, which seemed cogent to me. Dr. Jonathan
Sarfati (Australia)

Answer This trick is well known and of course I condemn it
strongly. In fact, an arbiter should have the ability to expel such a
player from the tournament. But, unfortunately, it is not possible.
But let us look to the Laws of Chess. First, I hope, you know that
taking of the King is not possible, not even as an indication of an
illegal move. Second, the player who has a bare king can never
win the game. The best result he may expect is a draw. Finally, I
like the arbiter's decision, but it is not specifically covered by the
Laws of Chess.

 I received a letter from one of my colleagues. I think this letter
does not need any explanation, but I share his opinion 100%.
Playing arbiters have to maintain exemplary behaviour. Here is the
letter:

SPORTSMANSHIP 
Recently I adjourned a game. The game was arranged to be
continued at 18.30 at one of the venues of the League. Default time
according to the rules is 30 minutes after the due start of play. My
opponent had not arrived by 19.00, although he sauntered in a
minute later. There was no arbiter present at all, nor was there
expected to be. He held the adjournment envelope as I had sealed.
Had an arbiter been present, he would already have awarded me
the game (although some might allow it to continue after my
opponent pleaded for leniency). It was clear from my opponent's
demeanor that he did not know the rules. Games commence at
19.00 at other league venues. He had more than one hour left on
his clock. I decided to allow the game, although I knew it to be an
almost certain loss for me (as indeed proved to be the case). The
result of that game was not going to affect the match result. I only
mentioned it to my opponent after the game so that he would not
make the same mistake again. The reason I made this decision was
because I am a well-known arbiter. I believe it is incumbent on us,
not only to behave impeccably, but also to be seen to be doing so. I
do not believe The Laws of Chess require an Appendix on
Adjourning with no arbiter present. Local organisations can write
their own bye-laws. However, I am interested in your views on this
matter.
 
Answer I agree completely with you. We do not need an
"Appendix on Adjourning with No Arbiter Present". Frankly, I do
not even see the need of the  current Appendix D of the Laws of
Chess: Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue.
But when Stewart Reuben explained to me in Yerevan 1996, that
many tournaments in England are organised without appointing an
arbiter, I understood.

In May the Dutch championship will be organised in Rotterdam.
The board of the Dutch Chess Federation appointed me as the
organiser (in Europe we say tournament director) of this event.
The number of participants has been set at 12 for a long time. The
same is the case this year. In the past, a foreigner sometimes
played in the Dutch Championship, e.g., Korchnoi, when he lived
in Holland after he had left the Soviet Union and Nikolic and
Sokolov, who are still living in Holland. Last year the first female
player played in this tournament, Zhoaqin Peng, who was born in
China, but who obtained Dutch citizenship by marriage. This year
a computer will be the twelfth player in this tournament. The name
of the player is Fritz 6. In the press there are many protests against
the participation of this "young boy".  I will let you know what
happens...