Do Arbiters Know The Rules Of Chess?

[Chris Rice]

There is an very interesting article by GM Serper on Chess.Com about how beneficial it is to know the rules so you can use them to your advantage. However, the Norwegian GM Jon Hammer later tweeted "Disgusting blog from GM Serper on how to exploit the letter of the law instead of the intention of the law."

I must admit, particularly after being on this forum, that the interpretation of the rules can be difficult and I really should know them better. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor inclination to study the rules in depth and end up having to rely on the arbiter for fair and just rulings or at least what I would consider to be fair and just whether its technically in the rules or not.

http://www.chess.com/article/view/do-ch ... s-of-chess

[Roger de Coverly]

However, the Norwegian GM Jon Hammer later tweeted "Disgusting blog from GM Serper on how to exploit the letter of the law instead of the intention of the law."

There was an admission that he had exploited an opponent not using the exact prescribed method to make a three fold repetition claim. More often than not, both players are willing to agree a draw, but in this case it appears the repetition was used to reach a time control and he was able to have the claim rejected.

It is a something of an anomaly, that when arbiters got their way about not writing moves down before playing them, they left the procedures for claiming repetitions and 50 move draws unchanged, rather than make it possible for a player to claim that the move they had just made repeated the position.

[NickFaulks]

I'm with Serper, although coming from a slightly different direction. If a rule is stupid, the best way to get it changed is by making sure it is enforced rigorously and letting the whole world see the result. The widespread approach of "it's obviously daft so let's ignore it" always ends in tears.

ps. I was 100% behind Monika Socko. If that didn't convince the authorities that all important games should have a 3" increment at the end, then nothing will.

[Nick Burrows]

I'm with Hammer. The game should be played in a spirit of fairness and respect towards your opponent.
Pedantry and the use of obscure technicalities to gain advantage is not what chess is about for me, and frankly shouldn't be for anyone else.

[NickFaulks]

I'm with Hammer. The game should be played in a spirit of fairness and respect towards your opponent.
Pedantry and the use of obscure technicalities to gain advantage is not what chess is about for me, and frankly shouldn't be for anyone else.

Indeed, but what invariably happens is that most people play your way, then someone comes along and insists that the game be played according the written rule, with bad feeling all round.

I am an offender here. A couple of weeks ago, in a blitz team event where the rules had been announced clearly, I put my opponent in check and he failed to notice and picked up the wrong piece. I knew I should have claimed the game, and would in his position have conceded it, but he was clearly unaware and played on ( to a draw ). I could not bring myself to say anything, but I know I should have done.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

However, the Norwegian GM Jon Hammer later tweeted "Disgusting blog from GM Serper on how to exploit the letter of the law instead of the intention of the law."

There was an admission that he had exploited an opponent not using the exact prescribed method to make a three fold repetition claim. More often than not, both players are willing to agree a draw, but in this case it appears the repetition was used to reach a time control and he was able to have the claim rejected.

It is a something of an anomaly, that when arbiters got their way about not writing moves down before playing them, they left the procedures for claiming repetitions and 50 move draws unchanged, rather than make it possible for a player to claim that the move they had just made repeated the position.

It may be best that this rule was left unchanged. If you can make the claim after making the move, should it be before you press your clock to complete the move? That might make more sense, but as it stands the rule requires an exact procedure, the reason probably being to avoid people making a move and then realising after a few seconds thought that it might be threefold repetition and then hastily trying to claim before the opponent moves.

I had a situation recently (this season) where this might have been relevant. It was a situation leading up to a time control at move 36 when we would be adjourning. Both players were short of time. I repeated moves and unsure whether I would be allowing a threefold repetition, repeated again on move 36 (I was Black). My opponent then sat and thought about his next move. I carefully checked the scoresheet and position and realised that he had the option of playing (or sealing) a move on move 37 to repeat the position for a third time (37.Kg1). By this time, the playing session had ended and time had been called and my opponent prepared to seal his 37th move.

My opponent later (in the second playing session) said that he hadn't realised that he could have played a move to repeat the position for a third time, and while he considered the move in question, he rejected it as he thought the position would be worse for him (he was right). He played another move and the game was eventually drawn.

I'm guessing there were a couple of possible options:

(i) Sealing 37.Kg1 as an 'open' sealed move (maybe even making the move on the board) and claiming a draw.
(ii) Claiming a draw and announcing his intention to seal 37.Kg1 (and possibly sealing it if needed).
(iii) Writing his claim on a piece of paper with the sealed move and waiting until the second session to claim the draw.
(iv) Sealing 37.Kg1 and waiting until the second session to claim (maybe not realising until after sealing that a claim was possible).

What would be the position of arbiters on those options? In scenario (iv) would I have been obliged to accept the claim, or could I have insisted that we play on? This was league chess, so it might have been that a result was needed for the team.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'm with Hammer. The game should be played in a spirit of fairness and respect towards your opponent.
Pedantry and the use of obscure technicalities to gain advantage is not what chess is about for me, and frankly shouldn't be for anyone else.

I agree, though there is a difference between two players frantically repeating moves to avoid losing on time in a quickplay finish and mutually agreeing a draw, and players repeating to reach a time control. Once that time control has been reached, it is up to the person wishing to claim a draw to do so properly. If they fail to do so, that is their fault.

Threefold repetitions can be forced (in which case the player claiming can force it again) and they can be unforced. I had a game (Q+P endgame) where my king evaded multiple checks from my opponent's queen and I eventually won. The computer pointed out after the game that there was a non-obvious set of threefold repetitions (the repeated positions were several moves apart). My opponent had failed to notice, and I had as well.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you can make the claim after making the move, should it be before you press your clock to complete the move?

It would make sense to align the claim of a draw with the offer of a draw. In other words you inform your opponent before pressing the clock that you are making the claim of a draw, so you do so before pressing the clock. In your opponent's absence you summon the arbiter to observe the claim.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick >I am an offender here. A couple of weeks ago, in a blitz team event where the rules had been announced clearly, I put my opponent in check and he failed to notice and picked up the wrong piece. I knew I should have claimed the game, and would in his position have conceded it, but he was clearly unaware and played on ( to a draw ). I could not bring myself to say anything, but I know I should have done.<

You wouldn't have won anyway unless he had pressed the clock. Illegal moves only lose when the move is completed. Therefore you could have achieved your objective by stopping your opponent pressing the clock after the illegal move. Since the opponent had made an irregularity, an arbiter should have awarded you an extra one minute on the clock.

In Christopher Kreuzer's story, his opponent could have claimed the draw, writing the open sealed move on the scoresheet. He could then stop the clocks and the truth be established. But, if he even touched the king, he would lose the right to claim as in 9.4. Thus (iv) would not secure a draw.
If somebody sealed Kg1 and wrote on the scoresheet that he was claiming a draw, keeping the fact secret, I might even forfeit him! How dare he mess the opponent around in this fashion?

Mind you, in 1982 in Torquay, a 16 year old Barbadan boy sealed 'resigns'. When asked why he did that, he said, 'Because the arbiter told me to seal my next move.'

Harry Golombek GM. IA once said, 'The players seem deliberately not to want to know the full Laws. They feel that it is in some way unethical.'

But the title of the thread was 'Re: Do Arbiters Know The Rules Of Chess?'

The answer is some of us, some of the time.

[Ian Thompson]

If somebody sealed Kg1 and wrote on the scoresheet that he was claiming a draw, keeping the fact secret, I might even forfeit him! How dare he mess the opponent around in this fashion?

So how would you suggest a player deals with the situation when he is required to seal his next move, he thinks a particular move will be a three-fold repetition, but isn't absolutely sure he's right, and he doesn't want his opponent to know what his sealed move is in case he's wrong and the game has to continue?

Immediately telling the arbiter what he'd done would be an obvious thing to do, but that doesn't really help. The evidence to prove, or disprove, the claim - the scoresheets - are sealed in the envelope and the arbiter shouldn't open the envelope without the opponent knowing what's going on.

[Stewart Reuben]

Once the player has sealed his move and stopped the clocks, he loses the right to claim repetition. E.1.a makes it clear that the sealer can write the move on the scoresheet, but change it until he stops the clock.
This seems to me fair. A player thinks he has the right to claim. But he seals the move and stops his clock. Why should he have the luxury of deciding away from the board whether the position has occurred three times?

I note you have made a common mistake. You refer to three-fold repetition. That would mean the position had occurred four times.
9.2a refers to the same position for at least the third time.

Of course the rules could be as when playing online, but when playing live on an electronic board recording the game. Then, when the compter spottted threefold occurrence, it could announce a draw. 9,6a envisages the possibility of the position occurring five times. Then the arbiter must step in and declare the game drawn. This has happened and hitherto the arbiter had to rely on the 'bringing the game into disrepute' law.

[E Michael White]

The chess rule, of which Arbiters seem least aware or choose to ignore, is this one:-

The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed

Many arbiters seem to think they can use the statement in the rules preface to override a rule they do not like. Whereas the preface simply states what should happen when the rules do not cover a particular situation.

Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws.....

Arbiters need to understand their role in the scheme of things which is of Tournament Administrator not as a figure of status or authority who rules as (s)he wishes. Any deviation from this is likely to delay recognition of chess as a sport in the UK as the setup will be seen as badly organised and run by wishy-washy arbiting. Properly organised I believe chess could be regarded as a sport within about 5-10 years with associated advantages.

[Stewart Reuben]

Chess is possibly the sport where the arbiter intervenes least. E Michael's experience of the actions of arbiters does not coincide with mine.
This is not the problem with getting chess recognised as a sport. It is due to the intransigence of SportEngland and/or the lack of interest of politicians in the subject in amending the 1937 bill.
Since SportEngland is currently implacably opposed to chess receiving a grant from their funds, it doesn't seem important to be recognised as a sport.
But, if we did not have to levy VAT on entry fees for the British Championships and memberships fees of the ECF, that would be worthwhile. Golf went to the European Court about this and won.

[Roger de Coverly]

But, if we did not have to levy VAT on entry fees for the British Championships and memberships fees of the ECF, that would be worthwhile.

The VAT authorities are aligned with Sport England on that. Hence the English Bridge Union case.

http://www.ebu.co.uk/node/2029

By historic accident, the structure of British chess as a federation of small but independently financed bodies obtains much of the VAT advantage that the EBU with a far more centralised structure is now seeking.

[Stewart Reuben]

The alignment of the VAT authorities with SportEngland is not written in stone (even of the type Ed Miliband used).