Did the FIDE GA decide anything?

[Roger de Coverly]

I think this is worth a new thread.

We know the venues for the 2015 World Cup and 2016 Olympiad, but deciding these is part of the regular business of the GA.

Revised statutes were agreed, presumably after back room sessions to get the FIDE board and Kasparov to both endorse them.

There's a proposal/agreement to charge arbiters for their titles on a periodic basis.

Anything else? Are we still allowed to resign or agree draws? Are we still allowed to turn up after the clocks have started and expect to be allowed to play? Can we expect digital clocks to always show the time remaining for the move? What about the process for claiming draws for threefold repetition or 50 moves? Is King and Knight v King and Knight now a draw even if the flag falls? etc.

[Alex McFarlane]

Lara and I left our hotel at 3am (so not fully awake) and will both be working on different reports over the next few days.

Brief answers to Roger's questions.

There were apparently long meetings to establish statutes agreement
The Arbiters' fees are a one-off unless the arbiter becomes inactive.
Still allowed to resign and agree draws though a lot of discussion about banning draws
Yes but zero default might still be there for some events
Digital clock issue not discussed to my knowledge but arbiters were orriginally told to set the clocks with move counter on. This was changed before play started to no move counter.
There is no change in Laws regarding draw claims. While the proposal had merit there were concerns that the opponent might make his next move thereby 'invalidating' the draw claim (and no way to prove it was made on time and not retrospectively).
THe proposed drawn positions were thrown out. Too many!

[Paolo Casaschi]

For changes to the laws of chess, Geurt Gijssen will probably compile a report in the next issue of his column at chesscafe.com

[Sean Hewitt]

Digital clock issue not discussed to my knowledge but arbiters were orriginally told to set the clocks with move counter on. This was changed before play started to no move counter.

Which means the Olympiad set the clocks correctly, in accordance with the laws of the game. That'll annoy one forumite in particular!

[Roger de Coverly]

Which means the Olympiad set the clocks correctly, in accordance with the laws of the game.

As a player I would like the clock and arbiters to follow the standards set in
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category
namely

(b) The display at all times should show the time available to complete a player’s next move.

If this conflicts with the provision in

(a) Clocks must function in full accordance with the FIDE laws of chess.

then one or both of them need to be rewritten.

[Alex Holowczak]

Which means the Olympiad set the clocks correctly, in accordance with the laws of the game.

As a player I would like the clock and arbiters to follow the standards set in
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category
namely

(b) The display at all times should show the time available to complete a player’s next move.

If this conflicts with the provision in

(a) Clocks must function in full accordance with the FIDE laws of chess.

then one or both of them need to be rewritten.

The way I read it, it doesn't conflict.

The clock is required to be able to do (b). The DGT 2010 (say) can, if you have the move counter on. The clock is also required to do (a), which it does if you have the move counter off.

Equally, the DGT 2010 meets (i) - (i) In case of accumulative or delay timing systems, the clock should not add any additional time if a player passed the last time control. - if the move counter is off.

Therefore, the clock meets the required standard, so you can use the DGT 2010.

Those regulations don't say anything about doing them all in the same mode. In fact, (a) and (i) say the move counter should be off, but counter on mode is required so that the clock meets standard (b). Those regulations just say what the clock is required to be able to do.

[Roger de Coverly]

(b) The display at all times should show the time available to complete a player’s next move.

So if playing at 40/90 + 30 with 30 second increments, I interpret the phrase "at all times" and "show the time available" to mean that if the 40th move is completed with exactly ten minutes remaining, the clock should count down from forty minutes and thirty seconds for the forty first. I have to keep score with increments, so the clock isn't telling me anything I don't already know. If there's no increment, I agree it does strongly suggest the time control has been reached.

Some interpretations of the laws of chess made by some arbiters are in conflict with the "at all times" wording.

Personally I believe that the Laws of Chess were framed to fit the way the first set of DGT clocks had been programmed. I don't know about elsewhere in Europe, but in the UK it would have been unheard of to delay adding time until the flag fell. Adding time for a quick play finish in British events was getting on for twenty years older than digital clocks and almost as long for FIDE events where the extra time was other than a whole hour.

[Alex Holowczak]

Personally I believe that the Laws of Chess were framed to fit the way the first set of DGT clocks had been programmed. I don't know about elsewhere in Europe, but in the UK it would have been unheard of to delay adding time until the flag fell. Adding time for a quick play finish in British events was getting on for twenty years older than digital clocks and almost as long for FIDE events where the extra time was other than a whole hour.

The problem with doing it "the British way" with clock adjustment is that you risk adding time before n moves have been made. I always find I get distracted by the irritating "Is that move n?" when you're playing white and trying to think of your n+1th move, when you're using analogue clocks. I just don't answer their question nowadays.

An arbiter isn't supposed to reveal any information about how many moves have been made in (say) a time scramble. We're clearly only supposed to involve ourselves if a flag has fallen. The implication from the laws is that a player can't seek any external assistance to find out how many moves have been made. If a player can't seek any external assistance, then the clock shouldn't provide any by revealing that the time control has been made. I suppose at the British, and undoubtedly many other events, with live games being broadcast on the TVs and showing the number of moves that have been made, this is in fact giving evidence to the players of how many moves they've made.

This logic of adding the time when the flag falls was presumably either missed by the people who originally wrote the British rules, or mutually adding the time was not deemed to be a problem.

[Sean Hewitt]

Personally I believe that the Laws of Chess were framed to fit the way the first set of DGT clocks had been programmed. I don't know about elsewhere in Europe, but in the UK it would have been unheard of to delay adding time until the flag fell. Adding time for a quick play finish in British events was getting on for twenty years older than digital clocks and almost as long for FIDE events where the extra time was other than a whole hour.

I think the clock was designed to fit in with the laws of the game rather than the other way around. As has already been observed, it can handle both modes.

In the early days of re-starting the Leicester congress we used analogue clocks. The players reached move 40 and the English player stopped the clock to add on the 20 minutes. His Polish opponent looked at him in surprise and restarted the clock! When the English player stopped in again I was called over and the Polish player (rightly) said that the time should not be added until the first flag had fallen. I had to explain to him that although he was right, in England we don't follow the laws on this correctly. He accepted that, but was not totally convinced.

[E Michael White]

If the rules version accepted at the GA is the same as the draft I was given then the changes would justify a new thread. Pressure to lock it from A****ers should be resisted. I like the addition :-

• 12.6 A player shall have the right to request from the arbiter an explanation of particular points in the Laws of Chess.

.. as its half way to making an appeal against a decision which is normally barred in ENG week end tournaments. The explanations offered could be posted on a website for player perusal and the ECF Home Director and Chief Arbiter asked to comment.

Also the confusion caused by can/may in (newly numbered) section 13.9 is resolved by:-

• 13.9 Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties: ....etc

A****ers will no longer be able to do nothing when the laws required them to act.

[Roger de Coverly]

An arbiter isn't supposed to reveal any information about how many moves have been made in (say) a time scramble. We're clearly only supposed to involve ourselves if a flag has fallen. The implication from the laws is that a player can't seek any external assistance to find out how many moves have been made.

You can apply that logic to non-increment play. With a thirty second increment, you are supposed to keep score, so the players know, without external assistance, how many moves have been played.

Quick-play finishes were first introduced into British chess as an alternative to adjudication. So it was natural to play a defined number of moves and then add extra time. The Laws of Chess were changed when digital clocks were introduced. If they hadn't been, the digital clock would have to be designed so that you initially set them to 4 o'clock or whatever. The clock then counts forwards with a flag symbol appearing every hour. Support in the laws for adding extra time, other than a whole hour, would only have been needed in the International rule set since the early nineties, that getting on for around twenty years after their introduction into British events.

So the order of events is

British events develop quick-play finishes
DGT Clock developed
FIDE rule changes to exploit new options opened up by digital clocks.

[JustinHorton]

I shall add "clock settings" to "membership schemes", "grading systems" and "pairing rules" as "subjects in which I feel utterly out of my depth".

[JustinHorton]

Can we go back to eggtimers?

[Alex Holowczak]

So the order of events is

British events develop quick-play finishes
DGT Clock developed
FIDE rule changes to exploit new options opened up by digital clocks.

What's wrong with that?

[Roger de Coverly]

What's wrong with that?

Nothing except the assertion made that the British conventions for handling additional clock time were devised contrary to the Laws of Chess. It's the other way round, the British conventions were established when the Laws of Chess were silent on the issue.

Equally the first versions of the DGTs only became compliant with the FIDE regulations when the FIDE regs and Laws of Chess were modified to support digital clocks in general and DGT ones in particular.