From the Archives...

Since it came online many years ago, ChessCafe.com has presented literally thousands of
articles, reviews, columns and the like for the enjoyment of its worldwide readership. The
good news is that almost all of this high quality material remains available in the Archives.
The bad news is that this great collection of chess literature is now so large and extensive
and growing each week that it is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate it effectively.
We decided that the occasional selection from the archives posted publicly online might be a
welcomed addition to the regular fare.
Watch for an item to be posted online periodically throughout each month. We will update
the ChessCafe.com home page whenever there has been a new item posted here. We hope
you enjoy From the Archives...

From the Archives

Hosted by
Mark Donlan

An Arbiter's Notebook, by Geurt Gijssen

More Rapid Rules
In this months column, I will be answering some questions submitted by ChessCafe.com
readers...
Question If a player seals a move that creates a third repetition of the position, does he
claim the draw when the players meet later to resume the game or does he have to do it
before he seals the move (thereby saving his opponent a trip and some headaches)? Brian
Karen (United States)
Answer He has to do it before he seals his move. The reason is very simple. Article 9.2 says:

Play through and download the games

from ChessCafe.com in the DGT
Game Viewer.
The Complete
DGT Product Line

A game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same
position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by repetition of moves) is about to
appear, if the player first writes his move on his score sheet and declares to the
arbiter his intention to make this move. If a player writes his move, seals the envelope
and stops his clock, he has completed his move. And only the player who has the
move can claim the draw.
There are arbiters who are of the opinion that it is also correct to write the claim on the score
sheet, but I disagree. By stopping the clocks the move is completed with all its consequences.
Question In your answer to a question from Ramon Etxeberria, you note that, according to
Article C3 of the Laws of Blitz games, an illegal move is completed once the opponents
clock has been started. The opponent is then entitled to claim a win before making his own
move, but that, once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be
corrected.
But is not the second part of this a foul rule? It means that a player can benefit from
deliberately playing illegal moves. For example, let us imagine that I am in a dead lost
position against you. However, I pick up my rook and remove your queen with a bang. You
waste a second blinking because you had not thought your queen was under attack as indeed
it was not my rook had been a knights move away. But time is of the essence in blitz; so
you push a pawn to keep the game going. Ha! Ha! I tricked you. Great fun. But the game of
chess isnt about tricking your opponent exactly that way. Or is it? John Burstow (Canada)
Answer No, no, Mr. Burstow, I do not push a pawn, but stop the clocks, summon the arbiter,
request some witnesses to stay and then inform the arbiter how you were playing illegally,
and claim the game. And if the arbiter agrees, I have great fun. If there are no witnesses, I
have a problem. Also see my answer to Mr. Sangelangs question, below.
Question Having read the answer you gave to my previous question, I think that I did not
ask it properly. My question was related to the answer you gave to Alvaro Faria Paz Pereira
in your May column. There, he asked if a player with a bare king wins the game after an
illegal move by his opponent. You answered citing article C4 of the FIDE Laws of Chess,

where it is stated that in order to win a player must have mating potential (I assume that the
result is a draw?). In my example, what I wanted to point out was the fact that the reason
why White did not have mating potential was Blacks illegal move, and therefore I was
wondering whether, after a claim by White, article C4 was still applied or not. But I have
some concerns about article 9.6 as well. It 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.
After 1...Bxe5 in the example you give, such a
position is reached. I assume that the positions
described in 9.6 must appear as a consequence of
legal moves as it is required to checkmate (article
5.1.a), however a clarification would be nice.
Ramon Etxeberria (Spain)
Answer When a player has completed an illegal
move in a blitz game, his opponent is then entitled
to claim a win before making his own move. Of
course, the opponent has to show to the arbiter what
the illegal move is. This means he has to restore the
position to what it was before the player completed
the illegal move. And if the opponent in this
restored position has mating potential, the game is won.
You are completely right with your second question. The position must appear as a
consequence of legal moves. In the year 2000 the Rules Committee will have the possibility
to make changes and I promise you that this will be added. By the way, in Article 5.1 it is
written that checkmating an opponents king must be done with a legal move.
Question In a local tournament, Players A and B were playing a game with one hour per
player for the whole game. At the time control, Player B (with black) lost on time. At that
particular moment, Player A had only three seconds his clock. When Player A noticed that
Player B was lost time, he claimed the game, but he was unable to stop the clocks at the time
of the claim. (They were playing with a FIDE electronic chess clock). Player A didnt know
how to stop the clocks. So, time runs off and Player A oversteps the time limit as well. At
that moment, both clocks show 00:00. Player B then claimed a draw, because no one has
time. The arbiter accepted the claim and gave both players half a point. The arbiter said that
he had no choice, as FIDE rules do not allow the arbiter to announce that a player lost on
time (in rapid chess).
Was this decision correct? The arbiter and other people saw that Player A had claimed the
game with three seconds on his clock. This game gave us many weeks of endless discussions
in the chess club. What do you think about it? Manuel Lopez Michelone (Mexico)
Answer According to article B6 of the rapid play rules, the arbiter shall refrain from
signaling a flag fall. Article B8 says that, if both flags have fallen, the game is drawn. In the
situation you described both flags have fallen and it means the game is drawn. I understand
that in your opinion this is not reasonable. When you play with the DGT clock, it is
absolutely clear which flag has fallen first. So, I can imagine that people will say: Why not
to give the point to the player whose flag has fallen later. If all games were played with
digital clocks, I would completely agree, but as long as this is not the case, it is impossible to
make different rules for mechanical and digital clocks.
By the way, in normal games the rule is different. If it is completely clear that the flag of one
player falls before the flag of his opponent without having completed the required number of
moves, he loses the game.
Question Congratulations for your column; it is both instructive and interesting. I was
playing in a sixty-minute knockout tournament and had a huge material advantage. My time
was almost finished and my opponent was trying to win on time. There was no arbiter
available for us at that moment. Suddenly I promoted a pawn to a queen with checkmate, but
I could not find a queen to place on the board. So I said queen checkmate! At the same
moment my flag fell and my opponent said that my time is over, so I should lose the game.
The arbiter adjudicated the dispute and awarded the point to me, but another friend (also an
arbiter) said that he would have decided the matter by giving the point to my opponent. Who
is right? Lucianon dos Santos Fier (Brazil)
Answer Your friend is completely right. The game is lost for you, provided your opponent
had mating potential. But you made a big mistake. When you promote a pawn to a queen
and no queen is available, you should stop the clocks (yours and your opponents), summon
the arbiter and seek the arbiters assistance. He has to give you a queen and then he would
restart the game. The instant the queen is on the board, the game is over, because you have
mated your opponent. It is not important, that your flag falls after two seconds.

Question Relating to the correct procedure for claiming the win described in your article
The King En Prise, consider the following situation: Player A, whose opponent (Player B)
has just left his king en prise or moved into a check on his last move, stops the clock to
summon the arbiter. In the absence of witnesses and the score (record) of the game, Player B
insists that it is now his turn to move and he is about to move his king out of check. How
does the arbiter decide whose claim, A or Bs, to believe? Elmer D. Sangelang
(Philippines)
Answer To be honest, I was afraid that someone might pose this question. I had the same
question in mind. What can the arbiter do? In cases like this, there is no solution. There are
other cases like this. For instance, a player plays Nb3-c6 mate. How can the opponent prove
that the knight came from b3 and not from b4? Unfortunately, if one really wants to cheat an
opponent, there will always be a way.
Dear readers, for my column next month, I am thinking about discussing the recording of
moves. As an introduction, let me share with you a recent story:
During the last Dutch Championship there was a little incident. In the game SokolovNijboer, Black wrote on his scoresheet 1-0 and signed his scoresheet, all while his
opponent was absent. The arbiter saw this and put the white king in the center of the board,
but then, to the surprise of the arbiter, Nijboer informed him that he wanted to continue the
game. This happened, but after one more move Nijboer resigned (again).
This same situation occurred in the game Kamsky-Judit Polgar, Buenos Aires, 1994. I was
the arbiter. Kamsky wrote on his score sheet 0-1, signed it, but continued the game.
Because of the fact that there was Zeitnot in some other games and Kamskys position was
totally lost, I did nothing at that moment. I was sure that my intervention would cause an
incident and some noise. After the game I gave Kamsky an official warning for his conduct.
What is going on here? More next month...

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us]
2007 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.