Laws of Chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:02 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:Nonetheless, Geurt was correct.
Take the simpler situation. 1 e4 e5 2 Kh5. He has not pressed the clock and returns the king to e1. Then plays 2 Qh5. The intent was clear and there should be no penalty.
But what if the clock was pressed? It is clearly a completed illegal move. Black has lost time. In a standard play game the clock is stopped. Now comes the tricky bit. the arbiter must decide whether the player has to play 2 Ke2 or allow 2 Qh5. In either case, Black gets an extra 2 minutes.
In a rapidplay or blitz he loses. I think we made a mistake that the first illegal move in a rapidplay loses. There was no appetite for change in the 2017 Laws.

What if the opponent says, 'Oh, it is clear he intended Qh5. Let' get on with our game.' I would simply walk away and let them do precisely that.
I'm not sure I agree with that. The player wasn't adjusting it onto the centre of the square, or standing it up on the square. I always thought that is why the rule was worded as it was. I'd rule that it was touch move on the King in this scenario if I was called in on it (or if it were the sort of event where I noticed it).

However, you're absolutely right that if the opponent was happy for Qh5 to be played, then the arbiter should allow that and let them get on with it.

By the way, if a game really did start 1 e4 e5 2 Kh5, I might check that there isn't a white Queen on e1 before I did anything else. :wink:

Brendan O'Gorman
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Brendan O'Gorman » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:30 pm

John Upham wrote: Brendan,

We would very much like to see photographs of arbiters at their dynamic best.

Please provide a link to such images.
OK, John, ignoring your sneering intent, I've had a shot at doing just that, difficult though it be to produce a pictorial representation of arbiter dynamism: http://brendanogorman.smugmug.com/Chess ... -in-Action

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:48 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
With Roger's point, it would depend how the Queen on e4 was touched. If he went to grab it, with his hand in a claw-like position, then I think I'd rule that he touched it with the intention of moving it. If he just knocked the Queen over on his way to the pawn and knocked it down, then stood it back up, I'd rule not.
Whilst I agree with Alex, I think this illustrates the difficulty an arbiter faces even when he or she is assiduously watching a game. It may not be totally obvious whether the incident is clumsiness or not, in which case the conscientious arbiter (and I hope, despite any pictorial evidence on this thread, I haven't trotted out an oxymoron) faces a tricky decision. That's doubly so if the claimant in this type of situation relies - as a number of players do - on the three words "touch and move" without understanding that intention, or lack of it, enters the equation.

Of course, if the arbiter has been distracted by events elsewhere and didn't see the incident, it's even harder (in my view, at least) to deal adequately with the response, "Yes, I touched the piece but only accidentally".
Last edited by Roger Lancaster on Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Stewart Reuben » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:54 pm

You don't want to see arbiters ruching aound disturbing everybody.
My fondest memory of seeing an arbiter in action is at Hastings. Two rather weak mature players had just fniished their game, a king plus single pawn agaist king endgame. Thy had both made an utter hash of this in the quickplay finish. That was why I was also there.
After the game, David Welh patiently went through the theory. But that wasn't actually being an arbiter. Only one of Brendan's photos actually showed an arbiter doing their job. It was of Lara Barnes. I think all the others are of clerical work.
Before 1986 for the World Championship the two players sat at their board on the stage and were seen in profile. The arbiter sat facing the audience and the cameras and thus was central to the photo. The clock was placed away from the players in the centre, facing the arbiter. So only the players and the arbiter could see the clock.

I hope readers realise the 1 Ju ly 2017 Laws about this has changed, diminishing the arbiters' discretion.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:07 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:Nonetheless, Geurt was correct.
I can follow Guert's logic but am not at all sure I agree with Stewart. Here's why. White rooks on d1, e1, black rooks on e4 and e5 among other pieces.

I pick up the rook on d1 but then realise that, if I move it legally, black will play ...R(e4)xR(e1)+ with a back-row mate to follow. Recovering from my horror, I instead rely on Guert's ruling and play the illegal move R(d1)xe4 when the arbiter will kindly substitute R(e1)xe4, getting me off the back-row hook. That shouldn't, in my 'umble opinion, be allowed.

David Williams
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by David Williams » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:11 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:Of course, if the arbiter has been distracted by events elsewhere and didn't see the incident, it's even harder (in my view, at least) to deal adequately with the response, "Yes, I touched the piece but only accidentally".
If the player didn't have an immediate plausible answer to the question "What move were you intending to make?" I think I would be inclined to disbelieve him.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:22 pm

David Williams wrote:
Roger Lancaster wrote:Of course, if the arbiter has been distracted by events elsewhere and didn't see the incident, it's even harder (in my view, at least) to deal adequately with the response, "Yes, I touched the piece but only accidentally".
If the player didn't have an immediate plausible answer to the question "What move were you intending to make?" I think I would be inclined to disbelieve him.
Good point, although I've seen juniors - in particular - waving their hands over the chessboard while they decide what piece to move. A terrible habit, of course, which any coach should discourage. But, if that waving hand should accidentally touch a piece, he or she would be stuck to give a good response to David's question.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:32 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Stewart Reuben wrote:Nonetheless, Geurt was correct.
I can follow Guert's logic but am not at all sure I agree with Stewart. Here's why. White rooks on d1, e1, black rooks on e4 and e5 among other pieces.

I pick up the rook on d1 but then realise that, if I move it legally, black will play ...R(e4)xR(e1)+ with a back-row mate to follow. Recovering from my horror, I instead rely on Guert's ruling and play the illegal move R(d1)xe4 when the arbiter will kindly substitute R(e1)xe4, getting me off the back-row hook. That shouldn't, in my 'umble opinion, be allowed.
I think this is right.
David Williams wrote:
Roger Lancaster wrote:Of course, if the arbiter has been distracted by events elsewhere and didn't see the incident, it's even harder (in my view, at least) to deal adequately with the response, "Yes, I touched the piece but only accidentally".
If the player didn't have an immediate plausible answer to the question "What move were you intending to make?" I think I would be inclined to disbelieve him.
This is an excellent example of a question an arbiter can ask to skew the odds in the arbiter's favour, which is why I disagreed with the 50/50 comment in the Handbook.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by John Upham » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:05 pm

Brendan O'Gorman wrote:
John Upham wrote: Brendan,

We would very much like to see photographs of arbiters at their dynamic best.

Please provide a link to such images.
OK, John, ignoring your sneering intent, I've had a shot at doing just that, difficult though it be to produce a pictorial representation of arbiter dynamism: http://brendanogorman.smugmug.com/Chess ... -in-Action
An excellent collection, much more comprehensive than I ever took when I was covering chess events !

Thanks for posting these.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

John Foley
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:58 am
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by John Foley » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:43 am

David Sedgwick demonstrates the role of professional arbiter with a sprightly dynamism.
LCC_121207_643-L.jpg
London Chess Classic 2012
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:58 am

"David Sedgwick demonstrates the role of professional arbiter with a sprightly dynamism."

A group of words I never expected to see in the same sentence!

Good picture though. Brendan's picture of me is probably clerical work, but may be I am having a rest, after running between three playing rooms all day.