An Arbiter's Notebook
by Geurt Gijssen

The Case of the Hidden Queen

In this Arbiter's Notebook I shall answer some interesting
questions from readers. 

Question: Dear Sir: In one of your recent "Arbiter's Notebook"
Mr. Ulrich Schmidt, Germany stated the following: "As I said, I
played in Budapest this April, and as usual I applied the
procedure of first writing down my move before making it,
which shortly distracts me from my previous 'deep considerati-

ons' and brings me 'back to earth', so that I now see the
position with fresh eyes and am able to notice that I was just
about to hang my Queen or commit some other gross blunder
(which you sometimes fail to notice, when you are some moves
deep into your variations and have 'lost contact with reality'...).
Then in one of the later rounds - I had just written down my
move and covered it with my pencil and was checking the
position once again for blunders - the arbiter came up to me,
took away my pencil and said to me 'You can't do this, we are
playing under FIDE rules here!' Of course I felt disturbed!"

This seems to me to be a clear case of a player benefiting from
keeping notes.  His whole playing approach is built around the
act of writing his move down.  It seems to me that this is a clear
case of violating not only the letter but also the spirit of the law
about not being allowed to write notes. This is a case of writing
down a "candidate move" since the player does not feel bound
by the move written. I agree entirely with the arbiter. Am I
missing something? J. Franklin Campbell, USA

Answer: As I have already mentioned in one of my previous
Notebooks, it is not prohibited, before making a move, to write
down the intended move. And I should repeat that if a player
changes his written move several times during the game, the
arbiter must step in. My personal experience is, that it happens
very seldom, that a player changes his written move.

Question: Mr. Gijssen: Some other arbiters and I were at a
Rapidplay (G/30) tournament when the following incident
occurred. One player started with his king on d1 and queen on
e1. Neither player noticed until after three moves had been
played by each (both players were rated about 2100!), so the
arbiter ruled that the game should continue (correctly, I hope
you agree).

In the coffee room, a debate started and one arbiter speculated
what would have happened if White had later wanted to castle.
Would this be allowed? Our first thought was no, but on
reading the Laws of Chess we found that they only refer to the
king being on its original square and moving two squares
towards the rook. In this case, the king's original square was d1,
and it could be argued that castling on either side was okay.

Another arbiter objected that the diagrams made clear the king
had to start on e1, but nowhere does it state that the diagrams
form part of the Laws, and it could be argued they are only
examples. After all, the diagram illustrating en passant is not
meant to imply that the capture can only happen in the
illustrated position only.

I suspect if the situation had actually arisen we would have
disallowed castling, as it is unlikely that that was what the
Laws intended, but it does seem to be a small loophole. What
do you think? John Richards, BCF Arbiter, England

Answer: I agree with you that this case is not covered in the
Laws of Chess clearly. In Elista the IA Cengiz ™zdemir Keles
made the following proposal as an addition to Article B4 of the
Laws of Chess:

In case of reverse king and queen placement, the player can
make short castling with the a-rook and long castling with the
h-rook. This proposal was not discussed in Elista, but I am sure,
it will be accepted in 2000, when the Laws of Chess may be
modified. In the meantime I have no objection to using this
rule, provided it is announced before the tournament starts.

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: Two questions that arose after two
separate incidents: one happened recently in a club tournament
in Mexico City, and another at the annual Mexican Open a few
years ago. None of them could be happily resolved by the
arbiters.

The first incident was more or less as follows: A mutual time
scramble was happening between a master from Argentina and
a Mexican FM; they were using an electronic (digital) clock.
Suddenly the Mexican's allotted time expired and the Argentine
player shouted "time!" and attempted to stop the clocks the
usual way but he couldn't (most electronic clocks are stopped
some other way, by pressing a start-stop button). Then he called
the arbiter (his clock was still running) and by the time the
arbiter arrived, his own allotted time had expired as well.
According to the rules, the arbiter declared that the game was
drawn because any player who claims to have won by time
must stop the clocks before making his claim to the arbiter.
That draw was unfair, but was legal. What do you think? Is one
supposed to know how to stop all sorts of clocks before
entering a tournament? 

The other incident makes one ashamed of the behaviour of
some players: Again a mutual time scramble was happening
during the last round of an open tournament. The winner would
get a prize in cash and the loser nothing. It was a pawn ending
where both players were rapidly advancing a passed pawn
toward the eighth rank, but it was clear that the player with the
black pieces would queen his pawn first (with check) and then
would give a forced checkmate in four or five moves more. 

But it happened that as both players were furiously advancing
their respective passers, the one with the white pieces quietly
grabbed the black queen from the edge of the table and hid it in
his pocket! Thus, when Black got his pawn to the eighth rank
he said "queen, check!" And after looking in vain for the black
queen started checking his opponent's king with the pawn.
White then claimed that it was illegal to use a pawn as though it
were a queen, and demanded that the correct piece be used.
Then Black (with his clock running) tried to look for the queen
on the floor and under the table, but could not find one and, in
the process, hit his head on the edge of the table. 

He then decided to grab a black rook and placed it upside
down, saying again "queen: check!" But once more his
opponent refused to accept the move: "that's not a queen: if you
want to promote a rook then you have to say it!" Black was of
course very upset and angry and rose to look for the arbiter, but
by the time the latter showed up Black's time had run out. (In
the meantime, White quietly took the piece out of his pocket
and was witty enough to hide it behind a cup). The arbiter
declared that Black lost on time. Very unfair, don't you think?
Is one supposed to go to a chess tournament with extra queens
in his pocket in order to avoid such incidents? Gabriel Velasco,
Mexico

Answer: The two cases are completely different, but in fact I
can give the same answer. In both cases the player must stop
the clocks. And with the DGT clock it is very simple. Press the
start/stop button and the clocks do not run. In both cases the
player shall summon the arbiter. 

In case 1 the player should ask the arbiter to give him a queen;
he may stop the clocks and summon the arbiter under Article
6.12(b), which says: "A player may stop the clocks in order to
seek the arbiter's assistance. And if a queen is not available, he
may ask the arbiter for his help."

In case 2 the situation is even clearer. Article B7  (Rapidplay
and Blitz) says: "To claim a win on time, the claimant must
stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be
successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his
opponent's flag down after the clocks have been stopped."

Finally, Article B8 says: "If both flags have fallen, the game is
drawn."

Conclusion: it is very wise to ask the arbiter before the start of
the tournament, how to stop the clocks. And my advice to the
arbiters is: Please explain before the start of the tournament
how and in which situations a player may stop the clocks.

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: Let me first congratulate you for
your excellent work. (and all the members in the staff of The
Chess Cafe, too). I have a question related to the Laws of
Chess. In the chapter dealing with quick play, there is an article
stating that, when one of the players has less than two minutes
left on his clock, he can ask the arbiter for a draw, and then, if
the arbiter thinks that his opponent is not making any effort to
win "by normal means" or that is not possible to win by normal
means, then he shall declare the game drawn. My question is:
what is understood as "normal means". Is there any rule about
what is normal means? 

For instance, let us suppose that you are the player who makes
the claim, and you are a piece ahead. However, both queens,
the two rooks and a couple of other minor pieces are still on the
board. Can your claim be refused in spite of your clear material
advantage, due to the amount of material still present? Is it
necessary to simplify the position in order to get a clearer
scenario?  It is understood that both kings are equally safe, so
there is no clear compensation for the material. Does the
concept "normal means" depend entirely on the arbiter's
criteria, or is there a more objective valuation? Ernesto Pereda,
Spain

Answer: First of all, one remark. You write "...in the chapter
about quickplay". I think, you mean "Quickplay finish". As you
know, the quickplay finish is the last phase of a "normal game",
when all remaining moves must be made in a limited time.

Your question is very interesting and difficult.  The
international arbiter Horst Metzing made a proposal to make a
list of positions which arise in games and in which the arbiter
decided to declare a draw. This proposal was rejected.
According to the majority of the Rules Committee it is possible
that in the same position one arbiter agrees to a draw and
another arbiter decides to continue the game. And I think this is
reasonable. 

Horst Metzing himself gave an example. In an ending K+R
versus K+B the player with the Bishop claimed a draw. Mr.
Metzing decided that the game must be continued. This
happened. In this continuation the claimant proved how to
make a draw and she reached a position, which could not be
won by her opponent. In other words, her opponent could not
win "by normal means", but only on time, because the player
understood perfectly how she had to handle this endgame. Mr
Metzing agreed then that the game was a draw. In a
complicated position, like the example given by you, the arbiter
must always postpone his decision. I think that you are right
when you state that it depends on the arbiter's criteria. And I
have to repeat that, for professional chess, it is desirable to play
using the Fischer modus. Then you never have these problems.
By the way for Rapid and Blitz games these claims are not
possible.

Question: Mr. Gijssen: In a recent tournament my opponent
moved his king to a square, then, without releasing the piece,
slid the King around to adjacent squares in order to examine the
positions.  When I questioned him on this after the game, he
stated that it is allowed according to the FIDE rules, which only
restrict movement of a piece that has been released.  Is this a
correct interpretation? Fred Brown, South Africa

Answer: This interpretation is not correct. I consider the case
you described as one of disturbing the opponent. When a player
moves a piece to a square, without releasing this piece, then
discovers another square is a better one, I have no objection.
But when he examines different positions moving this piece to
different squares, the player is absolutely wrong.

Let me make an additional remark. Many times players have
told me, that they were not disturbing their opponent, because
their own clock was running and they were doing this on their
own time. My standard answer has always been that there is no
such thing as their own time.  Even when one's own clock is
running, the behaviour must be correct.

Question: Mr. Geurt Gijssen: Article 6.9 of the FIDE Laws
says: "Except where Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 apply, 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 (i.e.
by the most unskilled counterplay)."

Now, suppose Player A has a King and a Knight and Player B
has a King and a Rook. Then suddenly Player B's flag falls.
From the resulting position it is possible to create a position in
which Player B's King is checkmated (Player B: Kh8 and Rh7;
Player A: Kf8 and Ng6). Does this mean that Player B should
be declared as lost? The game should be a draw if he didn't
have the Rook. Is there any different rule in rapid or blitz
chess? T. Budiman, Indonesia

Answer: Yes, you are right. The game is lost for Player B. For
Rapidplay the same rule applies. For Blitz games there is a
difference. Article C4 of the Blitz rules says that in order to
win, a player must have "mating potential". This is defined as
adequate forces eventually to produce a position legally,
possibly by "helpmate", where an opponent having the move
cannot avoid being checkmated in one move. Thus two knights
and a king against a lone king is insufficient, but a rook and
king against a knight and a king is sufficient.

Question: Dear Geurt: In last year's Hoogovens Chess
tournament a player made an illegal move after the first time
control. The player had a won endgame, but only one minute
left on his clock to actually win. His opponent had several
minutes more to defend the position. Officially I was supposed
to adjust the clock and add two more minutes to his opponent's
time but in view of the time this would take (20 seconds as a
rough estimate) I did NOT do this, thinking it was against the
game's spirit. In my view only the offending party would
benefit from the delay, as it would give him time to reconsider
his winning plan. I did however note the offence mentally so I
could declare the game lost for him if it was repeated twice
more.
 
The chief arbiter reprimanded me for my actions, but a note
was made in the arbiter's log of the tournament as to the strict
way the rules obliged me to adjust the clock in this situation.
More liberty for the arbiter to decide whether or not to do this
was recommended. What are your views on this? Martin van
Gils, KNSB National Arbiter, The Netherlands

Answer: I understand from the context that this incident
happened in the last phase of the game, when the "Quickplay
Finish" rules applied. I think that the chief arbiter who chided
you is right. The rule is strict. In case of an illegal move, the
opponent will be disturbed and you have to compensate him for
this. Suppose that the opponent loses on time. He will blame
you, for not giving him the two extra minutes. 

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen: With regard to the recent rule that
draw offers must be recorded, would it not be acceptable to use
"(1/2)" rather than an equal sign? The equal sign has
traditionally been used as an evaluation, so perhaps it is the
wrong tool for the job.  Of course, some would wonder if it
were necessary to specify the method of recording the draw
offer so strictly. Raymond J. Stonkus, USA

Answer: The idea is not bad, but I am afraid that the problem
will be that players consider "1/2" as the result of the game.
Probably "1/2?" is a possibility. In November I wrote that I
contacted the editor of Chess Informant about this. By the way,
as far as I can see now, the rule does not work very well. Only
very few players write this sign when they offer a draw.