PDA

View Full Version : Upcoming FIDE Laws Of Chess Revision



Kevin Bonham
13-01-2008, 04:59 PM
In November 2008 the FIDE Laws of Chess will be revised. There will probably be some form of public submission opportunity, eg IA Geurt Gijssen did this last time through his Chescafe.com column and has indicated he may do so again.

The aim of this thread is to collate proposals on possible useful changes to the Laws, either in the form of "change rule X to acheive Y" or "change rule X to the following wording:"

What do people think should be changed? I intend writing a submission but it would be nice to cover a wide range of issues and not just those I can think of at the time.

(If anyone wants to suggest "bring back king capture in blitz" they can suggest it themselves, but I agree there is room for improving the current implementation of that rule. :lol: )

Capablanca-Fan
13-01-2008, 05:52 PM
The aim of this thread is to collate proposals on possible useful changes to the Laws, either in the form of "change rule X to acheive Y" or "change rule X to the following wording:"
Or maybe tell Gijssen to enforce crystal clear existing rules, such as checkmate ending a game of chess no matter what time control.:wall:


(If anyone wants to suggest "bring back king capture in blitz" they can suggest it themselves, but I agree there is room for improving the current implementation of that rule. :lol: )
Yeah, taking the king should not be allowed, but it should not be penalized with a loss either.

CameronD
13-01-2008, 06:08 PM
:D

They should bring back the old rules

:D

Like the bishop can jump over pieces and the queen moves like the king etc

That'll change the game


:D :D

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2008, 06:10 PM
Or maybe tell Gijssen to enforce crystal clear existing rules, such as checkmate ending a game of chess no matter what time control.:wall:

Possibly there should be a special "Gijssen Clause" inserted. I might suggest my revision of 10.2, which was accepted by FIDE in the 2005 Laws, be revised again to include the words "Geurt Gijssen, this means you!" :lol:

sleepless
13-01-2008, 06:53 PM
I would like the 'forfeit' time for classical and rapid chess to be reduced considerably.

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2008, 10:58 AM
:D

They should bring back the old rules

:D

Like the bishop can jump over pieces and the queen moves like the king etc.
No, it could move one square diagonally in any direction, so it was much less powerful than even the king.

Actually "queen" is anachronistic, since the old piece was called ferz, which is still its name in Russian, and is basically a vizier. The "bishop" was the alfil (name retained in Spanish), and it could move two and only two squares diagonally, regardless of whether there was a piece in the way. So this was an even wimpier piece.

It was a very slow moving game, but the Arabic experts like as-Suli made great advances, and some of the KRvKN analysis still holds good.

Trent Parker
15-01-2008, 03:07 PM
I would like the 'forfeit' time for classical and rapid chess to be reduced considerably.

I disagree with this. All it takes for me is to miss a train and i'm running just under an hour late. I remember doing this at the Sydney International open. Got there with only two or three minutes to spare before forfeit time.

All it takes is for a traffic accident on the road or a blackout on the railways and there are delays for people who would otherwise get there on time.


I personally would like to see the old rule which allowed one to write down their move before making the move to come back. I still see people doing this every now and again or suspect them of doing it as they always cover their scoresheet.

Garvinator
15-01-2008, 05:18 PM
I personally would like to see the old rule which allowed one to write down their move before making the move to come back. I still see people doing this every now and again or suspect them of doing it as they always cover their scoresheet.
I dont agree with this at all.

That being said, I would like to see the laws of chess actually state what the penalty should be for first offence, second offence etc.

Garvinator
15-01-2008, 05:20 PM
I would like the 'forfeit' time for classical and rapid chess to be reduced considerably.
The 2005 fide laws of chess already allow for the time to be reduced:


6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.

So the rules already allow for the competition to have less time before forfeiture if they wish.

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2008, 05:23 PM
That being said, I would like to see the laws of chess actually state what the penalty should be for first offence, second offence etc.Totally unnecessary as any competent arbiter should be able to determine what penalties to apply.

Basil
15-01-2008, 06:27 PM
Totally unnecessary as any competent arbiter should be able to determine what penalties to apply.
Not sure I agree, Bill. Direction, regulation and transparency are extremely valuable.

Take three highly competent EPL referees and three all but identical sitiuations. It is not unforeseeable that at least one might penalise differently no doubt with sound rationale and in the absence of governing boody direction. And so the furore (if occurred in chess) would ensue.

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2008, 06:37 PM
Not sure I agree, Bill. Direction, regulation and transparency are extremely valuable.

Take three highly competent EPL referees and three all but identical sitiuations. It is not unforeseeable that at least one might penalise differently no doubt with sound rationale and in the absence of governing boody direction. And so the furore (if occurred in chess) would ensue.Not a problem as a player can always immediately appeal the arbiters decision.

FIDE rarely stipulate specific penalties allowing instead to leave it to the arbiter to determine the applicable penalty. The three situations where they do specify specific penalties that immediately spring to mind are the ones regarding illegal moves, mobile phones and invalid draw claims.

Denis_Jessop
15-01-2008, 07:12 PM
The problem with mandatory penalties is that there will always be cases, however rare, in which they will operate unfairly. Hence FIDE's preference in most cases for leaving the penalty to the Arbiter's discretion within the bounds of Art. 13.4.

DJ

Desmond
15-01-2008, 07:55 PM
The 2005 fide laws of chess already allow for the time to be reduced:


6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.

So the rules already allow for the competition to have less time before forfeiture if they wish.
I disagree. To me, it reads that the arbiter (or tourney rules) can decide to not forfeit the player if they are an hour late. If the rule was intended to be read the way you are reading it (and I don't think it should), it would be written:


6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session, unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise, shall lose the game. where the discretion is applied to the lateness rather than the penalty.

Desmond
15-01-2008, 07:58 PM
Totally unnecessary as any competent arbiter should be able to determine what penalties to apply.
Warning/s, followed by time awarded to the opponent and/or deducted from the offender's clock seems reasonable to me.

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2008, 08:06 PM
Warning/s, followed by time awarded to the opponent and/or deducted from the offender's clock seems reasonable to me.Exactly.

If a player repeatedly infringes by writing the move before making it then the arbiter would need to determine if he believes the player is simply doing it through force of habit or if the player is doing it deliberately in defiance of the arbiter. Only in the later case should the arbiter consider sterner action such as declaring the game lost for the offending player and only then after a significant number of infringements.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2008, 08:51 PM
I disagree. To me, it reads that the arbiter (or tourney rules) can decide to not forfeit the player if they are an hour late.

I was thinking of making a post along similar lines but then wimped out because I wasn't sure. I certainly agree that the arbiter-decides-otherwise bit is there to give the arbiter discretion to not forfeit a player who is >1 hour late (Reuben gives a hypothetical example to this effect in his handbook), but I'm not sure whether the rules-of-the-competition bit is intended to grant organisers the right to apply an earlier, as well as the right to apply a later, forfeit time.

Adamski
15-01-2008, 08:52 PM
I disagree with this. All it takes for me is to miss a train and i'm running just under an hour late. I remember doing this at the Sydney International open. Got there with only two or three minutes to spare before forfeit time.

All it takes is for a traffic accident on the road or a blackout on the railways and there are delays for people who would otherwise get there on time.


I personally would like to see the old rule which allowed one to write down their move before making the move to come back. I still see people doing this every now and again or suspect them of doing it as they always cover their scoresheet.

I agree with Trent on both these points. In particular point 2. I
am one who (following e.g. Kotov's advice in Think Like a GM) used to write my move down before playing it, have a final check, then make it. I never could understand why that got outlawed. If the reason was "it could be analysis written on the scoresheet", I find it rather flimsy. Any competent arbiter would recognise if a player had written analysis rather than just a move. A large cross-out could be investigated! Anyone know if this was the reason?

CameronD
15-01-2008, 09:00 PM
I disagree with this. All it takes for me is to miss a train and i'm running just under an hour late. I remember doing this at the Sydney International open. Got there with only two or three minutes to spare before forfeit time.

All it takes is for a traffic accident on the road or a blackout on the railways and there are delays for people who would otherwise get there on time.


I personally would like to see the old rule which allowed one to write down their move before making the move to come back. I still see people doing this every now and again or suspect them of doing it as they always cover their scoresheet.


I always aim to be at the venue 30-60 minutes early to cover any problems.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2008, 09:03 PM
I agree with Trent on both these points. In particular point 2. I
am one who (following e.g. Kotov's advice in Think Like a GM) used to write my move down before playing it, have a final check, then make it. I never could understand why that got outlawed. If the reason was "it could be analysis written on the scoresheet", I find it rather flimsy. Any competent arbiter would recognise if a player had written analysis rather than just a move. A large cross-out could be investigated! Anyone know if this was the reason?

It was considered tantamount to "using notes" because some players were crossing out moves then playing different moves, albeit sparingly. This was considered to violate the provision about using the scoresheet to only record the moves of the game and not anything else, and it was easier to simply ban the practice than to start cracking down only on those who changed their moves from those recorded.

That's another one I won't be making a submission on as a clear policy decision has been made and players have got used to the new situation. I'm looking for new improvements in the Laws, rather than reversals of changes that some people don't like. Of course anyone who wants to put in a submission that we should reverse the change to rule X can do so and I'll put up info on how to make submissions if/when I get it.

Adamski
15-01-2008, 09:13 PM
Thanx for that Kevin. I'm slowly getting used to the "no writing down of move before playing it" law...

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2008, 01:08 AM
I'm looking for new improvements in the Laws, rather than reversals of changes that some people don't like.
But some rules have been reversed because of unpopularity, e.g. extending the 50 move rule for KRB v KR. I think the rule penalizing taking the K with a loss was a crass change, because the new law punished harshly what the old law rewarded. And as we know, Hurt Haysen is so obsessed about this punishment that he would apply it even after the game was ended by checkmate. Does anyone on the rules committee ever stand up to him?

Trent Parker
16-01-2008, 08:22 AM
I always aim to be at the venue 30-60 minutes early to cover any problems.
Mate I live in a little town called Picton.

Sometimes the trains out of picton run every hour sometimes every two hours.

So I could get there with an hour to spare or be late an hour depending on whether I miss that earlier train.


Unless you want me to be three hours early........

Ian Rout
16-01-2008, 08:55 AM
I was thinking of making a post along similar lines but then wimped out because I wasn't sure. I certainly agree that the arbiter-decides-otherwise bit is there to give the arbiter discretion to not forfeit a player who is >1 hour late (Reuben gives a hypothetical example to this effect in his handbook), but I'm not sure whether the rules-of-the-competition bit is intended to grant organisers the right to apply an earlier, as well as the right to apply a later, forfeit time.
This issue (forfeit threshold) was discussed at some length on another thread.

I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to race in ninety minutes late and start playing with five seconds on their clock if they have notified the arbiter and the opponent of their late arrival. However if a player is not appearing it’s unreasonable for someone to have to sit around wasting an hour on the off-chance that they will show up and then not have a game anyway. Additionally the late arriver may even get an advantage through the opponent having to be constantly on edge for the game to start without knowing whether or not it actually will.

The trouble with this logic


All it takes for me is to miss a train and i'm running just under an hour late. I remember doing this at the Sydney International open. Got there with only two or three minutes to spare before forfeit time.

All it takes is for a traffic accident on the road or a blackout on the railways and there are delays for people who would otherwise get there on time.


is that while the player might be stuck on a train or whatever they are more probably just not coming, and in any case while it’s not their fault the consequences should be borne by them not others. They can, more importantly, still contact the arbiter. The one hour theshold was established in the days before widespread mobile phone availability.

I would suggest some wording along the lines of

“A player who has not arrived at the venue twenty minutes after the start of play without notifying the arbiter of their intention to arrive late shall forfeit unless the arbiter determines otherwise or unless other tournament conditions have been set by the organisers.”

I think this covers everything except freak circumstances.

CameronD
16-01-2008, 12:27 PM
I would suggest some wording along the lines of

“A player who has not arrived at the venue twenty minutes after the start of play without notifying the arbiter of their intention to arrive late shall forfeit unless the arbiter determines otherwise or unless other tournament conditions have been set by the organisers.”

I think this covers everything except freak circumstances.


The problem with this is the [Alex] situation that occured in the Qld Open when the arbiter had his phone off and couldn't be contacted. I deliberately dont bring my phone with me because of the mobile phone rule, I know of players who do the same.

Ian Rout
16-01-2008, 12:45 PM
The problem with this is the [Alex] situation that occured in the Qld Open when the arbiter had his phone off and couldn't be contacted. I deliberately dont bring my phone with me because of the mobile phone rule, I know of players who do the same.
I don't see where this is a problem. An arbiter is allowed to have a mobile phone and can consult their voicemail and text at the twenty minute mark. The player doesn't need to have a conservation, just leave a message.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2008, 08:08 PM
Does anyone on the rules committee ever stand up to him?

They must because my 10.2 change would not have got up if they hadn't; it certainly wasn't on Geurt's wishlist. :lol:

Actually Geurt quite often does not get his way on proposed changes to the Laws.

Denis_Jessop
16-01-2008, 09:10 PM
I was thinking of making a post along similar lines but then wimped out because I wasn't sure. I certainly agree that the arbiter-decides-otherwise bit is there to give the arbiter discretion to not forfeit a player who is >1 hour late (Reuben gives a hypothetical example to this effect in his handbook), but I'm not sure whether the rules-of-the-competition bit is intended to grant organisers the right to apply an earlier, as well as the right to apply a later, forfeit time.

Like a few of the Laws this one is a bit murky.

Garvin argues that Art. 6.7 allows the competition rules or the arbiter to specify a forfeit time other than one hour. Boris disagrees and says that the rules or the arbiter can only vary Art 6.7 to the extent that a player does not lose if he arrives more than one hour late. Kevin takes the classic middle course and says he doesn't know (very wise in the circumstances ;) ).

The Stewart Reuben comment to which Kevin refers is interesting as it appears only in his first edition (when the Article was no. 6.6 and the words starting with "unless" to the end had just been inserted and were in brackets). Among other things, he invoked the TCN defence saying:

"The words in brackets are new and permit the time of one hour to be changed. Many English congresses specify 30 minutes. A player shouldn't be forfeited if he arrives over an hour late due to his train being stuck in a tunnel for over an hour."

Thus Reuben clearly sees Art 6.7 as allowing the time to be altered and I would not be surprised if he were an architect of the change and thus knows what it was intended to mean. But the second arm of his comments is not wholly satisfactory especially in club events. If a player doesn't arrive within one hour and hasn't sent any message to the arbiter or the organiser, the usual practice is to forfeit him and allow his opponent to go home. What then happens if the delayed player turns up with his railway tunnel story? If the event is a round-robin there is not much of a problem as the game can be postponed but if it is a Swiss things are rather more messy. Things are not made any easier by Rule F8 of the FIDE Swiss Rules that provides that:

"F8 Players who are absent for a round without notifying the arbiter will be considered to have withdrawn."

A player arriving late can probably argue that he was not "absent for a round" but clearly he was not around when he should have been :doh:

DJ

Trent Parker
20-01-2008, 11:35 PM
This issue (forfeit threshold) was discussed at some length on another thread.

I donít see why people shouldnít be allowed to race in ninety minutes late and start playing with five seconds on their clock if they have notified the arbiter and the opponent of their late arrival. However if a player is not appearing itís unreasonable for someone to have to sit around wasting an hour on the off-chance that they will show up and then not have a game anyway. Additionally the late arriver may even get an advantage through the opponent having to be constantly on edge for the game to start without knowing whether or not it actually will.

The trouble with this logic



is that while the player might be stuck on a train or whatever they are more probably just not coming, and in any case while itís not their fault the consequences should be borne by them not others. They can, more importantly, still contact the arbiter. The one hour theshold was established in the days before widespread mobile phone availability.

I would suggest some wording along the lines of

ďA player who has not arrived at the venue twenty minutes after the start of play without notifying the arbiter of their intention to arrive late shall forfeit unless the arbiter determines otherwise or unless other tournament conditions have been set by the organisers.Ē

I think this covers everything except freak circumstances.

Well...better start printing the arbiters phone number on tournament fliers then

Ian Rout
21-01-2008, 08:32 AM
Well...better start printing the arbiters phone number on tournament fliers then
This should be done in any case (or the arbiter's number made easily available in some other way) so that people who unable to attend a round, due to medical reasons or some other unexpected circumstance, can make contact and be left out of the draw. This reason exists already and even under a revised wording as I proposed would be more common than people arriving late.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2008, 11:38 PM
Further info from Chess Express (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/):


[..]suggestions can be made to (and by) committee members (including myself [Shaun Press - KB]), or the committee chair Geurt Gijssen, before the 15th of April 2008.
A sub-committee will then prepare a draft by 15th of May 2008, after which the full RTRC will consider proposed changes, before preparing the completed document by the 1st September 2008.
This will be the document voted upon by the FIDE General Assembly in Dresden, and if approved, will come into effect on the 1st of July 2009.

Thanks to Shaun (not that he's likely to see this!) for making this known as I had not seen these deadlines before.

Garvinator
19-02-2008, 09:45 AM
Is there a full list of current proposals for rule changes?

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2008, 08:24 PM
Is there a full list of current proposals for rule changes?

From here or somewhere else? In terms of the FIDE committee, they haven't got to that stage yet.

Denis_Jessop
22-02-2008, 09:41 PM
From here or somewhere else? In terms of the FIDE committee, they haven't got to that stage yet.

I see that FIDE has just published the Minutes of the Presidential Board meeting in Antalya last year. In the item referring to the report of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee mention is made of suggestions for changes in the Laws of Chess being in the minutes of the Committee. The report of the Committee is Annex 46 but the Annexes do not appear to have been released yet. It may cast more light on the matter.

DJ