PDA

View Full Version : Changes in the 1st July 2009 Laws of Chess - what do they mean



Bill Gletsos
27-12-2008, 05:07 PM
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. 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

[b]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 gameIf 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.

Adamski
27-12-2008, 06:23 PM
Many thanks, Bill, for all the hard work in detailing these changes. Much appreciated. I hope to see you on Friday.

Oepty
27-12-2008, 06:24 PM
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

Rincewind
27-12-2008, 06:32 PM
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.

eclectic
27-12-2008, 06:45 PM
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?

William AS
27-12-2008, 08:29 PM
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.;) :D

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2008, 09:03 PM
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? :D


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.

William AS
27-12-2008, 09:05 PM
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. :wall: 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. :wall: 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.

Denis_Jessop
27-12-2008, 09:28 PM
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:hmm: :doh: . 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

eclectic
27-12-2008, 09:33 PM
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 ;)

Basil
27-12-2008, 09:34 PM
... 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.

Rincewind
27-12-2008, 09:40 PM
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.


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.

Denis_Jessop
27-12-2008, 09:40 PM
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

Bill Gletsos
27-12-2008, 09:43 PM
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Denis_Jessop
27-12-2008, 09:44 PM
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. :evil:

DJ

Denis_Jessop
27-12-2008, 10:00 PM
Bill, I forgot to mention another one that could give rise to some interesting, or even hilarious, moments - the concept of "introducing a source of noise" in Art, 12.6. Kevin has referred to noisy children but also friends partners, spouses etc would seem to be covered. Moreover does the source of noise actually have to be making its noise, or one of them, at the time of introduction to be caught by the provision and does it have to be making the noise non-stop therafter. For example, if I decide to take my cat to the game and it is in the habit of going "ow" loudly from time to time*, does it have to be going "ow' when I bring it into the playing area or will I be penalised if it decides to go "ow" later.:hmm:

DJ

* this cat could win a quiz show on the subject "ow" such as :

Q: Name one prominent Chinese revolutionary leader
A: Mao
Q: What animal produces a fluid favoured by cats?
A: Cow
Q: What is a Japanese form of courtesy
A: Bow

and so on :doh:

PS There is also the funny one about appeals in Art 12.10. It's all very well to say that a player may appeal against a decision of the arbiter but pretty useless if the laws don't also prescribe an appeal procedure. That is, once the concept of appeals is introduced, something must be said about the procedure even if it is to the effect that the rules of the competition must provide one, however unsatisfactory that may be.

Basil
27-12-2008, 10:04 PM
Besides, I am suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome after watching the Aston Villa v Arsenal game. :evil:
Now why did you have to go and say that? The only reason I'm on here tonight is to forget :wall:

I too watched the game and feel the draw was probably the appropriate result. However, that assessment should under no circumstances be taken to be read as anything but



















































Not happy, Jan!

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2008, 10:09 PM
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 that should be the greater purpose of the rule.


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.

Actually there have been cases where players' mobile phones have made noises because the player did not understand how to completely switch the phone off and it reactivated itself unexpectedly for whatever reason.

I'll believe the greater issue is disturbance when a player whose watch alarm beeps in the same fashion (for example) is also deemed to have lost the game.

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2008, 10:13 PM
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.

Ah yes, because the position is restored first.


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.

:lol:


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.

Actually I have no idea why I wrote that I could see no reason why an arbiter might intervene above as this has come up before; if players want to play on til mate with both flags down and no-one is inconvenienced then the arbiter could indeed well just let them go.

Rincewind
27-12-2008, 10:13 PM
I'll believe the greater issue is disturbance when a player whose watch alarm beeps in the same fashion (for example) is also deemed to have lost the game.

There is play at my club who has a very loud watch alarm that goes off nearly every week at around 9:00.

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2008, 10:15 PM
There is play at my club who has a very loud watch alarm that goes off nearly every week at around 9:00.

I'd agree with loss of game for that if the offender was habitual and all else including warnings/threats had failed.

Rincewind
27-12-2008, 10:18 PM
I'd agree with loss of game for that if the offender was habitual and all else including warnings/threats had failed.

The bigger problem is he seems not to hear it!!! Well I think he does but he is so used to it that if he is deep in thought or just about to make a move he just ignores it. Much to almost everyone else's chagrin.

Denis_Jessop
27-12-2008, 10:23 PM
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.

I'm not so sure about this for 2009 as the organisers seem to have got cunning and just disqualified players who draw by agreement in<30 moves from eligibility for the "Fighting Fund" Prize in the Premier.


Policy on Short Draws

To be eligible for the 'Fighting Fund prize (in the Premier Tournament), players must not have agreed to draws in under 30 moves during any round of the tournament. The aim of this rule is to encourage a competitive, fighting tournament, and we trust all players will adhere to this in a sportsmanlike manner. (NB This does not include claims of 'draws by repetition of position')

DJ

Garvinator
27-12-2008, 10:25 PM
In a kinda perverse way, from reading some of the posters claiming that the zero default time limit will lead to a mass loss of players, I am almost hoping that zero default gets introduced, if for no other reason to prove the doomsayers wrong.

I think what will actually happen is that players will turn up on time :whistle:

One area that I do have an issue with the zero default time is when the round starts late. So a player who is late gets forfeited, even though the round has not even started. Is this correct? (Yes, I am not putting much thought into this, but thought I would ask the question anyways)

Bill Gletsos
27-12-2008, 10:32 PM
I'm not so sure about this for 2009 as the organisers seem to have got cunning and just disqualified players who draw by agreement in<30 moves from eligibility for the "Fighting Fund" Prize in the Premier.

Policy on Short Draws

To be eligible for the 'Fighting Fund prize (in the Premier Tournament), players must not have agreed to draws in under 30 moves during any round of the tournament. The aim of this rule is to encourage a competitive, fighting tournament, and we trust all players will adhere to this in a sportsmanlike manner. (NB This does not include claims of 'draws by repetition of position')
DJActually I was thinking of their announced policy on short draws that said:

For games on any of the top 10 boards in the Premier Tournament, agreed draws in under 30 moves are banned. This includes tacit advance agreements to draw (ie deliberate repetitions) and pre-arranged draw agreements. The aim of this rule is to encourage a competitive, fighting tournament, and we trust all players will adhere to this in a sportsmanlike manner. Genuine draws by repetition are allowed.I see now that they have changed it.

Denis_Jessop
27-12-2008, 10:33 PM
In a kinda perverse way, from reading some of the posters claiming that the zero default time limit will lead to a mass loss of players, I am almost hoping that zero default gets introduced, if for no other reason to prove the doomsayers wrong.

I think what will actually happen is that players will turn up on time :whistle:

One area that I do have an issue with the zero default time is when the round starts late. So a player who is late gets forfeited, even though the round has not even started. Is this correct? (Yes, I am not putting much thought into this, but thought I would ask the question anyways)

I wasn't going to mention that point but shall, now that you have raised it. The current law refers to the "scheduled start of the session" whereas the proposed new law refers to the "start of the session". The two are not necessarily the same.

DJ

CameronD
27-12-2008, 10:35 PM
In a kinda perverse way, from reading some of the posters claiming that the zero default time limit will lead to a mass loss of players, I am almost hoping that zero default gets introduced, if for no other reason to prove the doomsayers wrong.

I think what will actually happen is that players will turn up on time :whistle:

One area that I do have an issue with the zero default time is when the round starts late. So a player who is late gets forfeited, even though the round has not even started. Is this correct? (Yes, I am not putting much thought into this, but thought I would ask the question anyways)

I dont think it will lead to a mass loss. Just people who cant guarantee being there on time (ie work) will not enter, maybe just a handfull (like gunner at the BCC)

Bill Gletsos
27-12-2008, 10:40 PM
In a kinda perverse way, from reading some of the posters claiming that the zero default time limit will lead to a mass loss of players, I am almost hoping that zero default gets introduced, if for no other reason to prove the doomsayers wrong.

I think what will actually happen is that players will turn up on time :whistle:Both proposals have 0 default times.
The problem is with the second proposal that allows the arbiter no discretion whatsoever, even for "force majeure".

One area that I do have an issue with the zero default time is when the round starts late. So a player who is late gets forfeited, even though the round has not even started. Is this correct? (Yes, I am not putting much thought into this, but thought I would ask the question anyways)This is another problem with the wording.
The current wording of Article 6.7 refers to the "scheduled start of the session".
Under the current rules if a round scheduled to start at 10am, actually starts late at 10.15am and a player turns up late at 11.05am then he loses under Article 6.7.

Under both of the new proposals the word "scheduled" is no longer included.
Therefore it may well be that it now applies from when the round actually starts.

Of course the other possibility is that it is still from the scheduled start and that FIDE has accidently let the word "scheduled" out of the proposals. :doh:

Bill Gletsos
27-12-2008, 10:41 PM
I wasn't going to mention that point but shall, now that you have raised it. The current law refers to the "scheduled start of the session" whereas the proposed new law refers to the "start of the session". The two are not necessarily the same.Exactly.
I have expanded on this above.

Rincewind
27-12-2008, 10:42 PM
I dont think it will lead to a mass loss. Just people who cant guarantee being there on time (ie work) will not enter, maybe just a handfull (like gunner at the BCC)

I guess if option 1 is adopted then arbiters can choose a locally appropriate default time. I imagine most clubs with evening meeting times and players with work commitments will just choose to set the default time for club tournaments at some acceptable level. Perhaps the current 60 minutes default time.

Denis_Jessop
27-12-2008, 10:57 PM
Actually I was thinking of their announced policy on short draws that said:
I see now that they have changed it.

Maybe the message is getting through :eh:

DJ

Jesper Norgaard
28-12-2008, 06:00 PM
Does anybody know of an official version of the 2009 Laws of Chess? Alternatively an unofficial link would be appreciated. Thanks to Bill Gletsos for the extract with the relevant text bits that have been changed.

I downloaded an apparently unofficial version on http://chessarbiters.co.uk/Downloads.aspx clicking on "Proposed New Law", and the document is Final .doc which I did not take literally, especially since both old and new quotes for changed passages are present.

I do see quite a number of differences with the text given by Bill, so I will not go into too much analysis here if apparently both versions are unofficial. I could not find anything on the FIDE web site.

I did notice that in the chessarbiters´ version it is apparently still not possible to use 10.2 in Blitz games - unless there is a single arbiter per game, e.g. only valid for Blitz WC or Carlos Torre Wimbledon and the like, not for the casual club Blitz tournament with few arbiters present. Also it is possible to have all normal Tournament rules governing Rapid games when there are one arbiter for at most three games.

Then there is of course the zero tolerance to mobiles and late arrivals :doh:

Many rules have been rephrased and my first impression is positive :clap:

Bill Gletsos
28-12-2008, 06:46 PM
Does anybody know of an official version of the 2009 Laws of Chess? Alternatively an unofficial link would be appreciated. Thanks to Bill Gletsos for the extract with the relevant text bits that have been changed.

I downloaded an apparently unofficial version on http://chessarbiters.co.uk/Downloads.aspx clicking on "Proposed New Law", and the document is Final .doc which I did not take literally, especially since both old and new quotes for changed passages are present.

I do see quite a number of differences with the text given by Bill, so I will not go into too much analysis here if apparently both versions are unofficial. I could not find anything on the FIDE web site.

I did notice that in the chessarbiters´ version it is apparently still not possible to use 10.2 in Blitz games - unless there is a single arbiter per game, e.g. only valid for Blitz WC or Carlos Torre Wimbledon and the like, not for the casual club Blitz tournament with few arbiters present. Also it is possible to have all normal Tournament rules governing Rapid games when there are one arbiter for at most three games.

Then there is of course the zero tolerance to mobiles and late arrivals :doh:

Many rules have been rephrased and my first impression is positive :clap:Ignore the chessarbiters version.

That version was the final draft version for discussion at the Dresden Congress and can now be ignored.

My version came directly from a member of the FIDE Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee a few days before Xmas..

That version can be download at http://www.schaakbond.nl/images/2008/Final%20draft%20for%20PB%2017-12-2008.rtf

My understanding is that all Articles other than Article 6.7 and Article G are official. The latter two will be decided at the next FIDE Presidential Board meeting.

eclectic
28-12-2008, 06:48 PM
i was just wondering ...

given there is a proposed zero tolerance for late arrivals

then
'
is there to be a similar zero tolerance for move recording?

ie no warning if you start forgetting to update your scoresheet

if you are found not to have an up to date score sheet

you LOSE

END OF STORY

ps which means you can no longer ask for your opponent's scoresheet for updating

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2009, 01:55 PM
A change that is of mild interest to me but probably relatively little practical value is this one. In 9.2b (same position appears for the third time) the following is unchanged:


9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves)
a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.

The old rules then had the following:


Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in this manner or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.

This becomes:


Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.

This is an attempt to resolve the ambiguity surrounding a certain kind of position appearing three times. The kind of position it concerns is one in which the first time the position occurred, the side to move had not yet moved the king or the rook in question, but was forced to do so immediately. For instance a king that could otherwise still castle sits on e1 and there follows 1...Q(g5)e5+ and with no piece able to interpose or capture there follows 2.Kf1 Qf5+ 3.Ke1 Qe5+ 4.Kf1 Qf5+ 5.Ke1, and black claims a draw by declaring his intention to play 5...Qe5+.

In the old rules this was ambiguous because after 1...Qe5+ white has not yet moved the king and therefore has not lost the right to castle as defined in 3.8 (1). But some could argue that the queen check forces the king to be unable to castle given that there is no series of legal moves by which the king will ever castle from that position, and hence that since ...Qe5+ permanently prevents white castling, white's right to castle is already lost.

The new rule now makes it clear that black cannot successfully claim the draw by 5...Qe5+ as it was only after 2.Kf1 that white lost the right to castle. In my view this is a dubious interpretation since the three positions with the white King on e1 are all the same in terms of which continuations from that position are possible. But at least it is now clarified.

Aaron Guthrie
02-01-2009, 09:27 PM
This becomes:


Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in this manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved.

This is an attempt to resolve the ambiguity surrounding a certain kind of position appearing three times. The kind of position it concerns is one in which the first time the position occurred, the side to move had not yet moved the king or the rook in question, but was forced to do so immediately.

...

In my view this is a dubious interpretation since the three positions with the white King on e1 are all the same in terms of which continuations from that position are possible. But at least it is now clarified.The rule for en passant and for castling seem to work on different principles. Castling rights are thought to be held, and make a difference to the position, even when they are never legally possible. But the en passant rule talks of what could happen. Consider the case where black plays c7-c5, and black has a rook on d8, white has a pawn on d5, king on d1, and nothing else on that file. If en passant was like castling one might think that the en passant option was held for one move, and that this makes a difference to the position, even though it was never legal. But the en passant repetition rule talks of what could happen, and en passant capture could never happen, and hence doesn't make a difference to the repetition.

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2009, 09:36 PM
^^^
I agree with your reading. Well spotted ... and another case of sloppy drafting in the Laws.

Jesper Norgaard
18-01-2009, 12:46 PM
^^^
I agree with your reading. Well spotted ... and another case of sloppy drafting in the Laws.

I agree that this is sloppy drafting from FIDE. What common sense is there in defining a semantical difference on two illegal moves (short castle after Qe5+ and dxc6 ep when it is illegal because of the bind) so that one affects if the position can be counted for three times repitition and the other does not. I think they didn't think :hmm: when they made these rules.

Fischer had the opinion that there should be a difference from using the King knight or the Queen knight, or for instance the King rook and the Queen rook. For instance consider a position where the two white rooks are at a1 and h1 and have not been moved since the start of the game, while all other white pieces and pawns have been removed from first and second rank. White plays 1.Rh2 and then 2.Rah1 and then 3.Ra2 and then 4.Raa1. According to Fischer this would be a different position because now it is the King rook that is on a1 and Queen rook on h1. This was rejected by experienced arbiters.

In fact I can see no good reason to make the number of possible moves (valid or invalid) make any difference on if it is the same position. The fact is that these many other possibilities were not played so they became irrelevant to the repetition. One of the players may have had no possibilty to avoid the repetition while in other positions with repetitions both players would have many possibilities, that is also irrelevant.

I think it would give a simpler rule if the three positions could just be compared as three diagrams from a chess book, without giving importance to how they had arisen. This would have the added benefit of making it simpler to determine both for players and for arbiters. At least one of the players agreed to the repetition even if he had more possible moves, so why should he be allowed to an extra repetition just because of a technicality? Makes no sense to me.

Dougy
27-01-2009, 06:50 PM
Article 12.2 is now Article 12.3

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.

This sounds to me like an arbiter may decide that mobile phones can remain on, with the caveat if it "produces a sound" the player loses the game. For example, the players could leave their phones on silent without worry.

ER
27-01-2009, 07:26 PM
Quote:
Article 12.2 is now Article 12.3

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.

A POSSIBLE SCENARIO

Position as described in the article ie no win possible by any series of legal moves.

Player A is under horrible time pressure - with only a few seconds on his/her clock

Player B with plenty of time on his/her clock continues playing without repeating the position

Player A knows that if this continues he/she will lose on time. As a last resort uses the equipment to produce a sound thus getting the draw!

Explanation please!

CameronD
27-01-2009, 07:44 PM
Silly JAK

The result is the same either way.

If the clock expires, then its still a draw as the opponent cant legally win

Tsk Tsk Tsk




Quote:
Article 12.2 is now Article 12.3

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.

A POSSIBLE SCENARIO

Position as described in the article ie no win possible by any series of legal moves.

Player A is under horrible time pressure - with only a few seconds on his/her clock

Player B with plenty of time on his/her clock continues playing without repeating the position

Player A knows that if this continues he/she will lose on time. As a last resort uses the equipment to produce a sound thus getting the draw!

Explanation please!

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2009, 07:49 PM
Quote:
Article 12.2 is now Article 12.3

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.

A POSSIBLE SCENARIO

Position as described in the article ie no win possible by any series of legal moves.

Player A is under horrible time pressure - with only a few seconds on his/her clock

Player B with plenty of time on his/her clock continues playing without repeating the position

Player A knows that if this continues he/she will lose on time. As a last resort uses the equipment to produce a sound thus getting the draw!

Explanation please!Note the article does not say what you claim it says.
The article says "if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves".
The critical words here are "the opponent".
The article does not say that neither play can win by any series of legal moves.
If the case is that neither player can win by any series of legal moves then the game immediately ends once that situation occurs. This is referred to as a "dead position".
Hence if the mobile phone rings after the "dead position" occurs then the mobile phone does not count as the game had already ended.


Now in the case of what the article actually says with regards the opponent not being able to checkmate by any series of legal moves then:


1) If player A's flag falls and player B cannot checkmate by any series of legal moves, then the both players score half a point.

2) If player A's phone rings and player B cannot checkmate by any series of legal moves then player A scores zero but player B only scores a half point.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2009, 07:57 PM
Silly JAKNo silly you. :whistle:

The result is the same either way.Wrong. :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

If the clock expires, then its still a draw as the opponent cant legally win

Tsk Tsk TskBut it is not a draw if the phone rings, in which case it is a 0 - 0.5 or a 0.5 - 0 score

ER
27-01-2009, 08:07 PM
thanks Bill! All clear now!

Garvinator
10-03-2009, 09:29 PM
Here we go, the long awaited decision:

The Fide Presidential Board has met and the Fide website is now reporting that:: The PB (Presidential Board)-my expansion approved changes in the Laws of Chess including that the default time would be zero unless otherwise specified in the regulations of the tournament.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3837-presidential-board-meeting-1st-quarter-2009

William AS
10-03-2009, 10:45 PM
Here we go, the long awaited decision:

The Fide Presidential Board has met and the Fide website is now reporting that:: The PB (Presidential Board)-my expansion approved changes in the Laws of Chess including that the default time would be zero unless otherwise specified in the regulations of the tournament.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3837-presidential-board-meeting-1st-quarter-2009

Confirming my suspicions that the FIDE Presidential Board is populated by fools.:whistle: South Australian tournament entry forms will no longer state that they will be conducted under the rules of FIDE and if that means no FIDE rated events that is their loss, not ours [we will have more money for prizes:) ].:wall:

Garvinator
10-03-2009, 11:00 PM
Confirming my suspicions that the FIDE Presidential Board is populated by fools.:whistle: South Australian tournament entry forms will no longer state that they will be conducted under the rules of FIDE and if that means no FIDE rated events that is their loss, not ours [we will have more money for prizes:) ].:wall:
Huh, are you sure you have not just over-reacted a touch here a bit?

There is still a long way to go between now and July 1. I would not be surprised if there is some discussion at either state or ACF level to try and get some sort of uniform default time.

Did you actually read the rule at all? It says that the tournament organisers can choose a different default time, just that the different default time must be advertised in advance. So your tournaments can state on their entry forms a different default forfeit time, based on what currently stands at this point in time in regards to ACF or state rulings.

Please re-read the rule before making what appear to be a hot headed post.

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2009, 11:18 PM
Confirming my suspicions that the FIDE Presidential Board is populated by fools.:whistle: South Australian tournament entry forms will no longer state that they will be conducted under the rules of FIDE and if that means no FIDE rated events that is their loss, not ours [we will have more money for prizes:) ].:wall:You do not appear to have actually read the proposed rule change that was mentioned at the bottom of the first post in this thread, because if you had you would not have made such a knee-jerk comment.

It is clear from the press release that the FIDE PB did not go with option 2. The other option - option 1 states:
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.

It is quite clear from this that an organiser could set a default time of 30 minutes or the current 1 hour and still be covered by the FIDE laws.

William AS
11-03-2009, 12:22 PM
You do not appear to have actually read the proposed rule change that was mentioned at the bottom of the first post in this thread, because if you had you would not have made such a knee-jerk comment.

It is clear from the press release that the FIDE PB did not go with option 2. The other option - option 1 states:
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.

It is quite clear from this that an organiser could set a default time of 30 minutes or the current 1 hour and still be covered by the FIDE laws.
This was not a knee-jerk comment. If the members of the FIDE Presidential Board had even the slightest intelligence they would have realised that they were digging a very deep grave in very unstable soil and decided on option 3, that it would be best to put more thought into the proposal and put it back to the members and the next Congress for further consideration. While the option approved is better than the one with no flexability at all, it is still a very bad rule which could allow cheating by players, their supporters, corrupt organisers and others. Further problems include promoting a very unfriendly environment as evidenced by the discraceful incident at the Olympiad with the player from Gabon. It would be wise for everyone to remember that despite the best laid plans of mice or men, shit happens, usually at the most inconvenient moment. There are many other reasons it is bad but I will leave them for later argument with those who are not smart enough to work them out for themselves.:whistle: :wall: :wall:

Bill Gletsos
11-03-2009, 12:41 PM
This was not a knee-jerk comment.Its sure looks like it is.

If the members of the FIDE Presidential Board had even the slightest intelligence they would have realised that they were digging a very deep grave in very unstable soil and decided on option 3, that it would be best to put more thought into the proposal and put it back to the members and the next Congress for further consideration.Why since the one they went with is the one that came out of FIDE Rules Commission meeting.

While the option approved is better than the one with no flexability at all, it is still a very bad rule which could allow cheating by players, their supporters, corrupt organisers and others.How about you back this up with an example.

Further problems include promoting a very unfriendly environment as evidenced by the discraceful incident at the Olympiad with the player from Gabon. It would be wise for everyone to remember that despite the best laid plans of mice or men, shit happens, usually at the most inconvenient moment.That is why the rule as passed (unlike the rule in use at the Olympiad) allows the Arbiter not to forfeit the player if he is satisfied with the players reason why he was late.

There are many other reasons it is bad but I will leave them for later argument with those who are not smart enough to work them out for themselves.:whistle: :wall: :wall:This seems like an excuse of one who makes such claims but is not smart enough to have already thought of them. :whistle: :hand:

William AS
11-03-2009, 02:36 PM
Its sure looks like it is.
Why since the one they went with is the one that came out of FIDE Rules Commission meeting.

Because these decisions that came out of the FIDE rules Commission were bad decisions.

How about you back this up with an example.
I am sure most players could think of many ways of delaying their opponent.

That is why the rule as passed (unlike the rule in use at the Olympiad) allows the Arbiter not to forfeit the player if he is satisfied with the players reason why he was late.I agree, a definate improvement on the Olympiad rule but I am not convinced that those involved then would change their ways under the new rule.
This seems like an excuse of one who makes such claims but is not smart enough to have already thought of them. No just mindful of the time and space needed. Think for a while, you may be able to work some out for yourself.:doh:

Bill Gletsos
11-03-2009, 03:02 PM
Because these decisions that came out of the FIDE rules Commission were bad decisions.There are many who do not see it that way.
As such it is merely a matter of opinion.

I am sure most players could think of many ways of delaying their opponent.Clutching at straws.

I agree, a definate improvement on the Olympiad rule but I am not convinced that those involved then would change their ways under the new rule.Possibly but that is a different issue entirely. After all under the current 1 hour default time, the arbiter can decide not to forfeit a play who is late, but how many actually would.

No just mindful of the time and space needed. Think for a while, you may be able to work some out for yourself.:doh:Now why doernt it surprise me that you wont actually back up your claim. :hand:

eclectic
11-03-2009, 04:12 PM
do they mean we finally have a world championship cycle we all understand?

:wall:

:uhoh:

Ian Rout
11-03-2009, 04:28 PM
The form to be taken by "regulations of the tournament" is not stated so I would take it that it is not necessary to specify exceptions to the FIDE rule one by one. A club or State association could adopt a resolution that the default for all their tournaments is, say, 20 minutes except where something else is specified.

Obviously zero is inappropriate for club and weekend events in the real world where people can be held up in traffic, dropping children at football etc. Though the argument that you can lose by being two seconds late is not a really strong one, whatever the cut-off is someone could still arrive two seconds after it.

Garvinator
11-03-2009, 04:35 PM
The form to be taken by "regulations of the tournament" is not stated so I would take it that it is not necessary to specify exceptions to the FIDE rule one by one. A club or State association could adopt a resolution that the default for all their tournaments is, say, 20 minutes except where something else is specified.

Obviously zero is inappropriate for club and weekend events in the real world where people can be held up in traffic, dropping children at football etc. Though the argument that you can lose by being two seconds late is not a really strong one, whatever the cut-off is someone could still arrive two seconds after it.
Hello Ian,

Bill and I are speculating here a bit, but I think it is probably likely that the press release is just sloppy wording. From the final draft for the Presidential board earlier in this thread:


6.7 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.

So, it is likely that when the proper wording for the 2009 laws of chess come out, 6.7 will read as above, I think.

Denis_Jessop
11-03-2009, 04:58 PM
New 6.7 is, among other things, a clumsy attempt to remove a perceived ambiguity in the old rule. Effectively, it substitutes 0 minutes for one hour but leaves it up to those making the tournament rules to specify some other default time.

The current 6.7 has it operating from the scheduled start time but the new 6.7 from the actual start time. I wonder if FIDE thought of the possibility of the rules specifying a time before the start of the session. There seems no reason why the tournament rules should not provide that all players must be present, say, at least 5 minutes before the start of the session (or the scheduled start of the session) though whether they ever would is another matter.

In fact new 6.7 really requires players to be present before the start of the session as nobody can be sure when the session will actually start. Moreover, if a player arrives at the chessboard before the start of the session and then goes away and doesn't return until after the start of the session, there is clearly no breach of the rule despite whatever happened at the Olympiad, assuming it had the same rule.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2009, 07:40 PM
While the option approved is better than the one with no flexability at all, it is still a very bad rule which could allow cheating by players, their supporters, corrupt organisers and others.

Pretty much any rule can allow cheating. Cheats can be caught and punished and their actions nullified. Only the most extremely incompetent arbiter would uphold a forfeit if the player was deliberately delayed by another party.

A similar situation would be if a player has a mobile phone which is switched off and leaves it on the table while away from the board. An opponent might turn the phone on, arrange for a colleague to call it, and then claim a win by mobile phone violation. No competent arbiter would have a bar of such nonsense and indeed the opponent would be expelled from the tournament and probably banned.

William AS
11-03-2009, 10:41 PM
The form to be taken by "regulations of the tournament" is not stated so I would take it that it is not necessary to specify exceptions to the FIDE rule one by one. A club or State association could adopt a resolution that the default for all their tournaments is, say, 20 minutes except where something else is specified.

I agree with this reading of the situation and the South Australian Chess Association intends to do just that. When this rule was first proposed I did consider whether it would be a good idea to reduce the forfiet time to 15 or 20 minutes but after long reflection decided that one hour was the best time, as by then almost all legitimate latecomers will have turned up and the logistics of running a tournament have also become a factor. Another point to note is that it is very important that all tournament forfeit times should be consistant to avoid player confusion and it is also desirable that forfeit times are consistant nationally.


Obviously zero is inappropriate for club and weekend events in the real world where people can be held up in traffic, dropping children at football etc. Though the argument that you can lose by being two seconds late is not a really strong one, whatever the cut-off is someone could still arrive two seconds after it.

This is where I have the real problems with the new rule. The FIDE Rules Commission and the FIDE Presidential Board seem to have very little relationship with the real world and have introduced this rule in reaction to a problem that does not really exist. Almost all latecomers do not do it deliberately and almost everyone, other than Nigel Short, would much prefer to play a latecomer rather than win by forfeit. Forfeits or the fear of forfeiting unintentionally will very quickly drive people away from playing competition chess. At the recent Begonia Tournament Glenn Gibbs and myself were late unintentionally for the start of one round because we went to a local restaurant for dinner and a chat and the meal took a very long time to arrive after ordering [well over an hour]. Player interactions like this are a very important part of chess life and anything that prevents this connection with the real world is likely to cause a severe drop in tournament participation.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2009, 10:52 PM
At the recent Begonia Tournament Glenn Gibbs and myself were late unintentionally for the start of one round because we went to a local restaurant for dinner and a chat and the meal took a very long time to arrive after ordering [well over an hour].

This is a serious hazard of going to restaurants between rounds and I always avoid restaurants where you have to wait an unknown period of time to be served for exactly this reason. Then again, I am obsessive about being at the board on time and do not like to be even ten seconds late. Also, a player who has some special dietary requirements (like Glen) may not have the option of takeaways.

My experience is that under the current regime quite a few players here (Tas) will show up late now and then, and some are often or nearly always late, but lateness exceeding 20 minutes but under an hour is so rare you could safely leave such cases to the discretion of any remotely reasonable DOP.


Forfeits or the fear of forfeiting unintentionally will very quickly drive people away from playing competition chess.

I think it's more likely players will simply adapt. Did anyone stop playing because of the mobile phone rule?

Garvinator
11-03-2009, 11:06 PM
At the recent Begonia Tournament Glenn Gibbs and myself were late unintentionally for the start of one round because we went to a local restaurant for dinner and a chat and the meal took a very long time to arrive after ordering [well over an hour]. Player interactions like this are a very important part of chess life and anything that prevents this connection with the real world is likely to cause a severe drop in tournament participation.
Your post shows an astounding amount of player selfishness. From your post, you have shown no consideration for the organisers/arbiters of the tournament.

There is a different way to look at this. The responsibility was yours as well. You could have eaten earlier and not put yourself in this situation.

It seems you chose to put your own needs ahead of the organisers and arbiters who I would imagine were wondering where you were.

Open challenge for you and I wish this challenge was really provable.

I do not believe that the change of this rule will cause a severe drop in tournament participation at all. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite, that it it much more likely that it will lead to increased tournament numbers because of a flow on effect as follows (assumes competent organisers and arbiters of course):

1) With players knowing that they have to be on time or risk being forfeited, almost all players are early/on time.
2) This means that more players are registered for round one, or for further rounds, everyone is seated/ready to start on time.
3) For round one, the draw is more likely to be produced on time/early, leading to a more organised approach, rather than starting late.
4) The rest of the rounds run close to on schedule as players know the penalty for being late.
5) Just like the mobile phone penalty, as soon as one or two players are forfeited, very few players will be late without a damn good reason.

This rule will help to eliminate/reduce the culture of chess tardiness.

Brian_Jones
12-03-2009, 08:46 AM
Is it just me or is Garvin getting more sensible as he gets older (and wiser)?

Basil
12-03-2009, 09:06 AM
Is it just me or is Garvin getting more sensible as he gets older (and wiser)?
No it's not just you. You're both definitely getting more sensible as you both get older! :lol: :owned:

Garvinator
12-03-2009, 09:18 AM
Is it just me or is Garvin getting more sensible as he gets older (and wiser)?
:lol:

My position on these types of matters has not changed much at all since I became involved in chess. In fact the position I just put in my previous post is the slimmed down version for just replying to William AS previous points.

It could just be that there are now a few other posters who are saying that the laid back way of running chess competitions is not the way to go means that my opinion gets more credible.

I know for a fact that Gunner is very well of my opinion on these types of matters and can probably attest that my previous post was a watered down version :whistle: If you want to read the full version. I can give that too after a few more post replies by William AS and tag teaming by Bill G and myself.

Watto
12-03-2009, 09:50 AM
Your post shows an astounding amount of player selfishness. From your post, you have shown no consideration for the organisers/arbiters of the tournament.

With respect, Garvin, I think you’re indulging in emotional hyperbole. If it’s within the rules, how does a player turning up a few minutes late for a round once a tournament is in progress (so not round 1) have any practical effect on an arbiter’s ability to do their job?

(Incidentally, Guy and I had a similar experience before a Melbourne Chess Club tournament evening round recently. The café took ages to bring our meals. With 10 minutes to go before the start of the round, we ‘fortunately’ found out that they hadn’t actually started our orders. So Guy began his game on a beer and an empty stomach while all I had to get me through the evening was a cup of peppermint tea… not ideal!)

Brian_Jones
12-03-2009, 10:04 AM
If it’s within the rules, how does a player turning up a few minutes late for a round once a tournament is in progress (so not round 1) have any practical effect on an arbiter’s ability to do their job?

Watto - by arriving late you just missed the arbiters (and organisers) important announcements! :)


I bet you didn't read the notice board either? :(

Watto
12-03-2009, 10:20 AM
Watto - by arriving late you just missed the arbiters (and organisers) important announcements! :)


I bet you didn't read the notice board either? :(
Okay, the player might miss an announcement. There are informal penalties for turning up after a round starts and that could be one. I still maintain Garvin’s accusatory tone is way over the top.

What notice board... ? Do you keep yours up to date?! (no need to answer this, I'm sure you do ;))

William AS
12-03-2009, 01:25 PM
I think it's more likely players will simply adapt. Did anyone stop playing because of the mobile phone rule?
The mobile phone rule is a very different situation. Most people find it is a bonus to have an excuse to turn their phone off.

eclectic
12-03-2009, 02:02 PM
The mobile phone rule is a very different situation. Most people find it is a bonus to have an excuse to turn their phone off.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

i'll pay that one :)

William AS
12-03-2009, 02:25 PM
I do not believe that the change of this rule will cause a severe drop in tournament participation at all. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite, that it it much more likely that it will lead to increased tournament numbers because of a flow on effect as follows (assumes competent organisers and arbiters of course):

1) With players knowing that they have to be on time or risk being forfeited, almost all players are early/on time.
2) This means that more players are registered for round one, or for further rounds, everyone is seated/ready to start on time.
3) For round one, the draw is more likely to be produced on time/early, leading to a more organised approach, rather than starting late. You have to be kidding, surely, enter the real world, it is not that bad a place.

4) The rest of the rounds run close to on schedule as players know the penalty for being late. What does a player being late have to do with this?

5) Just like the mobile phone penalty, as soon as one or two players are forfeited, very few players will be late without a damn good reason. See post above.


This rule will help to eliminate/reduce the culture of chess tardiness. True, but the organizer is likely to be left on their own playing with themselves.;) I find it very sad that many of the posters here, like many FIDE officials, do not seem to understand that Chess, while it is a war game, is not a real war or a life and death struggle for survival, it is just a game, meant to be enjoyed for the mental challenge, shared by friends and people of like mind, in a comfortable and friendly environment. This rule does not add anything to the game of Chess, it is only a distraction from the enjoyment of the game. If the organisers of Chess in Australia and around the world do not recognise this fact Chess will very quickly die. :( :( :(

ER
12-03-2009, 03:51 PM
Being a serial offender (in arriving late at games - due to ridiculously flactuating work hours) I am in a position to understand all points of view expressed here. (*)
Please note that I said "I understand" and not "I justify"!
Some of the reasons why I accept the new rule which, let me add, is not a Draconian Law since (as thoroughly explained by Bill and Garvin) it allows for a reasonable ground for discussion between the arbiter and the "offender" are the following:
Chess is a sport! As such it is not iimaginable for a team or individual to begin proceedings without the opponent(s) being present on the field. However, as in Bill's and Garvin's explanations, it is possible to delay the beginning of the match if the latecoming team or individual is held by heavy traffic or other reasons.
Being late for the tournament causes uneccessary problems to your opponent. If you do not turn up at all, and that happens, you have your opponent waiting there for nothing, wondering the things that he/she could have done if he/she knew about your not appearing.
It also (that's for cases you are not just a few minutes late) provides your opponent with the unfair opportunity to know the situation developed in other boards and plan their game accordingly.
It causes unecessary disturbance to the tournament's normal flow as your late arrival is usually associated with some extra noise and disruption of normal thinking proceedings of other players close to your board.
On the other hand, it is extremely harsh to players who are never late to be penalised for not being there on time due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. However, as stated above, the law provides for them explaining the situation to the arbiter, although this procedure would disrupt the normal proceedings of the arbiter's other responsibilities. Here, I must note, that it is wrong only to think of one player who might be late. Consider situations when 3 or 4 or even more players aren't present at the time of the round's start.
I am sure that people like Bill and Garvin and Kevin who are usually amongst the first to criticise FIDE in no uncertain terms when it comes to defending our interests as chess players, are again acting on our behalf in order to protect our rights. In this particular case our rights are strongly connected with our responsibilities as well! Think about it!
(*) My work schedule has caused me to miss more than a year of Monday night tournaments at the Melbourne Chess Club. That caused financial loss to the Club as well, due to loss of
Membership fee
Tournament entree fees
Donations, since for a number of years (bar the last tournament in 2007) I donated back to the Club all my prize winning money.
Thank God, due to more reasonable tournament starting times at the Box Hill - Canterbury Juniors Chess Club, of which I am also a proud member, I was able to play chess during these years, although I am sure the Club's captain is not exactly happy with me often arriving late due to the same reasons as stated above.

Kevin Bonham
14-03-2009, 08:26 PM
Chess is a sport! As such it is not iimaginable for a team or individual to begin proceedings without the opponent(s) being present on the field.

As I have pointed out before there are some sports in which it is possible to start without the opponent being present on the field. Cycling and motor racing are examples. There are others where because of the structure of the sport it is very difficult, though perhaps in tennis if a player is late their opponent could just whack aces and score for them until they arrived. :lol:


Being late for the tournament causes uneccessary problems to your opponent. If you do not turn up at all, and that happens, you have your opponent waiting there for nothing, wondering the things that he/she could have done if he/she knew about your not appearing.

Not turning up at all is a different kettle of fish. Players who fail to appear for a round at all without notifying the DOP are unauthorised withdrawers and action can be taken against them. It's true that a problem with the 1 hour cutoff is that a player has to wait 1 hour to claim in such cases, but strictly speaking they shouldn't be going anywhere anyway, as the arbiter might always decide the player had a reason for being late and have the game commence.

Also, a player whose opponent is late does benefit to the tune of time on the clock.


It also (that's for cases you are not just a few minutes late) provides your opponent with the unfair opportunity to know the situation developed in other boards and plan their game accordingly.

Yes, well that is another disadvantage for the late player.


It causes unecessary disturbance to the tournament's normal flow as your late arrival is usually associated with some extra noise and disruption of normal thinking proceedings of other players close to your board.

I think this is one of the reasons for the ban on late arrival in the Olympiad. But after a certain time players are getting up and moving about anyway. I liked the suggestion - think it was Ian Rout's - that players who are late could be held outside the venue for some time before being allowed to enter.


I am sure that people like Bill and Garvin and Kevin who are usually amongst the first to criticise FIDE in no uncertain terms when it comes to defending our interests as chess players, are again acting on our behalf in order to protect our rights. In this particular case our rights are strongly connected with our responsibilities as well! Think about it!

I am actually having a bit of a go both ways on this one. I disagree with the sky-is-falling response to the new rule but at the same time I think there are valid arguments for allowing players some degree of lateness (with the consequence of loss of time on the clock, or perhaps other penalties, but not a forfeit).

I think zero-lateness forfeit is totally ridiculous and will not be personally supporting it at any level.

However if it is imposed on tournaments I'm directing and I can't route around it I may just have to deal with it, as will the players.

Garvinator
14-03-2009, 09:46 PM
I think zero-lateness forfeit is totally ridiculous and will not be personally supporting it at any level.

However if it is imposed on tournaments I'm directing and I can't route around it I may just have to deal with it, as will the players.
While I have both supported and condemned both sides in discussions, both in person and on here, I really do want to see the zero default time in operation in quite a few weekend tournaments before claiming it is going to be either good or bad rule.

And I mean seeing it both as an arbiter and player.

One round per week club tournaments are a different story though.

I think out of all this, had fide stayed with their original proposal going into the Olympiad of 15 minute default forfeit time, it was a compromise time that almost all reasonable people could live with, no matter which side of the fence in this debate you sit on.

ER
14-03-2009, 10:53 PM
As I have pointed out before there are some sports in which it is possible to start without the opponent being present on the field. Cycling and motor racing are examples. There are others where because of the structure of the sport it is very difficult, though perhaps in tennis if a player is late their opponent could just whack aces and score for them until they arrived. :lol:
Both examples (cycling and motor racing) apply to trial -qualification stages, and that's due to the lack of room to accommodate all participants. Can you imagine a q/finals, s/finals and final stage without the presence of the other party? As for the tennis example, I have seen matches in which the chances of certain players, in regards to a respectable score, could have been better if they weren't really present! :lol:

Not turning up at all is a different kettle of fish. Players who fail to appear for a round at all without notifying the DOP are unauthorised withdrawers and action can be taken against them. It's true that a problem with the 1 hour cutoff is that a player has to wait 1 hour to claim in such cases, but strictly speaking they shouldn't be going anywhere anyway, as the arbiter might always decide the player had a reason for being late and have the game commence.
I partly agree to the part of the statement concerning players who do not appear, although let me keep my suspicions alive since (I concede this unethical action is rather remote) they give the chance to a cheat to lose a game without shedding rating points and potentially affecting final allocation of prizes.This "solution" also eliminates the possibilities of being caught in a pre-arranged game played on the board!

Also, a player whose opponent is late does benefit to the tune of time on the clock.
That's correct!

Yes, well that is another disadvantage for the late player.
That's also correct!

I think this is one of the reasons for the ban on late arrival in the Olympiad. But after a certain time players are getting up and moving about anyway. I liked the suggestion - think it was Ian Rout's - that players who are late could be held outside the venue for some time before being allowed to enter.
What if they are really late? I mean a couple of minutes left on the clock? :P

I am actually having a bit of a go both ways on this one. I disagree with the sky-is-falling response to the new rule but at the same time I think there are valid arguments for allowing players some degree of lateness (with the consequence of loss of time on the clock, or perhaps other penalties, but not a forfeit).
As in previous, how do you decide how much time would that punishment represent in realistic terms? Also, think of the situation of certain clubs which do not have their own facilities and face time restrictions. I was present when a Brazilian lady (who later became a close friend of mine) was very annoying to the Elwood Chess Club players who shard the same facilities as her dancing group in the Tennyson Street Community Centre and hadn't finished their games on time!

I think zero-lateness forfeit is totally ridiculous and will not be personally supporting it at any level.
Zero-lateness forfeit has not yet been imposed, I stand to be corrected on this one!

However if it is imposed on tournaments I'm directing and I can't route around it I may just have to deal with it, as will the players.
I have never played under your direction and cannot really comment on your style and approach. I have, however, played under Garvin and Charles!
PS I hope you have noticed my progress in quoting techniques! :) That's owed to your instructions combined with a Trevor's tutorial at BH CC! :)

Desmond
15-03-2009, 08:14 AM
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.

Wouldn't that make it a default default time?

Garvinator
15-03-2009, 10:34 AM
Wouldn't that make it a default default time?
Did you mean to say, a different default time?

Desmond
15-03-2009, 10:45 AM
Did you mean to say, a different default time?
No.

Def'n 1 default: loss due to not showing up; "he lost the game by default"
Def'n 2 default: an option that is selected automatically unless an alternative is specified

So, Thus the default time is 0 minutes. really means:
Thus the default default time is 0 minutes.

CameronD
15-03-2009, 11:02 AM
I have a practical question.

1)Say player A hasnt turned up, would player B get permission from the arbiter to leave the venue or have to wait till the end of the round.

2) Say player A has not turned up within 15 minutes and player B has claimed the game, player B leaves the venue for lunch, 5 minutes later player B turns up and the arbiter accepts his lateness as valid. Does the arbiter then start the clock, or was the clock started at the starting time. Would player B lose on flagfall. What if the game can not be rescheduled due to time restraints.

3) Does the new rule meant that a player can be more than an hour late if the arbiter accepts, how long does player B have to hang around at the venue.

eclectic
15-03-2009, 03:43 PM
bill might provide a more detailed answer but one thing which came to mind was that often examinations (ie at universities etc) have a condition that no one can leave the room until one hour has elapsed from the start of the session

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2009, 05:42 PM
I have a practical question.

1)Say player A hasnt turned up, would player B get permission from the arbiter to leave the venue or have to wait till the end of the round.He would have to wait whatever the forfeiture time is (be it zero, 30 mins or 1 hour) and have have the arbiter declare the result of the game before he could leave.

2) Say player A has not turned up within 15 minutes and player B has claimed the game, player B leaves the venue for lunch, 5 minutes later player B turns up and the arbiter accepts his lateness as valid. Does the arbiter then start the clock, or was the clock started at the starting time. Would player B lose on flagfall. What if the game can not be rescheduled due to time restraints.The situation really isnt any different to that described in 1, so the same answer applies.

3) Does the new rule meant that a player can be more than an hour late if the arbiter accepts, how long does player B have to hang around at the venue.There is no real reason for the arbiter not to declare the game after the 1 hour forfeiture time unless he is aware that the opponent is going to be late and has a exceptionally good reason for being late and decides to extend the forfeiture time, by say an extra 'X" minutes. However if this is the case the arbiter clearly would have to know the opponent was going to be late before the 1 hour forfeiture time and should inform the player as soon as he decides to extend the forfeiture time.
Of course the opponent could still lose on flag fall even if does not exceed the forfeiture time.

Bottom line is that until the arbiter declares the result of the game the player should not leave (especially permanently) the playing venue without the permission of the arbiter.

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2009, 05:44 PM
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.

Wouldn't that make it a default default time?It would have been better if they had used the word forfeiture instead of default. i.e.

Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the forfeiture time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different forfeiture time.

Garvinator
15-03-2009, 06:06 PM
Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the forfeiture time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different forfeiture time.
It is because of these little technicalities that I am waiting till the full version of the 2009 Fide laws of chess are published before starting to debate the rules properly.

I would not be surprised if the version we are using here has not been modified somewhat at the Fide Presidential board meeting.

Fide's rushed press release has not helped matters. Fide may have even clarified if they are really meant to stay with leaving out the word 'scheduled' as well.

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2009, 07:00 PM
It is because of these little technicalities that I am waiting till the full version of the 2009 Fide laws of chess are published before starting to debate the rules properly.

I would not be surprised if the version we are using here has not been modified somewhat at the Fide Presidential board meeting.I suspect the wording is as I listed it in post 1 as option 1.

Fide's rushed press release has not helped matters. Fide may have even clarified if they are really meant to stay with leaving out the word 'scheduled' as well.My source informs me they believe the removal of the word "scheduled" was deliberate. They also noted that in the past it was often ignored.

Garvinator
15-03-2009, 07:24 PM
They also noted that in the past it was often ignored.Interesting, from my experience this would make Australia different, where we stayed with the one hour from the scheduled starting time, no matter when the round actually began :hmm:.

The theory being that players are supposed to be ready at the scheduled starting time, so late arrivals do not get 'rewarded' for being late by potentially getting more than the hour for their late arrival.

Denis_Jessop
15-03-2009, 08:54 PM
I suggest that a better version would be:

6.7a A player must arrive at the chessboard no later than* the start of the session unless the rules of the competition otherwise provide.

b. A player who contravenes Art.6.7a shall lose the game unless the arbiter otherwise decides.

*or "at or before" which was my first thought

Thai overcomes the nonsense about "default" times.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2009, 10:36 PM
Both examples (cycling and motor racing) apply to trial -qualification stages, and that's due to the lack of room to accommodate all participants.

Incorrect. For instance in motorsport if your car is in the pits being worked on when a race is started you can start the race late and you will not be disqualified for doing so. This can apply in any level of race up to GPs, Bathurst 1000s, whatever and has nothing to do with lack of room.


What if they are really late? I mean a couple of minutes left on the clock?

Well this is normally a forfeit under the old rules too. However there are known examples where players have arrived with only minutes on their clock and been allowed to play their game (sometimes without losing!)


As in previous, how do you decide how much time would that punishment represent in realistic terms?

Don't know. For instance if organisers wanted to try to control lateness beyond just the time the player lost off the clock, they could try a rule that a late player loses double the time they are late.


Zero-lateness forfeit has not yet been imposed, I stand to be corrected on this one!

It was imposed at the most recent Olympiad and has been imposed in some other FIDE events.

CameronD
16-03-2009, 07:05 AM
Whaty would occur if the arbiter had declared the result, then the late player turns up and his excuse was accepted by the arbiter and the player had left. How long would the arbiter generally wait to declare a result.

ER
16-03-2009, 08:56 AM
Incorrect. For instance in motorsport if your car is in the pits being worked on when a race is started you can start the race late and you will not be disqualified for doing so. This can apply in any level of race up to GPs, Bathurst 1000s, whatever and has nothing to do with lack of room.
Kev, the examples you are referring to have to do with the drivers, cars, personel etc being there and held back by an accidental factor. This is similar to a player being in the venue and all of a sudden something unpredictable occurs and he/she can not start the game at the specified time.
The player, or in the case of motorsport the driver, will only have to face the time loss during his/her absence from the race or the actual play in chess!
But in the case of the driver, or his/her replacement (not such a thing in chess of course) not being present at the beginning of the race and none knows his/her whereabouts, they will be declared as non/starters and consequently be eliminated from the event!
I know I did not imply this situation in my original and I do not use it as an excuse to prove a point. I just thought of it while i was trying to find something as close as possible to the sporting analogies.
I also discussed this situation with a person who, like yourself, is interested in motor racing, and in particular F1. She says that drivers and cars have to be there during all stages of the event, starting from practice rounds, to timing for placings etc and of course the actual race. But she knows nothing about penalties imposed for being late etc. According to her knowledge drivers are penalised only for careless and dangerous driving tactics and matters that apply to incidents during the race!

Kevin Bonham
16-03-2009, 12:30 PM
Kev, the examples you are referring to have to do with the drivers, cars, personel etc being there and held back by an accidental factor. This is similar to a player being in the venue and all of a sudden something unpredictable occurs and he/she can not start the game at the specified time.

Yes, which FIDE's appointed arbiters forfeited a player for at the Olympiad. He was there at the venue on time but had to go to the toilet urgently. Going to the toilet meant he wasn't on the "starting grid" at the appointed second, but instead of being allowed to start anyway, he was ruled to have lost the game.

Under the current Law it is not arrival at the venue that is the key point in chess:


Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game ...

The proposed revised law also includes "at the chessboard".

So being "at the venue" but unable to take one's place on the grid in time is acceptable in motorsport but not in chess if the zero-forfeit condition is adopted.


But in the case of the driver, or his/her replacement (not such a thing in chess of course) not being present at the beginning of the race and none knows his/her whereabouts, they will be declared as non/starters and consequently be eliminated from the event!

I am not aware of any cases where this has ever happened, probably because there is not much point showing up late to a car race since even a few minutes late puts you a lap down and out of contention.


I also discussed this situation with a person who, like yourself, is interested in motor racing, and in particular F1. She says that drivers and cars have to be there during all stages of the event, starting from practice rounds, to timing for placings etc and of course the actual race.

There are some interesting cases in US motorsport where a competitor wants to run in two races (typically the Indy 500 and a Nascar race) on the same day. From memory the stewards in such cases will impose some time when the driver must be present at the circuit for the second race in order to be allowed to take their place on the grid.

Denis_Jessop
16-03-2009, 07:49 PM
Whaty would occur if the arbiter had declared the result, then the late player turns up and his excuse was accepted by the arbiter and the player had left. How long would the arbiter generally wait to declare a result.


This points up one of the practical problems in enforcement. As the player loses if not at the chessboard at the start of the session, the arbiter should forthwith declare the absent player's game lost. But this may not be practicable if there are, say 50 boards and only 2 arbiters. One way of handling things would be for a roll call of players immediately before the start allowing the arbiter to assess who was absent. This is a bit of an unreliable procedure.

If a player arrives late the arbiter can then consider what he has to say as an excuse for his lateness. But if the game has already been declared lost is not the opponent entitled to leave the playing venue? I wonder how deeply the proponents of this rule thought it through. Mind you, the same situation can arise with the present rule and I haven't heard this issue mentioned. Perhaps someone has some practical experience of its enforcement.

DJ

Bill Gletsos
16-03-2009, 08:09 PM
Whaty would occur if the arbiter had declared the result, then the late player turns up and his excuse was accepted by the arbiter and the player had left.If the arbiter declared the result that the end of it. The player is entitled to leave the venue.
The arbiter cannot just accept the opponents excuse if he eventually turns up and expect the game to be played.

How long would the arbiter generally wait to declare a result.I would expect the decision to be made almost immediately as there is no real reason for the arbiter to wait at all

Garvinator
16-03-2009, 08:11 PM
This points up one of the practical problems in enforcement. As the player loses if not at the chessboard at the start of the session, the arbiter should forthwith declare the absent player's game lost. I would argue that the player loses only when the arbiter has made their decision that the player loses by not being at the chessboard as the 2009 rule contains the provision: unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

So the arbiter has to rule on each individual game if there are reasons why the late player should not be forfeited.


But this may not be practicable if there are, say 50 boards and only 2 arbiters. One way of handling things would be for a roll call of players immediately before the start allowing the arbiter to assess who was absent. This is a bit of an unreliable procedure. Agree, impractical and most likely unnecessary for all but the first round as above.


If a player arrives late the arbiter can then consider what he has to say as an excuse for his lateness. But if the game has already been declared lost is not the opponent entitled to leave the playing venue?I think I have covered this in my first reply from how I am reading the rule that the game is not actually lost until the arbiter makes their decision. So Player B should not have left the venue anyways as they are still awaiting a decision.


I wonder how deeply the proponents of this rule thought it through. Mind you, the same situation can arise with the present rule and I haven't heard this issue mentioned. Perhaps someone has some practical experience of its enforcement.When you ask about enforcement, I take it you mean the zero forfeit rule and how it has been applied?

Bill Gletsos
16-03-2009, 08:13 PM
If a player arrives late the arbiter can then consider what he has to say as an excuse for his lateness. But if the game has already been declared lost is not the opponent entitled to leave the playing venue? I wonder how deeply the proponents of this rule thought it through. Mind you, the same situation can arise with the present rule and I haven't heard this issue mentioned. Perhaps someone has some practical experience of its enforcement.I have never heard of any situation where an arbiter having declared a player being more than an hour late has forfeited the game has changed his decision upon hearing an excuse from the player concerned.

Garvinator
16-03-2009, 08:15 PM
I have never heard of any situation where an arbiter having declared a player being more than an hour late has forfeited the game has changed his decision upon hearing an excuse from the player concerned.
I can not even think of a time when a player has turned up after the hour has expired :eek:

Bill Gletsos
16-03-2009, 08:23 PM
I think I have covered this in my first reply from how I am reading the rule that the game is not actually lost until the arbiter makes their decision. So Player B should not have left the venue anyways as they are still awaiting a decision.No as it it clear Denis was responding to Camerson's question where Cameron said the arbiter had declared the result and the player turned up after this. The player had every right to leave the venue once the arbiter declared the result.

When you ask about enforcement, I take it you mean the zero forfeit rule and how it has been applied?No. I take it Denis was referring to any situation under the current 1 hour limit where an arbiter has accepted a players excuse after earlier declaring the game lost. As I noted in my post i have not heard of this happening.

Denis_Jessop
16-03-2009, 08:42 PM
Kev, the examples you are referring to have to do with the drivers, cars, personel etc being there and held back by an accidental factor. This is similar to a player being in the venue and all of a sudden something unpredictable occurs and he/she can not start the game at the specified time.
The player, or in the case of motorsport the driver, will only have to face the time loss during his/her absence from the race or the actual play in chess!
But in the case of the driver, or his/her replacement (not such a thing in chess of course) not being present at the beginning of the race and none knows his/her whereabouts, they will be declared as non/starters and consequently be eliminated from the event!
I know I did not imply this situation in my original and I do not use it as an excuse to prove a point. I just thought of it while i was trying to find something as close as possible to the sporting analogies.
I also discussed this situation with a person who, like yourself, is interested in motor racing, and in particular F1. She says that drivers and cars have to be there during all stages of the event, starting from practice rounds, to timing for placings etc and of course the actual race. But she knows nothing about penalties imposed for being late etc. According to her knowledge drivers are penalised only for careless and dangerous driving tactics and matters that apply to incidents during the race!

We've had this debate about other sports already on another thread.

I know, for example, that a rider late for the start in a club cycling race will be allowed to start though I don't know what the pro's rules are except that Delgado was allowed to start late in a TdF time trial some years ago. Pro riders have to sign on before a race or a stage of a stage-race but i'm not sure if that means they must start when everyone else does. it would be ralativley simple for a rider to make up a small amount of time just as they do if delayed by mechanical trouble or a crash or a "pause pi-pi" as the French say. There seems no praticular reason (subject to what the rules say) why they must all be there at the actual start though it would be rare for a professional team member not to be.

I'm more than a little puzzled by this


Chess is a sport! As such it is not iimaginable for a team or individual to begin proceedings without the opponent(s) being present on the field.

and this


expanding on late coming, not appearing!
Quote:Originally Posted by Kev
As I have pointed out before there are some sports in which it is possible to start without the opponent being present on the field. Cycling and motor racing are examples. There are others where because of the structure of the sport it is very difficult, though perhaps in tennis if a player is late their opponent could just whack aces and score for them until they arrived.

Both examples (cycling and motor racing) apply to trial -qualification stages, and that's due to the lack of room to accommodate all participants. Can you imagine a q/finals, s/finals and final stage without the presence of the other party? As for the tennis example, I have seen matches in which the chances of certain players, in regards to a respectable score, could have been better if they weren't really present!

Clearly analogies with team sports make little sense. I observe, nevertheless, that frequently in team sports play continues without the full number of players being on the field and many team sports now allow temporary or permanent substitution of players during the game.

As indicated above late starting in cycling is not confined to "trial-qualification stages" by which I assume you mean time-trial stages. (I still do a fair bit of veteran cycle racing as well as maintaining a keen interest in continental professional road racing.)

One of the problems with the first quote is that there is not always a "field" nor is the competition necessarily one-on-one as it is in chess or a like game.

It seems from reading the Australian Bridge Federation's web site that late starting of bridge games is allowed subject to certain limitations.

A further problem with the debate about other sports is that our references are generally to the elite professional version whereas we are more concerned with the way the Laws of Chess will work at the club level. Referring again to a cycling time trial, I assume your reference to lack of accommodation for all competitors is to the kind of ITT start that happens in big pro races with a fancy elevated platform etc. But in an ordinary club ITT riders just line up down the road and a late rider can just take off whenever he likes though his time will be calculated from his scheduled starting time. You dont even have to be held up (supported) before the start and I now refuse to be because my sense of balance is shot (though not when riding!)

DJ

Kevin Bonham
16-03-2009, 11:04 PM
I have never heard of any situation where an arbiter having declared a player being more than an hour late has forfeited the game has changed his decision upon hearing an excuse from the player concerned.

I've never heard of one either, and nor have I heard of one where the arbiter has agreed to not enforce the one-hour forfeit in advance (eg when knowing the player will be >1 hour late.)

The example given in Reuben's book (1997) is "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."

It is not clear how such an exemption would be applied in a situation where the player is late in this manner and the organiser cannot know this before the one-hour cutoff time is declared.

Denis_Jessop
17-03-2009, 11:38 AM
I would argue that the player loses only when the arbiter has made their decision that the player loses by not being at the chessboard as the 2009 rule contains the provision: unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

So the arbiter has to rule on each individual game if there are reasons why the late player should not be forfeited.

Agree, impractical and most likely unnecessary for all but the first round as above.

I think I have covered this in my first reply from how I am reading the rule that the game is not actually lost until the arbiter makes their decision. So Player B should not have left the venue anyways as they are still awaiting a decision.

When you ask about enforcement, I take it you mean the zero forfeit rule and how it has been applied?

I don't think that the words "unless the arbiter decides otherwise" imply that the arbiter has to decide in each case if there are reasons why the player should not lose. Those words are there to permit the player to make out a case to the arbiter but, unless he does, the arbiter simply rules the game lost. Clearly the arbiter must make a ruling as there needs to be a finding by the arbiter that the player was not present at the start. But, beyond that, any other interpretation would mean that the arbiter could not decide on any games covered by the rule until the end of the session or until the late player arrived, if he did, whichever was the earlier, which would mean any opponent affected having to wait until then too.

What I have said above make clear that I agree with you that the opponent shouldn't leave until the arbiter makes a decision but we differ in that my view is that the arbiter should make a decision at the earliest possible moment and not taking in to account any possible excuses from the defaulting player unless he already knew of them. For example the late player may have told the arbiter in advance of a problem and the arbiter may have had time to consider it or even give an anticipatory ruling to the player.

My query about enforcement was directed to the rule in any form - the present 1 hour or any variation of it in particular as the zero lateness rule is not yet used here I expect

DJ

Ian Rout
17-03-2009, 12:48 PM
I've never heard of one either, and nor have I heard of one where the arbiter has agreed to not enforce the one-hour forfeit in advance (eg when knowing the player will be >1 hour late.)

The example given in Reuben's book (1997) is "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."

It is not clear how such an exemption would be applied in a situation where the player is late in this manner and the organiser cannot know this before the one-hour cutoff time is declared.I think that Reuben's principle here is right. But it does assume that the player has been able to advise the arbiter. Players should not be required to hang around twiddling their thumbs all night on the off-chance that an opponent is stuck in a train tunnel but might get out before the first time control. I have never even once heard of this happening though I can believe it may have done so occasionally.

Sometimes in a chess tournament or any other activity you are held up by factors that are not your own fault, you just have to wear it.

ER
17-03-2009, 04:48 PM
Hi Denis, more or less I agree with most of your points in response to my post so I do not quote the whole of your text.

... Clearly analogies with team sports make little sense. I observe, nevertheless, that frequently in team sports play continues without the full number of players being on the field and many team sports now allow temporary or permanent substitution of players during the game.
Although in my posting I referred to individual events as well, I insist that there are analogies in team sports. As I pointed out in my answer to Kevin:

... This is similar to a player being in the venue and all of a sudden something unpredictable occurs and he/she can not start the game at the specified time. The player, or in the case of motorsport the driver, will only have to face the time loss during his/her absence from the race or the actual play in chess!
But in the case of the driver, or his/her replacement (not such a thing in chess of course) not being present at the beginning of the race and none knows his/her whereabouts, they will be declared as non/starters and consequently be eliminated from the event (...) I do not use it as an excuse to prove a point. I just thought of it while i was trying to find something as close as possible to the sporting analogies.
Now, think of a situation involving teams during an Olympiad, or, to refer to something closer to us, an interclub competition. The penalty you have to face is your loss due to forfeit. You can't just not show up and expect the whole event to be delayed just to accommodate your whatever reason for not showing up! That's all under the specific topic of discussion which is the be there from the beginning or else rule and its various interpretations, suggestions, criticisms as expressed here!

A further problem with the debate about other sports is that our references are generally to the elite professional version whereas we are more concerned with the way the Laws of Chess will work at the Club level.
This is a very interesting and important point. I know it's a lot of asking to demand from our volunteer based and run Clubs to stick to rules and regulations as worded out (no pun for FIDE intended here) by higher authorities.
I also know of arbiters and DOBs who would accommodate Clubs suggestions and manners of conducting tournaments in a more relaxed fashion.
On the other hand, I know of arbiters and DOBs who take their duty very seriously and would not have a bar of going out of their way just to accommodate the "relaxed and friendly" culture that exists in whichever Club!

You dont even have to be held up (supported) before the start and I now refuse to be ... :lol: :clap:

ER
17-03-2009, 04:53 PM
... The example given in Reuben's book (1997)...
More information please Kevin!

eclectic
17-03-2009, 04:56 PM
More information please Kevin!

the chess organiser's handbook (2nd ed. i think?)

ER
17-03-2009, 05:34 PM
ty Eclecticus!

Kevin Bonham
17-03-2009, 06:33 PM
the chess organiser's handbook (2nd ed. i think?)

First.

Denis_Jessop
17-03-2009, 08:06 PM
The train delay example is in the first ed at p.71. It is not in the second ed though there is a general comment to the same effect at p.78. There is no comment at all in the Third ed. as far as I can see which may indicate that SR has had second thoughts.

DJ

ER
17-03-2009, 08:41 PM
Thanks all, I will ask Marcus Raine to supply me with a copy! (s)
By the way it is good to know that the "hour late forfeiture or default or whatever" is of concern to other forums as well. Here is an example:
http://www.iccf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8886#post8886

Garvinator
18-03-2009, 05:18 PM
And now we can end the speculation.

Geurt Gijssen's chesscafe column is out and it contains the exact wording to be used for the forfeit rule:

After long discussions the following text was approved:

6.6a Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.

6.6b In case the rules of a competition specify otherwise, if neither player is present initially, the player who has the white pieces shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives; unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.

Comments from Geurt

I hope it is clear that a player arriving late for the game will lose under Article 6.6.a, even when there is a force majeure, unless it is otherwise specified. During the discussions it was mentioned that circumstances must be taken into consideration; for instance, the Dresden Olympiad was a frequent example, where some teams stayed next to the playing hall, while others had to drive for more than an hour to the playing hall. Let us wait and see what the consequences of this Article will be.

As to Article 6.6.b, let me give an example:

Suppose the regulations of a competition specify that a player will lose the game if he arrives more than twenty minutes after the start of the game. Say after sixteen minutes the players scheduled to play against each other arrive together in the playing hall. The player of the white pieces will lose sixteen minutes, because his clock was started when the round began. His opponent still has all his time available. However, the arbiter can decide to split the time between both players and each will lose eight minutes of the total available time.

http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm

Bill Gletsos
18-03-2009, 06:02 PM
Under the current 2005 Laws 10.2 does not apply to Blitz games.

The published 2009 Laws showed that 10.2 would now apply to blitz.

Apparently there was an error in the Blitz section and under the 2009 Laws Article 10.2 will only apply where there is adequate supervision (one arbiter per board).

Denis_Jessop
18-03-2009, 07:36 PM
And now we can end the speculation.

Geurt Gijssen's chesscafe column is out and it contains the exact wording to be used for the forfeit rule:

After long discussions the following text was approved:

6.6a Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.

6.6b In case the rules of a competition specify otherwise, if neither player is present initially, the player who has the white pieces shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives; unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.



Comments from Geurt


http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm

Geurt and his mates seem to have slipped up here regarding the force majeure point. I submit that it will be quite legitimate for the rules of the competition in "providing otherwise" to provide that the default time is (say) "20 minutes or such other time, being not less than 20 minutes, as the arbiter may consider reasonable in a particular case". The only argument against it that I can see is the legal rule against sub-delegation but I don't know if that rule exists in countries not having the Anglo-Saxon legal system. In any case I would argue that the rule doesn't apply in this case.

Incidentally, if one wants to get really technical, it could be argued that the "default time" should not be 0 minutes but 0 seconds. A default time of 0 minutes arguably allows the player 59 seconds after the start of the session in which to arrive, that is, in this context, 0 minutes = < 1 minute.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2009, 09:02 PM
The phrase "Thus the default time is 0 minutes." is completely unnecessary.

A serious concern (how do these people let this sort of thing through?) is that the previous term "scheduled start" for a session is now replaced with "start". Literally that means a player can arrive late, but get away with it if the session has not started (eg because of a delay).

Garvinator
18-03-2009, 10:05 PM
A serious concern (how do these people let this sort of thing through?) is that the previous term "scheduled start" for a session is now replaced with "start". Literally that means a player can arrive late, but get away with it if the session has not started (eg because of a delay).
This is what Bill, Denis and myself had been debating through a few posts. Bill commented that from his sources that this change was deliberate. Apparently we in Australia may actually run against the flow of practice of most countries in applying the scheduled starting time for a round as the time when a player is forfeited from for the hour mark.

Most countries may indeed use the start of the round as the time when the hour begins for the forfeit. I have already posted why I think this is ridiculous.

For this zero default/forfeit rule, I really wish fide had left the word scheduled in the rule, because I can see the situation arise where players are going to be asking the arbiter to delay the start of a round because so and so is in the car park and they don't want their friend/team mate to be forfeited if the arbiter starts the round.

If the word scheduled was retained, then this 'potential pressure' on the arbiter is removed as the arbiter would just be following the tournament conditions.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2009, 10:10 PM
Most countries may indeed use the start of the round as the time when the hour begins for the forfeit. I have already posted why I think this is ridiculous.

I agree. I've used an hour from the scheduled start because that is what the current rule says in black and white! But it's one thing to talk about how it is interpreted when the forfeit time in one hour and it rarely makes the slightest difference, and another thing to talk about how it would be interpreted with a forfeit time of zero, when there will be a lot more cases re which it actually matters.

Ah well, since the rules of the competition can specify otherwise, it is always possible for the organiser to specify scheduled start - including if they use a forfeit time of zero.

Garvinator
18-03-2009, 10:17 PM
Ah well, since the rules of the competition can specify otherwise, it is always possible for the organiser to specify scheduled start - including if they use a forfeit time of zero.
Hehe :lol: :lol: :lol: it seems like some of us are coming up with a better worded rule to use ;)

Looks like we have hit on- default should be replaced with forfeit, what else is there? scheduled should have been retained.

Desmond
19-03-2009, 08:49 AM
Some rounds do not have scheduled start times.

Denis_Jessop
19-03-2009, 11:39 AM
The phrase "Thus the default time is 0 minutes." is completely unnecessary.

A serious concern (how do these people let this sort of thing through?) is that the previous term "scheduled start" for a session is now replaced with "start". Literally that means a player can arrive late, but get away with it if the session has not started (eg because of a delay).

I agree with the first sentence (I've already said something about the second point).

One of the problems FIDE faces is that it doesn't have people actively involved who have experience in formulating policy (basically thinking through an idea in detail before bursting into print) nor does it have an expert drafter of legislative-type material which is what the Laws of Chess are. Nobody familiar with the latter would have put in the nonsense about the default time. A body the size of FIDE with its responsibilities should ideally have a General Counsel or the like to attend to these matters. It used to have Morten Sand who is a Norwegian lawyer but I'm not sure if he is still there and in any case he didn't have the function I have in mind.

Even Geurt Gijssen with all his experience in applying the Laws is not ideal as his idea of "let's adopt this rule and see what happens" is not the way to go about rule-making or to gain the confidence of the chess world that you really know what you are doing.

DJ

Bill Gletsos
19-03-2009, 02:06 PM
A file zip containing a pdf of the 2009 FIDE Laws of Chess is available here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9780).

BennyG
10-06-2009, 07:35 PM
I was reading the article from the following link http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5499 and it says that 15 year-old GM Hou Yifan lost because she was 5 seconds late for the start and also Zhou Jianchao was not at the board when the round started so he also lost aswell which cost him the championship. I feel like the FIDE laws of chess is becoming completely outrageous. For instance what if public transport held him up or whatever it just isn't right to do that. If sineibe gets to the board late then its to the opponents advantage because he has less time but costing him the game is a little extreme . What you guys think of this issue?

Denis_Jessop
10-06-2009, 07:47 PM
There was a lot of discussion on this and the other new rules on this thread:
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9316&page=8

which is in the same section of the Forum. The rule that was used here seems to have jumped the gun as the FIDE law doesn't come into force until 1 July.

DJ

BennyG
10-06-2009, 07:56 PM
There was a lot of discussion on this and the other new rules on this thread:
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9316&page=8

which is in the same section of the Forum. The rule that was used here seems to have jumped the gun as the FIDE law doesn't come into force until 1 July.

DJ
Cheers

BennyG
10-06-2009, 07:59 PM
To be honest i think the FIDE men have rocks in their heads. Its only gonna be a matter of time such as the recent Chinese Championships until someone like a GM is gonna rightfully crack the sads at the Arbiter etc. They should be changed because its impracticable and too demanding on everyone. Sometimes its impossible to get there on time eg train or tram. I wouldn't be surprised if they make a rule not allowing you to leave the room then after that not allowed to go the toilet the ways things are going.

Garvinator
10-06-2009, 08:35 PM
To be honest i think the FIDE men have rocks in their heads. Its only gonna be a matter of time such as the recent Chinese Championships until someone like a GM is gonna rightfully crack the sads at the Arbiter etc.
Rightfully would be your opinion. If the tournament conditions have advertised the zero forfeit time in advance, then the GM (as you put it) would have no grounds for complaint.


I wouldn't be surprised if they make a rule not allowing you to leave the room then after that not allowed to go the toilet the ways things are going.
There already is a rule like that. So fide is one step ahead of you ;)

12.5 Players are not allowed to leave the 'playing venue' without permission from the arbiter. The playing venue is
defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter.

In the 2009 fide laws of chess, 12.5 is renumbered to be 12.2, but is the same wording.

Nicholas D-C
13-06-2009, 09:20 AM
The forfeit time should be about 15 minutes, to make it fairer than 0 minutes.

Denis_Jessop
14-06-2009, 08:42 PM
The forfeit time should be about 15 minutes, to make it fairer than 0 minutes.

The ACF prefers 30 minutes and has decided that that will apply to ACF events, including GP events, but in the latter, only after 31 December 2009, remaining at 1 hour 'til then.

Desmond
14-06-2009, 09:32 PM
The ACF prefers 30 minutes and has decided that that will apply to ACF events, including GP events, but in the latter, only after 31 December 2009, remaining at 1 hour 'til then.Is 30 minutes going to be a requirement for events to qualify for the GP?

Bill Gletsos
14-06-2009, 10:14 PM
Is 30 minutes going to be a requirement for events to qualify for the GP?For the 2010 ACF GP the forfeit time will be 30 minutes.
It is a condition of entry into the 2010 ACF GP just like playing at a normal rather than rapid time control is a requirement.

Desmond
15-06-2009, 09:51 AM
For the 2010 ACF GP the forfeit time will be 30 minutes.
It is a condition of entry into the 2010 ACF GP just like playing at a normal rather than rapid time control is a requirement.Well I would have thought it up to the tourmanent organisers to decide what the forfeit time for their event would be.

If the ACF wanted to make all tournaments uniform it would make more sense to make it a requirement for tournaments that are to be ACF rated to comply rather than for just GP events.

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2009, 10:58 AM
Well I would have thought it up to the tourmanent organisers to decide what the forfeit time for their event would be.It is except for ACF and ACF related events where the ACF decided we wanted consistency. Events in the ACF GP are considered ACF related.

If the ACF wanted to make all tournaments uniform it would make more sense to make it a requirement for tournaments that are to be ACF rated to comply rather than for just GP events.For club events it is best to leave them up to the individual clubs.

ElevatorEscapee
15-06-2009, 09:15 PM
^^

Thanks Bill... does this mean we can retain the 1 hour show up late before you forfeit rule in our local Club Championship? (Starting July 2009) without feeling guilty that we are somehow disobeying one of FIDE's directives? :)

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2009, 09:35 PM
^^

Thanks Bill... does this mean we can retain the 1 hour show up late before you forfeit rule in our local Club Championship? (Starting July 2009) without feeling guilty that we are somehow disobeying one of FIDE's directives? :)Correct, however you need to ensure you announce it so that everyone is aware of it.

From the 1st July 2009 I recommend the following general wording:

"Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than xx minutes after the start of the session shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise."

where xx is the forfeit time your club decides to use.