Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 128
  1. #1
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,544

    Changes in the 1st July 2009 Laws of Chess - what do they mean

    There are numerous changes in the 1st July 2009 Laws of Chess however many of them are just semantic changes (e.g. the defintion of a diagonal in Article 2.4) with no real impact on players.

    The significant changes are in the following Articles.

    Article 6.11 b
    If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks was incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall stop the clocks immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move counter, He shall use his best judgement when determining the correct settings.
    Although many in the past would have considered an incorrect clock setting as being in the same league as a defective clock, the addition of this Article makes it clear they are to be treated in a similar fashion.

    Article 7.4 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.However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
    Although prior to this it was clear that a player who made a third illegal move lost, the score of his opponent was not entirely clear and it was arguable if he should receive a full point or only half a point if he had no possibility of mating the offender. This latest change removes any doubt over the situation.

    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 for the remainder of the period 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.
    For many it was clear that once a player no longer need to record, this only was for the remainder of that time control period. This latest change removes any doubt over the situation.

    Article 9.1 a
    The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.
    This brings into force what has been a tournament regulation in a number of tournaments here and overseas.
    Note that under the current laws all such regulations were illegal as they were in clear breach of the Preface to the Laws of Chess with regards any FIDE rated which of course included and title/norm event.

    Also it is abundantly clear that not allowing claims of triple repetition before move X are clearly against the laws of chess as the Laws currently stand and are will remain so in the 2009 laws.

    What previously was Artilce 9.1 is now 9.1 b with the additional wording If the rules of a competition allow a draw agreement the following apply: at the start.

    Article 9.4
    If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the draw, he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.
    The main change here is that now it only requires a player to touch a piece where as in the past he was required to have moved a piece.

    Article 9.5 b
    If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent’s thinking time. Then the game shall continue. If the claim was based on an intended move, this move must be made as according to Article 4.
    The main change here is that if the claim is incorrect, no deduction of time is made to the claimants clock.

    Article 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 summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks (See Article 6.13.b).
    The difference here is that the player now may stop the clock where as previously he was required to to stop it.

    Article 10.2 b
    ..... The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. .......
    The bolded section used to say immediately.

    Article 12
    A number of sections in Article 12 have been renumbered.

    Article 12.2 is now Article 12.3
    a. During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard.

    b. Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.

    c. Smoking is permitted only in the section of the venue designated by the arbiter.
    There are a number of significant changes here.
    Firstly a player can have a mobile phone in the playing venue without the arbiters permission provided it is completely switched off.
    Secondly where the previous wording specifically referred to a phone ringing many took this to include any sound from the phone. The article now makes it clear that any sound produced by the phone will result in a loss.
    Thirdly it now makes it clear what the score of the opponent is (a draw) if a checkmate is not possible and no longer determined by the arbiter.
    Lastly it adds a specific mention of where smoking is permitted.

    Article 12.3 is now Article 12.4
    Article 12.4 is now Article 12.5
    Article 12.5 is now Article 12.2


    Article 12.6
    It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
    The last part now makes it clear that creating noise even by introduced means is not permitted.

    Article 12.10
    In the case of 10.2d or Appendix D a player may not appeal against the decision of the arbiter. Otherwise a player may appeal against any decision of the arbiter, unless the rules of the competition specify otherwise.
    This now makes it clear that arbiters decisions are appealable.

    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. If someone observes an irregularity, he may inform only the arbiter.
    b. Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue and any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.
    The change to 13.7 a makes it clear that a spectator should only inform the arbiter and not the players or others of any observed irregularity.
    The change to 13.7 b allows certain people to use a mobile in the venue if authorised by the arbiter.
    It also removes the ability of the arbiter from potentially banning the use of phones world wide, rather than just within contiguous areas of the venue.

    Article A on Adjourned Games has now been made Article F.

    Article B covering Rapidplay is now Article A.

    Article A1
    A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be made in a fixed time of at least 15 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player; or the time allotted + 60 times any increment is at least 15 minutes, but less than 60 minutes for each player.
    This change makes it clear that the time limits are for each player and not the total for both players and that whilst G15 is covered by the rapid rules G60 is not.

    The old Article B2 has been deleted completely.

    Article B3 is now Article A2.


    Article A3
    Where there is adequate supervision of play, (for example one arbiter for at most three games) the Competition Rules shall apply.
    This new article now adds to the laws, a tournament regulation that has been in use in a number of FIDE events over the past few years.

    Article A4
    Where supervision is inadequate the Competition Rules shall apply, except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Rapidplay:
    This is the start of Article A4. The subsequent sections of A4 replace what had been B4 to B9 in the current rules.

    Article A4 d
    1. The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall, but he may do so if both flags have fallen.
    2. To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his opponent's flag down after the clocks have been stopped.
    3. [b]If both flags have fallen [b]as described in 1 and 2, the arbiter shall declare the game[b] drawn.
    This Article replaces what had been Articles B7 to B9. The main change is that the arbiter can now intervene if both flags have fallen.

    Article C covering Blitz is now Article B.

    Article B2
    Where there is adequate supervision of play, (one arbiter for one game) the Competition Rules and Article A2 shall apply.
    This new article now adds to the laws, a tournament regulation that has been in use in a number of FIDE events over the past few years.

    Article B3
    Where supervision is inadequate the following shall apply:

    a. Play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Appendix A except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Blitz.
    b. A4c does not apply.
    c. An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves, 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 unless mutually agreed without intervention of an arbiter.
    This replaces what had been C2 and C3 in the current rules.
    The main change here is that Article 10.2 now applies to Blitz games that are not played with any increment.
    The other change now is that after the opponent makes a move after an unclaimed illegal move, the illegal move can be corrected only if both players agree. If they do not agree the game continues without the illegal move being corrected.

    Article E on Algebraic Notation is now Article C.

    Article F on Blind players is now Article E.


    Artilce 6.10, Artilce 9.6 and Article B3 c
    The words even with the most unskilled counterplay or even with the most unskilled play have been removed from these Articles.
    The reason for this is that the words are totally irrelevant as the words the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves or from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves.

    I have left the most controversial Article till last.

    Article 6.7

    The FIDE Presidential board will decide whether Article 6.7 will be
    Proposed change 1:
    Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different default time.

    Proposed change 2:
    Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game
    If proposal 1 is accepted, then the order of Articles 6.6 and 6.7 shall be changed and 6.6 will need to be amended.

    If proposal 2 is accepted, then Article 6.6 must be deleted and the remaining Articles must be renumbered.

    The FIDE Presidential Board will also decide if the rules for Chess 960 will be added as Article G.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,660

    Many thanks, Bill

    Many thanks, Bill, for all the hard work in detailing these changes. Much appreciated. I hope to see you on Friday.
    Last edited by Adamski; 27-12-2008 at 06:32 PM.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,444
    Thank you Bill for your efforts in producing the post.

    The change to the mobile phone does not stop the theoretical possibility of an arbiter banning mobile phone use world wide. The rest of the world is adjacent (one meaning of contiguous), or shares a border (another meaning) to the playing playing venue. Meanings taken from dictionary.com
    Scott

  4. #4
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph Sertez
    The change to the mobile phone does not stop the theoretical possibility of an arbiter banning mobile phone use world wide. The rest of the world is adjacent (one meaning of contiguous), or shares a border (another meaning) to the playing playing venue. Meanings taken from dictionary.com
    Scott
    True but only relevant if the arbiter has the capability of expelling the offenders from the said area. So unless he has contacts at NASA...

    On the whole I'm happy with a few of the rules which make explicit positions which I have held with the current incarnation of the rules anyway. Particularly regarding faulty clocks/incorrectly set clocks and mobile phones making a noise resulting from other than an incoming call/message.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #5
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Article 10.2

    Quote:
    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 summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks (See Article 6.13.b).

    The difference here is that the player now may stop the clock where as previously he was required to to stop it.
    so if the claiming player does not stop the clocks, finds the claim rejected by the arbiter, and flagfall subsequently occurs to that player's detriment does that player then lose the game?
    .

  6. #6
    CC International Master William AS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    True but only relevant if the arbiter has the capability of expelling the offenders from the said area. So unless he has contacts at NASA...

    .
    Do not think NASA would be much help but NATO or the US President may be.

  7. #7
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    My view on the changes (bearing in mind that I was too slack to submit any proposals this time round so have no right to complain about them):

    Article 6.11 b
    If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks was incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall stop the clocks immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move counter, He shall use his best judgement when determining the correct settings.
    Big thumbs up for the decision to explicitly cover this situation. Some reservations about whether this is the ideal response in a situation where the players have persistently failed to notice an incorrect increment, esp. if it was a result of one of them mis-setting it.

    Article 7.4 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.However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
    Agree with the basis of the change however it still does not eliminate the ambiguity about what happens if the final illegal move transforms the position from one in which the opponent cannot checkmate to one in which they can. Very unlikely to happen in a third-illegal-move case especially as they are so rare, but actually happened in one of my blitz games!

    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 for the remainder of the period 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.
    Agree with change but considered it obvious anyway.

    Article 9.1 a
    The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.
    Agree with change however it is a cosmetic step too easily rorted by repetition which appears to be too thorny an idea for FIDE to combat at this stage. Rules seeking to control avoidable repetitions will now be more readily argued to be illegal since they are not covered by the above. I expect to see a lot more short repetitions in place of agreed GM draws as a result of this piecemeal solution.

    What previously was Artilce 9.1 is now 9.1 b with the additional wording If the rules of a competition allow a draw agreement the following apply: at the start.

    Article 9.4
    If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the draw, he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.
    Agree with change.

    Article 9.5 b
    If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent’s thinking time. Then the game shall continue. If the claim was based on an intended move, this move must be made as according to Article 4.
    The main change here is that if the claim is incorrect, no deduction of time is made to the claimants clock.
    Not really fussed about this change one way or the other.

    Article 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 summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks (See Article 6.13.b).
    The difference here is that the player now may stop the clock where as previously he was required to to stop it.
    Disagree with change completely. It will make it harder to be clearer when a player is claiming, as opposed to offering or gesticulating vaguely about a draw.

    Article 10.2 b
    ..... The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. .......
    The bolded section used to say immediately.
    Agree with change.

    Article 12
    A number of sections in Article 12 have been renumbered.

    [..]

    b. Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off.
    Agree with change.

    If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.
    Disagree with change. Rule was too harsh as it was and is now even harsher, targeting situations in which there is no possibility of communication on the grounds of disturbance while other far more severe disturbances do not attract the same penalty.

    c. Smoking is permitted only in the section of the venue designated by the arbiter.[/b]
    Agree with change.

    Article 12.6
    It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
    The last part now makes it clear that creating noise even by introduced means is not permitted.
    Agree with change; does this include bringing along noisy children?

    Article 12.10
    In the case of 10.2d or Appendix D a player may not appeal against the decision of the arbiter. Otherwise a player may appeal against any decision of the arbiter, unless the rules of the competition specify otherwise.
    This now makes it clear that arbiters decisions are appealable.
    Agree with clarification but think all arbiter's decisions should be appealable.

    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. If someone observes an irregularity, he may inform only the arbiter.
    Excellent change.

    b. Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue and any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.
    Agree.

    Article A1
    A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be made in a fixed time of at least 15 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player; or the time allotted + 60 times any increment is at least 15 minutes, but less than 60 minutes for each player.
    Excellent change; the ambiguity about G60 was annoying.

    Article A3
    Where there is adequate supervision of play, (for example one arbiter for at most three games) the Competition Rules shall apply.
    It should have been clarified that this applied to the whole round and does not change mid-round for any reason.

    Article A4 d
    1. The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall, but he may do so if both flags have fallen.
    Good change though I would prefer that he must do so as I see no basis for discretion.

    Article B3
    Where supervision is inadequate the following shall apply:

    [..]
    The main change here is that Article 10.2 now applies to Blitz games that are not played with any increment.
    Which will probably have the beneficial effect of killing off armageddon games with no increment, which can hardly be a bad thing. But at club level where 5/0 blitz is played the change will cause absolute chaos.

    The other change now is that after the opponent makes a move after an unclaimed illegal move, the illegal move can be corrected only if both players agree. If they do not agree the game continues without the illegal move being corrected.
    Sensible change.

    Artilce 6.10, Artilce 9.6 and Article B3 c
    The words even with the most unskilled counterplay or even with the most unskilled play have been removed from these Articles.
    The reason for this is that the words are totally irrelevant as the words the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves or from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves.
    Good change for the reason stated and will eliminate confusion about helpmates etc.

    Article 6.7

    The FIDE Presidential board will decide whether Article 6.7 will be
    Proposed change 1:
    Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different default time.

    Proposed change 2:
    Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game
    Hopefully 1 will get up as 2 is ridiculous while 1 is merely a degree of overkill.

  8. #8
    CC International Master William AS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,820
    Great post Bill, I like most of the changes, as an example, A4 d. will solve the problem frustrated arbiters sometimes have with clearing their throats. This just leaves the problems with the proposals in Article 6.7 which are a real can of worms that the FIDE Congress foolishly left to the whims of the FIDE Presidential board. This problem of inconsiderate, rude and sometimes cheating, latecomers requires a great deal of thought before making any decision that may be regretted later, after a lot damage may have been done. While having a zero tolerance for small round robin tournaments with professional players may be ok, not leaving any flexability for large events or regional or local tournaments would be a disaster which local experience suggests could lead to an over 90% drop in player participation.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    Thanks for the summary, Bill. Below are a few random and non-comprehensive comments prefaced by a plea for FIDE to hire a professional drafter who knows how to do the job properly.

    Article 7.4.b. What is the significance of the inclusion of the word “possible” , that is, does the Article contemplate the possibility of an impossible series of legal moves . Put more simply, the word “possible” is redundant. The same applies to Arts 6.10, 9.6 and B3.c.

    Article 9.1.a Interestingly, this reads “the players cannot agree to a draw”, not that a player may not offer a draw so that existing Art.9.1.c is excluded. From memory, the Sofia rules actually said that players were not permitted to offer a draw which picked up the Art.9.1.c cases. In any case Art 9.1.c is nonsense because Art. 9.1 procedures clash with the procedures specified in the cases to which 9.1.c refers and there seems no point in the provision anyway. If there is one, it must be possible to express it better.

    The new 9.1.b with its reference to “if the rules of a competition allow a draw agreement...” is very bad as it implies that draw agreements are not allowed unless the rules so provide whereas 9.1.a takes the opposite view. Clearly 9.1.b should say “if the rules of a competition do not prohibit a draw agreement under art 9.1.a” or like words.

    Art. 9.4 Actually it now says “”makes a move” which may involve touching more than one piece.

    Art. 10.2 Presumably this was put in the permissive form so that the player could leave his opponent’s clock running if he had forgotten to press it after making his move. A bit sneaky.

    Art.6.7 I reserve my views on this until Fide makes up its mind. I fear it is about to make a blunder but spectators aren't allowed to interfere.

    DJ
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

  10. #10
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    Art. 10.2 Presumably this was put in the permissive form so that the player could leave his opponent’s clock running if he had forgotten to press it after making his move. A bit sneaky.
    DJ
    if the opponent has not stopped his clock then is the other player technically "on the move" and thus entitled to claim the pertinent less than 2 minute draw?'

    ps

    if the opponent's clock was still running surely the other player would wait and hopefully swindle a loss on time win
    Last edited by eclectic; 27-12-2008 at 09:37 PM.
    .

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    ... prefaced by a plea for FIDE to hire a professional drafter who knows how to do the job properly.
    I nominate Den Den. I'm sure you'd do a bang-up job.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  12. #12
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Big thumbs up for the decision to explicitly cover this situation. Some reservations about whether this is the ideal response in a situation where the players have persistently failed to notice an incorrect increment, esp. if it was a result of one of them mis-setting it.
    I think the only real issue if there is some sense of gamesmanship can be shown to apply. Other than that the arbiter is responsible for the setting of the clock. So either they should ensure the clocks are not tampered with or else they are tacitly agreeing to making the players agents of the arbiter insofar as the setting of clocks. If a clock is set incorrectly the player should not be penalised because of it since they were acting as an agent of the arbiter is setting the clock.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Disagree with change. Rule was too harsh as it was and is now even harsher, targeting situations in which there is no possibility of communication on the grounds of disturbance while other far more severe disturbances do not attract the same penalty.
    For the sake of consistency all sounds should be penalised equally unless you think the purpose of the rule is primarily to prevent communication. I think the greater issue is that of disturbance and in this case the harshness is justified because all that is required to avoid penalty is good manners. It's not too much to ask.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    if the opponent has not stopped his clock then is the other player technically "on the move" and thus entitled to claim the pertinent less than 2 minute draw?
    Yes; a player is said to "have the move' when his opponent's move has been "made" - Art. 1.1. The act of stopping the clock is performed after the move has been made - Art. 6.8a.

    DJ
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

  14. #14
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Agree with the basis of the change however it still does not eliminate the ambiguity about what happens if the final illegal move transforms the position from one in which the opponent cannot checkmate to one in which they can. Very unlikely to happen in a third-illegal-move case especially as they are so rare, but actually happened in one of my blitz games!
    Actually it does eliminate the ambiguity you mention in a normal or rapid game as the position before the illegal move is made would be relevant, not the position resulting from the illegal move.
    I admit in a blitz game it remains ambiguous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Agree with change however it is a cosmetic step too easily rorted by repetition which appears to be too thorny an idea for FIDE to combat at this stage. Rules seeking to control avoidable repetitions will now be more readily argued to be illegal since they are not covered by the above. I expect to see a lot more short repetitions in place of agreed GM draws as a result of this piecemeal solution.
    What this does do shows that that current announced regulations of the 2009 Doeberl Cup are against the current 2005 Laws of Chess as well as the 2009 Laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    It should have been clarified that this applied to the whole round and does not change mid-round for any reason.
    Hopefully all arbiters will pay no attention to any player trying to suggest it can apply mid-round.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Article A4 d

    Good change though I would prefer that he must do so as I see no basis for discretion.
    I can imagine a reason for not intervening.
    If the continuation of the game is not delaying the next round or unnecessarily keeping the arbiter to hang around (last game for the night) then the arbiter could allow it to continue.
    If it was going to delay the start of the next round etc then the arbiter can intervene.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Which will probably have the beneficial effect of killing off armageddon games with no increment, which can hardly be a bad thing. But at club level where 5/0 blitz is played the change will cause absolute chaos.
    I wonder how many G5 blitz tournaments will switch to G3 + 2 secs per move.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    I nominate Den Den. I'm sure you'd do a bang-up job.
    I am not so much a drafter as an interpreter of laws by experience. I have had a go at drafting but am not a true professional. Besides, I am suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome after watching the Aston Villa v Arsenal game.

    DJ
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. My Chess Reading Schedule, please critique
    By KentDMc in forum Chess Training
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-02-2013, 06:07 PM
  2. Stinginess of Chess Players
    By Paul S in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 24-04-2008, 09:48 PM
  3. 2006 Australian Internet Junior Chess Championships Discussion
    By AES in forum 2006 Australian Internet Junior Championships
    Replies: 240
    Last Post: 18-12-2007, 11:28 PM
  4. Junior performance and training
    By auriga in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 20-12-2004, 09:34 PM
  5. chess magazines
    By chesslover in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 23-04-2004, 11:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •