FIDE Laws of Chess - Article 6

From Article 6, the FIDE Laws of Chess deal with 'competition chess'. This is for games played within competitions, where the final result contributes to something more than just personal pride. Having said that, even now the Laws try and avoid trying to define what form the competition takes, leaving that to the FIDE Tournament Regulations (the TR in RTRC).
The first change to Article 6 is a an new definition. We decided to define 'The chessclock' so as to make the following articles clearer. The proposed new 6.1 reads

‘Chessclock’ means a clock with two time displays, connected to each other in such a way that only one of them can run at one time. ‘Clock’ in the Laws of Chess, means one of the two time displays. Each time display has a ‘flag’. ‘Flag fall’ means the expiration of the allotted time for a player.

Following this we then removed an area of confusion in the previous rules that has always irked me. We propose to define 'press' or 'presses' as meaning pushing the button on your clock to start the opponents clock. We also propose the define 'stop' to mean halting both clocks (or the chessclock) to ask for the arbiters assistance.
Article 6.2 is essentially unchanged, apart from using the new terms mentioned. However taken together with Article 6.3, it does clear up an issue that is still debated. Article 6.2 requires players to complete the required number of moves before the end of the time control (ie 'flag fall). Article 6.3 then requires the Arbiter to check whether this has happened, immediately after on flag falls. Why is this important? Because it answers the question about whether arbiters should call flag fall. Under USCF rules the arbiter does not call flag fall, and I know a number of arbiters (including myself), who are uncomfortable in doing so.
As I have posted in a previous entry, if you follow 6.2 and 6.3, you are required to make a ruling concerning 6.2 the moment you notice a flag has fallen, or one player alerts you to this fact. However, at this point you are making no statement concerning the result of the game, but are merely checking whether the conditions of 6.2 have been met. If it turns out that they have not, then Article 6.9 applies. While this is a somewhat convoluted explanation, it does at least treat the issue of flag fall as a routine part of the game, in the same way that touch move or stalemate may needed to be ruled upon.
6.4 is unchanged, and simply states that the clock is to be placed by the arbiter. Of course there is still the persistent belief that the player with the Black pieces decides, and while this generally happens in practice, it is not correct. In a practical sense, an arbiter may wish to place the clocks all facing in the one direction to make observing them easier. The work around is either for the arbiter to not mind players moving clocks, or to simply allow the player with the Black pieces to decide which side of the table they wish to sit. (Barring left-handers from chess is probably a step too far!)
6.5 is also unchanged, and states that the clock of player of the White pieces is started first.

Now we get on to 6.6. This is the big ticket item, and the one that is probably the most controversial rule in recent years. As it currently stands, 6.6 requires the organiser to set a default time, and a player arriving after that time loses the game. It also states that this time shall be 0 minutes, if the organiser does not specify a time.
Now while the rule clearly states that it is an organisers right to set this time, FIDE (and RTRC) have come under a great deal of criticism for the implementation of this rule. While I'm not saying this criticism is unwarranted, we do have the absurd situation of the ECU using a 0 default time for their own championship, and yet somehow trying to shift the blame onto FIDE, despite the ECU being able to choose a non-zero time.
Having said that, I for one went to the meeting with a proposal to remove 0 and replace it with 30 minutes (or even 15 minutes). However in discussion we looked at a couple of different proposals. Now at this stage we haven't quite agreed on what we will present in Istanbul, but has come down to 2 choices.
The first is to keep it as is, with one small addition. The result shall be a loss, 'unless the arbiter decides otherwise'. While this is a small improvement, it will still be difficult to implement, as players will argue for conformity in arbiter rulings, and letting one player off means letting all players off.
The second proposal is one that I support and reads

The rules of a competition shall specify in advance a default time. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the default time shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

This wording takes out any mention of a specific default time from the Laws of Chess, and puts the responsibility in the hands of the tournament organisers. Of course some tournament organisers will still insist on 0 (including FIDE), but it will only apply to their tournaments.

The various clauses in 6.7 are mainly unchanged, except under 6.7c we have added 'to press the clock before moving' as things you cannot do with the chessclock. Also in 6.7d, which deals with time adjustments for players who cannot press the clock (ie need an assistance), there is a proposal to exempt players with a disability from this requirement.
From Articles 6.8 to 6.12 we mainly fixed up the wording, with 'the chessclock' replacing 'clocks' wherever necessary. The only real addition was in 6.10b where fixing the clocks 'move-counter' is explicitly mentioned. This foreshadows an explicit recognition of the use of move-counters on clocks, as until now this has not clearly been stated in the relevant regulations.
Article 6.13 is to be taken out of the Laws, and instead moved into Article 7, which deals with other irregularities. This means that 6.14 becomes the new 6.13, but otherwise there is little change.

*** Small Update ***
The proposed change to article 6.6 is now the one listed above

FIDE Laws of Chess - Article 5

Article 5 is the last section that deals with how chess is played, and defines the completion of the game (minus technical issues which are covered later). All we did here was take out the references to Articles that occur after this, as they do not make any sense if a person is not reading the complete Laws of Chess. However there is one issue that occasionally comes up and that is 5.1b. "The games is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game" There is a claim that you can arrange a 1-1 result by both resigning at the same time. A couple of people have asked us to fix this, but it is one of those issues which fall under the heading of "Why?". Nonetheless Franca Dapiran did come up with a sensible suggestion to resolve this case. If both players resign at the same time, simply take the player whose move it is (ie whose clock is running) as the player who resigned first.

FIDE Laws of Chess - Article 4

Article 4 deals with "The Act of Moving the Pieces". We dealt with a couple of proposals and tidied up some wording. However I am surprised that there are still large numbers of chessplayers who still don't understand all the clauses.
For example I still get asked at blitz events whether two handed capturing/castling is allowed. Short answer - NO. 4.1 states "Each move must be made with one hand only". Seems pretty straightforward to me. (NB we did not change this rule at all).
We made a slight change the 4.2 to clarify who can adjust pieces after saying "Adjust" etc. It is the player who has the move, and only the player who has the move. However he is still allowed to adjust his opponents pieces.
In 4.3, we have removed "deliberately" before "touches" and instead added the phrase "with the intention of moving or capturing" at the end of the first sentence. This is a refinement if the previous wording, to make the intention of the rule clear.
While the initial discussion concerning the issue of pawn promotion did not lead anywhere, I have proposed an addition to 4.4 to deal with the case of pawns not being placed on the back rank before promotion takes place. My draft wording for 4.4d is

intends to promote (3.7e), the player may remove the pawn from the 7^th rank and then place the promoted piece on the promotion square.

and the current 4.4d becomes 4.4e. The idea is to 'legalise' a common way of promoting a pawn. At this stage the proposed wording is still being discussed, so I do not know whether it will be a recommended law change or not.
Otherwise the changes are mainly cosmetic, removing instances of repeated expressions, or in the case of 4.7, making the wording consistent with 4.3

FIDE Laws of Chess - Article 3

Article 3 saw a little bit more work, although this was mainly in the area of tightening up definitions.
Section 3.1 contains definitions of 'attack' as well as a prohibition on capturing your own pieces. There was some discussion about what defines 'attacking a square', as whether pinned pieces can capture on a square (normally they can't) or give check (in this case they do), needs to be taken into account. In the end we modified the wording slightly, without changing the assumed meaning.
There was also the regular discussion about how best to define the Knight move. It was noted that definitions seem to change from language to language, and this can sometimes cause difficulties. The familiar "moves in an L shape" definition in English may have no equivalent in Chinese or Japanese. In the end we left it as is.
Section 3.7 deals with how the pawn moves, and there was some work done here. The definition of en-passant  was tidied up to remove the use of the word 'attack' and instead to use the physical location of the respective pawns. ( 'occupying a square on the same rank and on an adjacent file').
Promotion was also covered in this section, and although we left the wording unchanged it is still something that may be revisited. The difficulty is that this section defines what promotion 'is', not how it is supposed to occur. So the definition starts with 'When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position' which is perfectly fine. But in the absence of any further laws concerning promotion, this also becomes the defined method of promotion (ie You must physically move the pawn to the 8th rank to effect promotion). This then cause difficulties (especially at Blitz) when players simply remove the pawn from the 7th and put a piece down on the 8th. We had intended to work on something to repair this, but due to circumstances beyond our control, we did not have the time to do so. Nonetheless I may still try and put something together before Istanbul.

FIDE Laws of Chess - Article 2

Article 2 of the FIDE Laws of Chess is pretty straightforward. In fact we have not changed anything in this section, although we are proposing a simple addition. Section 2.2 contains a 2D representation of the pieces, which are normally used for setting chess diagrams in books. The proposal is to add an image of pieces as they would look in real life, ie in 3D (although we aren't proposing to use 3D images!). The pictures will probably be of the standard Staunton design chess pieces.

FIDE Laws of Chess - Article 1

You might think that Article 1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess is pretty straightforward, and yet we needed to do a little housekeeping here. The issue was 1.1 and the idea that the player with the White pieces 'commences the game'. Using our 'be descriptive as possible' policy we decided to change it to the player with the white pieces, 'moves first'.
However this wasn't our only change. While it might be assumed that everyone should understand that White plays, then Black plays, then White plays etc, I suspect someone suggested that the rules are not clear enough, and although White plays first, the rules then do not prevent the alternation of moves starting with a second White move! So we fixed this one as well.

FIDE Laws of Chess - Article 0

Of course there is no Article 0 in the FIDE Laws of Chess, but there is both a Preface, and probably an underlying framework to the document. Even before that there is the question about how these Laws are made and amended.
The responsibility for defining the FIDE Laws of Chess lies with the Rules and Tournament regulations Commission. The current Commission is chaired by Geurt Gijssen (NED), with Stewart Reuben (ENG) as Secretary. Ashot Vardapetyan (ARM), Franca Dapiran (ITA) and myself are the Commission Counselors. The rest of the Commission is made of general members nominated by there respective Confederations.
The full commission meets every year at the FIDE Congress. These meetings are also open to the public, who may make contributions to the proceedings. Members of the public are also entitled to submit suggestions, at any time, to the RTRC, concerning proposed changes to the Laws of Chess.
Every four years (eg 2008, 2012) the Commission will present their recommended changes to the Laws of Chess to the FIDE General Assembly for approval. Proposed changes will normally go through the Chair, and be sent to the RTRC members for discussion. Also some changes will be presented to a RTRC Counselors meeting, like the one just held in Lausanne.
One important thing to know is the framework and ethos of the Laws of Chess. The first 5 articles are how chess is played. As one person at the RTRC meeting put it, "It is the rules you get when you buy a chess set". it is a definition of how the pieces move, how the game ends, and other important rules for playing the game (ie check etc). Articles 6 to 14, as well as the appendices cover the rules of competition chess. This deals with the a game between two players, using a chess clock, with an arbiter (almost always) present. Importantly, this is pretty much the boundary of the rules. While this part defines competitive chess, it does not generally deal with chess competitions or tournaments. This is instead covered in the FIDE Tournament Regulations (which the RTRC handle as a separate document).
One effect of this is that the references in the Laws of Chess may seem a little odd. One thing we have tried to avoid is referring to any Articles from 6 to 14 in the first 5 Articles, as it would not make sense outside of competitive play. This can make some definitions seem incomplete or repetitive (eg stalemate).
Nonetheless one suggestion that is being adopted is the introduction of a glossary of terms. This will explain the meaning by some of the expressions and definitions used in the Laws. The only difficulty is if this glossary is included in the Laws (even as an appendix) it becomes part of the laws, and then subject to the same change procedure!

Swiss Pairing Rules - Half point byes

Whether it is legal to give half point byes in a FIDE Rated Swiss tournament has been subject to debate for quite a while. Some pairing programs do allow it (even FIDE approved ones) but until recently the pairing rules seemed to be clear that it wasn't allowed. Under the rules for the Dutch System clause F5 stated

Players who withdraw from the tournament will no longer be paired. Players known in advance not to play in a particular round are nor paired in that round and score 0.


However the last meeting of the FIDE Swiss Pairing Programs Committee, as well as the FIDE Technical Commission had a look at the rules and have now ruled that they are allowable.
In the updated Swiss Pairing Rules clause B1b now states

A player who has received a point or half point without playing, either through a bye or due to an opponent not appearing in time, is a downfloater (see A.4) and shall not receive a bye.


The text of the updates Swiss Pairing Rules is at this link FIDE Swiss Pairing Rules (Dutch System)
(Note: Clause F5 still remains unchanged in the updated rules, but in discussion with SPP Chairman Christian Krause, we agreed that this is overridden by B1b and F5 will be changed at the next meeting).

The discussions concerning this, and other changes to the pairing rules are included in the minutes of the Swiss Pairing Programs Committee.

However the final decision of half point byes was made by the Technical Commission, who's meeting minutes are here.

Nonetheless there may be some time until all FIDE approved pairing programs are updated to reflect the changes in the pairing rules. At the 2012 Queenstown International I observed a number of cases where players who had received a half point bye were then downfloated in the next round, or the round after by Swiss Manager. on the other hand, JaVaFo, which we ran alongside Swiss Manager (under the Vega interface) did treat the half point bye correctly.

New FIDE Arbiter fees

The FIDE Arbiters commission have introduce a scheduled set of fees for Arbiters. For now they are listed below, comments to come later

6.1

A titled active Arbiter (International Arbiter or FIDE Arbiter) and a National Arbiter
working in a FIDE rated tournament shall be charged with a “licence fee”.
The licence will be valid for life, on the condition the arbiter remains an active
arbiter, and will be in effect from the day after FIDE has received the fee.
The licence fee for National Arbiters is valid for life.
If a National Arbiter is awarded the title of “FIDE Arbiter” the licence fee for this
title has to be paid to FIDE.
If an arbiter upgrades his/her category only the difference between the category
fee has to be paid to FIDE.
If a “FIDE Arbiter” achieves the title of “International Arbiter”, the fee for the new
title has to be paid to FIDE.
The licence fee will be:
a) for A’ Category Arbiters (only IAs):
300 €
b) for B’ Category Arbiters (only IAs):
200 €
c) for C’ Category Arbiters:
IAs
160 €
FAs
120 €
d) for D’ Category Arbiters:
IAs
100 €
FAs
80 €
e) for National Arbiters
20 €
Failure to pay the licence fee will lead to exclusion from the FIDE Arbiters’ list.
The Arbiters’ licence will come into effect from 01. 01. 2013.
From 01. 01. 2013 all arbiters of FIDE rated tournaments shall be licensed.
An arbiter who has become inactive (see annex 2, articles 1.3 and 1.4) is
considered not to be licensed any more.
In order to be active again the arbiter has to pay for a new licence.
If the article 6.6 is not fulfilled, the tournaments shall not be rated.
From 01. 01. 2013 the licence fee will be charged together with the application
fee for all awarded arbiter titles.

Additional Swiss Pairing Rules

If you have looked at the latest set of Dutch Pairing Rules in the FIDE handbook, you might notice a couple of additions. In the "Introductory remarks and Definitions" Section (Section A) a couple of clauses have been added to A7. They are

d. While pairing an odd-number round players having a strong colour preference (players who have had an odd number of games before by any reason) shall be treated like players having an absolute colour preference as long as this does not result in additional downfloaters (GA 2001)
e. While pairing an even-numbered round players having a mild colour preference (players who have had an even number of games before by any reason) shall be treated and counted as if they would have a mild colour preference of that kind (white resp. Black) which reduces the value of x (see A.8) as long as this does not result in additional downfloaters, (GA 2001)

It turns out that these clauses have been part of the rules since 2001, but were only included in the handbook this year (I have no idea why btw). But now that they are there what do they mean?

I asked this question of the Chairman of the FIDE Swiss Pairing Program Committee, Christian Krause. He said that what these rules do is deal with the case where a player hasn't played the same number of rounds as other players in the same score bracket (through byes or forfeits). For example, in pairing an even numbered round a player may have played an even number of games (eg only played 4 of the previous 5 rounds), the players mild colour preference (ie opposite the last colour played if they have had 2 whites and 2 blacks), shall be used to calculate x (the number of pairings in a group that do not satisfy all colour preferences), rather than treating the colour preference as 0 or undefined.

Dealing with resignation offers

The 2011 Dubbo Open ran pretty smoothly, with only a couple of minor arbiting issues to deal with. But I did come across something I've never personally witnessed before (although I have heard reports of it happening elsewhere).

On the lower boards there was game where one side was easily winning. The player was 2 queens ahead and was a few moves away from mate. She clearly new what she was doing but at one point ,after moving, she simply asked he opponent "Would you like to resign?" in the same manner you would offer a draw. The opponent said "No" and the game soon reached its conclusion.

It was a minor breach of the rules ("disturbing your opponent") and I did not interfere. But if such an 'offer' was allowed in the rules, I wonder how you would signify it on your scores sheet?

FIDE Commissions 2010-2014

FIDE commissions are appointed every 4 years, and FIDE have just announced the commissions for the period 2010-2014. Each commission consists of a chairman, secretary, up to 3 councilors and 8 additional members. The Chairmain, secretary and councilors form the commissions Council, while the 8 additional members (4 nominated by the chairman, the other 4 nominated by Continental Presidents) have consultative status. In practice (at least in Rules and Tournament Regulations), both the Council members and the other members all have a vote during the commission meetings.

One change that took place for the new commissions is the requirement that no person be on more than two commissions. This has opened up more commission slots for members, while allowing the exchange of expertise across committees.

The list of members for each committee is quite long (grab it from here if you are interested) but the Chairman and Secretary for each committee is:

Technical Commission: Dirk de Ridder (BEL), Secretary Andrzej Filipowicz (POL)

Rules and Tournament Regulations: Geurt Gijssen (NED), Secretary Stewart Reuben (ENG)

Swiss Pairings: Christian Krause (GER), Secretary Mikko Markkula (FIN)

Arbiters: Panagiotis Nikolopoulos (GRE), Secretary Dirk de Ridder (BEL)

Qualifications: Mikko Markkula (FIN), Secretary Nick Faulks (BER)

Womens Chess: Alexandra Kosteniuk (RUS) & Susan Polgar (USA), Secretary Martha Fierro (ECU)

Trainers: Adrian Mikhalchishin (SLO), Secretary Efstratios Grivas (GRE)

Medical: Jana Bellin (ENG), Secretary Arthur Schuering (NED)

Events: Ignatius Leong (SIN), Secretary Theodoros Tsorbatzoglou (GRE)

World Championship & Olympiad: Georgios Makropoulos (GRE)

Development: Alan Herbert (BAR), Secretary Rupert Jones (PNG)

Chess in Schools: Ali Nihat Yacizi (TUR), Secretary Kevin O'Connell (IRE)

From the Oceania region the following people are on the following commissions

Virgilio De Asa (FIJ) Development

Brian Jones (AUS) Development

Rupert Jones (PNG) Development

Shaun Press (PNG) Rules and Tournaments, Swiss Pairings

Blitzing

Here is a query that was emailed to me recently. It is an issue that comes up quite often in sudden death/small increment time control tournaments.

Player A's clock was down to 30 secs. Player B still had 1 hr on the clock. Player A was writing the moves down as they were played. Player B was continually negating to write the moves down and would move very quickly and press the clock so that all the time would be used on Player A's clock while he wrote the moves down. I reminded Player B on numerous occasions that it is mandatory to write the moves down yet he continued to do it. I'm wondering what course of action is suppose to be taken under these circumstances.

For me the answer is fairly straightforward, assuming that it is certain that player B is making no effort to keep score. I would simply stop the clock, add 2 minutes to player A's time, and let the game continue. I would also make it clear to player B that he is (a) breaking the laws of chess and (b) as a result, is only helping his opponent.

You be the Arbiter (Part 1)

Prior to the meeting of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committe, GM Bartlomiej Macieja posted a number of questions concerning the current rules of chess, and requested an interpretation from the Committee. While his questions were answered by RTRC, I am posting some of the questions here (with his permission), and am interested in what other people think.

According to point 9.1.a.:
"The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw, whether in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter."

PART 1

I have played several tournaments with requirement of 30 moves. However, a few times players agreed to a draw before move 30 (I am not talking about repetitions), stopped a clock and signed a scoresheet.
The question is how an arbiter shall react?

I have seen various reactions. The most common are:
a) arbiters running after the players and forcing them to come back to the table and to continue playing,
b) arbiters giving 0 points to both players.

The first method for sure doesn't work (thus cannot be recommended) in huge events, where supervision is inadequate (too many participants, too few arbiters). It raises, however, an additional question - shall the proper reaction of an arbiter and a possible punishment for a player depend on the type of a tournament?

Now a real situation. On Sunday, the last round of the Polish Team Championship finished. A player with black had a chance for GM-norm - what he needed was only a draw. A player with white tried to win, but failed and eventually offered a draw in a slightly worse position. Black was very happy and accepted that offer. Unfortunately, it was still before the required move 30. Some minutes later an arbiter took both scoresheets and realised that a draw had been agreed before move 30. He decided to score that game as 0-0. One of the consequences is that Black has failed to make a GM-norm.
Was the reaction of the arbiter and sanctions against both players proper?

I believe RTR should present an opinion on this issue. Perhaps not on a particular case described by me, but as a general guideline. A 30-move rule is relatively new and it is unclear for many arbiters how to properly react.
By the way - what kind of procedure will be used in similar cases during the nearest Olympiad?

PART 2

Actually, the case described by me was more complicated. The players started protesting, stating that in previous rounds there were cases of a draw agreement before move 30. The arbiter found such games, indeed, and ... changed their results to 0-0. It raised additional controverses, because results of previously finished rounds had been changed only during the last round.
Obviously, an arbiter made a mistake earlier, but having realised that only during the last round what should have he done? To leave 1/2-1/2 or to change it to 0-0?

PART 3

There is one more controversy. After the change of the result to 0-0 the final result of a tied match became 2.5-2.5 (a match was played on 6 boards). How many points should have both teams been awarded? 1 (because it was still a draw) or 0 (because both teams scored less than 50%)? The arbiter decided to leave the match score unchanged, thus both teams remained 1 point.

Best regards
Bartlomiej Macieja

Swiss Pairings Committee

I sat at the back of the FIDE Swiss Pairings Committee as an interested observer. The meeting was pretty quick but there were two significant decisions that came out of it.

The first was a change of wording to correct an error in the Dutch Pairing Rules. Section C.6 is now changed (in part) to read "If now p pairings are obtained in compliance with B1 through to B6 the pairing of this score bracket is considered complete".

This is an important change (in Australia at least), as Arbiters who insisted that pairings should always be top half v bottom half in a score bracket would point to the previous wording to justify their case. Of course this was just an error in the wording, as committee chairman Christian Krause stated at the outset.

The second change was to do with the selection of a player receiving a bye (if necessary). Instead of the bye going to the lowest ranked player (who hasn't already recieved one), the bye will now go to the lowest ranked player who 'equalises' the colours in the bottom score group. What this means that if there is a choice of players in the lowest score group who could receive a bye, choose the lowest player that results in the most number of remaining players being paired with their correct colours.

Apparently Swiss Master already does this, but it is unclear which other programs do it as of now.

There was a long discussion by by Eduard Dubov concerning both his own pairing system, and his proposal for a new system for the Olympiad, and both of these were held over for future testing and discussion.

Pairing half point byes

I had a chat with the chairman of the FIDE Swiss Pairings Committee Christian Krause about how to treat half point byes for pairing purposes. For the moment the FIDE pairing rules are silent on this matter, and a number of pairing programs take a different approach. Sensibly he said that a half point bye should be treated the same as a full point bye ie no opponent, no colour, downfloat. Hopefully this will become part of the published pairing rules in the future, allowing authors of pairing programs to all take the same approach with this issue.

2010 Olympiad - Captains Meeting

The Captains meeting for the 2010 Olympiad was held last night. The first half of the meeting was spent getting teams to submit correct teams lists, as a significant number (>50%) had not signed off on their board orders (or even who had shown up). This took a good 45 minutes, and given the previous insistence that teams needed to be registered in July, may have been handled in a different way.

After that the important rules for this years were announced/discussed. The significant ones were

• Zero default rule in operation
• Team pairings announced after 10pm (depending on last finishing game)
• Board pairings announced at 11am on the morning of the round
• 3 players (minimum) needed for a team
• Teams missing a player must play 1,2 & 3
• Doping control towards the end of the tournament
• No restrictions on draw offers

Of these the the change to the draw offer rule was the most surprising. Players can now offer a draw at any time, although the chief arbiter has the right to change the result to 0-0 in the case of 'pre-arranged' games.

Also the Zero default rule is being applied with a little more flexibility. The round will not start until the Chief Arbiter (Sava Stoysavljevich) announces the start, giving her the right to delay the round in case of problems with players reaching the hall. Players who are at the table before the start but have to leave before the game starts (usually for a medical reason) can receive permission from the match arbiter to do so)

Olympiad Pairing Rules for 2010

During and after the 2008 Dresden Olympiad, there was plenty of discussion about the pairing system used. The major complaints were Match points over Game points, Acceleration, Top v Bottom, and team ordering. At the FIDE Congress in 2009 a lot of these concerns were addressed by the Technical Administration Panel (TAP), and changes were made for 2010. Here is a summary of those changes.

Firstly, acceleration is out. So the pairings start with 1 v (N/2)+1 etc
However Match points remain for pairing ordering and placing.
The team ordering for pairings has been changed from the Olympiad SB system, to a simpler method. The ranking is now Match points, then game points and finally Team rating (as defined at the start of the tournament).
Pairings will be done in the order of top down to just above middle, then bottom up to just below middle, then middle.
Pairings with a pairing group will revert to top v (N/2)+1, rather than top v bottom. The pairings will also try and have top half v bottom half wherever possible. This is more achievable than under the normal swiss rules, as colurs in teams events is less important, and will not be an overriding criteria.
For colours, not team can have a colour imbalance >2 or >2 colours in a row. However teams that both have a +1 (or -1) colour imbalance already can still play each other. Colour allocation will follow the equalisation, then alternation system.

If you want to see a full description of the system then it is published here in the FIDE handbook.

Trying to stay sane as an arbiter

Last week not one but two accusations of cheating landed in my inbox. They both occurred in tournaments I was an arbiter at, and interestingly, both were made after the game in question, and the tournaments they were played in, were completed.
The first was concerning a game between 2 players in an Under 1600 event. The basis of the accusation was that one player was leaving the room during the game and was talking to a parent who was using a laptop, with a running chess program on it. As further evidence to support the claim, the game itself was later analysed by a recent Australian Champion and Olympiad representative who allegedly stated " the boy played like a '2000' rated player".
Unfortunately no claim was made to the arbiters during or immediately after the game in question, so I was unable to rule on the first part of the claim. In fact during the same tournament (in another section) there was a player who was leaving the room after every move, although this was due to a health issue. However his opponents asked us to monitor his movements (as it was distracting more than anything else) and we did so (finding nothing untoward btw).
As for the second part of the claim, I've looked at the game in question and it doesn't look anything like a '2000' rated player's game (unless missing Mate in 2 is de rigueur for 2000 rated players these days). I'm not sure what motivated the former Australian Champion to make such a statement but to my eyes, does not match the reality of the game. Instead it was a game where both players made short term threats and eventually one player lost material. Nothing different from most of the other games played in that tournament (including the missed mate in 2).
The second accusation was far more serious, as in my opinion, it was entirely without merit. Basically Player B has a winning position (with 3 or 4 minutes on the clock) and decides to repeat moves to pick up some time from the 30s increment. However Player B miscounts the repetitions and leaves Player A (who had less time) the chance to claim a draw (by recording a move on scoresheet that brings about the third repetition). However instead of claiming, Player A looks at Player B and says "Draw". Player B who believes the position has only been repeated twice says No, but instead of now claiming Player A moves. Although the position has now appeared on the board 3 times, by moving Player A has lost the right to claim and Player B plays a new move which creates a new position. Player B then wins the game in short order, with player A resigning.
A few hours after the game I received an email accusing Player B of cheating. While this claim had no specific references to any rules that had been broken the gist of it was that Player B had done something wrong in repeating the position to gain time, and that he should have realised that he had repeated the position 3 times and given Player A the draw. I was also at fault for not stepping in a declaring the game a draw.
As I was the arbiter for this game I suggested that an appeal be made to the ACT Chess Association on this matter, with a public hearing held forthwith. This suggestion was declined, although the accusation of cheating has not been withdrawn at this stage.

What I find most disturbing about both these incidents is that the accusation of 'cheating' is being tossed about in such a cavalier fashion. In defense of both "players", the actual emails did not come from them, but from a parent of the player, although I am taking the position that the parent is speaking on behalf of the child. And in both cases, nothing was said to the arbiters during or immediately after the games in question.
And I guess there are two lessons to take from this. (A) If you want the arbiters to do something, ask straight away (B) Kids, if your are going to get grown ups to speak for you, make sure they know what they are talking about.

Mobile Phones - Alternative Penalties

The Vikings Weekender is a small weekend tournament held in Canberra, Australia each year. This year there are 57 players playing, with a time limit of G60m+10s per moved. As it isn't FIDE rated, I (the arbiter) have a little flexibility with some of the rules. For this years event I am trialling a different set of penalties for Mobile Phone Infractions.
Instead of the instant loss that the current FIDE Rules prescribe, I instead announced a two-step system. If a players phone makes a sound (ring, beep, trill etc), the player will be given a warning and the opponent will be given an additional 5 minutes time. If it happens a second time the player will then lose the games. Note: Players are still forbidden from conducting conversations on the phone if it does ring.
As for how it is working in practice I cannot say. By the end of Day 1, no ones phone made a noise.

Bughouse Rules

A couple of weeks ago the ACT Junior Chess League held it's annual Transfer Tournament. (For those unaware, Transfer is the named used for Bughouse or Tandem Chess in Australia). The difficulty in running this event is that there are some subtle variants of the rules for Transfer, some of which only make sense if you are playing online.
So for information here are the declared variants to the rules that others may use.
Firstly, the reference for the rules we used was http://www.chessvariants.org/multiplayer.dir/tandem.html

The changes from these rules were

You can drop for check, but not for checkmate. Dropping for mate and pressing the clock is considered an illegal move (and the opponents can claim a win).
Pawns cannot be dropped on the 1st or 8th ranks.
There is no promotion. Pawns reaching the 8th rank just sit there until captured.
Partners can offer any sort of advice, even going so far as to suggest actual moves. The however cannot touch the pieces or clock on their partners board.
Castling can only take place with the original (ie non-dropped) rook.

The trickiest (and most controversial) rule is the no-drop-for-mate rule. This rule has been around in Canberra since I started playing chess over 25 years ago, although it's continued existence probably has a lot to do with old hands like myself arguing for it's retention. Indeed when it was announced at this years tournament, it was met with a chorus of boos from the mainly under 14 crowd.
The no-promotion rule is simply to make OTB Transfer easier to handle. No running after spare queens, and then trying to remember if it was the promoted queen or the original queen that was captured (and therefore turned back into a pawn).

Is this a valid claim?

The 2009 Victorian Championship Reserves tournament has just started and already there has been one incident of note. In the game between David Beaumont and and Nikola Ivanov the position had just been repeated for a third time, and Ivanov, who was on the move, simply stated "It's draw". Then various spectators, who had been watching the game, began to analyse the position, with Ivanov, thereby destroying the actual game position. Part of the analysis included at least one move that was losing for Ivanov. All the while Beaumont had said nothing, and as the arbiter wasn't present, was of the opinion that the game hadn't been completed.
By the time the arbiter had reached the board, the analysis was in full swing, and even the chess clock had been removed by one of the tournament organisers, on the assumption that the game was over.
Having heard both sides of the story the tournament arbiter, IA Gary Bekker, ruled that as the position had been reached for a third time on the board, that the result was a draw. Beaumont entered a protest with the appeals committee that Ivanov had not claimed a draw correctly, in the sense that "It's Draw" wasn't a valid claim. He also asked that the game be continued with Ivanov having to play the losing move that appeared on the board during the analysis period.
The appeals committee upheld the first part of the protest (ie Ivanov didn't claim the draw correctly) but rejected the second part. They ordered the game to be continued from the position on the board, if the players themselves did not agree to a draw in the meantime.

Now I'm not privy to the reasoning of the appeals committee (although I have discussed this matter with Gary Bekker), but I don't agree with their decision. Once a player uses the word "draw", out loud, during a game, I (a) would regard that as a draw offer or (b) a draw claim, wherever appropriate. In part this is to prevent players from retracting draw offers (by claiming they didn't mean to say what they said) but also to discourage players from indulging in gamesmanship by musing aloud about the drawish nature of the position, in the hope their opponent will drop their guard.
The other objection I have to this decision is a purely practical one, in that once the game resumes, Ivanov, who is still on the move, can simply claim a draw anyway.
To me, in the above case, it was clear that Ivanov was aware that the position had occurred 3 times, and by saying "It's Draw" was claiming this.
Of course there are a couple of other related issues here as well, including the behaviour of the spectators, but the other lesson here is that players should always sign scoresheets at the conclusion of the game, so as to agree on a result.

Further discussion on the matter can be found at Chesschat and Ozchess bulletin boards

Event: Victorian Ch Reserves
Site: Melbourne
Date: 2009.10.10
Round: 1
White: Ivanov, Nikola
Black: Beaumont, David
Result: 1/2-1/2
ECO: B30

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. d3 d5 5. Be2 d4 6. Nb1 e5 7. Nbd2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Nc4 Qc7 10. Bg5 Ne8 11. Qc1 f6 12. Bh4 Be6 13. Nfd2 g5 14. Bg3 b5 15. Na3 Rb8 16. b3 a6 17. Nf3 h6 18. Nb1 Rd8 19. Nbd2 Nd6 20. h3 Rf7 21. Nh2 Rh7 22. Bh5 c4 23. Ndf3 Nb7 24. Ng4 Nc5 25. Rd1 Kg7 26. Rb1 Bf7 27. Bxf7 Kxf7 28. h4 h5 29. Ngh2 g4 30. Ne1 Nb4 31. Ra1 cxd3 32. cxd3 Rc8 33. Qd2 a5 34. Rdc1 Bf8 35. Qe2 Bh6 36. Rcb1 Ne6 37. a3 Nc2 38. Ra2 Nxe1 39. Qxe1 Qc3 40. Qd1 Rg7 41. Nf1 Kg6 42. Kh2 Bf4 43. f3 Kh6 44. Kh1 gxf3 45. Qxf3 Rcg8 46. Be1 Qc5 47. g3 Be3 48. Bxa5 Rg6 49. Bb4 Qb6 50. Bd2 Bxd2 51. Rxd2 Nc5 52. Qd1 Qe6 53. Kh2 Rg4 54. Rc2 Nxb3 55. Rc7 Nc5 56. Qc1+ Kg6 57. Rxc5 Rxg3 58. Nxg3 Qg4 59. Nf5 Qe2+ 60. Kh1 Qf3+ 61. Kh2 Qe2+ 62. Kh3 Qg4+ 63. Kh2 Qe2+ 1/2-1/2

Open Forum - August 2009

This is an open topic for comments. suggestions, questions etc
Simply say what you wish to say in the comments section to this post (usual guidelines - anonymous posts get ignored).
Anything really interesting may get bumped up to a separate topic.

A policy on byes

It is becoming quite common for tournaments to allow players to take pre-notified half point byes. This is to allow players who would otherwise miss an event because they couldn't play a single round (or two) to take part. It is also made available to players in tournament that have a 'holiday' component to them (eg Queenstown in 2009)
However the policy on this is a bit haphazard, so I'd thought I'd list the policy I use for my own events.

• A player wishing to receive a bye for a round must notify the arbiter in advance
• The player will receive half a point for the round missed
• A maximum of 2 byes can be requested by any player
• Players missing a third or more round shall receive zero points for the extra rounds missed
• No byes can be requested for the final round
• A player must be in the draw for the final round to be eligible for a prize

If the tie-break in a tournament is important this also raises the issue of what tie-break score a player receives for the rounds missed. Traditionally the opponents score (for SOS etc) has been 50% (ie the opponent is considered to have drawn every game). However this disadvantages higher scoring players. A recent proposal I saw makes much more sense. The score of your 'nominal' opponent is the same as your score for that round+50% of the remaining rounds (ie if you are on 4/6 and take a half point bye, your 'opponent is considered to have score 5.5/9 for tie breaking purposes). I'd have to check whether this is implemented in any computerised pairing software, but it does seem fairer.

2009 ANU Open - Arbiting Issues

(NB This will be an occasional series on tournaments I have been involved in as an arbiter or organiser)

As with a lot of tournaments I have been involved with recently, the 2009 ANU Open ran pretty smoothly. Certainly there were no dramatic blowups or issues that required some heavy duty deliberation, but as with any tournament there are always some issues that are worth noting.

Default Time: This event (and all ACF Grand Prix events from 2010) used a Default Time of 30m from the scheduled start of the round. There was only 1 player who fell foul of this rule (in that he wished to play the round but didn't turn up in time) but in that case he may have forfeited under the old rule anyway. In practice 30 mins seemed to work well from an organisers point of view as it seemed to encouraged everyone to be there at the start of the round. My belief is that the thinking was "if I have to be there within 30 minutes I may as well be their at the start". Of course there were some people who came a little late (5 minutes at most) but this was for traffic/eating lunch reasons, and not because they chose to. The general feeling amongst the players was that 0 minutes is draconian and unworkable, 60 minutes means you have to wait too long to claim the game, while 30 minutes if just right.

Illegal Moves: There was quite a dramatic final round game in the Minor tournament, where both players were down to their last minute (with a 10s per move increment). The player with the White pieces reached a clearly winning position (2R+B+P v K) and Black was playing on through inertia. At one point the Black King moved from check into another check. Neither player noticed and with the next move the Black King moved out of check. I said nothing, as the chief arbiter was watching, and he said nothing, explaining later that it was up to the players to notice. While the 'correct' result was arrived at (White winning), I believe a problem would have occurred if Black had been stalemated (as the illegal path of the Black King increased the stalemate chances). The next time such a situation arises, I guess I will swoop in!

Rating Prizes: Most events in Australia offer ratings prizes in terms of U/2000, Under 1800 etc This can result in a player being eligible for more than 1 rating prize (eg a 1750 player being the best U/2000), with the result that the 'best' Under 1800 player is really the second best Under 1800 player.
In the ANU Open we 'band' our prizes, so that the rating prizes read 1800-1999 $200 1600-1799 $150 etc This is unusual enough for confusion to arise after the prize giving ceremony. The moral here is to read the tournament conditions!

Using Precedent

(Disclaimer: As I have had no legal training parts of this post may be completely wrong from a legal perspective. If so feel free to correct me)

Having got involved with the FIDE Rules and Tournament Regulation Committee, one thing I've noticed is the difference between how players see the rules, and how arbiters see the rules. But let me explain.
Most criticism of the rules from players concern rules that are published. For example, the rule concerning forfeit time or the rules concerning insufficient material to mate (cf KN vKN controversies) attracted a lot of criticism from players. On the other hand, when the RTRC was meeting in Dresden, most of the concern from arbiters was about rules that were not written. Their big worry was that without a published rule they wouldn't know how to make a correct ruling.
Part of the latter problem is caused by the lack of published case law, or the acceptance of it. If we think of the FIDE Rules of Chess as statute law, to mimic a full blown legal system, there needs to be a repository of published case law. By that I mean somewhere where arbiters can look up decisions previously made by other senior or experienced arbiters, and use this decisions as a precedent to support their own decision making. And just as in a proper legal system, such decisions may be reviewed by a higher body (appeals panel or FIDE itself), resulting in a definitive ruling for that set of circumstances.

Here is an example of what I mean.

In the Radjabov v Smeets game at Corus this year (2009) there was an incident jut before the first time control. On his 39th move Radjabov moved a rook but in doing so knocked over Smeets' bishop. Radjabov then pressed his clock without returning the bishop to the correct square. Smeets immediately restarts Radjabov's clock, and asks him to replace the bishop. Radjabov presses his own clock, but by this stage has lost on time.

At the time the arbiters took a pragmatic approach of letting the players agree to a draw (as Radjabov claimed that Smeets acted illegally in speaking to him during the game), but that doesn't address the 'legal' position.
Geurt Gijssen was asked about it in his April 2009 Arbiters Notebook column. In his opinion he felt that Smeets had acted correctly under Article 7.3 of the rules of chess, and that Radjabov should have lost on time.

Given Gijssen's position as chair of RTRC, I would suggest that this opinion is now established precedent for situations of this kind, and therefore as an arbiter I would allow a player to act in the same way as Smeets (restarting the opponents clock), without sanction. And I would do so until either (a) the FIDE Laws of Chess are altered to deal with this situation in a different way or (b) a higher authority (the full RTRC, FIDE Presidential Board or FIDE General Assembly) offer an alternative ruling.

Ignoring Touch move = Illegal Move?

From GM Bartlomiej Macieja to the FIDE Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee, and republished here with his permission

Dear Members of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee

I would like to consult with you the following cases:

1)
In a blitz game a player deliberately touches a piece, but eventually moves another piece.
An opponent claims a win basing on Article B.3.c:
"An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move."
What should an arbiter decide?

2)
In a rapid game, in the phase when both players have only seconds left to the end of a game, a player deliberately touches a piece, but eventually moves another piece.
An opponent calls an arbiter, claiming that irregularity.
What should an arbiter decide?

What should an arbiter decide in cases 1) and 2) if a player wishing to claim the above mention irregularity, having only 1 second left, doesn't manage to stop the clock before his flag fells?

Best regards
Bartlomiej Macieja

Feel free to make your answers in the comments section to this post.

Distracting your opponent - with water bottles

From Reasonable Person in the comments section below

First, thank you for setting up this blog.I am not sure if anyone is supposed to initiate a topic...but if so, here goes. A local club has reportedly banned the act of players drinking out of a water bottle during games , instead instituting a rule that players must use a cup / mug e.g pour soft drinks out of the purchased bottle into a cup. This apparently follows a complaint from one of its long-standing members that he was distracted by the act of players drinking out of bottles (strangely, this complaint seems to only emanate when said player loses the game). Several players have been recipients of this complaint, though in most, if not all, cases, their act would not have constituted a distraction by any objective measure. It seems to only affect the particular sensitivities of this complainant, and therefore, presumably to appease this person, the club has instituted a total ban on the use of drinking bottles during a game. The irony is that some players may also find the act of pouring a drink into a cup during a game distracting in itself etc. So, my question is this: do the FIDE rules (or ACF ones, for that matter) assess complaints of distraction objectively or subjectively i.e. in the latter case, it would regard the complaint as valid if the complainant is distracted, regardless of the fact that objectively, a reasonable person would not have been distracted in the same scenario. If the latter were to be true, then surely, all sorts of frivolous complaints would be upheld e.g. I might complain that the act of players holding their heads in their hands is particularly distracting to me etc. etc. I look forward to your view and advice. Thanks.

Article 12.6 of the FIDE Laws of Chess state "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever." However what constitutes a distraction isn't stated in the rules, so this is why we have arbiters.
My first thought (more as an organiser than an arbiter) is the need to balance the needs of the many with the needs of a few. If no one minds not using water bottles at the board, then I guess there is no real problem with the rule. If however it ends up that you lose 3 or 4 players from the club/tournament just to keep one player there, then I think it is a net loss for the club and the rule should be dropped. If I was looking for middle ground I would simply allow water bottles etc at the table, but players could only use them during their move, so as not to disturb their opponent on their opponents thinking time.

Geurt Gijssen also discusses distracting an opponent it in his latest Chess Cafe column, although the example given is much more clearcut (as it involves the use of profanity).

Forfeit Time

From the 1st of July 2009, the laws of chess have been changed to allow tournament organisers to set a forfeit time for their own events, rather than the previous case where it has been 1 hour. However the rule change also states that the default time shall be 0 minutes, unless the organisers specifies otherwise.
So a couple of questions in terms of what will happen in practice.
(a) If an organiser fails to publish a set forfeit time in their entry form/tournament conditions does it have to be 0 minutes or can the chief arbiter simply announce that the forfeit time will be x minutes before the first round?
(b) Can a sanctioning body for a tournament (eg a national federation / state association) set a general forfeit time that will then cover all events under their control?
(c) What do you think is a sensible forfeit time?

Chess Rules Blog

Welcome to the "Chess Rules" blog. This blog is intended as a platform for the discussion of the FIDE Rules of Chess, past, present and future. I don't expect it to be a blog with a lot of topics, but I do hope the comments section will contain a lot of discussion.
The only thing I would like to see in regards comments is that they have a name attached to them (rather than just anonymous). The name can be a pseudonym or as something as simple as "Dave", just as long as there is some indentifying mark.