PDA

View Full Version : New Laws of Chess as of 1st July 2005



Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 07:10 PM
I received an email from Stewart Reuben containing the new Laws of Chess as approved at the recent Olympiad which will come into effect from 1st July 2005.

As the changes are not highlighted so I have had to carefully read the new set and compare it to the old. The new rules differ from a supposed final draft that were being circulated.

I have highlighted the changes I have noticed which are as follows:

Article 1.2

The objective of each player is to place the opponent's king 'under attack' in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have 'checkmated' the opponent's king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

Article 3.1

It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour. If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent's piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move. A piece is said to attack an opponent's piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to Articles 3.2 to 3.8.
A piece is considered to attack a square, even if such a piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack.

Article 3.8

a. There are two different ways of moving the king, by:
i. moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
or
ii. ‘castling'. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour on the same rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.

(1) The right for castling has been lost:
a. if the king has already moved, or
b. with a rook that has already moved
(2) Castling is prevented temporarily
a. if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
b. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.

Article 3.9

The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

Article 4.4

d. If a player promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion.

The old Article 4.6 is now Article 4.7 and includes the change so that it covers all of Article 4 not just 4.3 and 4.4 as before.
The new Article 4.6 completely replaces the old Article 4.7.

Article 4.7

A player forfeits his right to a claim against his opponent's violation of Article 4 once he deliberately touches a piece.

Article 4.6

When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled
a. in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand;
b. in the case of castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal;
c. in the case of the promotion of a pawn, when the pawn has been removed from the chessboard and the player's hand has released the new piece after placing it on the promotion square. If the player has released from his hand the pawn that has reached the promotion square, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to another square.

Article 5.1

a. The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king with a legal move. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.


In Article 6.10 the words checkmate the player's king are replaced by the words checkmate the player

Article 6.10

Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

Article 6.11

Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall replace the clock and use his best judgement when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess clock.

Article 6.12

If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then
a. the game shall continue if it happens in any period of the game except the last period.
b. the game is drawn in case it happens in the period of a game, in which all remaining moves must be completed.

Article 6.15

Screens, monitors, or demonstration boards showing the current position on the chessboard, the moves and the number of moves made, and clocks which also show the number of moves, are allowed in the playing hall. However, the player may not make a claim relying solely on information shown in this manner.

Article 7.4

a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

Artilce 7.5

If during a game it is found that pieces have been displaced from their squares, the position before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. The game shall then continue from this re-instated position.

Article 8.1

In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance.
A player may reply to his opponent's move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.12)
If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who is acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.

Article 8.4

a. If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard
b. If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock and has additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, both players have to write the opponent’s before completing their own move.

Article 9.6

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, provided that the move producing this position was legal.

In Article 10.1 the word last was removed before the word phase and the word remainaing was placed in brackets.

Article 10.1

A 'quickplay finish' is the phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.

Article 10.2

10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time.
d. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c.



Artilce 10.3 has been deleted. It said:

If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first the game is drawn.

Article 12.2

a During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or analyse on another chessboard.
b. It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter.

The later part of the old 12.2 is now 12.3.
Article 12.3

12.3 The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.

The old 12.3-12.8 are now renumbered 12.4-12.9.

Article 13.6

The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess. He shall not indicate the number of moves made, except in applying Article 8.5 when at least one flag has fallen. The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed a move or that the player has not pressed his clock.

Artilce 13.7

a. Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game. If necessary, the arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue.
b. It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any area designated by the arbiter.

Article B1

A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be made in a fixed time from 15 to 60 minutes; or the time allotted + 60 times any increment is from 15 to 60 minutes.

Part b of Article B5 has been deleted. It had said:

The player loses the right to claim according to Articles 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5 (Irregularities, illegal moves) once he has touched a piece according to Article 4.3.

Article B5 now reads:
Article B5

The arbiter shall make a ruling according to Article 4 (The act of moving pieces), only if requested to do so by one or both players.

The old Articles B6-B8 are now B7-B9 and there is a new B6 as follows:

Article B6

An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is then entitled to claim that the player completed an illegal move before the claimant has made his move. Only after such a claim, shall the arbiter make a ruling. However, if both Kings are in check or the promotion of a pawn is not completed, the arbiter shall intervene, if possible.

Article C1

A ‘blitz’ game’ is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed time of less than 15 minutes for each player; or the allotted time + 60 times any increment is less than 15 minutes.

Article C2

Play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Appendix B except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Blitz. The Articles 10.2 and B6 do not apply.

Article C3

An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. However, the opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made a move. If the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before making his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected.

Article C4 which said:

Article 10.2 does not apply.
has been incorporated into C2.

Article D1

Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis
a. that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b. that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.


There is a new Article E1 and old Articles E1-E12 are now E2-E13.

Article E1

In this description, "piece" means a piece other than a pawn."

eclectic
02-11-2004, 07:20 PM
bill,

depending on the extent of discussion perhaps this could be made into a forum or subforum with threads labelled according to the article number being discussed

just a thought

eclectic

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 07:29 PM
i think also a section on how these changes actually differ in playing terms would be helpful compared to the old rules.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 07:44 PM
What appears to be clear is the following:

1) The planned addition to the en passant rule This move must be made in the event that no other legal move is possible did not make it in.

2) The plan to reduce the forfeit time mentioned in Article 6.7 from 1 hour to 30 mins was not approved.

3) The planned inclusion of If the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves even with the most unskilled counterplay, the arbiter shall decide the result of the game. to Article 7.3 (which discusses the 2 min penalty for illegal moves and loss of the game for a third) was not approved. This would seem to imply that on a third illegal move a player loses the game even if his oppoent cannot mate by any legal means.

4) Geurt's planned change to Article 8.1 to require players to make their moves before actually recording them was obviously not approved.

5) Likewise his plan to remove the words temporarily or permanently from Article 9.2 b failed.

6) Although the penalty for a player's mobile phone ringing is explicity stated as loss of the game the planned wording of 12.2 b was changed to include the words not authorised by the arbiter,. This change means that the arbiter can allow mobiles into the venue but they must obviously not be audible (silent or vibrate).

7) The use of a mobile in the playing venue or area that is designated by an arbiter is strictly forbidden.

8) The plan to not allow illegal moves made by a player to be claimed in Blitz if the opponent touched a piece was not approved so the current rule of not allowing it only if the opponent has made a move remains.

9) Rapid play and blitz rules now apply to games with increments. (This has in fact been in place for a while after being approved at a previous Rules Commission meeting but most people were not aware of it).

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 07:48 PM
bill,

depending on the extent of discussion perhaps this could be made into a forum or subforum with threads labelled according to the article number being discussed

just a thought

eclectic
I think we can try and keep it to just this thread.
People just need to clearly state which article they are referring to.

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2004, 07:56 PM
b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

*celebrates wildly*

The bit in bold was mine. The purpose of it was to kill off Gijssen's only-judge-the-play rubbish interpretation of the old 10.2.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Rincewind
02-11-2004, 07:58 PM
I think we can try and keep it to just this thread.
People just need to clearly state which article they are referring to.

I tend to agree. Perhaps if someone wants to delve into one article in detail it would be best to do so in the arbiter forum. However, the general chess forum is approriate for a more general discussion for the impact on all players.

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 08:01 PM
*celebrates wildly*

The bit in bold was mine. The purpose of it was to kill off Gijssen's only-judge-the-play rubbish interpretation of the old 10.2.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
it should read, the arbiter, not he ;) i am sure Cathy will be impressed with this ;) :lol:

Rincewind
02-11-2004, 08:02 PM
Also 1.2 explicitly disallowing the capture of the king is going to be interesting. Interesting that it was added to 1.2 even though it can only really be applied in blitz play. Our club tried to outlaw king capture in Blitz and there were too many complaints and so reverted to allowing them. I guess come July 1 we'd better try again.

What is common practice elsewhere?

Rincewind
02-11-2004, 08:04 PM
it should read, the arbiter, not he ;) i am sure Cathy will be impressed with this ;) :lol:

The only Laws had a piece of PC rubbish in the preamble to cover that compaint. I assume this will remain in the new ones. It goes something like:

In these Laws the words 'he', 'him' and 'his' include 'she' and 'her'.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 08:42 PM
Ok, this is a summary of what I believe the changes to mean.

Article 1.3 is obviously making king captures illegal. No doubt this is mainly in regards to Blitz.

Article 3.1 is just clarifying what any competent arbiter would have previously considered obvious.

Article 3.8 is just changing the words castling is illegal into defining the wirds castling rights.

Article 3.9 is again just defining that a pinned piece can still eb checking an oppoents king. All competent arbiters would have already understood this.

Article 4.4 is just clarifing that once a promoted piece touches the promotion square it can no longer be changed. This is slightly different from before where it was actually any square on the board.

Article 4.6 now explictly clarifies the situtaion as to when a move is considered made.

Article 4.7 means where that when you can claim violations regarding article 4 is now stricter than before. Previously with the exception of 4.3 or 4.4 you could claim a violation of say 4.1 (using two hands) even after you had touched a piece. Now you cannot.

Article 5.1 just reiterates that the mating move must be a legal move.

Article 6.10 removes the superflous word king from the phrase checkmate the players king as any checkmate must involve the king.

Article 6.11 is just making it absolutely clear that the clock must be replaced although to me it seems superflous.

Article 6.12 is now stating that if it is the final phase of the game and both flags have fallen and it cannot be determined which fell first then the game is drawn, whereas under the previous the rules the game would have continued.

Article 6.15 appears to just be a semantic change.

Article 7.4 now makes it clear that illegal promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king is considered an illegal move and subject to the opponent getting an extra 2 minutes. This alos obviously has an impact with regards Articles B6 in rapid play and C3 in Blitz.

Article 7.5 seems to be just a semantic change.

Article 8.1 now explicitly mentions an asistant to record moves.

Article 8.4 by inclusion of the words at some stage in a period handles the situation of increments less than 30 secs causing a players time to drop below 5 minutes and then increasing above 5 minutes. Also point b of the article makes does not permit either player to attempt to blitz their opponent.

Article 9.6 is just ensuring that the move is a legal move. It brings it in line with 5.2 b.

Artilce 10.1 just appears to be removing superflous words.

Article 10.2 now as Kevin notes kills off Gijssen's only-judge-the-play rubbish interpretation of the old 10.2.

The deletion of Artilce 10.3 is because it is now covered by 6.12 b.

Article 12.2 is implementing the "mobile phone" rule and defining an explicit penalty that is not at the arbiters discretion nor based on any preannouncement of applicability.

Article 13.6 explictly stops the arbiter from informing a player that they have failed to press their clock.

Article 13.7 relates to the use of a mobile phone (certainly making calls) as opposed to just receiving them as covered by 12.2.

Article B1 now covers time controls with increments fir rapid play.

Article B6 now explictly covers illegal moves. It seems to imply that if a player fails to claim an illegal move the move stands and play continues. It does however attempt to handle some of Geurt's illegal positions.

Article C1 now covers time controls with increments for blitz.

Article C2 is incorporating the old C4 plus the new B6.

Article C3 seems to just be a minor semantic change.

Article D1 now allows the player to claim under both options a and b whereas before they had to pick one or the other.

JGB
02-11-2004, 08:44 PM
...

Article 12.2
Quote:
a During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or analyse on another chessboard.
b. It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter.



:clap:

Now I hope all adjudiacators will enforce this new rule, as all discussion is irrelevant, is it not?.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 08:48 PM
:clap:

Now I hope all adjudiacators will enforce this new rule, as all discussion is irrelevant, is it not?.
So I believe.
It is clear the article does not permit the arbiter to vary the penalty for a player whose phone rings.
So even if the arbiter permits them in the playing area (they must obviously be on silent/vibrate or off) he must apply the penalty if the players phone rings.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 08:52 PM
it should read, the arbiter, not he ;) i am sure Cathy will be impressed with this ;) :lol:
You really should check things especially something as simple as this before making totally useless comments. :doh: :rolleyes:

As Barry notes the start of the laws state In these Laws the words 'he', 'him' and 'his' include 'she' and 'her'

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 08:53 PM
Also 1.2 explicitly disallowing the capture of the king is going to be interesting. Interesting that it was added to 1.2 even though it can only really be applied in blitz play.
I think they are also trying to cover it happening by mistake in rapid.

Rincewind
02-11-2004, 09:04 PM
b. It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter.

I assume the usual practice wouild be to award the opponent a point. UNder what circumstances would this not occur? One possibility is that if it was the opponent or a confederate of the opponent that caused the phone to ring. :)

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 09:10 PM
I assume the usual practice wouild be to award the opponent a point. UNder what circumstances would this not occur? One possibility is that if it was the opponent or a confederate of the opponent that caused the phone to ring. :)
The opponent may not have mating material.
In which case the arbiter would most likely decide that the result is 0 for the player with the phone and 0.5 for his opponent.

Rincewind
02-11-2004, 09:15 PM
The opponent may not have mating material.
In which case the arbiter would most likely decide that the result is 0 for the player with the phone and 0.5 for his opponent.

Yep, that's one I would agree with to. No mate by even with the most unskilled play by the opponent.

eclectic
02-11-2004, 09:15 PM
The opponent may not have mating material.
In which case the arbiter would most likely decide that the result is 0 for the player with the phone and 0.5 for his opponent.

would the spare half point then be auctioned off to the highest bidder?

(phone bidding disallowed of course)

;)

eclectic

Rincewind
02-11-2004, 09:16 PM
I tend to agree. Perhaps if someone wants to delve into one article in detail it would be best to do so in the arbiter forum. However, the general chess forum is approriate for a more general discussion for the impact on all players.

Someone has moved this thread, haven't they?

Rincewind
02-11-2004, 09:17 PM
would the spare half point then be auctioned off to the highest bidder?

(phone bidding disallowed of course)

;)

eclectic

I that was allowed, arbiters would make a killing in the case of a double forfeit. ;)

skip to my lou
02-11-2004, 09:22 PM
Someone has moved this thread, haven't they?
It was Kevin.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 10:17 PM
It was Kevin.
I asked Kevin to move it.
I should have posted it here originally.

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2004, 11:15 PM
Article 10.2 now as Kevin notes kills off Gijssen's only-judge-the-play rubbish interpretation of the old 10.2.

Also it reintroduces the possibility of the arbiter stopping the play and declaring a draw between the claim and flagfall. This existed in the previous version but not the current one.

Trent Parker
02-11-2004, 11:21 PM
What appears to be clear is the following:


4) Geurt's planned change to Article 8.1 to require players to make their moves before actually recording them was obviously not approved.



:clap: :clap: :clap: no need to say any more :)

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 11:27 PM
I do have a rules question.

With dgt clocks, if both players are showing 0.00 and no one has claimed time before 0.00 for both players, is the game drawn? The reason I ask is that it is possible to determine who ran out of time first on a dgt clock by the minus sign.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 11:28 PM
Also it reintroduces the possibility of the arbiter stopping the play and declaring a draw between the claim and flagfall. This existed in the previous version but not the current one.
True.
Its removal always struck me as a little strange.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 11:37 PM
I do have a rules question.

With dgt clocks, if both players are showing 0.00 and no one has claimed time before 0.00 for both players, is the game drawn? The reason I ask is that it is possible to determine who ran out of time first on a dgt clock by the minus sign.
Since you can always determine which flag fell first with a DGT then the player whose flag fell first loses except in the case of rapid play or blitz which are covered by Article B9 where it is always a draw as which flag fell first is irrelevant.

Of course 6.12 has some relevance but only if you cannot determine which flag fell first.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 11:40 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: no need to say any more :)
Yes it was clear Geurt didnt get his own way on a number of the proposals.

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 11:41 PM
Since you can always determine which flag fell first with a DGT then the player whose flag fell first loses except in the case of rapid play or blitz which are covered by Aericle B9 where it is always a draw as which fell first is irrelevant.
should that be Article B8 as I dont see an article B9? :confused:

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 11:44 PM
should that be Article B8 as I dont see an article B9? :confused:
Now you are being a goose.

It should be abundantly clear that since this thread is dedicated to the new laws for 2005 then any question asked would be answered based on them as the reference.

If you are going to ask questions with regards current rules then use another thread.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 11:50 PM
However since I'm feeling generous then with regards the current rules the answer is pretty much the same except Articles 6.12, 10.3 and B8 are all relevant.

Garvinator
02-11-2004, 11:54 PM
Now you are being a goose.

It should be abundantly clear that since this thread is dedicated to the new laws for 2005 then any question asked would be answered based on them as the reference.

If you are going to ask questions with regards current rules then use another thread.
actually it was a question covering both the current and new rules. I was wanting to know the current situation and also if it will change under the new rules.

Bill Gletsos
02-11-2004, 11:55 PM
actually it was a question covering both the current and new rules. I was wanting to know the current situation and also if it will change under the new rules.
That was in no way indicated by the wording of your question.

Lucena
03-11-2004, 10:33 AM
So to just reiterate, these changes only come into effect on July 1?

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 11:39 AM
So to just reiterate, these changes only come into effect on July 1?
Correct.

Of coruse some would aregue that variations on some of them are already in place but some not widely known. e.g. the phone rule as previously discussed, times with increments recognised as rapids and blitz.

Alan Shore
03-11-2004, 01:23 PM
I want to clarify, If I have this position in blitz, both players a couple of seconds left:


5k2/8/8/1N6/8/8/p7/7K w - - 0 35

Then play Ne6!? (illegal move). My opponent plays h1=Q+. If I then say, 'sorry, that is an illegal move, your king is in check' (N now attacking at f8), is this a win to white?

Alan Shore
03-11-2004, 01:27 PM
Someone help please with the FEN?

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 01:44 PM
You appear to have the board totally out of orientation. Also 2N6 is illegal in a fen

Use 5k2/8/8/1N6/8/8/p7/7K w - - 0 35

which should give you what you want.

Alan Shore
03-11-2004, 01:48 PM
You appear to have the board totally out of orientation. Also 2N6 is illegal in a fen

Use 5k2/8/8/1N6/8/8/p7/7K w - - 0 35

which should give you what you want.

Yes that's more like it, thanks.

How about the original question then? (obviously there'd be heaps of other pieces on the board in a more typical position, but this is for simplicity's sake).

Bill Gletsos
03-11-2004, 01:56 PM
Yes that's more like it, thanks.

How about the original question then? (obviously there'd be heaps of other pieces on the board in a more typical position, but this is for simplicity's sake).
I'm assuming you mean Black actually places a Queen on the board and presses his clock. In that case white can claim illegal move as Black's King was in check. Up until the time Black placed and released the queen on the promotion square he could have claimed a win on illegal move.

1min_grandmaster
05-11-2004, 02:37 PM
Thaks Bill for the very long first post on this thread, highlighting all the changes. Saves the rest of us a lot of work!

I like most of the new rules, they look very sensible. A lot of ambiguities have been removed, and in particular, the addition to article 8.4 prevents players from immediately responding on the board in the final 5 minutes when there are 30 secs of increments or more (they have to write down their opponent's move first).

I have a question. You have said that:



4) Geurt's planned change to Article 8.1 to require players to make their moves before actually recording them was obviously not approved.


But article 8.1 says:



"In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance."


The last sentence seems to suggest that you can't write a move before it is played. Is this interpretation correct?

Bill Gletsos
05-11-2004, 04:45 PM
I have a question. You have said that:

But article 8.1 says:


The last sentence seems to suggest that you can't write a move before it is played. Is this interpretation correct?
I'm glad to see that someone was actually reading everyyjing I posted and discovered my deliberate mistake. :lol: :lol:

But seriously, thanks for pointing it out.
I had missed the fact they had incorporated that change because it wasnt even in the planned draft.

The highlighted differences of Article 8.1 should be:

In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance.
A player may reply to his opponent's move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.12)
If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who is acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.

Bill Gletsos
05-11-2004, 04:46 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: no need to say any more :)
As you will see I had that wrong as I had missed the change. Although Geurts wording did not make it into the article his intent regarding it did.

Rhubarb
05-11-2004, 05:12 PM
So 8.1 says:

A player may reply to his opponent's move before recording it, if he so wishes.

Yet 8.4b says:

If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock and has additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, both players have to write the opponent’s before completing their own move.

You'd really think that 8.1 should explicitly include a reference to 8.4b.

Bill Gletsos
05-11-2004, 05:19 PM
So 8.1 says:


Yet 8.4b says:


You'd really think that 8.1 should explicitly include a reference to 8.4b.
True.
However they probably expect arbiters (especially IA's) to be knowledgeable of all the rules and especially relationships within the same Artilce.

Garvinator
05-11-2004, 05:22 PM
As you will see I had that wrong as I had missed the change. Although Geurts wording did not make it into the article his intent regarding it did.
ok so you cant write your move down first and then play it after July 1 if i have read it correctly. Again I will say this :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

I would suggest this rule change might another one of the rules where players will need to be informed at every tournament for about the next year.

Rhubarb
05-11-2004, 05:29 PM
True.
However they probably expect arbiters (especially IA's) to be knowledgeable of all the rules and especially relationships within the same Artilce.
Certainly arbiters have to go through all the rules with a fine-toothed comb. But a player might just glance at 8.1 and be under the impression they can always reply before scoring. How easy it would have been to include the words "with the exception of 8.4b".

Bill Gletsos
05-11-2004, 05:40 PM
Certainly arbiters have to go through all the rules with a fine-toothed comb. But a player might just glance at 8.1 and be under the impression they can always reply before scoring. How easy it would have been to include the words "with the exception of 8.4b".
Again true.
Unfortunately I dont think they write the rules with the players in mind. :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
05-11-2004, 05:42 PM
I would suggest this rule change might another one of the rules where players will need to be informed at every tournament for about the next year.
I doubt it.
Highlighting it in the ACF Bulletin closer to 1st July should be sufficient, with arbiters taking a lenient yet firm attitude with any offenders.

arosar
05-11-2004, 05:58 PM
. . . with arbiters taking a lenient yet firm attitude with any offenders.

Good. Cos I personally will not abide by that rule.

AR

Bill Gletsos
05-11-2004, 06:10 PM
Good. Cos I personally will not abide by that rule.

AR
Firstly, I wasnt suggesting they would overlook the continued breach of the rules, just that in the first few months of its introduction they would warn the player that they can no longer record it then move (the lenient part) but would insist the player no longer do it (the firm part).

Secondly, you dont get to choose which rules you can abide by.
Thirdly, flout the rule and expect to be penalised especially if you have been warned by the arbiter. Also dont expect to get away with a warning per game or even a warning per tournament.

I suggest you practice doing it cirrectly between now and 1st July next year. ;)

Trent Parker
05-11-2004, 09:33 PM
As you will see I had that wrong as I had missed the change. Although Geurts wording did not make it into the article his intent regarding it did.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooo!!
:mad: :doh: :lol: :lol:

oh well time to start practicing. Might as well break the old habit and train in the new habit now rather than later.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Denis_Jessop
06-11-2004, 08:47 PM
The only Laws had a piece of PC rubbish in the preamble to cover that compaint. I assume this will remain in the new ones. It goes something like:

In these Laws the words 'he', 'him' and 'his' include 'she' and 'her'.

The quoted words in the Laws are not "PC rubbish" but a standard type of interpretation provision that has been used in legislation (for example in Acts Interpretation Acts) since long before PC was an issue.

Denis Jessop

Denis_Jessop
06-11-2004, 09:44 PM
Ok, this is a summary of what I believe the changes to mean.


Article 5.1 just reiterates that the mating move must be a legal move.

Article 6.10 removes the superflous word king from the phrase checkmate the players king as any checkmate must involve the king.

Article 6.11 is just making it absolutely clear that the clock must be replaced although to me it seems superflous.

Article 6.12 is now stating that if it is the final phase of the game and both flags have fallen and it cannot be determined which fell first then the game is drawn, whereas under the previous the rules the game would have continued.

Article 6.15 appears to just be a semantic change.



Hi Bill

A few comments on the bits of your summary quoted above.

5.1: True, but for some reason the reference to the need for a legal move remains in the second sentence. It now seems redundant.

6.10: Yes, but why change the rule to introduce the concept of checkmating a player when everywhere else in the rules the concept is that of checkmating the King which is what is now in 6.10.

6.11: I don't think this is necessarily superfluous. It makes it clear that it is the arbiter and not someone else who is to replace the clock. Still a bit nit-picking!

6.12: This is a bit odd. There is no specific provision covering the "last period" if that is a not period in which all the remaining moves must be completed (cf 6.12b) - that is where the last period is one in which add-on time per move is in force. There seems to be an assumption that all digital clocks allow it to be determined which flag fell first as does a DGT clock. But, even if that is correct, it is very bad drafting not to cover the situation in the Laws.

6.15: This is not just a semantic change. Under the present law a player "may not make a claim based on information shown in this manner". The change allows a player to do this provided that it is not the sole basis of the claim. Take, for example, the case of a player making a claim based on the number of moves made and assume that the player's score sheet and the opponent's score sheet show a different number but the demo board agrees with the player's record. At present, it is probably the correct interpretation that the player cannot rely on the demo board's record to verify his scoresheet. Under the new rule he clearly will be able to do so as he is not relying solely on the demo board to make his claim.

There are a few other new provisions that may well be defective.

8.1: What happens if a player who is unable to keep score doesn't provide an assistant? The current rule says what happens but the new one doesn't. The provision of an assistant is not mandatory - the word "may" is permissive only. Clearly the arbiter can rely on the analogous situation bit of the Preface but why change a rule in this slipshod way?

8.4: Can anyone explain why the order of writing down the moves changes when one of the players' time credit falls below 5 minutes in a 30 sec or more add-on situation? This seems to me to be just silly. As you said in a later post the rules are not made for the players - worse they seem to be made assuming an endless supply of arbiters to enforce them which may happen in international events but nowhere else.

10.1: Here we have the term "phase" of a game used whereas elsewhere the relevant term used is "period". A semantic point but indicative of the less than ideal effort put into the rule changes.

12.3: Note that "any other relevant data" (whatever that is intended to mean) will also now be permitted to appear on a score sheet.

Finally I note that the Rapid and Blitz rules will now apply to certain games in which added-on time is used.

Denis Jessop

Rhubarb
07-11-2004, 04:13 PM
8.4: Can anyone explain why the order of writing down the moves changes when one of the players' time credit falls below 5 minutes in a 30 sec or more add-on situation? This seems to me to be just silly. As you said in a later post the rules are not made for the players - worse they seem to be made assuming an endless supply of arbiters to enforce them which may happen in international events but nowhere else.
The practice of immediately replying to a move in your opponent's time trouble before recording is something I do quite frequently, and is often done by my opponents in my time trouble.

But I can understand why FIDE would want to stamp out the practice of 'blitzing' altogether.

Ideally, FIDE would force both players to record each half-move immediately after it is played, but they probably figure it is unnecessarily heavy-handed to enforce this when neither player is in time trouble.

Garvinator
07-11-2004, 04:52 PM
The practice of immediately replying to a move in your opponent's time trouble before recording is something I do quite frequently, and is often done by my opponents in my time trouble.

But I can understand why FIDE would want to stamp out the practice of 'blitzing' altogether.

Ideally, FIDE would force both players to record each half-move immediately after it is played, but they probably figure it is unnecessarily heavy-handed to enforce this when neither player is in time trouble.
This would seem to be correct, but I believe the rule was brought in about recording before replying inside five minutes with more than 30 seconds increment after the SOLCC game involving Nigel Short.

Apparently the story goes that Nigel spent alot of the game with close to just the 30 second increment. His opponent had plenty of time left and only had one or two move options each time. Nigel's opponent would quickly make his move and then write the move down on Nigel's time.

Rhubarb
07-11-2004, 05:03 PM
This would seem to be correct, but I believe the rule was brought in about recording before replying inside five minutes with more than 30 seconds increment after the SOLCC game involving Nigel Short.

Apparently the story goes that Nigel spent alot of the game with close to just the 30 second increment. His opponent had plenty of time left and only had one or two move options each time. Nigel's opponent would quickly make his move and then write the move down on Nigel's time.
Right. Another point is that when the new rules come into effect, you can no longer write down your move before playing it. This stops a player from writing down the intended move, playing it, the opponent (in time trouble) replying immediately, then the first player replying to the reply immediately. Both players then have to record, but on the time-troubled player's time. Until July 1, the first player's actions are quite legal.

Kevin Bonham
07-11-2004, 05:25 PM
8.1: What happens if a player who is unable to keep score doesn't provide an assistant? The current rule says what happens but the new one doesn't. The provision of an assistant is not mandatory - the word "may" is permissive only. Clearly the arbiter can rely on the analogous situation bit of the Preface but why change a rule in this slipshod way?

I was a bit disappointed by this change too. We have two players at our club who experience difficulty keeping score. One has a serious, visually obvious physical disability that means he can score only with extreme difficulty (it takes him something like twenty seconds to score his move). Another has a mild dyslexia-like condition which means that he can score but with a high error rate and a significant impact on his playing ability. Under the existing rules we can deal with this simply by deducting five or ten minutes from these players' starting times, but the 2005 version removes this option. Finding assistants to score within a small club is impractical.

Bill Gletsos
07-11-2004, 06:27 PM
Hi Bill

A few comments on the bits of your summary quoted above.

5.1: True, but for some reason the reference to the need for a legal move remains in the second sentence. It now seems redundant.

6.10: Yes, but why change the rule to introduce the concept of checkmating a player when everywhere else in the rules the concept is that of checkmating the King which is what is now in 6.10.
I agree.


6.11: I don't think this is necessarily superfluous. It makes it clear that it is the arbiter and not someone else who is to replace the clock. Still a bit nit-picking!
True.
I had overlooked the implication that previously someone other than the arbiter could have replaced the clock.


6.12: This is a bit odd. There is no specific provision covering the "last period" if that is a not period in which all the remaining moves must be completed (cf 6.12b) - that is where the last period is one in which add-on time per move is in force. There seems to be an assumption that all digital clocks allow it to be determined which flag fell first as does a DGT clock. But, even if that is correct, it is very bad drafting not to cover the situation in the Laws.
I'm not sure I agree with that Denis.
6.12a covers all but the last period. This seems self explanatory.
You will note that 6.12b does not include the words made in a limited time like Article 10.1 does.
Therefore the issue of whether the digital can show which flag fell first or not is immaterial.
6.12b covers the last period irrespective of whether that period has an increment or not.


6.15: This is not just a semantic change. Under the present law a player "may not make a claim based on information shown in this manner". The change allows a player to do this provided that it is not the sole basis of the claim. Take, for example, the case of a player making a claim based on the number of moves made and assume that the player's score sheet and the opponent's score sheet show a different number but the demo board agrees with the player's record. At present, it is probably the correct interpretation that the player cannot rely on the demo board's record to verify his scoresheet. Under the new rule he clearly will be able to do so as he is not relying solely on the demo board to make his claim.
Good pickup on this one.
I agree with your interpretation.


There are a few other new provisions that may well be defective.

8.1: What happens if a player who is unable to keep score doesn't provide an assistant? The current rule says what happens but the new one doesn't. The provision of an assistant is not mandatory - the word "may" is permissive only. Clearly the arbiter can rely on the analogous situation bit of the Preface but why change a rule in this slipshod way?
I agree.
I suspect however that the final sentence His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way is expected to be applied if an assistant is available or not.


8.4: Can anyone explain why the order of writing down the moves changes when one of the players' time credit falls below 5 minutes in a 30 sec or more add-on situation? This seems to me to be just silly. As you said in a later post the rules are not made for the players - worse they seem to be made assuming an endless supply of arbiters to enforce them which may happen in international events but nowhere else.
Actually I do think this is one rule where they have listened to players.
The aim of the Article is to stamp out the practice of 'blitzing' which occurs from weekenders to international events.


10.1: Here we have the term "phase" of a game used whereas elsewhere the relevant term used is "period". A semantic point but indicative of the less than ideal effort put into the rule changes.
In fact 10.1 is the only place where the word "phase" is used.
Although this was in place before the introduction in these laws of the term "period" in 6.12 it would have made sense to change 10.1 to use the word "period".


12.3: Note that "any other relevant data" (whatever that is intended to mean) will also now be permitted to appear on a score sheet.
I suspect it is covering information like the platers names, ratings, time controls, round number and even tournament name which under the current rules one could argue are nor permitted on the scoresheet.


Finally I note that the Rapid and Blitz rules will now apply to certain games in which added-on time is used.
Actually those changes have been in effect since the Rules Committee meeting at the Bled Olympiad in November 2002.

Denis_Jessop
07-11-2004, 08:30 PM
Actually I do think this is one rule where they have listened to players.
The aim of the Article is to stamp out the practice of 'blitzing' which occurs from weekenders to international events.





Re 8.4, I daresay that your explanation is right and I see that others have the same view. But I'm not sure that it doesn't tell equally against the "blitzee" or a player very short of time even if not being blitzed. If, say, I have a credit of almost zero and my opponent has lots of time, the obligation on me to write down my opponent's move before completing mine effectively uses up a fair bit of my time whether my opponent is blitzing me or not and may cause me to lose on time where, if I could move first and then write down his and my moves that may not be the case. In other words it has the potential to diasdvantage the player who is short of time rather than being for his benefit, as it is apparently intended to be.

PS I should have said before, thanks, Bill, for the most valuable information you have provided in this matter.

Denis Jessop

Rhubarb
07-11-2004, 08:39 PM
The obligation on me to write down my opponent's move before completing mine effectively uses up a fair bit of my time whether my opponent is blitzing me or not and may cause me to lose on time.
But you will have at least 30 seconds on your clock.

Garvinator
10-11-2004, 10:13 AM
If I remember correctly there was a proposal for an acceptable of a recommended time control for world championships etc. was this successful?

Bill Gletsos
10-11-2004, 10:49 AM
If I remember correctly there was a proposal for an acceptable of a recommended time control for world championships etc. was this successful?
As FIDE have not yet posted any details of the general assembly its a bit hard to know what was accepted and what wasnt.
If Stewart had not sent me the new laws we still would not know about them via FIDE's web site.

Garvinator
10-11-2004, 10:51 AM
As FIDE have not yet posted any details of the general assembly its a bit hard to know what was accepted and what wasnt.
If Stewart had not sent me the new laws we still would not know about them via FIDE's web site.
ok then :D

eclectic
10-11-2004, 11:11 PM
following from the discussion on preventing "blitzing"

is it too controversial to ask whether or not FIDE officially recognises religious exemptions excusing someone from recording moves?

the soon to be introduced anti-blitz rules would seem totally irrevelant to a certain category of players and probably unenforceable in such circumstances

are the playing conditions equal for both players if the conditions for recording the moves are different?

i understand that the rabbi maimonides introduced the non writing rule for the sabbath as a quaint little way of getting around not actually being allowed to play chess on the sabbath

perhaps FIDE could introduce a rule making the recording of moves part and parcel of the action of making moves and not separate from them

eg

upon their side of the clock being active a player's turn shall consist of the writing of the opponent's last move, the making of their (the player's) next move, the recording of that move, the pressing of the clock

well they could try

i can just hear the uproar from the jewish lobby

my response would be if you want to be a jew or a fundamentalist christian observe the sabbath completely or play tournaments under that same conditions as everyone else and stop thinking you're allowed to have half measures

(i can just imagine antichrist reading this)

eclectic

ps

i wonder how long it will be before a moderator steps in with the editing scissors

Spiny Norman
11-11-2004, 07:06 PM
my response would be if you want to be a jew or a fundamentalist christian observe the sabbath completely or play tournaments under that same conditions as everyone else and stop thinking you're allowed to have half measures


Luke 14:1-6
One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?" But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. Then he asked them, "If one of you is playing competitive chess on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately write down your move after playing it on the board?" And they had nothing to say.


(i can just imagine antichrist reading this)

;)

Denis_Jessop
11-11-2004, 10:04 PM
Luke 14:1-6
One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?" But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. Then he asked them, "If one of you is playing competitive chess on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately write down your move after playing it on the board?" And they had nothing to say.



;)

Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting that FIDE, in enacting Art8.4b, requiring an opponent's move to be written down before your own move is complested, is acting contrary to biblical principle or, prhaps,even the principles of Natural Law and its new law is therefore invalid.

This is an exciting new development in the interpretation of the Laws of Chess and opens up endless possibilities for an imaginative Arbiter. :hmm: :)

Denis Jessop

Alan Shore
11-11-2004, 10:22 PM
Well not only is the writing forbidden but also the use of anything electronic (carrying over from the prohibition of fire) so using those digital clocks is out too. I remember from the 2000 Aus Junior that a certain Jewish someone I know had to get a half-point bye on the Saturday. (They wouldn't even give him a full point bye.. how rude!)

antichrist
14-11-2004, 03:03 AM
(i can just imagine antichrist reading this)

Listen Frosty, frost would have as much chance of surviving in Hell as me not responding. I hope I have done justice. In case it gets deleted here I have also posted to Does God Exist thread

Rincewind
14-11-2004, 09:46 AM
(i can just imagine antichrist reading this)

Listen Frosty, frost would have as much chance of surviving in Hell as me not responding. I hope I have done justice. In case it gets deleted here I have also posted to Does God Exist thread

Good, saved me having to move it. Next time, just post it once in the most appropriate forum.

antichrist
14-11-2004, 10:34 PM
Good, saved me having to move it. Next time, just post it once in the most appropriate forum.
But half of it was appropriate about byes being given for religious reasons or supposedly for. Imagine if tomorrow I knew I was going to be up against George Xie, I would suddently become pious and claim a bye, therefore earning half a point, which is better than turning up and earning nothing. So such byes should be outlawed for this reason alone.

Trent Parker
15-11-2004, 09:50 AM
But half of it was appropriate about byes being given for religious reasons or supposedly for. Imagine if tomorrow I knew I was going to be up against George Xie, I would suddently become pious and claim a bye, therefore earning half a point, which is better than turning up and earning nothing. So such byes should be outlawed for this reason alone.

i think byes with ample notice would be alright. say before the draw is done?

As for playing against George Xie........ I would enjoy the challenge!! :) :lol: :D

Spiny Norman
15-11-2004, 08:50 PM
Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting that FIDE, in enacting Art8.4b, requiring an opponent's move to be written down before your own move is complested, is acting contrary to biblical principle or, prhaps,even the principles of Natural Law and its new law is therefore invalid. This is an exciting new development in the interpretation of the Laws of Chess and opens up endless possibilities for an imaginative Arbiter. :hmm: :)

Well we get accused of having a hand in everything else (e.g. the USA and AUS election results) ... so why not the new laws of chess whilst we're at it? ;)

Spiny Norman
15-11-2004, 08:53 PM
Listen Frosty, frost would have as much chance of surviving in Hell as me not responding. I hope I have done justice. In case it gets deleted here I have also posted to Does God Exist thread

I shall repair to the other thread and enjoy your literary perambulations there ...

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2004, 03:18 PM
Geurt is discussing the new laws amongst other things in his November column published today on www.chesscafe.com

pax
19-11-2004, 03:10 PM
Geurt is discussing the new laws amongst other things in his November column published today on www.chesscafe.com

So it looks like the issue of king taking will remain muddy.

It sounds as though Guert is planning to interpret it in this way:

-Taking the king is not the correct way to claim a win due to a king left in check.
-but, a player taking his opponent's king (which was left in check) does not lose the game, as two consecutive illegal moves cannot occur. In other words, the illegal move (leaving one's king in check) can only be accepted by the opponent making a legal move.
-So if a player takes his opponent's king, the position will be restored to that before he took the king, at which point he is at liberty to claim a win in the correct manner.

Sounds pretty convoluted to me, and of course other arbiters will interpret the rule the other way..

Denis_Jessop
19-11-2004, 03:36 PM
Geurt is discussing the new laws amongst other things in his November column published today on www.chesscafe.com

Thanks for that Bill. It seems, as I had half suspected, that the new anti-blitzing law in Art.8.4b was a last-minute inclusion that Geurt admits still needs some tidying up so I feel a bit vindicated in my reservations about it!

Denis Jessop

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2004, 10:52 PM
So it looks like the issue of king taking will remain muddy.

It sounds as though Guert is planning to interpret it in this way:

-Taking the king is not the correct way to claim a win due to a king left in check.
-but, a player taking his opponent's king (which was left in check) does not lose the game, as two consecutive illegal moves cannot occur. In other words, the illegal move (leaving one's king in check) can only be accepted by the opponent making a legal move.
-So if a player takes his opponent's king, the position will be restored to that before he took the king, at which point he is at liberty to claim a win in the correct manner.

Sounds pretty convoluted to me, and of course other arbiters will interpret the rule the other way..
I personally think Geurt's explanation is rubbish. Article B6 does not apply to Blitz.
Therefire there is nothing in the rules that states or implies that two illegal moves cannot occur consecutively. e.g Playe A makes a move with a knoght from f3 to d5 and player B instead of claiming an illegal move makes a queen move from d8 to a4. Player A if he notices can claim ullegal move before he himslef makes a move. If Player A does not notice player B's illegal move and himself makes a move then the game continues.

The situation with the King is no different.
If Player A leaves his king in check, then if player B fails to claim but instead captures Player A's king and presses the clock then player A can claim illegal by player B. If player A notices his error but has not pressed his clock then he can no longer claim illegal move against Player B having made a move so he must make any other legal move with the piece he intended to capture the king with and if there is none is free to make any other legal move.

The main problem would arise where Player B did not notice player A had captured his King and went ahead and made a move on the board.
Player B having made a move cannot claim illegal move by Player A and player A lost the right to claim illegal move as soon as he captured Player B's king.

All in all a complicated mess. :rolleyes:

Ian_Rogers
20-11-2004, 08:36 PM
"It is forbidden to write moves in advance." may yet leave scope to write down your move (singular) before you play it.
Having some ambiguity may in fact have been the intention of the Rules Commission (with the exception of Gijssen) as otherwsie the rule could have been framed simply to say say "It is forbidden to write down a move before it has been completed on the board."

Ian

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2004, 08:52 PM
"It is forbidden to write moves in advance." may yet leave scope to write down your move (singular) before you play it.
Having some ambiguity may in fact have been the intention of the Rules Commission (with the exception of Gijssen) as otherwsie the rule could have been framed simply to say say "It is forbidden to write down a move before it has been completed on the board."

Ian
Well spotted Ian.

Denis_Jessop
20-11-2004, 09:12 PM
"It is forbidden to write moves in advance." may yet leave scope to write down your move (singular) before you play it.
Having some ambiguity may in fact have been the intention of the Rules Commission (with the exception of Gijssen) as otherwsie the rule could have been framed simply to say say "It is forbidden to write down a move before it has been completed on the board."

Ian

That may be so. I had noticed the use of the plural and had the same thought about whether it covers the matter clearly. But, on any view, it would seem to prevent a player, in advance, writing one move, analysing and then crossing it out and substituting another, which was Geurt's big worry according to what he has been writing in his "Arbiter's Notebook" for some time. So a player will need to be pretty sure of the move he intends to make before writing it down if the rule is interpreted to allow one move to be written in advance.

Denis Jessop

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2004, 10:46 PM
That may be so. I had noticed the use of the plural and had the same thought about whether it covers the matter clearly. But, on any view, it would seem to prevent a player, in advance, writing one move, analysing and then crossing it out and substituting another, which was Geurt's big worry according to what he has been writing in his "Arbiter's Notebook" for some time. So a player will need to be pretty sure of the move he intends to make before writing it down if the rule is interpreted to allow one move to be written in advance.

Denis Jessop
A late draft of Article 8.1 of the proposed laws stated In the course of play each player is required to record his own made or completed moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible the meaning of which was unambiguous.

So perhaps Geurt has been outmanoeuvered here although according to his latest column at chesscafe he would appear to believe he has succeeded in stopping the writing of a move before it has been made/completed.

Garvinator
20-11-2004, 10:59 PM
How hard is it really for the rule makers to say something like- a player cannot write down their move before playing a move on the board?

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2004, 11:03 PM
How hard is it really for the rule makers to say something like- a player cannot write down their move before playing a move on the board?
What was in the draft said that.
Obviously some found that wording undesirable.

Garvinator
20-11-2004, 11:09 PM
What was in the draft said that.
Obviously some found that wording undesirable.
is that because they wanted more ambiguity? ;)

Alan Shore
20-11-2004, 11:53 PM
"It is forbidden to write moves in advance." may yet leave scope to write down your move (singular) before you play it.
Having some ambiguity may in fact have been the intention of the Rules Commission (with the exception of Gijssen) as otherwsie the rule could have been framed simply to say say "It is forbidden to write down a move before it has been completed on the board."

Ian

This actually reminds me of my very first major tournament (QLD Juniors '98) at which GM Rogers was playing IM Solomon in a playoff for the Aus Championships. I remember watching as Solo was in big time trouble to make the 40-move cutoff, and had 1 second left to make his 40th move. Rogers calmly played his move on the board, and then instead of pressing the clock immediately, his hand goes for the pen to write the move. Just as it looks like he is about to write the move, Rogers' hand shoots forward and bangs down the clock, with a flustered Solomon grabbing wildly at his piece to make a move yet not making it in time due to being surprised.

I remember thinking 'Wow, Grandmasters not only know their chess.. they also know all the tricks too!!' ;)

JGB
22-11-2004, 05:26 AM
...1 second left to make his 40th move. Rogers calmly played his move on the board, and then instead of pressing the clock immediately, his hand goes for the pen to write the move. Just as it looks like he is about to write the move, Rogers' hand shoots forward and bangs down the clock, ...

Very cool, :cool:

Got to try that one out. It's sort of like the old fake hand shake trick; where the hand moves through the hair instead of into the guys hand. . ;)

Pauld
28-01-2005, 11:19 PM
After reading the change to Rule 8.1 I am not sure that it precludes writing a move and then crossing it out either. It is interesting that it says "in advance" without specifying of what it is in advance of. My dictionary defines in advance as being beforehand (again of what!) or before due.

The first interpretation would appear to be before the game which is silly. The second interpretation is probably what is meant. If I play 1.e4 and then my opponent plays 1...e5. My second move is now due and so I can write down 2.Nf3. I would be forbidden to write it before my opponent had played 1...e5 as my second move is not due yet. It would appear to me that the way the rule is worded gives the player the flexibility to write the move first or to make the move first (on the condition that the move is written before the next move is made).

If I continue to write the move first, what is my punishment. The rules don't invoke a punishment. The word "forbidden" seems pretty drastic to me as this word is not often used in the rules. If this is such an important issue you would think that the rules would be very specific as to what I am forbidden to do.

By the way, I very rarely cross out a move before making it on the board (usually only once in a game, sometimes twice).

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2005, 01:32 AM
"It is forbidden to write moves in advance." may yet leave scope to write down your move (singular) before you play it.
Having some ambiguity may in fact have been the intention of the Rules Commission (with the exception of Gijssen) as otherwsie the rule could have been framed simply to say say "It is forbidden to write down a move before it has been completed on the board."

I missed this discussion - happened while I was away in November, so I've only just seen it.

To me, a player who writes down every move just before playing it is "writing down the moves in advance". It does puzzle me though that the Rules Commission did not explicitly rule out any other possible interpretation in the way you suggest. I hope they did not deliberately leave it ambiguous because ambiguous rules cause enough trouble as it is. I would assume that they left it ambiguous by mistake.

Rincewind
29-01-2005, 07:42 AM
I missed this discussion - happened while I was away in November, so I've only just seen it.

To me, a player who writes down every move just before playing it is "writing down the moves in advance". It does puzzle me though that the Rules Commission did not explicitly rule out any other possible interpretation in the way you suggest. I hope they did not deliberately leave it ambiguous because ambiguous rules cause enough trouble as it is. I would assume that they left it ambiguous by mistake.

To my mind the ambiguity is only slight and unavoidable. If the singular was used instead of a plural then people would find a way to misinterpret that (e.g. the rules say "a move" so as long as I do that or just one move, I can do what I like for the others).

I think the issue here is a lot of people write the moves in advance and very few people see much wrong with this continuing. I too am one of these but understand that an argument can be made that a player could be using this situation to their advantage and basically agree with Geurt that it is cleaner to prohibit it.

I've begun changing my ways and recording the moves after playing them. I still have a tendency to reach for my pen before playing my move but I'm sure I'll rehabilitate completely soon.

Bill Gletsos
05-03-2005, 02:11 PM
FIDE have posted the New Laws of Chess that come into effect on 1st July 2005 for download on their web site at http://www.fide.com/news/download/Laws_Chess_1PB_2005.doc

Bill Gletsos
05-03-2005, 05:42 PM
The new Laws on the FIDE web site have some differences to those I highlighted in the first post of this thread.

As such I have once again highlighted the changes I have noticed between the current laws and the new laws which are as follows:

Article 1.2

The objective of each player is to place the opponent's king 'under attack' in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have 'checkmated' the opponent's king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.Article 3.1

It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour. If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent's piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move. A piece is said to attack an opponent's piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to Articles 3.2 to 3.8.
A piece is considered to attack a square, even if such a piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack.Article 3.8

a. There are two different ways of moving the king, by:
i. moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
or
ii. ‘castling'. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour on the same rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed.

(1) The right for castling has been lost:
a. if the king has already moved, or
b. with a rook that has already moved
(2) Castling is prevented temporarily
a. if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
b. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected. Note the last sentence of the current rules of 3.8 a. and all of 3.8 b has been deleted although their intent has been moved into Article 3.9.

Article 3.9

The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.Article 4.4

d. If a player promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion.The old Article 4.6 is now Article 4.7.
The new Article 4.6 completely replaces the old Article 4.7.

Article 4.6

4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled
a. in the case of a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand;
b. in the case of castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal;
c. in the case of the promotion of a pawn, when the pawn has been removed from the chessboard and the player's hand has released the new piece after placing it on the promotion square. If the player has released from his hand the pawn that has reached the promotion square, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to another square.
Article 4.7

A player forfeits his right to a claim against his opponent's violation of Article 4.3 or 4.4 once he deliberately touches a piece.Article 6.11

Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall replace the clock and use his best judgement when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess clock.Article 6.12

If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then
a. the game shall continue if it happens in any period of the game except the last period.
b. the game is drawn if it happens in the period of a game, in which all the remaining moves must be completed.Article 6.15

Screens, monitors, or demonstration boards showing the current position on the chessboard, the moves and the number of moves made, and clocks which also show the number of moves, are allowed in the playing hall. However, the player may not make a claim relying solely on information shown in this manner.Article 7.4

a If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

b. After the action taken under Article 7.4(a), for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player.Artilce 7.5

If during a game it is found that pieces have been displaced from their squares, the position before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. The game shall then continue from this re-instated position.Article 8.1

In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3.
A player may reply to his opponent's move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.12)
If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who is acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.Article 8.4

If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard.
Article 9.6

9.6 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, provided that the move producing this position was legal.In Article 10.1 the word last was removed before the word phase and the word remaining was placed in brackets.
Article 10.1

A 'quickplay finish' is the phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.Article 10.2

b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.Artilce 10.3 has been deleted. It said:

If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first the game is drawn.Article 12.2

a. During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or analyse on another chessboard.
b. It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter.The later part of the old 12.2 is now 12.3.
Article 12.3

The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.The old 12.3-12.8 are now renumbered 12.4-12.9.
Article 13.6

The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess. He shall not indicate the number of moves made, except in applying Article 8.5 when at least one flag has fallen. The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed a move or that the player has not pressed his clock.Article 13.7

a. Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game. If necessary, the arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue.
b. It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any area designated by the arbiter.Article B1

A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be made in a fixed time from 15 to 60 minutes; or the time allotted + 60 times any increment is from 15 to 60 minutes.Part b of Article B5 has been deleted. It had said:

The player loses the right to claim according to Articles 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5 (Irregularities, illegal moves) once he has touched a piece according to Article 4.3.Article B5 now reads:
Article B5

The arbiter shall make a ruling according to Article 4 (The act of moving pieces), only if requested to do so by one or both players.
The old Articles B6-B8 are now B7-B9 and there is a new B6 as follows:

Article B6

An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is then entitled to claim that the player completed an illegal move before the claimant has made his move. Only after such a claim, shall the arbiter make a ruling. However, if both Kings are in check or the promotion of a pawn is not completed, the arbiter shall intervene, if possible.Article C1

A ‘blitz’ game is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed time of less than 15 minutes for each player; or the allotted time + 60 times any increment is less than 15 minutes.Article C2

Play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Appendix B except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Blitz. The Articles 10.2 and B6 do not apply.Article C3

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[b] his own move. [b]However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected Article C4 which said:

Article 10.2 does not apply. has been incorporated into C2.
Article D1

Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis
a. that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b. that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.
There is a new Article E1 and old Articles E1-E12 are now E2-E13.

Article E1

In this description, "piece" means a piece other than a pawn.

Denis_Jessop
05-03-2005, 08:12 PM
Thanks for all of this Bill. I see that the much debated anti-blitzing provision of 8.4b has disappeared :clap: :clap:

Denis jessop

Lucena
27-04-2005, 09:17 AM
What happens if a tournament is played before and after July 1? Do the old rules apply until the tournament is over, or do they apply to the tournament from July 1?

Bill Gletsos
29-04-2005, 02:01 PM
What happens if a tournament is played before and after July 1? Do the old rules apply until the tournament is over, or do they apply to the tournament from July 1?I view is that the rules in force at the start of the event remain in force throughout the event.

Ian Rout
29-04-2005, 02:29 PM
For a tournament played on consecutive days it's sensible to use the same rules throughout.

For club tournaments at one round per week there's a case for cold turkey, otherwise a player playing at two clubs, or in a weekender, could be using different rules in different events.

Rincewind
29-04-2005, 03:02 PM
For a tournament played on consecutive days it's sensible to use the same rules throughout.

For club tournaments at one round per week there's a case for cold turkey, otherwise a player playing at two clubs, or in a weekender, could be using different rules in different events.

That sounds sensible to me too. I wonder what the Sydney Grade Match comp will be doing?

Bill Gletsos
29-04-2005, 03:17 PM
That sounds sensible to me too. I wonder what the Sydney Grade Match comp will be doing?The 2001 Laws will be in effect throughout.

In the Duties of Captains section of the rules it states:

Be conversant with the current (July 2001) FIDE Laws of Chess.

Rincewind
29-04-2005, 05:13 PM
The 2001 Laws will be in effect throughout.

In the Duties of Captains section of the rules it states:

Is it conventional wisdom that this leads to less confusion, tradition or is there some other reason? I can see the logic in Ian's argument that to stick with the old rules might cause more confusion in a weekly round tournament.

Bill Gletsos
29-04-2005, 11:07 PM
Is it conventional wisdom that this leads to less confusion, tradition or is there some other reason? I can see the logic in Ian's argument that to stick with the old rules might cause more confusion in a weekly round tournament.In the case of grade matches, there is no arbiter present and therefore it is better that the rules for the event are consistent throughout.

However even if the event were say a 9 week event spread over June/July I still think it is better to play the event under the one set of rules.
If some players in that event happen to start playing in an event that starts in July under the new rules then the responsability is for them to play accordingly.
Of course if those players playing in the event that starts in July follow the 2005 rules in the June/July event, I doubt they would actually contravene any of the 2001 rules as I dont recall the 2005 rules allowing something that the 2001 dont.

Rincewind
29-04-2005, 11:57 PM
In the case of grade matches, there is no arbiter present and therefore it is better that the rules for the event are consistent throughout.

Yes, I thought of this salient point after posting. I think I agree: the old, familiar rules are probably best for the Grade Matches.

eclectic
30-04-2005, 01:01 AM
a parallel here is how a particular set of ratings ,eg march, would be used as the basis for ratings calculations for an event which goes over more than one ratings period

my layman sense is that laws effective july 1 2005 would pertain to events starting on or after that date and that those already underway would continue under the old "regime" to ensure arbiterial and regulatorial consistency

eclectic

Rincewind
30-04-2005, 09:21 AM
a parallel here is how a particular set of ratings ,eg march, would be used as the basis for ratings calculations for an event which goes over more than one ratings period

my layman sense is that laws effective july 1 2005 would pertain to events starting on or after that date and that those already underway would continue under the old "regime" to ensure arbiterial and regulatorial consistency

There is a parallel but not a strong one. With ratings you control entry into closed division and the like. You can't have a player (or team) for example entering in an u-1800 competition and then disqualifying themselves but rating increases. Or similarly a player might be in a good position to win an u-1600 prize but have a rating just over - before the comp finishes he goes and performs badly in a weekender just before the next rating period.

Also with ratnigs you are just talking about a number. One rating is just like another, only the magnitude changes. With rule changes you are talking about something which is much more complex.

With the Sydney Grade Matches there generally isn't an independent arbiter present at the venue. So there is no one there to remind players of the new rules and to unformly enforce them. Ian makes a good point that it might be confusing if a multiweek tournament was going on using the 2001 rules while the same players were playing in weekenders under the 2005 rules. At a club you will generally have an arbiter who can remind and enforce the new rules - and in that scenario I tend to agree with him. However for the Grade Matches with no arbiter present I think the confusion would be greater if you changed rules mid-stream.

Garvinator
02-05-2005, 09:48 PM
Thanks for all of this Bill. I see that the much debated anti-blitzing provision of 8.4b has disappeared :clap: :clap:

Denis jessop
not happy about this, i liked that rule if i had interpreted it correctly. :eek:

Denis_Jessop
02-05-2005, 10:20 PM
not happy about this, i liked that rule if i had interpreted it correctly. :eek:

I believe the problem was that the change had been introduced at the very last minute and had not been fully thought through. Geurt Gijssen, in his column written shortly after the Congress, admitted that the law needed further thought and it seems that it was dropped instead.

DJ

Lucena
06-05-2005, 12:14 AM
What was the change again? Can someone post a link for me back to wherever it was discussed?

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2005, 12:32 AM
What was the change again? Can someone post a link for me back to wherever it was discussed?Post 1 in this thread shows the planned Article 8.4b however no such Article was passed.
There was some discussion on it around post #56.
The actual new Article 8.4 is shown in post #93.

solkrov
13-08-2005, 02:35 AM
white made an illegal move by moving his B to another square that left his K under check. black does not see the illegal move because of time scramble and instead made another move and punches his clock in a 30-30 time control. and after punching his clock only then did black saw the illegal move - that white's K is under check by black's B, and calls the arbiter. should white, who made the illegal move be declared TKO or loss of the game?

ElevatorEscapee
13-08-2005, 04:27 PM
Hi Solkrov, I am not sure what a "30-30" time control is, however, if this were a lightning game, then Black would have forfeited his right to claim the win by his opponent making an illegal move because he had completed his own move in response.

If this time control does not fall under the appendix of lightning rules, then no, one player playing an illegal move does not mean that his/her opponent can therefore claim a win.

If it were a Lightning game, the player of the White pieces could argue further (albiet with somewhat less certainty ;)), that White can therefore claim a win as Black has made an illegal move by allowing the White king to remain in check. :D

eclectic
13-08-2005, 04:52 PM
if a player has lost on time and the opponent claims it but that opponent's score sheet is not up to date can the player who has lost ask that 2 minutes be added to his clock?

come on, don't laugh, if the ACP and FIDE can nitpick about writing notation before or after a move then surely i am allowed to add further to the pedantry.

probably posting this because the moribund overcast conditions here ...

eclectic

Bill Gletsos
13-08-2005, 07:23 PM
white made an illegal move by moving his B to another square that left his K under check. black does not see the illegal move because of time scramble and instead made another move and punches his clock in a 30-30 time control. and after punching his clock only then did black saw the illegal move - that white's K is under check by black's B, and calls the arbiter. should white, who made the illegal move be declared TKO or loss of the game?If the game is played under normal rules then the relevant Article is 7.4.
Article 7.4 states:
7.4 (a) If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent`s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

(b) After the action taken under Article 7.4(a), for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player.

Therefore the following would happen.

1) The arbiter would reset the position back to the position prior to White moving his bishop and leaving his king in check.
2) The arbiter would give 2 extra minutes to Black on his clock.
3) Whites clock would be started and if White can move the Bishop he touched and either stop the check by moving the Bishop to block the check or by capturing the checking piece then he must move the Bishop. If the Bishop cannot parry the check then White is free to make any legal move with any other piece.


If the game was played under rapid rules then the relevant Article is B6. Note that if an illegal move claim is valid under B6 then Article 7.4 still applies.
Article B6 states:
B6. An illegal move is completed once the opponent`s clock has been started. The opponent is then entitled to claim that the player completed an illegal move before the claimant has made his move. Only after such a claim, shall the arbiter make a ruling.

However, if both Kings are in check or the promotion of a pawn is not completed, the arbiter shall intervene, if possible.

Therefore the following would happen.

1) Since Black has made his move he has lost the right to claim illegal move. Note that the pressing of the clock is irrelevant. He lost the right to claim as soon as he made the move on the board and his hand left the piece.
2) The game would continue from the current position with white to move, no doubt removing his King from check.

However if Black had noticed the illegal move by White prior to making his move then the procedure decribed above with regards a normal game would have occurred as per Article 7.4.

If the game was played under blitz rules then the relevant article is C3. Note in Blitz neither Article 7.4 nor B6 apply.

Article C3 states:
C3. 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. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected.

Therefore the following would happen.

1) The illegal move claim is invalid as Black has made a move.
2) The game would continue from the current position with white to move, no doubt removing his King from check.

Bill Gletsos
13-08-2005, 07:25 PM
if a player has lost on time and the opponent claims it but that opponent's score sheet is not up to date can the player who has lost ask that 2 minutes be added to his clock?No.
The player should have claimed with regards his opponents score sheet not being up to date prior to his opponent claiming a win on time.

Lucena
14-08-2005, 01:42 AM
Hey does anyone here know anything about the variations between USCF rules and FIDE rules? I read some article by [I think it was] Van Wely talking about how every time he played in a tournament in the US, he discovered a new weird rule that they had. Like there was some bizarre rule the USCF had that meant that in certain situations you could actually point out your OWN flag had fallen and claim a draw if your opponent did not have an updated score sheet! :hmm: :eh: :wall: :whatthe: :crazy:

eclectic
14-08-2005, 02:19 AM
Hey does anyone here know anything about the variations between USCF rules and FIDE rules? I read some article by Van Wely talking about how every time he played in a tournament in the US, he discovered a new weird rule that they had. Like there was some bizarre rule the USCF had that meant that in certain situations you could actually point out your OWN flag had fallen and claim a draw if your opponent did not have an updated score sheet! :hmm: :eh: :wall: :whatthe: :crazy:

the usa in most things think they are a law unto themselves ... i remember seeing somewhere ... though i may be mistaken ... that games could be made to stop at 180 moves and adjudicated .... but don't quote me

[I]eclectic

Rincewind
14-08-2005, 02:33 AM
but don't quote me

:doh: I wasn't supposed to do this, was I?

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2005, 04:55 AM
If it were a Lightning game, the player of the White pieces could argue further (albiet with somewhat less certainty ;)), that White can therefore claim a win as Black has made an illegal move by allowing the White king to remain in check. :D

Actually such an argument would be rejected as it is only illegal to leave yourself in check, not the opponent.

billross
31-10-2005, 06:22 AM
Quote:
Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis
a. that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b. that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.


What is the definition of normal play?

At a recent weekender one player was about to run out of time but claimed a draw on the basis that his opponent's two knights were not enough to win against his pawn (K+P v K+N+N - the pawn was nowhere near promotion). With best play KvK+N+N is drawn although there are some positions where checkmate can be forced. Presumably with less than best defence a win is possible. So, how does this sit with normal play?

I thought the arbiter's decision was good in this game but I'm not sure it was technically coorect and out of interest seek clarification.

Lucena
31-10-2005, 12:22 PM
Quote:
Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis
a. that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b. that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.


What is the definition of normal play?

At a recent weekender one player was about to run out of time but claimed a draw on the basis that his opponent's two knights were not enough to win against his pawn (K+P v K+N+N - the pawn was nowhere near promotion). With best play KvK+N+N is drawn although there are some positions where checkmate can be forced. Presumably with less than best defence a win is possible. So, how does this sit with normal play?

I thought the arbiter's decision was good in this game but I'm not sure it was technically coorect and out of interest seek clarification.

I believe the arbiter should definitely not rule a draw. There are actually positions where K+P v K+N+N is a win for the 2 knights, especially when the pawn is not far advanced. The reason is the king can be forced into a mating net without risk of stalemate as the pawn can advance. (Typically the pawn has to be blockaded by a knight for some time, then when the optimal position has been reached that knight moves away to join the mating net, allowing the pawn to advance.)

So (depending on the exact position of course) this position could even be a forced win for the Ns(albeit a forced win that is hard to do in practice). Even if it's not a forced win the side with the knights could make it very tough for the side with the pawn.

I think the arbiter has to allow the game to continue. My understanding of "making an effort to win by normal means" is basically that you're trying to genuinely win over the board, not on the clock, and are making some kind of "progress". This can be tricky to judge, and can I think be quite difficult depending on the arbiter's understanding of chess.

Ian Rout
31-10-2005, 12:46 PM
I believe the arbiter should definitely not rule a draw. There are actually positions where K+P v K+N+N is a win for the 2 knights, especially when the pawn is not far advanced. The reason is the king can be forced into a mating net without risk of stalemate as the pawn can advance. (Typically the pawn has to be blockaded by a knight for some time, then when the optimal position has been reached that knight moves away to join the mating net, allowing the pawn to advance.)

So (depending on the exact position of course) this position could even be a forced win for the Ns(albeit a forced win that is hard to do in practice). Even if it's not a forced win the side with the knights could make it very tough for the side with the pawn.

I think the arbiter has to allow the game to continue. A draw can be ruled if the arbiter judges that the side with 2Ns is making no attempt to win over the board (ie trying to win on time, not by normal means).
My understanding of "making an effort to win by normal means" is basically that you're trying to genuinely win over the board, not on the clock, and are making some kind of "progress". This can be tricky to judge, and can I think be quite difficult depending on the arbiter's understanding of chess.
Wasn't Ian Rogers involved in one of the famous cases of this ending (K+2N v K+P)?

Lucena
31-10-2005, 12:53 PM
Wasn't Ian Rogers involved in one of the famous cases of this ending (K+2N v K+P)?

Yes, it was against Gurevich at an interzonal. They had adjournments back then, I heard Gurevich just adjourned and checked his computer to see exactly how to do it.

billross
31-10-2005, 01:58 PM
I think the arbiter has to allow the game to continue. My understanding of "making an effort to win by normal means" is basically that you're trying to genuinely win over the board, not on the clock, and are making some kind of "progress". This can be tricky to judge, and can I think be quite difficult depending on the arbiter's understanding of chess.

Yes, this is what actually happened, they played on for a few minutes with no time on one clock and eventually a draw was agreed by the players

Garvinator
31-10-2005, 03:37 PM
Hello Bill,

what was the time control of the game that you ask about 10.2 ?

billross
31-10-2005, 03:48 PM
Hello Bill,

what was the time control of the game that you ask about 10.2 ?

6o min guillotine finish

Garvinator
31-10-2005, 04:02 PM
6o min guillotine finish
ok so game played under normal/rapid rules with guillotine finish :)

Rincewind
31-10-2005, 04:09 PM
ok so game played under normal/rapid rules with guillotine finish :)

It is an interesting point as to whether Appendix B applies to the G60 time control. I would say according to the current wording it does. However, if scoring the games was a requirement of the tournament then I would say that according to the arbiter it didn't.

In either case, the applicability of 10.2 is the same.

Kevin Bonham
31-10-2005, 04:23 PM
billross - you are quoting the section of the rules that applies to an instance where no arbiter is present in the venue. If there is an arbiter there the relevant section is 10.2.

"Normal means" means that a position might be won in the course of normal chess play, where you assume that the players will make mistakes but will not (for instance) senselessly throw pieces away or make no attempt at all to stop opposing pawns promoting. KR vs KR cannot be won by normal means because although a checkmate is possible someone would need to throw their rook away. Ditto for KNN vs K because although a mate is possible no-one who has a clue would fall for it.

However if KP vs KNN is the basis for a draw claim the arbiter should definitely ask the players to play on until the player with KP has their flag fall. Then the arbiter can make a decision. There is no way an arbiter just looking at the position could tell whether that position was one of the KNN vs KP endings that is a forced draw or not. In general the player with KP should be declared lost if their flag falls because the ending can be lost by imperfect play without making gross blunders - and therefore it is winnable by "normal means".


My understanding of "making an effort to win by normal means" is basically that you're trying to genuinely win over the board, not on the clock, and are making some kind of "progress". This can be tricky to judge, and can I think be quite difficult depending on the arbiter's understanding of chess.

My interpretation is that progress is irrelevant unless the 50-move rule is looming and that all that matters is that you are trying to win rather than mindlessly piece-shuffling to get the game on the clock. However I suspect that if one player had shown they clearly had no clue how to win the position then I would probably award the draw after flagfall.

Denis_Jessop
31-10-2005, 08:23 PM
Wasn't Ian Rogers involved in one of the famous cases of this ending (K+2N v K+P)?

So was Lilienthal against Smyslov in the final section of the Match Tournament for the Absolute Chess Championship of the USSR 1941. Lilienthal with the Knights couldn't win though it was apparently a theoretical win. Oddly enough, according to Botvinnik, that was the third time Lilienthal had had such a position and hadn't managed to win any of them. B blames it on Troitsky's confusing exposition of his analysis of the KNN v KP ending.

DJ

billross
02-11-2005, 06:35 PM
Thanks everyone for answering my query - looks like a tricky one with no consensus view so far.

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2005, 09:45 PM
Thanks everyone for answering my query - looks like a tricky one with no consensus view so far.

I haven't seen anyone say it should have been called a draw yet. The only differences have been about exactly how to handle it after play on is called if the player with the two knights doesn't seem to be making an effective attempt to win.