Confusing FIDE Laws

[NickFaulks]

The new Secretary of the RC is Hungarian.

In fact he's Polish, but thanks for alerting us to this appointment, about which I don't think there has been an announcement.

[Jesper Norgaard]

9.6(a) is useful for understanding the FIDE process. We can see the reasoning for this new rule. Increments may mean the game goes on too long. 5 fold ocurrence brings the game into disrepute. But I suggested we give up on it because I couldn't draft the correct English at short notice. Obviously a majority disagreed with me.

Sorry to (continue to) be a bit thick, Stewart, but I'm still a bit confused on this one.

Just a reminder:

9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:
a. the same position has appeared, as in 9.2b, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by each player.

The underlining highlights my area of confusion.
Let me give two sequences which lie at opposite ends of the spectrum:
[FEN "r7/p7/4k3/8/4K3/8/P7/R7 w - -"] 1.Kf4 Kf6 2.Ke4 Ke6 3.Kf4 Kf6 4.Ke4 Ke6 5.Kf4 Kf6 6.Ke4 Ke6 7.Kf4 Kf6 8.Ke4 Ke6
Pretty clear that this satisfies 9.6a. The initial position is repeated 5 times consecutively and all the intermediate positions are repeats. So, both black and white's odd and even moves repeat the position.

[FEN "r7/p7/4k3/8/4K3/8/P7/R7 w - -"] 1.Kf4 Kd6 2.Ke4 Ke6 3.Kd4 Kf6 4.Ke4 Ke6 5.Kf3 Kd7 6.Ke4 Ke6 7.Kd3 Kf7 8.Ke4 Ke6

The question is does this sequence of moves satisfy 9.6a?
Only the even numbered positions with white to move are repeats. They are consecutive and their are 5 of them. Is this enough? Or do we have to have repetitions with Black to move too?

Both examples are correct, and no we don't need both odd and even repetitions.

9.6a. the same position has appeared, as in 9.2b, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by each player.

it could be expressed as
9.6a. the same position has appeared 5 times, as in 9.2b, with each 2 moves repeating the position

I believe this is enough to satisfy that the examples are correct, but avoiding "consecutive", "alternate", "each player" which were unhelpful to understand what was required. The possibility of repeating the position 5 times over more than 8 moves is also avoided, as then it would be false that each 2 moves repeated the position.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Actually the description from the current 9.6a rule "five consecutive alternate moves by each player" is exaggerated/wrong since that would have the position appear six times instead of five - which I assume would not be the intention of the rule designers.

Better is

9.6a. the same position has appeared five times, as in 9.2b, with each two moves repeating the position

[Michael Farthing]

I wonder how many times this rule will be used by an arbiter over the next hundred years? Will it reach double figures?

[NickFaulks]

I would guess that the life expectation of a rule at birth is about eight years.

[Jesper Norgaard]

I wonder how many times this rule will be used by an arbiter over the next hundred years? Will it reach double figures?

Including the sentiment that "the next hundred years" really means "the next 8 years" according to NickFaulks, then I expect that YES we will reach double figures but NO we won't reach triple figures >99.

If both players are determined to avoid a draw at all costs, then they will also seek to avoid allowing a draw through this rule, which means they just have to avoid repeating the same position 4 times.

I would expect this rule to be used more at DGT boards where the proactive arbiter has access to the PGN output and can check if there is a repetition. Arbiters don't like to make decisions that are not watertight, because they can be criticized later.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think the rule was introduced because there were games involving younger children that would just go on interminably with the players going backwards and forwards while not claiming a draw, because they didn't know that they could. So the rule was brought in to give arbiters a way of stepping in in those situations, rather than letting 300-move draws in Under 8 Championships find their way into databases.

[Stewart Reuben]

Michael Farthing >I wonder how many times this rule will be used by an arbiter over the next hundred years? Will it reach double figures?<

I'll let you know in 2114.

Children often repeat more than 3 times, not knowing even that a draw by repetition can be claimed. A good arbiter intevenes and puts them out of their misery.

The rule is a bit of a bee in the bonnet of Geurt Gijssen. He had a situation where Ljubojevic and another GM got obstinate and repeated 9 times before he stepped in. Eventually you use 11.1.

The 75 move rule is different. Q + N + K v R + B + N + K could legitimately be played on by both players to win. In one position, the side with the queen has a forced win of a piece in over 500 moves. Then it takes a few more to deliver mate. There is a database of positions with up to 7 pieces. I could ot understand the logic of the moves being made.
With increments that would be impossible.
I didn't know this. When 75 was suggested, we all voted in favour of that number without giving it further thought.

[NickFaulks]

With increments that would be impossible.

Sorry, I'm missing something. Surely you would need increments for such endings to be played out.

[Stewart Reuben]

Apologies, I failed to make myself clear.
If you have an increment of 30 seconds then, from the moment that position started, it would require about 8 hours extra thinking time to be available. If it were 5 seconds, then it would require 80 minutes extra.
It would be impossible to schedule a 30 second increment. 5 seconds would be impossible with 2 rounds a day. 1 round per day would be feasible. But to organise an event, based on such an unlikely occurrence, would be very inefficient.
Even with the more realistic rules, a 30 second increment is difficult to schedule for the caretaker and cleaners.
Thus, having a cutoff, which is currently 75 moves, is more practical.

[Roger de Coverly]

The 75 move rule is different. Q + N + K v R + B + N + K could legitimately be played on by both players to win.

Another solution might be that at a sufficiently high number of moves, the increment is withdrawn. If you wanted to concentrate the minds of the players on agreeing a result, you withdraw Appendix G as well.

It was suggested that instances of arbiters actually declaring a draw by 75 moves or 5 times repetition was vanishingly small. Is anyone keeping records?

[Michael Mkpadi]

One of the most confusing FIDE Laws has to be the rule on scribbling on a score sheet. I have no desire to resurrect the debate about Wesley So as he was wrong in what he did and has admitted it.

I am talking about the additional information us tournament players like to put on their score sheet such as the quite legal time control scribble marking move 40. Many players scribble other things connected to move 40 such as moves left, time of move or time taken, and any number of scribbles, marks and crisscross lines used to give them more information or prompt them.

So the confusing thing is apart from marking move 40 and writing down the move times what else is allowed on our score sheets? Can't we have some clarity for this once and for all?

[Stewart Reuben]

Michael >So the confusing thing is apart from marking move 40 and writing down the move times what else is allowed on our score sheets? Can't we have some clarity for this once and for all?<

No, we can't if the only person known to be calling for that, writes One of the most confusing FIDE Laws has to be the rule on scribbling on a score sheet.

Scoresheet in the glossary: A paper sheet with spaces for writing the moves. This can also be electronic.
8.1b. tells us what the scoresheet can be used for. That, of course, does not include scribbling. Other relevant data can be a bit unclear, but most know what it means. If you choose to write the colour of the arbiter's tie on the scoresheet, you probably won't be challenged, But it shouldn't be there,

[Roger de Coverly]

Other relevant data can be a bit unclear, but most know what it means.

An explanatory note might be helpful. Relevant data could include the time control and the start of the next round, as well as the opponent, their Federation and rating. The world champion has demonstrated that knowing the exact details of the time control is a necessary skill. But are you expected to remember without "notes" what the arbiter said four hours earlier or what you agreed to when you signed up for the tournament?