An Arbiter's Notebook 
by Geurt Gijssen

Time Scrambles

In this column I would like to answer some questions from readers
and also relate some anecdotes about the Karpov-Piket match
recently played in Monaco.

Question: Mr Gijssen: Thank you for the opportunity to participate
in suggested rule changes, in
a positive way.

1. I would like to propose moving Article 10.3 into 7.4; at this
moment Article 10.3 applies only to quickplay but it should
apply not only for the quickplay finish of the game but for all
phases of the game. To avoid that Article 7.4 will be too long, I
suggest that Article 10.3 in a new version will be Article 7.5.

2. Delete Article 11: This is the same idea as the Kashdan system
of promoting aggressive play.
Deleting Article 11 would allow experimenting with other systems
while allowing scoring to
continue 1, 2, 0. Testing would be interesting just as we have
shortened game time with shorter
controls. This would allow the benefits of a fighting tournament.
The public likes and wants
aggressive play! Last round draws to split the money would have
to be considered. Top players
agreeing to draw to fight weaker ones or to gang up on players
from other countries as Fischer
complained would not be as enticing. This also forces a player to
decide on a more aggressive
line versus a drawish variation. People like to have a winner and a
contest decided than a draw.
Good draws will always happen; agreed draws will be less. In other
sports a win and a draw
count more than two draws!

3. Articles 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4: "Having the move" presently, means
whose clock is running, but if it is
felt it would be clear this way, OK. See Geurt's reply on an illegal
move corrected by the arbiter
who does not have to wait for the player to complete the move by
pressing his clock. This
would maintain a consistent approach and thinking if it is not
changed. I have also witnessed a
player making a blunder with plenty of time left and just sit there
waiting for time to run out.
This is controversial, but when clearly not in the best
sportsmanship manner, would allow the
arbiter to ask the player what is he waiting for and imply he should
press the clock to continue
the game. When there are two rounds in a day, this would keep a
player from delaying a round
by not pressing his clock. I have talked about these changes with
players, federation officials
and people who come to watch and all like the possibilities.
Sincerely, Frankie Torregrosa, Puerto Rico

Answer: 1. I agree completely with you that Article 10.2 must be
moved to Article 7. This
means that the player who makes an illegal move will be
penalized. In case a player makes an
illegal move for the third time, the arbiter shall declare the game
lost by the player who played
incorrectly. I have already mentioned several times in my columns
that this should be changed
during the FIDE Congress in 2000.

2. The text of Article 11.1 is: "A player who wins his game scores
one point (1), a player who
loses his game scores no points (0) and a player who his game
scores a half point". Frankie's
proposal is to delete this article and perhaps award 3 points for a
win, 1 point for a draw and 0
for a loss. In some sports they are already working according to
this system, for instance in
soccer. I am not sure that this change will lead to more fighting
chess, but I think we have to
consider another problem: how to calculate the ratings. Apart from
that, the problem can be
solved in a very easy way and I have the impression that many
organisers may have already
found this solution: do not invite players who do not show fighting
spirit. There is also another
way to solve the problem of quick draws. I know a tournament in
which players who won a
game received $400 per game, drew a game $150, and lost, $75. I
can assure you that the
players really fought in this tournament.

3. Pressing the clock is still the responsibility of each player. I was
told that in the 1951
Botvinnik-Bronstein, Botvinnik took the position before the start
of the match that the arbiter
should inform the player when he failed to press the clock. In the
last Amber tournament GM
Loek Van Wely informed his opponent GM Boris Gelfand that he
forgot to press his clock.
Very fair behaviour. The problem with the Laws of Chess is that
they always describe an ideal
situation: one game, two players and an arbiter. The Laws do not
say how to solve problems in
tournaments of 200 players and only 4 or 5 arbiters. In principle, I
agree that the arbiter should
inform a player that he made a move without pressing the clock,
but I see practical problems in
big tournaments. On the other hand, in games applying the Fischer
modus there is a need to
press the clock, because after the clock has been pressed, time will
be added.

Question: Dear Geurt: One of your articles at The Chess Cafe
contains an answer to a reader's
query which puzzles me. You state the purpose of Article 10 is to
protect the player with the
better position. I don't think this is true. If he claims a draw, then
the player with an inferior
position will accept the draw or gamble on a gross blunder being
made.

The purpose is to protect the player with the inferior position who
has little time left, but who
may have a totally drawn position. A good example might be bare
king against king and two
knights. You have only seconds left. Of course it would be
possible to lose. You should claim a
draw and I am certain both you and I would award it a draw.

We did discuss the matter of a different rule for blitz chess from
Article 10. If you remember,
we were extremely unclear about whether to include Article 10 for
blitz. Eventually we decided
against interference. Then we introduced C4 as an amelioration of
the problem. We accept that
a player can play on with king and rook against king and rook,
although no doubt we dislike it. I
think C4 might eventually appear in the standard Laws, but I don't
think the world was ready in
1996. I thought the same of 6.9 and 9. 6. but have been proven
wrong I am moving towards
10.2(d) If the opponent subsequently wished to accept the draw
effectively offered by the player
when claiming a draw, then he may do so, provided the game is
still in progress.

If the player wishes to withdraw his claim of a draw, he may do so
before stopping his clock.
The opponent shall then be awarded an extra two (perhaps five?)
minutes thinking time. This is
just the rough idea. The final wording needs cleaning up.

Your series is excellent.
Stewart Reuben, London (UK)

Answer: It is possible to have a very long discussion about who is
protected by Article 10.2. Let
us read again the relevant part of Article 10.2: "If the player has
less than two minutes left on his
clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the
clocks and summon the
arbiter. (a). If the arbiter is satisfied the opponent is making no
effort to win the game by normal
means, or that it is impossible to win by normal means, then he
shall declare the game drawn.
Otherwise he shall postpone his decision."

This article says, in my opinion, that the player who is short of time
will be protected. And I am
still wondering whether it is correct to protect a player who has an
inferior position. Your
suggestion to add the above mentioned article 10.2d to the Laws of
Chess is very interesting and
I would like to discuss this in the Rules Committee.

Question: Mr. Gijssen Thank you for a very interesting and
educational column. I occasionally
direct some fairly small (40-50 players) scholastic events. Recently
the following event
occurred: White made a move, which placed Black in stalemate.
Black, unaware either that the
position was a stalemate or ignorant of the stalemate rule, looked at
the board, shrugged, and
resigned. White reported that he had won the game. Some time
later, but before the next round
was paired, Black's father (who as it turns out is also the coach for
Black's school team) came to
me and told what happened. After gathering together both players
and their coaches, I
determined that the above scenario is what actually happened. I
scored the game as a draw,
based on the idea that at the point in time the stalemate occurred,
the game ended, and therefore
Black's subsequent resignation was irrelevant, since it occurred
after the end of the game. I
disregarded the fact that the actual events were reported by Black's
father and coach, feeling that
it was most important to get the correct result. Was I correct in my
handling of this event, or
how should I have handled it? Regards, David Surratt, Walla
Walla (USA)

Answer: Article 5.2 says: "The game is drawn when the player to
move has no legal move and
his king is not in check. The game is said to end in 'stalemate'. This
immediately end the game"

This last sentence means that nothing that happens after the
stalemate is relevant. The game is
over and a draw. Your decision was completely correct. 

From February 21 to March 2 there was in Monaco an 8-game
match between Anatoly Karpov and Jeroen Piket. All games were
drawn. I can imagine that many chess players thought it was a very
boring match: only draws. But I can assure them it was one of the
most exciting matches I ever arbitrated. By move 30, White would
have an advantage, but when Zeitnot ended, an equal position had
arisen. The most piquant game was probably game 7.

White: J. Piket Black: A. Karpov 1 d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3
Bb7 5. Nc3 d5 6. cxd5
Nxd5 7. Bd2 Nd7 8. Qc2 Be7 9. e4 Nxc3 10. Bxc3 0-0 11. 0-0-0
Qc8 12. h4 Rd8 13. Rh3
Nf8 14. h5 c5 15. Rg3 cxd4 16. Nxd4 Bf6 17. Nb5 Rxd1+ 18.
Qxd1 Qc5 19. Qg4 Bxc3 20.
Nxc3 Qd4 21. Qf4 Rc8 22. Bd3 Nd7 23. h6 g6 24. Bc2 Qe5 25.
Qd2 Nf6 26. Rd3 Kf8 27. f3 g5 28. Kb1 Ke7 29. Ba4 Bc6 

At this moment Piket had 3 minutes and Karpov 44 seconds left on
the clock.

30. Bxc6 Rxc6 31. Rd8 a6 32. Ra8 Rd6 33. Qe2 b5 34. Qe3 Nd7
35. Ra7 Kf6 36. g3 Kg6 37. f4 Qd4 38. Qe1 (See Diagram)
 
Piket had at this moment 1 minute and Karpov 2 seconds. It is
clear that Karpov wins the
game by taking the rook on a7, but he played the 'short' move
38...Qd3. Immediately after the
game he told that he had seen 38...Qxa7, but he was very afraid to
overstep the time by
making this 'long' move. 

38..Qd3+ 39. Ka1 Qd4 40. Rc7 Qd3 41. e5 Rd4 (See Diagram)
 
What happened at this time is for me still a mystery. I watched
Karpov's clock, saw his flag
falling, said immediately "STOP", the players stopped playing, but
I discovered that Piket had
made the last move but his clock was running. What had happened
is probably that at the
moment I said:"STOP", Karpov had pressed the clock and Piket
made his 42nd move at that
very moment. This move was a blunder, because 42. Rc8 wins
immediately. 

42. fxg5 b4 43. axb4 Rxb4 44. Qf2 Kxg5 45. Qxf7 Ra4+ 46. Nxa4
Qd1+ 47. Ka2 Qxa4+ 48. Kb1 Qe4+ 49. Rc2 Qe1+. Draw.

After the game I had a very interesting discussion with Karpov. I
told him, that he had lost the
game if Piket's move fxg5 had been the 41st move instead of the
42nd. Karpov agreed that in
this situation he would not have completed his 40th move, but,
according to Karpov, Piket lost
the right to claim a win by making his next move. I disagreed with
him, but his opinion is
very interesting. 

In Yerevan 1996 we discussed who is responsible for calling a flag
fall. The player or the
arbiter. It was decided that in "normal" games the arbiter should
call it, but in rapid and blitz
games it is the exclusive responsibility of the players.