An Arbiter's Notebook
By Geurt Gijssen

What shall we do with a sleeping player ?

Question Recently at a blitz tournament at my local club a
game was played where Black called the flag as White was
delivering checkmate. White was moving his queen to the
mating square but had not yet released the piece. The arbiter
didn't know what to do, and I was the only one with a rulebook
(1987 USCF). I distinctly remember reading that mate would
overrule the flag call, but now I can't find it anywhere. The
rules seem to say that white lost on time, as the move isn't
completed until the queen was released. This doesn't seem right
to me. In any case, the arbiter ruled that white had won. Black
still had enough material to mate. Is my memory really that
bad? Joshua Allen (Canada)

Answer I understand that White had not completed his move at
the moment his flag fell. In this case there is only one correct
decision: White lost the game, unless Black has no mating
material left. Your memory is perfect - mate takes precedence
over the flag falling, but the mate must really be effectuated at
the board, and this was not the case here. This is according to
the FIDE rules. I do not know what is written in the USCF
Rulebook. As you probably know, there are some USCF rules
that conflict with the FIDE rules. Therefore it is quite
dangerous to rely on this book, except for tournaments that are
exclusively under the jurisdiction of USCF rules.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, in fact I have two questions, which
are closely related and which maybe belong to chess
curiosities. In a blitz game I was very short on time. So I mated
my opponent and offered a draw at the same time, not seeing
that it was checkmate. Win or draw? (Of course my opponent
gladly accepted the draw). In another blitz game, I was again
very short on time. In preparation of a pawn promotion I held
my queen in my right hand. In all the hectic state, I pushed my
pawn to the 7th rank, mating the opponent, but then exchanged
the pawn against my queen! My opponent claimed a win by
illegal move and had to explain the whole situation to me, a
totally confused player, because I completely had lost track of
what has happened. Was he right? Ralf Linnemann
(Germany)

Answer You are a very unlucky person, Mr. Linnemann. In the
first game, a point should have been awarded to you. You
mated your opponent and everything that happened afterwards
is irrelevant, even your draw offer. You spoiled a half-point.
And for the second game, I have to say the same. You
checkmated your opponent's king. At that very moment the
game was over.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I had following situation in a team
competition. The time at which team captains had to submit the
team line-ups was 10.00 a.m. The round was scheduled for 3
p.m. The captain of team X (made up of players A, B, C, D, E,
F, G and H) did not change the team line-up (6 boards), so the
team should have played as listed. But when they arrive, the
team was in a different order and this is how they started to
play. What is the procedure of the arbiter in that situation
whether or not the opponent's claim? How would you proceed
in that case? Ales Drinovec (Slovenia)

Answer I am familiar with this kind of problem in team
competitions and have encountered them several times, for
instance in the Olympiads. Until 1997, the captains delivered
the team line-ups in the morning and about 13.00 o'clock they
were published. If a captain did not deliver a line-up, the basic
team was supposed to play. It happened many times that the
Chief Arbiter did not receive a team line-up and proceed
posting the names of the basic team, but afterwards the team
captain claimed that he had timely delivered another line-up.
And the Chief Arbiter had no proof that the team captain was
right or wrong.

I tried to find a solution and in 1997, during the European
Team Championship in Pula, we implemented the following
procedure: Each captain has to deliver the signed team line-up
in duplicate. The arbiter responsible for the team line-ups
signed both copies and wrote the time that it had been given to
him on both copies. One copy was for the arbiter, the second
copy for the team captain. I followed the same procedure in the
1998 Elista Olympiad and the 1999 Batumi European Team
Championship. There were no problems in either event with the
team line-ups. If the arbiter follows this procedure, incidents as
you described above should not happen.

Back to your question. I understand that you were acting
pursuant to the old procedure. There is no evidence who was
wrong. Was the arbiter wrong because he lost the team line-up
delivered by the captain? Or was the team captain wrong
because he did not deliver it but wanted to play with a reserve
player? I once had such a case in the 1994 Moscow Olympiad
and decided to start the match two hours later, but both teams
agreed to start only 30 minutes later. A similar case happened
in the individual World Championship Tournament in Las
Vegas, 1999. The drawing of colours for the next round was
done in the evening immediately after the finish of the round,
but wrongly published on Internet. At the start of the round two
players came to me and informed me that they had prepared for
the wrong colours. I made the same decision and postponed the
start of these two games. I can tell you that one player who was
the opponent of the wrongly informed player was not happy
with this delay and protested strongly, but I did not change my
decision.

Question Dear Mr Gijssen, in a recent tournament the
following happened: In the quickplay finish phase both players
were very short of time in a complex double-rook endgame. I
was writing down the moves, being a friend of one of the
players (not in any official capacity). Both players had stopped
writing many moves ago. The arbiter was watching. Then one
of the players stopped the clock to claim a draw due to three-
fold repetition of position. (This claim was correct; in fact, the
same position was on the board for the fifth time). The arbiter
refused this claim due to the fact that it could not be proven. He
then re-interpreted it as a draw claim according to article 10.2
and decided to continue watching. The game was drawn later
anyway; both players were satisfied with this outcome, so this
is a purely theoretical question.

Should the arbiter have consulted my notes? (As I did not make
them in any official capacity - probably not). Should he have
consulted his own eyes? He later said that he had seen the
position in question occurring several times. Was he correct in
re-interpreting the claim or should he have waited for the
player to make it? In the latter case, should there have been a
penalty for wrongly claiming a draw? In the former case,
should he not have accepted it as "repeating the position,"
means "not winning by normal means" in my opinion? Ingrid
Voigt, Aachen (Germany)

Answer I have the feeling that discussions about Article 10
shall never stop. Does it mean it is a bad article? I do not think
so, because the fact that somebody should lose a "normal"
game in a won position due to a lack of time is not acceptable.
The same applies to the fact that a player cannot win with
normal means and only can win if his opponent oversteps the
time. The main reason that we have this article was to eliminate
adjourned games. With the help of computers, you can now
analyse all types of positions and therefore it is reasonable to
finish the games in one session. The price we have to pay for
this is Article 10. And the consequence of this Article is
increased pressure on the arbiter. Each arbiter has his own
opinion how he shall handle this Article and this is the cause of
these discussions. 

Your letter is very interesting because several subjects are
raised:

(1) A spectator writes the moves, the arbiter does not write the
moves, but is watching the game. Shall the arbiter use the
scoresheet of this spectator? What do the Laws say about this?
Article 8.5 says: If neither player is required to keep score, the
arbiter or an assistant should try to be present and keep score.
When the arbiter had followed the game - and this was the case
- then I do not see any reason why he should not use the
scoresheet of the spectator as help. Of course, this scoresheet is
not decisive, but with the assistance of the two players involved
and his own observations it must be possible to reconstruct the
game. 
(2) The arbiter mentioned that there was no proof that the
position had appeared for the third time. If he means that a
scoresheet must be available, he is wrong. The arbiter has to
check it, and I repeat that he may use this scoresheet, the
opinion of the players and his own observations. 
(3) The arbiter was also wrong when he interpreted the claim as
a claim under Article 10. And I can show this easily. A wrong
claim according to Article 9 (the same position three times)
shall be punished with a reduction of half of the remaining time
up to a maximum of three minutes. A claim according to
Article 10 may be "penalised" with two minutes. The word
"may" indicates that there are situations in which the arbiter
has the discretion not to punish the claimant.

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I greatly enjoyed your "Report
from Batumi". It is not often that one has such detailed insider
information of big tournaments. I was surprised to hear that
"there were no incidents during the tournament"! How is that
possible? Alex Zamorano  (Canada)

Answer I probably have to define what, in my opinion,
constitutes an incident. An incident is a situation that two
players completely disagree about what happened and they
need the immediate help from an arbiter to solve the problem.
Even the match arbiter is not able to solve this problem and he
requests the help from a higher authority, e.g., a deputy chief
arbiter or the chief arbiter. This kind of incident did not occur.
The main reason was that there were not severe time trouble
situations thanks to the Fischer mode. There were no situations
that players were banging on the clocks. I have concluded that
Zeitnot situations cause the majority of problems. Players get
nervous; they do not write the moves in this situation; they do
not know how many moves they have made; and at the moment
the flag falls, they have to rely on the scoresheet of the
opponent, provided he has recorded the moves or, finally, on
the observation of the arbiter. Another point is that the
tournament itself was quite well organised. This really helps to
avoid problems. When chess players have the feeling that the
organisers are doing their utmost, they appreciate it and they
feel more relaxed.

Question Dear Mister Gijssen, I need your advice in an
incident related to the application of FIDE Laws of Chess: In a
Rapid Team Tournament (4 main players for each team - one
hour for each player for the whole game) Team A was playing
against Team B. Players 1 & 3 of team A were playing with
white pieces. They were playing the same moves like their
opponent's players on board 2 & 4 who were playing white too!
I think there are similar cases in the past, when Alekhine was
playing a simultaneous match - when the champion was
playing one game with white pieces and the other with black
pieces -
But Alekhine succeeded in overcoming this cheating by his
skill. Here in our case, the arbiter noticed the cheating of
players 1 & 3 of team A. They were laughing after making their
moves. They were creating a lot of distraction and annoyance
to other players in the playing hall. After about 8 moves, the
games on boards 1 & 3 were exactly similar to the games on
boards 2 & 4 with opposite colours! According to article 13.4,
the arbiter warned the players of the cheating team to respect
the FIDE Laws. But they continued their cheating, laughing
and leaving their board - on their time - without making their
moves, waiting for their opponents' players on Board 2 & 4 to
play their moves. Then they went to their boards to play the
same moves!

My first question: Can the arbiter terminate the match by
declaring that the cheating team loses 0-4 by applying article
12.7? Anyway, our arbiter decided to continue the match .He
decided to separate the tables 2 & 4 from tables 1 & 3 (about
15 meters away), and ordered the players to continue the
match. All players of team A refused to comply with the
decision of the arbiter and didn't continue their games. The
arbiter left all chess clocks running until all players of team A
had lost on time, then he declared the match lost 0-4 in favour
of team B. What is your opinion about this strange case? Was
the arbiter right in his decision to separate tables 1 & 3 away
from tables 2 & 4? Was the team A right to refuse this decision
of the arbiter? What is your opinion about the final result of the
match? Hesham Elgendy, Secretary General United Arab
Emirates Chess Federation (UAE) 

Answer You referred to a simul game of Alekhine, but there is
also a recent example of this. In the Corus Tournament (before
it was named Hoogovens Tournament) Wijk aan Zee 2000 the
same happened in Round 7. It concerned the games Kasparov  
Anand and Van Wely   Short According to the newspapers
Van Wely and Short were copying very carefully the moves
made by Kasparov and Anand. But at the moment Anand
sacrificed a pawn Short chose another move. After the game he
declared with a big smile, that he had proven that he was much
stronger than Anand. By the way, both games ended in a draw.
And the arbiter did nothing. I think this arbiter was right not to
take any measure against these players. This seems to answer
one of your questions.

Another point is the behaviour of the players. It is clear that the
behaviour of the players is awful: laughing and distracting the
opponents and also the other players in the playing hall is not
acceptable. The arbiter was right in fact to take some measures
to stop this. If in his opinion separating the tables could solve
the situation, I agree with his decision. I understand that the
players disagreed and they let their clocks run out of time. This
is their responsibility and they have to bear the consequences of
this. They overstepped the time and the consequence was that
they lost the match 0-4.  In short, there is nothing to do against
this kind of cheating, but I am not opposed to the measures of
the arbiter based on the behaviour of the players. It would also
be helpful to know if an Appeals Committee was appointed.

Question Dear Geurt, A situation occurred in a match I had
recently.  My opponent fell asleep. I was looking at the
position, with my opponent to move, and suddenly heard him
snoring. One of his teammates poked him, he woke up and
continued the game. As a matter of interest, (I raised no
complaint during the match), does the waking of a player by a
teammate amount to interference such as when a teammate
points out an illegal move or that a flag has fallen etc? Dave
Burtonshaw (London, England) P.S. I know that I play solid
openings, but I didn't think the position was boring enough for
my opponent to fall asleep!

Answer Article 13.6 says: "The arbiter shall refrain from
informing a player that his opponent has made a move, or that
he has failed to press the clock." Article 13.7 says: "Spectators
and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise
interfere in a game." The question is whether waking up a
sleeping player is interfering in a game? I can imagine that
some people have this opinion. But I can also imagine that a
snoring player disturbs his opponent. The only way to stop this
is to wake up the player. But to be serious, I believe it is not a
problem to wake up a sleeping player. I, for sure, would never
blame someone who woke up a sleeping player.

Question Dear Mr Gijssen, If a player knocks over a piece
accidentally on his/her move without saying "I adjust" does the
rule touch and move still apply? What happened in one of my
games? A Rook was knocked clean off the table and replaced
on its original square. The player didn't say, "I adjust" then
castled (King first) with the touched Rook - is that not against
the rules? P. Dallas (England)

Answer Article 4 2 of the Laws of Chess says: "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." Article 4.3 starts as follows: "Except as provided in
Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches
on the chessboard (a) One or more pieces... (b) One piece of
each colour "

The key here is the word "deliberately". It says, if a player
touches a piece with the intention to play or to take this piece,
he has to play or to take this piece. It is very clear that your
opponent had no intention to play the Rook he knocked off the
table. It happens sometimes that a player touches a piece. Then
he sees that playing this piece, he makes a blunder, but he tries
to avoid this by saying "j'adoube". This is of course not
acceptable. He has to play this piece. The only problem is
always that the opponent has to prove that this happened. With
an arbiter present, it is not a problem.

Question Article 10. I note much discussion and confusion
about arbiters during blitz games, and also for limited-time
endings of regular games, especially time delay protocols using
Fischer mode. Kasparov-Kramnik played their 24-game blitz
match in Moscow in an entirely different way, and in a system
recently tested to the satisfaction of half a dozen Petersburg
GMs. Kasparov/Kramnik developed the following: At 30
seconds remaining, each player shall have 3 seconds to make a
move without time penalty. (Kasparov said that anyone with 20
seconds and 2 seconds per move could complete a game,
Kramnik demurred and said 30/3).

There is now a clock with this mode built into it. It has the
advantage of not requiring an arbiter to interfere, and avoids the
somewhat ludicrous situation of a player making nonsense
moves in Fischer mode in order to gain time. This Kasparov-
mode works in conjunction with a (digital) clock linked to a
sensory board, for a local opponent, or a remote one, linked via
the Internet. I would say because of the interest expressed by
strong players in determining the game themselves; the
reception of this new time-delay mode will become the default
system, obviating much of the current rules and arbiter
intercession. Has a set of rules been developed to accommodate
Kasparov-mode time delay and in preparation for the regular
broadcasting of these games on the Internet? Phil Innes (USA)


Answer Before answering your question, I should explain a
few things to the readers about several time limits used in
different chess tournaments. First of all we have the "classical"
time limit: 40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour and
finally 30 minutes for the remaining moves. When we use this
time limit we apply Article 10 in the last period of 30 minutes
for the rest of the game. A player, who has the move and less
than 2 minutes at his clock, may apply this article.

Furthermore we have the so-called Fischer-mode. After each
move a certain amount of time will be added. In FIDE events
this amount is 30 seconds, but there is an option to add more or
less time after each move. In the annual Amber Tournament in
Monaco, 20 seconds are added in the blindfold games and only
10 seconds in the rapid games. The same happens in the tie-
break games of the World Chess Championship tournament: 10
seconds after each move. I have also to mention, that the time
saved by a player is added to his time for the next move. What
does it mean? Suppose in a game 20 seconds are added after
each move. At the moment a player starts to think about his
move the clock shows 18'31". The player uses 12". At the
moment he stops his clock the clock will show 18'19". Then
20" will be added. This means that 18'39" are available for his
next move.

The next option is the so-called Bronstein-mode. It is quite
similar to the Fischer-mode, but with one big difference. And
the best way to explain this system is to use the example of the
Fischer-mode, mentioned above. The clock shows again
18'31", the time the player uses, is again 12". The clock will
show 18'31". It means the 8" the player "saved" are "lost". As
long a player thinks during 20" or less than 20" his clock will
not change.

The big difference between the Fischer- and the Bronstein
mode is that in the Fischer mode, a player, by making some
quick moves or a repetition of moves gains some time; with the
Bronstein mode, this is impossible. I have the impression that
especially in Blitz games more and more players prefer the
Bronstein mode.

The Kasparov mode starts out in a more or less "classical" way
and then, at a certain point in time, it switches to the Bronstein
mode. I think it is a very good idea to avoid situations in which
players with a winning position will lose on time. For over-
the-board games, the current Laws of Chess cover the Fischer,
Bronstein and Kasparov modes. At the present time, FIDE has
Regulations for International Clock-Controlled Telechess
Contests. I am not sure that these regulations are also valid for
Internet play. I try to find out and will you inform as soon as
possible.

Remark Dear Mr. Gijssen, before asking two questions I
would like to make a general remark. The archives of The
Chess Cafe now contain a large number of your past articles,
each of which addresses plenty of different topics. Wouldn't it
be a good idea for The Chess Caf‚ to offer some kind of search
tool so that readers can find past articles where you already
might have already discussed questions? Or alternatively some
kind of topic index that gives the corresponding articles date?

Answer Your idea is excellent and we are considering several
alternatives, but not until after the FIDE congress in Istanbul.
The reason is the following: I am sure there will be some
modifications in the Laws of Chess. But more important is that
there will be a renumbering of the Articles of the Laws of
Chess. We can then use the new numbering of the Articles.

Question But now my questions, both about electronic chess
clocks: (1) in many open tournaments the first boards (often
twenty or so) are equipped with electronic chess clocks. I know
many players that are not happy using these electronic devices
and would prefer to use a mechanical clock instead. Older
players especially find it clearer to see the hands of a
mechanical clock than only an anonymous "1:35" when it is not
at once clear if this means 95 minutes or only 95 seconds. So
my question: Does the player in an open tournament have any
right to claim the use of a mechanical clock if the majority of
the boards in this tournament is also equipped with mechanical
clocks (and of course if an additional mechanical clock is
available)? Or can the organizer force you to use an electronic
clock? (In tournaments with usual time control like 2 hours/40
moves and 30 minutes/rest)

(2) With mechanical clocks it is common to restart the
opponent's clock again if the opponent upsets some pieces (e. g.
when carrying out his move), so that my time is not affected
while the opponent is repositioning and adjusting the pieces.
What can I do in such a case with an electronic clock if there is
a time increment for each move (because restarting the
opponent's clock would give him an undeserved time increment
then)? Achim Engelhart (Germany)

Answer (1) As far as know, FIDE had never in its history
approved of any privately manufactured clock until a small
company in Holland produced the so-called DGT clock. In my
opinion, it is impossible to refuse to play with the DGT clock.
But if I am an arbiter in a tournament in which digital and
mechanical clocks are used and the two players agree to play
with a mechanical clock, I shall not oppose this decision. It
may even solve a problem. As you know from one of my
previous columns, it is forbidden for some Jewish players to
play on holy Jewish days with a digital clock. Well, in this way
the problem can be solved. But if any mode with an increment
is involved, this solution does not work

(2) You refer to Article 7.3. It says: "If a player displaces one
or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his
own time. If necessary the opponent has the right to restart the
player's clock without making a move in order to make sure the
player re-establishes the correct position on his own time." It is
clear that this is not possible with electronic clocks if there is a
time increment after each move. In a tournament with one of
these modes, the opponent of the player who has to re-establish
the position should call the arbiter. This is also my opinion in
tournaments with mechanical clocks. I will propose to change
this Article of the Laws of Chess in this regard.

Question Dear Geurt, Firstly keep up the great work - I enjoy
your articles very much. Both players are in time trouble (the
time limit is 40/90 + All 30). One player releases his piece but
does not press his clock. The second player makes his move
and tries to press his clock but finds that his button is still
down. The first player now claims to the arbiter that his
opponent is making a move on his time. What should the ruling
be? What penalties should apply? When is a player allowed to
start making his move?

Is it after the opponent has "made" his move - Article 4.7 -
[after releasing the piece] "... The move is considered to by
made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been
fulfilled." or after his opponent has "completed" his move -
Article 6.7(a) "... A player must always be allowed to stop his
clock. His move is not considered to be completed until he has
done so..." My view is that, in time trouble, it is too difficult to
keep track of whether your opponent has pressed his clock
while concentrating on the position on the board. I think that as
long as a player does not prevent his opponent from pressing
the clock he should be allowed to start making his move as
soon as his opponent has released his piece. John Mazzieri
(Australia)

Answer First of all I cite Article 6.7(a): "During the game each
player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his
own clock and start his opponent's clock. A player must always
be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to
have been completed until he has done so, unless the made
move ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3)."
This means, that if a player made a move and did not press his
clock immediately and his opponent answers, the player has
still the right to press his clock. And, of course, his opponent
may do the same. I think, if this happens very incidentally in a
game, I would not interfere. But if this happens many times, I
would give a warning to the opponent and tell him that he has
to wait until has opponent has completed his move, i.e., made
his move and pressed his clock.