An Arbiter's Notebook 
by Geurt Gijssen

J'adoube...

Question Dear Mr Gijssen: My question is if it is possible to
readjust the pieces, even using j'adoube, when your opponent is
thinking? Is there a penalty for a player who keeps adjusting the
pieces a lot of times, with the clear intent to disturb his opponent?
David Borensztajn (Brazil)

Answer Let me quote 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." One thing is
already very clear: A player may adjust the pieces only when it is
his move. When a player adjusts the pieces on his opponent's time,
the arbiter has to penalise the player. The penalty depends how
serious the disturbance is. Normally I would compensate the player
who was disturbed. 

The penalties are described in Article 13.4 of the Laws of Chess:
(a) warning; (b) increasing the remaining time of the disturbed
player; (c) reducing the remaining time of the offending player; (d)
declaring the game to be lost; and (e) expulsion of the offending
player from the tournament. But in my opinion this is not the end
of the story. Even when a player adjusts the pieces "on his own
time" frequently, I might also consider this disturbing the opponent
and proceed as mentioned above.

Question Dear Geurt: I wonder if you could clarify the rules
relating to pawn promotion in the common case that a player, short
of time in a blitz finish, does not physically replace his pawn, on its
arrival at the eighth rank, with the piece of his choice, but instead
says "queen" and continues to play. This can obviously get very
confusing, with the "queen" moving all round the board, but it is
nevertheless common practice. Is it acceptable within the rules, and
can the other player object to the practice and insist on the correct
procedure? If so, how would one do so? Ed Horton (United
Kingdom)

Answer Article 6.12.b is valid for blitz games also: "A player may
stop the clocks in order to seek the arbiter's assistance." I reiterate
what I have previously written: if a queen is not available, apply
his Article. See also my answer to question 6 of this column. 

Pierre Denommee, (Canada) submitted a large group of very
interesting questions and observations. Although somewhat
unusual, the rest of the questions in this month's column are from
him. In my opinion, they are very useful for and should be
considered in whole or in part by the next FIDE congress. In that
regard, I would like to encourage every chess player and arbiter to
send his remarks about the Laws of Chess to me at The Chess
Cafe. 

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen: Article 4.4 (c) looks strange. If a
player, intending to castle, touches the king or king and a rook at
the same time, but castling on that side is illegal, the player must
choose either to castle on the other side, provided that castling on
that side is legal, or to move his king. If the king has no legal
move, the player is free to make any legal move.

All moves are supposed to be made with one hand, so if a player
touches both king and rook at the same time by using a single hand
he is spreading his fingers, something which I have never seen in
real life. 

Answer I understand your remark, but I think you have to consider
the text of this Article from the perspective of the history of the
Laws of Chess. Before 1997, the Laws said that castling may be
done with two hands. And, although it is now forbidden to do this
with both hands, there are still some players who continue to do
this. So that a player who does this will not be required to move his
rook, the Rules Committee decided to implement this article.

Question 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 ends the game."

The stalemating move does not need to be legal; this is incorrect as
the move immediately ends the game making it impossible to make
an illegal move claim because such claim must be made during a
game. (This one is already in The Chess Cafe Arbiter's Notebook
Archives.)

Article 9.6 says: "The game is drawn when a position is reached
from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of
legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately
ends the game."

Same problem - if there is a black queen on h8, a black king on a8,
a white knight on a1 and a white king on h1. Instead of resigning
white simply play Nxh8!! and the game is automatically drawn. It
is too late to claim the illegal move.

In both cases I would not allow the draw, but a player in love with
the letter of the law might make an appeal hoping to find an appeal
committee that share its feeling toward the letter of the law. The
laws of chess should be modified to specify that the last move of a
game must be legal, if it is not, the opponent should be given a
sufficient amount of time for making a claim.

Answer You are right. By the way, the Rules Committee
recognised the problem in case of checkmate. Article 5.1 a) says:
"The game is won by the player who has checkmated his
opponent's king with a legal move. This immediately ends the
game."

Under the old Laws there was a very well known example: 1.e4 e5
2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qxf7 mate. Checkmate immediately ends the game. I
agree with you; in Articles 5.2 and 5.4 we have to add: "...with a
legal move."

Question In the case of a promotion, if the piece is not
immediately available the player must stop the clocks and summon
the arbiter. It is not specified where the arbiter should place the
piece that he gives to the player. I have heard of one case in which
the arbiter removed the pawn and put the new queen directly on the
promotion square before restarting the clocks; the player then
punched his clock having only one second left. It was clear that if
the arbiter had placed the queen on the table and did not remove
the pawn, as many other arbiters do, the player's flag would have
fallen before the player had the time to put the queen on the board.
It is also unclear whether or not the player has the right to remove
the pawn after stopping both clocks. 

There is nothing in the Laws that prevents a player from placing
the queen on the board before the arbiter restarts the clocks. When
a player has two seconds on his clock and the promotion is on the
40th move, the exact distance from the promotion square to the
position where the arbiter has placed the queen becomes crucial if
the arbiter is quick to restart the clocks. I think that instead of being
left to the discretion of the arbiter, the procedure should be
standardised because it can have a direct impact on the result of a
game. I suggest adding an article 6.12 (d): When the game is
interrupted (both clocks stopped), no legal move or portion of legal
move can be done by either player. I also suggest that the player
should remove the pawn before stopping the clocks and that the
queen should always be put on the promotion square because this
prevent players with fast hands from gaining an undeserved
advantage.

Answer In my opinion the correct procedure is: 1.The player plays
the pawn to the last rank and, if the desired piece is not available,
he stops the clocks. 2.He summons the arbiter and informs him
about the piece he needs. 3.The arbiter gives the piece to the player
and the player himself places the piece on the board. 4.The arbiter
starts the clock. 

I would like to make two additional remarks: 1. In top-level
tournaments and matches it is normal that spare queens are on the
playing table from the start of the round. 2. When I, as an arbiter,
see that a pawn is on the penultimate rank and a queen is not
available on this board, I stay around this board with a queen in my
pocket. I do not place this queen on the table, but wait until the
player asks for it. 3. Article 6.12 c) says: "The arbiter shall decide
when the game is to be restarted." Neither the player himself or the
opponent decides this; it means that usually the arbiter shall start
the clock after an interruption. But I am not sure that this or
another procedure will be a part of the Laws of Chess (see Preface
to the Laws of Chess).

Question Article 6.13 says: "If an irregularity occurs and/or the
pieces have to be restored to a previous position, the arbiter shall
use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the
clocks." I suggest adding that the arbiter should also readjust the
clock's move counter, if the operation is possible for the clock used
in the competition.

Answer I agree.

Question Article 7.3 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."

This article looks troublesome to me because when the opponent's
clock is restarted a move will be wrongly added by the clock's
internal move-counter. The game will require an interruption for
clock reprogramming, possibly at a very bad moment during a
time-pressure situation. This may look like a minor nuisance as the
game could continue anyway because the move-counter is not
official and cannot be used to support a claim, but it is a major
problem because the extra time of the next time control will be
added one move too soon, possibly preventing a player from
overstepping the time limit. Another annoying problem is that 30
seconds will be added to the clocks of both players as a result of
this procedure. Under article 7.4 the arbiter has the right to readjust
the clocks when pieces have been accidentally displaced but this
causes another problem: a player in time-pressure might be
tempted to deliberately displace some pieces (it would be very hard
to prove the unethical intent); if the clock are not readjusted (a
violation of Article 13.1) he has unfairly gained 30 seconds (and
one move because the move counter has been fooled); if they are
adjusted, the arbiter will probably take more than 30 seconds to
make the adjustment, a time during which the guilty player will
continue to think about his next move. I think that a time penalty
should be included in the laws to discourage such behaviour. There
is a penalty in article 10 for illegal moves during quickplay finish,
but nothing for accidentally displacing pieces. Before the advent of
move-counting clocks it was a great idea to restart the opponent's
clock without making a move because this could be done without
calling an arbiter. Actually it might be better to remove this article
and force the player to call an arbiter.

Answer Article 10.3 about penalties in case of an illegal move is
now part of Article 10 (Quickplay Finish). It means that only in the
last phase of game is there a penalty for an illegal move. I can
assure the readers that at the FIDE Congress in 2000, Article 10.3
will be moved to Article 7. This means, if during the game an
illegal move will be notified, and it does not matter in which phase
of the game, the player, who made this illegal move, will be
penalized. Furthermore, if the Arbiter believes that this is being
done intentionally, he can impose additional penalties, including
expulsion for the event.

I agree with you that Article 7.3 must be changed. There could be a
big problem, particularly when the game is played in Fischer
modus. Your observations are correct. 

The following situation arose during the World Championship
knockout tournament in Groningen, 1997. In the game
Akopian-Luther Akopian played 39.d7-d8 and pressed his clock.
Luther pressed also his clock and then an arbiter stopped the
clocks. To correct everything (times on both clocks and the number
of moves), two arbiters needed about 4 minutes. This is the reason
that one of the regulations of the World Championships in Las
Vegas is that the player, in the event something occurs as described
in your question, the player has to stop the clocks and summon the
arbiter. It is also my opinion that the same procedure must be
followed in all type of games. It is very dangerous to be your own
arbiter.

Question Article 9.5 says: "If a player claims a draw as in Article
9.2 or 9.3 he shall immediately stop both clocks. He is not allowed
to withdraw his claim. (a) If the claim is found to be correct the
game is immediately drawn. (b) If the claim is found to be
incorrect, the arbiter shall deduct half of the claimant's remaining
time up to a maximum of three minutes and add three minutes to
the opponent's remaining time. Then the game shall continue and
the intended move must be made."

This article is troublesome because at the local level not every
player uses a digital clock; the majority still uses analogue clocks.
Removing half the time of a player when there is less then one
minute left cannot be done accurately on most mechanical clocks. I
do not like the idea of different rules for different types of clocks,
but an alternate penalty for old clocks would be very useful as I do
not see how to apply this rule fairly with mechanical clocks when
there is only a few seconds left. 

Answer I agree with you that it is very difficult to adjust
mechanical clocks in some situations, especially with only a few
seconds on the clock. I think it is reasonable not to adjust the clock
of the player who claimed wrongly if case he has less than one
minute. By the way, in that event, the opponent is compensated by
getting three more minutes.

Question This question is related to Article 10. There is a big
difference between a game played with a DGT clock and another
one played with an older clock. What is the difference? The DGT
clock keeps on adding time after each move. At the local level it
may takes years before all analogue clocks disappear from the
tournament rooms. I propose to add one more option in Article 10
that is to be used only when the game is played with a clock that
has no time increment capability.

Simply add 5 minutes to the clock of both players and ask the
players to play ten more moves, this is what the DGT does: 10x30
seconds is 5 minutes. Any player who fails to play his ten moves
loses on time when his flag falls. More periods of 5 minutes may
be added if the position can be won by normal means and if at least
one of the players is still trying to win by normal means.

Answer First, please note that in games with the Fischer modus
(after each move some time is added) Article 10 does not applied.
It is clear that the Article 10 situation is a bit sticky. When we
drafted this Article we knew that we would have problems and we
intend to address these problems in 2000. But, first we would like
to see how things are going. My personal opinion is that on
Grandmaster and Master levels there are not too many problems.
Having in mind the Olympiads in Moscow 1994 and Yerevan
1996, I think, we had about 10 incidents associated with this
Article. I consider your suggestion very useful and I hope that more
arbiters will give their view on this Article. It would not be
appropriate to publish all proposals, but I would like to be able to
use them when the Rules Committee will propose some changes.

Question Article 12.2 says: "During play the players are forbidden
to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or to
analyse on another chessboard."

Computers are certainly a source of information; therefore I would
modify this article to explicitly forbid the use of a computer during
the game.

Answer In my opinion, the current Laws state that it is forbidden
to use computers.

Question Article 13.1 says: "The arbiter shall see that the Laws of
Chess are strictly observed."

When the arbiter witnesses an infraction he may have discretion
over the penalty but he has no discretion about intervening in the
game, unless such an intervention is explicitly forbidden (calling
touch piece in Rapidplay for example). In Canadian football it is
possible to decline a penalty and it is sometimes better to do so. If
during a game a player under extreme time pressure makes a move
using both hands, the arbiter must stop the game otherwise the
Laws of Chess would not be strictly observed. While the arbiter
explains the infraction and imposes a penalty, the guilty player will
have some time to think about the move; this time is unfairly
gained by the player's own infraction. Noticing that the offending
player has only three seconds left on his clock for playing the last
move of the time control, the opponent informs the arbiter that he
declines the penalty and wants to continue the game immediately.
Pushing the idea to the extreme, during a quickplay finish white
plays an illegal move after which there is a forced mate for black;
black declines the penalty and takes the mate. There is nothing in
the Laws about declining a penalty if a player thinks that it would
be advantageous. Under the Laws of Chess is it possible to decline
a penalty?

Answer Many infractions occur particularly in time trouble. And I
do see many of them. But I have to confess that it happens quite
often that I do not interfere. When I have the feeling that a player is
more disturbed by my intervention than the infraction of his
opponent, I do, at that very moment, nothing. Even using your
example: if a player plays with two hands and the opponent is not
disturbed, I let them play. After the game I speak to the offending
player, explain to him what was wrong and if there is a real reason
for this, I give him a warning. This has to do with the behaviour of
the players. An illegal move is something else. When I see an
illegal move, I have to step in. I think it should not be up to the
player whether his opponent would be corrected or not. The arbiter
has to take a decision.

Question Article B5 of Rapidplay says: "The arbiter shall make a
ruling according to Articles 4 and 10, only if requested to do so by
one or both players."

Article 4 is about two-handed play and the touched piece rule.
There is nothing in the article about illegal positions. My question
is: should the arbiter signal an illegal move in Rapidplay? The
previous laws did explicitly forbid the arbiter from reporting an
illegal move in these cases. 

Answer Article B2 of Rapidplay says: "Play shall be governed by
the Laws of Chess, except where they are overridden by the
following Laws." You pointed out that nothing is written about
illegal moves. This means we have to apply the "normal" Laws of
Chess. The arbiter has to interfere in case of an illegal move.

Question Appendix D has to do with Quickplay finishes where no
arbiter is present in the venue. The claim shall be referred to an
arbiter whose decision shall be final. If there is an arbiter in the
venue the player can make an appeal; if there is none, he cannot.
This looks like an encouragement to arbiters to be absent from the
playing venue at the critical moment. Voluntary absence from the
venue is contrary to article 13.3; it is also contrary to local
tournament rules and contrary to what is taught to arbiters during
their training.

Answer I think there is a misunderstanding. Let me explain the
meaning of Appendix D. I was told there are tournaments without
arbiters. Stewart Reuben told me there are many tournaments in
England like this. To be honest, I was surprised to learn this.
Appendix D applies to these tournaments. Article D1 says that you
may claim a draw under Article 10 and this claim ends the game.
Then the player has to send all the relevant information to an
arbiter, for instance an arbiter appointed by the federation, he
makes a decision and this decision is final.

Question The last problem is not hypothetical; it is currently
circulating among the members of the rules committee of the Chess
Federation of Quebec. A player legally proposes a draw. The
opponent touches a piece, put it back on its original square and
decides to accept the offer. In the actual game, nobody made any
claim, to the relief of the local arbiter who did not know what to do
in this situation. The arbiter has sent the case to the rules
committee (I am one of the members). The case has not been
decided yet. 

There are two conflicting interpretations among the committee
members. The articles used in the debate are: 

1. Article 4.3 says: "Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player
having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard (a) one or
more pieces of the same colour, he must move or capture the first
piece touched that can be moved or captured; or (b) one piece of
each colour, he must capture the opponent's piece with his piece or,
if this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched which can
be moved or captured. If it is unclear the player's own piece shall
be considered to have been touched before his opponent's."

 2. Article 5.3 says: "The game is drawn upon agreement between
the two players during the game. This immediately ends the game."
(See Article 9.1) 

 3. Article 9.1 says: "A player can propose a draw after making a
move on the chessboard. He must do so before stopping his own
clock and starting his opponent's clock. An offer at any other time
during play is still valid, but Article 12.5 must be considered. No
conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer
cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts
it, rejects it orally, rejects it by making a move, or the game is
concluded in some other way. The offer of a draw shall be noted by
each player on his scoresheet with the symbol (=)." 

The interpretations:

(1) The game is drawn: Article 9.1 clearly states that the player can
accept the offer until he has made a move. A move is not made by
simply touching a piece, so the player can validly accept the offer.
The agreement to a draw immediately ends the game (article 5.3)
and the fact that the player has touched a piece is irrelevant.
Interpretation 1 has my vote. 

 (2) The game must continue: The player did not make a move, but
he is under obligation, because of Article 4.3, to make a move.
This obligation has priority over the player's right to accept the
draw immediately. After the player has fulfilled his obligation
under article 4.3, he can no longer accept the draw because he has
completed a move.

Answer The essential point of the discussion is in my opinion that
in Article 9.1 it is written that a player can reject an offer by
making a move. It is my opinion that we have to change this
Article in 2000. It must be changed to: A player rejects an offer by
touching a piece with the intention of making a move with such
piece. Under the current Laws of Chess the player may accept the
offer as long he has not made his move.