2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Ian Thompson » Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:07 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:I've wondered about the one-handed move requirements. What would be wrong with permitting two-handed moves, so long as the last hand touching a piece was the one that pressed the clock?
Difficulty in determining which was the last hand to touch a piece when the pieces are moved almost simultaneously, meaning that players would, even if not deliberately, press the clock before completing their move and get away with it.

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

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:17 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:I've wondered about the one-handed move requirements. What would be wrong with permitting two-handed moves, so long as the last hand touching a piece was the one that pressed the clock?
Difficulty in determining which was the last hand to touch a piece when the pieces are moved almost simultaneously, meaning that players would, even if not deliberately, press the clock before completing their move and get away with it.
I mean the last hand to let go of the last piece you need to have moved to have considered the move "made". So if I pick up the king with the left hand, the rook with the right hand, then put down and release the king with the left hand, and put down and release the rook with the right hand, then I have to use the right hand to press the clock. If it isn't clear which hand released last, then use whichever hand.

There's already a rule that says you can't hover over the clock to press it. So you could use that to stop the traditional infringements of this nature.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Ian Thompson » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:18 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:If it isn't clear which hand released last, then use whichever hand.
That's the problem. If you don't know which hand is the correct one to use, sometimes the player will use the correct one, sometimes he won't, and when he doesn't he'll save a little bit of time.
Alex Holowczak wrote:There's already a rule that says you can't hover over the clock to press it. So you could use that to stop the traditional infringements of this nature.
That wouldn't be an issue in this situation where a player is letting go of two pieces almost simultaneously.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Brian Towers » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:59 pm

Can somebody explain to me how the following is supposed to work from the arbiter's point of view?
FIDE Laws of Chess 2017 wrote:6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
6.2.1.1 the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.6.1 and 9.6.2)
...
9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
...
9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:
9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.
So, a five fold repetition ends the game in the same way as do checkmate and stalemate.
In very long (100+ moves), decisive games who checks for this? If nobody has that responsibility what happens a day or two later when the losing player has put the game into his Chessbase database only to discover that there was a 5 fold repetition, comes to the arbiter and claims a draw?

Note that there was no requirement for him to check during or immediately after the game to claim a draw. In Plato's world of forms the game was a draw as soon as the fifth repetition occurred.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:11 pm

Brian Towers wrote: Note that there was no requirement for him to check during or immediately after the game to claim a draw.
You don't think perhaps that the player who is worse or losing will make a draw claim should the opportunity arises?

This clause was added by arbiters. I had always supposed it was aimed at players who wilfully played on for the sake of it, thus keeping arbiters from their dinners. If 10.2/Appendix G/losing on time doesn't apply because of increments, how else to terminate a game? They've also added a 75 move rule, to give another way of forcing a conclusion.
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Brian Towers » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:24 pm

Roger, you had a rook. Keith Arkell had a rook and bishop. Finally, after much stout resistance by you he checkmated you on move 145. Unbeknownst to you he had repeated the position 5 times but sufficiently spaced out that you didn't notice. On 30th June 2017 just your tough luck. On 1st July 2017 what?
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Ian Thompson » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:40 pm

Brian Towers wrote:So, a five fold repetition ends the game in the same way as do checkmate and stalemate.
In very long (100+ moves), decisive games who checks for this? If nobody has that responsibility what happens a day or two later when the losing player has put the game into his Chessbase database only to discover that there was a 5 fold repetition, comes to the arbiter and claims a draw?
I think there's a good chance the arbiter would refer the player to Law 8.7 and decline to change the result.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:56 pm

Brian Towers wrote: Unbeknownst to you he had repeated the position 5 times but sufficiently spaced out that you didn't notice.
I would claim at three and be aware to check for it. If you are on 30 second increments, you have a complete score. If you don't because there's no increment or one less than 30 seconds, you would likely never find out for certain. Repetitions are relatively unlikely in the KRB v KR ending, it's the fifty moves of defence that will gain the draw.

I actually made a threefold claim at a tournament within the last six months. My opponent hadn't spotted the idea so we had to "summon the arbiter" to validate it. Both players had a full score. There was an increment but not a 30 second one. As far as I recall, I announced the intention to play Kg2 by writing it on my scoresheet instead of playing it.


Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Geoff Chandler » Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:22 am

I have read with great interest the debate about two hand castling.
I have the solution and once again I am surprised no one else has thought of it before.

When you wish to castle stop the clock, call the arbiter, indicate
which side you wish castle and get the arbiter to do it for you.

Alec Mac. Next FIDE meeting put forward this idea. You can take the credit for it.

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

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:30 am

There has been quite a lot of discussion about this ever since these rules were introduced.

The Law for checkmate (and stalemate) is written like this:

5.1.1 The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

9.6 and 9.7 don't include the emboldened phrase. So if one of those two things happen, the game hasn't ended; so play can theoretically continue.

So let's say the position occurs 5 times, neither players notice, white ends up checkmating black, and they sign for 1-0. Then let's say that either:
(a) Black realises this and contacts the arbiter to inform him, or
(b) The games-inputter keys the game in and spots it.

Can the arbiter unilaterally overturn the signed-for result, without the players consenting?

The answer is that 8.7 applies:
8.7 At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

So the arbiter could decide otherwise, and turn the result into 1/2-1/2. But should the arbiter decide otherwise? Online discussion revealed that in other countries (Greece being the one in particular), they are trained that the result should be overturned and be 1/2-1/2, even in case (b) if neither player spots it. However, I'm not sure this is correct, and I'm not sure this would happen in the UK, having spoken to some arbiters. The game didn't "immediately end" once the 5-fold repetition occurred. The game continued, white checkmated black (thus immediately ending the game), and 1-0 was signed for. I think British arbiters would put much more emphasis on the result that was signed for in this case. In case (b), I wouldn't change the result. In case (a), I'd probably only change the result if both players agreed. The missing phrase "this immediately ends the game" causes the distinction. I certainly wouldn't unilaterally change a result signed for by any players without their knowing about it, otherwise you'll get a "You've got the wrong result!" complaint...

But there is no guidance on what factors the arbiter should consider when deciding whether or not to "decide otherwise".

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:13 am

Alex Holowczak wrote: they are trained that the result should be overturned and be 1/2-1/2, even in case (b) if neither player spots it.
It would need a time limit, as presumably you wouldn't make a change once the pairings for the next round had been published.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:25 am

Michael Farthing wrote: I think that illustrates my point perfectly. Were the rule to be abolished it would have no effect other than to remove needless trivial disagreements and games of chess would be won on skill at the game rather on skill at reading the rules.
Michael,

It is a clear and simple rule to say that once you have played a legal move and taken your hand away, you've played it, end of story. The trouble with adding exceptions is that the question of which exceptions are allowed becomes muddy.

You allow your opponent to castle after first playing Ra1-d1 ( because it seems unobjectionable, whatever the rules say ). Next he plays Bf1-c4, takes his hand away, then shunts the bishop on to b5. I don't know whether you would find that acceptable, but many players wouldn't. He says you just let me do the castling thing, what's the difference? There is a disagreement, which is what the Laws are supposed to prevent.

There is a fully consistent approach at the other end of the spectrum, which is the way we used to play blitz - essentially, you can do anything you like until you press the clock. We do not need to list the problems with that, but anything in between will cause trouble.
Last edited by NickFaulks on Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Brian Towers » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:31 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: they are trained that the result should be overturned and be 1/2-1/2, even in case (b) if neither player spots it.
It would need a time limit, as presumably you wouldn't make a change once the pairings for the next round had been published.
No, that's not correct, Roger.

If in your (the arbiter's) judgement an injustice has been done then redoing the pairings is a trifling consideration.

I once published the 2nd round pairings only for one of the organizer's helpers to come up to me and say "I see you have given player B 0 because he didn't turn up to play player A. When I took player B's entry he asked for a half point bye in round 1 but I forgot to make a note and pass on the message. Sorry about that."

The solution was to go back in Swiss Manager, change the round 1 pairings to give player A a one point bye (not his fault we screwed up), give player B the half point bye he requested and keep the rest of the pairings the same, re-enter the results, redo the pairings, publish.

Now suppose that for whatever reason that hadn't been pointed out to me until the pairing for the last round (5) had been published. I suspect I would have fiddled the round 4 results, redone the pairing, published (so as not to delay the last round) and then spent the first hour or two of round 5 going back to round 1, fixing the error and entering manual pairings and results for the first 4 rounds.

Now suppose the problem wasn't reported until after the prize giving and that player B should have had a prize but didn't get one. SEP. The organizer can sort that one out.

So, how does that compare with the missed 5 fold repetition problem? The suggestion seems to be that in England 8.7 would be interpreted to mean that once scoresheets have been signed there is no going back, so no comparison. On the continent, meanwhile, they would go back, but how far?
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:55 am

Brian Towers wrote: So, how does that compare with the missed 5 fold repetition problem? The suggestion seems to be that in England 8.7 would be interpreted to mean that once scoresheets have been signed there is no going back, so no comparison. On the continent, meanwhile, they would go back, but how far?
Elsewhere in the Rules, it says that a flag fall has to be observed by an arbiter or claimed by a player. Wouldn't it resolve the issue that a five fold repetition or 75 moves has be observed by the arbiter whilst the game is still in progress? The players can claim from threefold or 50 onwards.

There are some openings that can end in a draw very quickly, but it's also possible for one side to vary. Examples might be Ng5 in the Zaitsev and the Najdorf with the Be3 Ng4 Bc1/g5 sequence. Players use these sometimes not just to gain extra increment time, but also to evade rules preventing them drawing before move 30 or 40. Particularly if the no draw rule was that players had to ask the arbiter for permission to agree a draw, playing out a five fold repetition could put the arbiter in a difficult position.

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

Re: 2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 04, 2017 3:10 pm

There is a clear regulation here regarding "how far you go back" when it comes to changing wrong results (my italics).

https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article


8. If either
  • a result was written down incorrectly, or
  • a game was played with the wrong colours, or
  • a player's rating has to be corrected (and playing numbers possibly recomputed as in C.04.2.C.3),
and a player communicates this to the arbiter within a given deadline after publication of results, the new information shall be used for the standings and the pairings of the next round. The deadline shall be fixed in advance according to the timetable of the tournament.
If the error notification is made after the pairing but before the end of the next round, it will affect the next pairing to be done.
If the error notification is made after the end of the next round, the correction will be made after the tournament for submission to rating evaluation only.

So if there's a wrong result from Round 1, and as a player, you notice the wrong result after Round 3 has been paired, bad luck. There's some logic to this - otherwise you'd wait until the last round to tell the arbiter, and thus have benefitted from (effectively) getting downfloats all the way through the event, and in theory getting easier pairings as a result, which mean you might win a prize you weren't entitled to.

You could argue in these cases that the result was not written down incorrectly. "Written down incorrectly" implies that they both agreed a draw and accidentally both wrote 1-0 on the scoresheet. A mental lapse. It doesn't imply that they subsequently discovered there was a reason why the result they agreed to wasn't the one they could have agreed. But perhaps best not to go there?

Post Reply