An Arbiter's Notebook
By Geurt Gijssen

Flying Rooks

In my previous column I promised to tell you something about
the Schuhplattler Tournament between the Ladies and the
Veterans in July, and especially about Victor Korchnoi. It was
organised in Munich by the Association Max Euwe in Monaco.
During the whole tournament I was sitting only about two
meters from Korchnoi's board. Therefore I had a lot of
opportunities to observe him.

Korchnoi's most remarkable quality is, in my opinion, that he
plays all his games with a lot of energy and a tight-lipped face.
During a game the word "relax" does not exist for him. On free
days and during the closing ceremony, particularly if he has a
chance to dance, he is a totally different person.

In the first round he met Nana Ioseliani. It was a draw in 39
moves. The next day he told the press officer of the
tournament, IM Paul Boersma, that the final position was lost
for him. Here it is (See Diagram):

Ioseliani, N-Korchnoi, V
White: Ke2, Ra8, Be3, pawns c3, c4, d5, f3, g4 (8)
Black: Kf6, Rc7, Nc8, pawns b6, c5, d6, e5, g5 (8)

He explained that White's best plan is to bring her King to b5
and then to switch the Rook to the h-file.

From the first round, he ate a lot of chocolate. This is, of
course, not a problem, but he always made so much noise
with the chocolate wrappers that the arbiters had to warn him
each round to stop it. Several players complained about this.

In the second round he won quite easily against Sofia Polgar. In
the third round Alisa Galliamova was his next opponent. Their
game was one of the most exciting games of the tournament.

Galliamova, A-Korchnoi, V
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4
h6 7. Nf3 Nf6 8. Ne5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 11. Bd2
Nbd7 12. f4 Be7 13. 0-0-0 c5 14. Bc3 0-0 15. Nxd7 Qxd7 16.
f5 Qd5 17. b3 Rac8 18. dxc5 Qxc5 19. Bd4 Qa3+ 20. Kb1
Nd5 21. c4 Nb4 22. Qe2 b5 23. f6 Bxf6 24. Bxf6 gxf6 25. Nh5
f5 (See Diagram) 

In this position 26 Rd2 Nxa2 27 Qd3 looks very good for White
26. Nf6+ Kh8 27. Rd2 Rfd8 28. Qe3 Kg7 29. Nh5+ Kg6 (See
Diagram)

In his daily report Paul Boersma showed the following
variation: 30 Qg3+ Kxh5 31 Qg7 (threatening 32 g4+ fxg4 33
Qxf7 mate) 31...Rc7 32 Rg1 and 33 g4+ or 31...Rg8 32 g4+
fxg4 33 Qxf7+ Rg6 34 Re1 30. Rh3 Rxc4 31. Rg3+ Rg4 32.
Rxg4+ fxg4 33. Nf4+ Kf5 34. Qc5+ e5 35. Rxd8 Qxa2+ 36.
Kc1 Qxb3 37. Rd2 Na2+ 38. Rxa2 Qxa2 39. Nd5 Qc4+ 40.
Qxc4 bxc4 41. Kd2 a5 42. Kc3 Ke4 43. Nf6+ Kf4 44. Kxc4
(44 Nh5+ is probably better) Kg3 45. h5 Kf4 46. Kb5 e4 47.
Nd5+ Ke5 48. Ne3 g3 49. Kxa5 f5 50. Kb4 f4 51. Ng4+ Kd4
52. Nxh6 f3 53. Nf5+ Kd3 54. h6 fxg2 55. h7 g1Q 56. h8Q
Qb6+ 57. Ka4 Qa6+ 58. Kb4 Qc4+ 59. Ka3 Qc5+ 60. Kb3
Qb5+ 61. Ka2 Qxf5 62. Qh1 Qf2+ 63. Kb3 g2 64. Qh3+ Ke2
0-1

Round 4: Korchnoi, V-Zhu Chen 
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. b3 Ne4 6. Bd3 Bb4+ 7.
Kf1 Qe7 8. Qc2 f5 9. Bb2 Nd7 10. Nc3 0-0 11. Ne2 Bd6 12.
g3 Ndf6 13. h3 dxc4 14. bxc4 c5 15. g4 b5 16. gxf5 exf5 17.
d5 Bb7 18. Rg1 bxc4 19. Bxc4 Qe8 20. Nc3 Rb8 21. Nxe4
fxe4 22. Bxf6 Rxf6 23. Ng5 Bc8 24. Ne6 Qh5 In this position
both players had only 3 minutes left on the clocks and I
expected some dramatic moments (See Diagram)
 
25. Rxg7+ Kh8 26. Rg2 Qxh3 27. Ng5 Qh1+ 28. Rg1 Bh3+
29. Nxh3 Qxh3+ 30. Ke1 Be5 31. Rb1 Rbf8 32. Qxe4 Bc3+
33. Ke2 Rxf2+ 34. Kd3 R2f3 (See Diagram)
0-1 

Here Korchnoi overstepped the time limit. The games were
played with the electronic DGT clocks and Korchnoi started to
argue with me, asking me whether I was sure that it was not he
but his opponent Zhu Chen who had overstepped. I tried to
explain to him that the DGT clocks show clearly who has
exceeded the time control. But I could not convince him and I
stopped trying. Then he started to explain quite loudly that the
final position was won for him and his opponent, always polite,
agreed with him (35 Rh1, Qd7, 36 Kxc3). Finally he argued,
again, that he did not understand why he had lost on time. My
colleague, Mr. Krause, had the courage to try to explain this to
him again, but I told him to do so outside of the playing hall
and this is what happened.

In Round 5 he drew with Xie Jun and analysed with her for a
very long time; in round 6 he played a game with chances for
both players against Ioseliani and won.
Round 8 was again very special. Galliamova was his opponent.
After the opening Korchnoi was better, but in the endgame he
missed his chance and Galliamova was able to achieve a hard-
fought draw

Korchnoi, V-Galliamova, A

After 67... Kf3 Bd6 the following position was reached (See
Diagram) 

White: Kf3, Bc4, pawns a6, e3, f4, g4, h3 (7)
Black: Kc7, Bd6, pawns f6, g5, h6 (5)

In this position 68 f5 is winning. After the move played,
Korchnoi is not able to win the game

68. fxg5 hxg5 69. Ke4 Ba3 70. Kf5 Bb2 71. Kg6 Be5 72. Bf1
Kb6 73. Kf5 Bc3 1/2-1/2

Korchnoi left the playing hall immediately without going to the
analysis room. As in the first cycle of the tournament, his next
game against Zhu Chen was full of drama. 

Zhu Chen- Korchnoi, V

Position after 39...Qg6 (See Diagram)

White: Kg1, Qb2, Rc4, Bf1, pawns a4, b4, g2, h2 (8)
Black: Kg7, Qg6, Rd5, Ne5, pawns b6, e6, f7, h4 (8)

40 f4 wins a pieces. 40. Rxh4 Qf6 and wins immediately 
because White will lose her Queen or a Rook. 0-1

Korchnoi did not analyse after the game and Zhu Chen left the
playing hall with tears in her eyes. In Round 10 Korchnoi won
quickly against Xie Jun. His final result was 7,5 out of 10 and
he earned 12 rating points.

Something else: I sent an 89-page document to the FIDE office
with the comments of readers about the published draft of the
Laws of Chess. We hope to publish the final draft soon.

Now, on to the questions 

Dear Geurt, I have two questions:
Question (1) The term "mating potential" is not quite
appropriate, in my opinion. Perhaps, it should be replaced with
the following: When one of the players exceeds the time limit
the game is considered to be winning, if pieces are on the
chessboard in such a way that it is impossible to repulse the
mating threat on the next move (even if this position results in
helpmate).

Answer Thank you for your proposal for a definition of
helpmate. The readers know that for a very long time Article 10
and especially Article 10.2 was one of the hot topics of this
column. And there was a good reason for this.

After I published a new draft (not mine) of the Laws of Chess,
it seems we have a new item for discussion. And it is probably
my fault, because I wrote in the preface to the draft that I am
not happy with the definition of "mating potential". On the
website of www.worldfide.com all proposals to improve the
current rules of chess and the comments have been published.
So, everybody can see what the actual situation is. As a matter
of fact, I am not happy with any definition that includes
helpmate. We shall see what happens in Istanbul at the
Congress.

Question (2) I have been asked how P. Tregubov managed to
obtain the best Buchholz tiebreaks in the European
championship when one of his points (in round 1) was as a
result of a bye (that was, without an opponent). If the results of
round 1 are not considered, then Tregubov's Buchholz index is
far from being the best. The crosstable on the official site of the
tournament shows Tregubov having a Buchholz index of 78,
which is possible only when his overall tournament score (8
points) is added to the total score of all his opponents (70
points). It remains a mystery to me what criteria were used to
declare Tregubov the winner. Vladimir Dvorkovich, (Russia)

Answer Vladimir, I am very happy that I am able to solve your
problem. On the other hand, I am little bit disappointed that you
yourself could not find the solution to it, although I have to
admit that it was not very obvious and I have my doubts about
the criterion used.

But first let me give you the solution. For this I would like to
refer to one of the best books ever written about arbiters'
matters, The Chess Competitors Handbook published in 1979
by Batsford. Its authors, B.M. Kazic, D. Djaja, M.E. Morrison
and A. Elo, all are very well known in the chess world. In
Chapter 12, Tie-Breaking Systems, there is a little paragraph on
page 63 entitled Adjusting Scores for Tie-Breaking: 

"It is customary in those systems to make adjustments in the
final scores used for tie-breaking to compensate for opponents
who won or lost points as a result of unplayed games (byes and
games won or lost by default). Every player who won or lost a
point for a game that was not played for any reason receives
one-half point as the adjusted score for that game. This adjusted
score is used only for the purpose of breaking ties among the
players' opponents."

So, what does this mean for the Buchholz co-efficient of
Grandmaster Tregubov? The sum of the scores of his
opponents is 70.5, and not 70 as you calculated. Tregubov's
own score was 8 points, but in this score one point was
included for the bye in the first round. For tiebreak purposes we
consider this free point as a draw, therefore his score for
tiebreak calculations is 7.5 points. To the 70.5 we add these 7.5
points and we get the 78 points mentioned on the website of the
tournament. By the way, two pages later in this book I saw
your name mentioned...

Question Dear Mr.Gijssen! In a recent youth blitz tournament
we had an interesting incident. One player made an illegal
move and stopped his clock, but the clock of his opponent was
not started (the players used analogue clocks and there is a
position in which neither clock will run). An argument started
whether the player was allowed to take back his move and to
make a legal one or not. We decided to let him take back his
move, because the Laws of Chess say that a move is completed
when a player has stopped his own clock and started the
opponent's clock. Were we right? Axel Eisengraeber-Pabs
(Germany)

Answer This is an interesting question, not specifically covered
in the Laws of Chess. It means we have to use sound
judgement, as noted in the Preface of the Laws of Chess. It is
not clear whether you were right or wrong. Had I been the
arbiter I would have first asked the young boy or girl: "Why
didn't you start your opponent's clock?" If he had answered
that he made an illegal move and he did not know what to do in
such a situation, I would have accepted this answer and I would
have handled it the same way you did. But if the answer had
been that he did not know, I would have declared the game lost
because he had made an illegal move. By the way, it was, as
you wrote, a youth tournament. You may know from my
previous articles, that I hold the view that we should be flexible
in youth tournaments.

Question Hi Geurt: In a German chess-newsgroup the
following (actually, well-known) case was controversially
discussed: In a Blitz game, Player A has already a piece in his
hand to make the move which checkmates Player B. At this
moment, the flag falls and player B claims the win. I would
expect that Player A wins by checkmate (FIDE rules 6.7 and
5.1). However, Player B could argue that the move is not
finished and so (a) there is no checkmate; and (b) Player A may
not have seen the checkmating move.

So, the question is: How would you decide the matter? If you
decide a win for Player A, then the question arises: can Player
A do his checkmating move AFTER the flag falls - where in
the FIDE rules is the point which clarifies this (at the first
glance, I do not see a contradiction to 5.1 and 6.7)? If you
decide a win for Player B, wouldn't this result in a huge
number of arguments during Blitz games? Thank you in
advance for your answer. With compliments for your column,
An Arbiter's Notebook. Torsten Schaller, (Germany)

Answer Article 5.1 says, that the game is won by the player
who has checkmated his opponent's king with a legal move. To 
checkmate the opponent's king the move must be made before his
own flag has fallen and this is not the case here.
Player A has overstepped the time limit and Player B wins.

Question Dear Geurt Gijssen, I would like to know what
happens if one player claims his opponent touched a piece but
the opponent disagrees and says he never touched the piece. In
one tournament the TD decided to proclaim the game a draw.
However this does not seem to be a practical solution because
next time the player is losing he can just accuse his opponent of
having touched a piece and then he will get a draw. Can I
please hear your views on this? Thank you very much. Janus
Theron (South Africa)

Answer I agree with you that the TD's solution is not a good
one. When we have no witnesses, the game must be continued,
without forcing the accused player to play the piece that his
opponent claimed he had touched. In my arbiter's career I once
had a similar case. In a game between Miles and Polugajevsky,
Miles claimed that Polu had castled touching the rook first.
Unfortunately I was the only arbiter and was not at that board
at the time. I asked Polu and he told me that it was not the case.
The game continued with a castled king.

Question Dear Mr Gijssen, Here is a question based on a little
whimsy and on an incident I read about. A player in desperate
time trouble grabbed at his Rook but it flew from his hand and
sailed across the room. In the incident I read, the player lost on
time while retrieving it. Would it have been legal for him to
complete the move using a Rook that had previously been
captured and was now at the side of the board? If so, how about
using a Rook that had previously been captured on his
neighbour's board? Phil Roe (France)

Answer Well, I do not see any problem when the player
replaces the piece with a piece that has already been captured.
Taking a captured piece that belongs to his neighbour can cause
some problems, provided the neighbour is still playing, because
I can imagine that he might be disturbed by the player's action.

Question My query relates to scorekeeping in events with
sudden death time controls. In the game in question the time
control was the whole game in ninety minutes for each player.
My opponent was about to cease writing down moves as he had
less than five minutes to play on his clock. At this point he
claimed that my scoresheet was inaccurate, as I had missed a
move. I solved the problem by offering a draw, which was
accepted. (The position was drawn). How should the problem
have been resolved? David Flude (USA)

Answer: As a matter of fact a player who has more than five
minutes left on his clock has to write all moves as per the rules;
apparently you missed one or two moves on your scoresheet
and your opponent saw this at the moment he stopped writing
the moves because he had less than minutes left on his clock. It
was not against the rules that he claimed so, but I am
wondering whether it is fair action of your opponent to claim
this at the precise moment he has the right to stop writing the
moves. I assume that your opponent went to the arbiter and that
the arbiter informed you that you have to do your duty. 

Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I am writing to you on behalf of
the Rules- and Arbiter-committee of the Swedish Chess
Federation. We have encountered a question that has to do with
illegal moves during a blitz-game. When, exactly, has the other
player (i.e., the one not having made the illegal move) lost
his/her right to point out the illegal move? 

Is it when this player has made a reply (let go of the piece in
question) or only when the clock has been started? It seems to
us that this matter is not totally clear under the rules (C3) at the
present time. The critical wording is obviously "has made his
move". If you look at the rules in Article 3 and 4 (4.7), one gets
the impression that it is sufficient that the piece is moved to the
square and released there. The clock would therefore have
nothing to do with the making of the move. But on the other
hand, C3 says that the move is not "completed" in a blitz-game
(not the same as made?) until the clock has been started. This is
of course a very practical rule as the starting of the opponent's
clock is final and easy to see. So, how should the rules be
interpreted in this case? And - do you agree that the rules
should be clarified? Johan Sigeman (Sweden)

Answer You are right, there is a difference between "making"
and "completing" a move. Your definition of "making a move"
is very correct: a piece is moved to another square and the
player's hand released this piece on the new square.
"Completing a move" means: a player made a move (see
definition above), stopped his own clock and started the
opponent's clock.

Let us now go to Article C3 of the Blitz rules:
"An illegal move (of player A) is completed once the
opponent's clock  (this is player B's clock) has been started."
 With the explanation above it is now clear there is no point of
return for player A, who completed an illegal move.
"The opponent (player B) is then entitled to claim a win before
making his own move"
This means that player B can claim a win as long as his hand
has not released the piece he is playing. At the moment the
piece is released, the right to claim a win is over. The last
sentence of Article C3 reads: 
"Once the opponent (player B) has made his own move, an
illegal move (of Player A) cannot be corrected." 
This means that the illegal move stands and the game will be
continued in spite of the irregularity. This is the rule in Blitz
games!
