Laws of Chess

[Roger Lancaster]

The rule is intending to prevent games that are scored 1-1/2

That can still happen. A is paired against B. B isn't present and A is awarded the point by default. B subsequently establishes that he or she had previously requested a half point bye, which had not been recorded correctly by the pairing mechanism.

I think that's slightly different in that the award of a half-point bye is independent of the game result.

Edit: Nick got in seconds before me but essentially we're making the same point. I can however think of at least one example given to me by arbiters where a highly plausible case could be made for awarding more than a 1 point total for a single game.

[Roger de Coverly]

In your example there was no game.

There was however a published pairing for which a point and a half is awarded. This distorts the pairings for later rounds and in the case of round 10 of the Major Open at Canterbury 2010 could have distorted the prizes and the qualification for the next British Championship.

[Roger Lancaster]

Yes, Roger, and the similar occurrence at Aberystwyth 2014 (which has been discussed ad nauseam here so I shall not repeat details) led to FIDE taking an interest in the matter - hence, I think, the new law.

[Michael Farthing]

Is it not possible that a very good reason for not allowing nt normally used scores (3/4-1/4) in their example is the very simple need for the ratings system to know whether a game should be defined as won or drawn. Ratings can't cope with the implied 'almost won' of 3/4 - 1/4.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Ratings can cope with 0.75-0.25, no problem. If I'm playing someone against whom my expected score is 0.65 and it gets scored as 0.75-0.25 to me, then I get +0.1*K and my opponent gets -0.1*K.

[NickFaulks]

Is it not possible that a very good reason for not allowing nt normally used scores (3/4-1/4) in their example is the very simple need for the ratings system to know whether a game should be defined as won or drawn. Ratings can't cope with the implied 'almost won' of 3/4 - 1/4.

The Rating Regulations already deal perfectly well with that. It doesn't need to be mentioned in the Laws.

[Michael Farthing]

Oh right. Well, there's something that someone's done proper!

[NickFaulks]

Oh right. Well, there's something that someone's done proper!

Did I sound a bit snippy? If so, it wasn't with you.

[Michael Farthing]

No not at all Nick! Happy to be put straight

[Stewart Reuben]

Games do not have to be scored win 1, draw 1/2, loss 0. Ashot Vardapetian would prefer 2, 1, 0 because it takes up less space.
Win 3, draw 1, loss 0 has been in the Laws for some time . That was originally at the request of Michael Basman to me.
Win 3, draw 2, loss 1, loss by default 0 is also Michael's idea and it is used in the UK Chess Challenge. it took me a little time to work out that this effectively is 2/1/0 - provided the loser plays.
Another one
Win 3, Draw 1, Loss 0 is used in some events and the Football League. The idea is that it should encourage more positive play. But that seems doubtful in practice.
I have thought of using:
Win with Black 10, win with White 9; Draw with Black 5, draw with White 4; Loss with black 1; loss with White 0. The reasoning behind that idea seems obvious.
I was Chief Arbiter in Roumania where another system I invented was used. You play and the winner scores 3 and loser 0. If the game was drawn, an Armageddon game was played. The person scoring the point got 2 and the loser 1. Only the original game counted for ratinga and title purposes. To get the computer to cope with 3/2/1/0, it was treated as if a team tournament.

I presume win 3, draw 2, loss 0 would be used if you wanted to encourage draws.

[Alex McFarlane]

I am surprised the following change made by the Presidential Board has not attracted more attention (and adverse comment).

11.2.4, which previously allowed a player on the move to ask the arbiter for permission to leave the playing area has been changed. It is now his opponent who must ask. The implication of this change is that a player on the move cannot leave the playing hall.* The changed wording was effectively used at the Olympiad where it proved to be very unpopular - players going to the toilet having to seek arbiter approval.

* Although this is not explicitly stated, why remove it otherwise. In previous revisions of the Laws the removal meant that it was no longer possible. The most recent example being the removal of the rule stating arbiters could not call flag fall in rapid chess (this has only now been made explicit).

[Alex Holowczak]

"The total score of any game can never
exceed the maximum score normally
given for that game. Scores given to
an individual player must be those
normally associated with the game,
for example a score of ¾ - ¼ is not allowed"

3-1-0 is permitted, but I think the wording prevents something like 3-2-0 from being permitted.

I wasn't sure how it achieves either of those things, but perhaps "the maximum score normally
given for that game" is intended to mean "the score normally given to the winner of that game". That would be consistent.

Yes, I think that's the wording they were aiming for, but I agree that's not necessarily what it says.

[Alex Holowczak]

I am surprised the following change made by the Presidential Board has not attracted more attention (and adverse comment).

11.2.4, which previously allowed a player on the move to ask the arbiter for permission to leave the playing area has been changed. It is now his opponent who must ask. The implication of this change is that a player on the move cannot leave the playing hall.* The changed wording was effectively used at the Olympiad where it proved to be very unpopular - players going to the toilet having to seek arbiter approval.

* Although this is not explicitly stated, why remove it otherwise. In previous revisions of the Laws the removal meant that it was no longer possible. The most recent example being the removal of the rule stating arbiters could not call flag fall in rapid chess (this has only now been made explicit).

I really don't see why it's a problem for a player to have to inform the arbiter (I accept the wording says "report", but I think that's the same thing?) when a player wants to leave the playing area. In cricket, a player or his captain who wants to leave the playing area has to inform the umpire with the reason. The umpire is again informed when the player wants to return, and then the umpire gives permission to do so.

The arbiter is not approving anything - the arbiter just needs to know about it. The wording of the Law isn't linked with going to the toilet - the player could leave the playing area for any reason.

So I don't have a problem with the principle of this Law.

What I do have a problem with, however, is the lack of guidance on precisely what to do if a player does leave the playing area without informing an arbiter. In addition, there are many events where this will be difficult to apply; e.g. the London Chess Classic festival where people pour in and out of the East Hall for most of the round, and there are several different doors to leave it.

[Alex McFarlane]

The wording of the Law isn't linked with going to the toilet - the player could leave the playing area for any reason.

I accept going to the toilet isn't the only reason (smoking being another common one) but it is a reason and therefore the Law is linked to that.
I imagine it is seen as an anti-cheating measure.

[Alex Holowczak]

The wording of the Law isn't linked with going to the toilet - the player could leave the playing area for any reason.

I accept going to the toilet isn't the only reason (smoking being another common one) but it is a reason and therefore the Law is linked to that.
I imagine it is seen as an anti-cheating measure.

That's fine, but by that reasoning, that means in cricket the Law is linked to it. In most cases in cricket, at amateur level it is normally because a player needs the toilet - albeit it's always a fielder and never a batsman...

No one bats an eyelid about it in cricket though, so why is it an issue for chess?