2017 Laws of Chess: FIDE Handbook discrepancy

[Tim Harding]

Help!!

New FIDE laws of chess came into effect yesterday, 1 July.
I wanted to create an MS Word file in which I could highlight the changes.

So I went to the FIDE website and found the HTML version,
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article
and cut and pasted this into Word and started to study it.

But then I looked at the Table of Changes
http://rules.fide.com/images/stories/La ... GA__PB.pdf

and the PDF version of the new Laws at
https://arbiterschessa.files.wordpress. ... s_2017.pdf

I found some differences. Can somebody please get this clarified quickly here and at the FIDE website.

See for example:
7.2.1
and
7.5.1/ 7.5.2

In both these cases (where not just the wording but the required actions are quite different) the HTML version on the FIDE website seems to be the 2014 wording.

I think the PDF versions as indicated in the table of changes is correct?

So at this point I have stopped until the matter is fixed.

I think a senior arbiter should answer this quickly please.

[LawrenceCooper]

Help!!

New FIDE laws of chess came into effect yesterday, 1 July.
I wanted to create an MS Word file in which I could highlight the changes.

So I went to the FIDE website and found the HTML version,
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html ... ew=article
and cut and pasted this into Word and started to study it.

But then I looked at the Table of Changes
http://rules.fide.com/images/stories/La ... GA__PB.pdf

and the PDF version of the new Laws at
https://arbiterschessa.files.wordpress. ... s_2017.pdf

I found some differences. Can somebody please get this clarified quickly here and at the FIDE website.

See for example:
7.2.1
and
7.5.1/ 7.5.2

In both these cases (where not just the wording but the required actions are quite different) the HTML version on the FIDE website seems to be the 2014 wording.

I think the PDF versions as indicated in the table of changes is correct?

So at this point I have stopped until the matter is fixed.

I think a senior arbiter should answer this quickly please.

Have you e-mailed any of them?

[Tim Harding]

No, why should I? I am not an official or an arbiter and I wouldn't know who to email. (Remember, I am not in the UK.)

I posted this as soon as I spotted it.

This is FIDE's mess to sort out. I thought I might get some thanks for pointing out the problem.

[Alex McFarlane]

The FIDE Presidential Board made changes to what had been 'agreed' in Baku.

There have been arbiters' seminars and a FIDE on-line conference to try to establish what the Laws actually are.

What is clear is that nothing is clear and probably won't be until the FIDE Congress in October. The new Arbiters' Handbook is due out imminently. It will (allegedly) clarify some matters.

Once it appears information/clarification will start to appear.

An example of a PB rule is that making (not completing) a move with 2 hands will be illegal. Further discussion though suggests that promotion with two hands is a more severe offence than castling with both hands. Reason it happens later in the game.

[Tim Harding]

So the FIDE World Cup and other important events will be played without general agreement on the rules?

What a fiasco.

[Alex McFarlane]

http://rules.fide.com/

(and the CAA website) gives the latest. Not sure where your pdf version comes from but it is clearly out of date.

It is unlikely the Laws will change but there may be 'suggestions' such as we had before for the mobile phone in the bag rather than being banned completely as the Laws stated.

The problems will not be at the top level but there are now so many ways to lose by playing illegal moves that many previously FIDE rated events throughout the world will no longer be and 'regional' and less severe variations will apply.
I would doubt if any evening leagues will want to enforce the 2017 FIDE Laws in their entirety.

[Michael Flatt]

Any difficulties or comments on the new Laws can be feed back to FIDE directly via the Secretaries of the Rules and Arbiters Commissions. The relevant email addresses can be found on the directory pages of the ECF website:

Rules Commission: https://ratings.fide.com/fide_directory ... content=25
Arbiters Commission: https://ratings.fide.com/fide_directory ... content=10

[David Robertson]

An example of a PB rule is that making (not completing) a move with 2 hands will be illegal

I can see that making a move with two hands - eg. castling - is reasonably illegal under normal conditions. But what about a piece capture? Most players with ample dexterity can simply 'snap' off the piece with the fingers of one hand. But some veterans, myself included, can no longer do this. So I plonk my piece with one hand, and lift the captured piece with the other. No opponent has ever grumbled. Presumably this remains legal since one is completing the move with both hands. But who knows?

[Ian Thompson]

An example of a PB rule is that making (not completing) a move with 2 hands will be illegal. Further discussion though suggests that promotion with two hands is a more severe offence than castling with both hands. Reason it happens later in the game.

In that case perhaps we can look forward to a rule that says using two hands early in the game will just result in a time penalty while doing it later in the game will be treated as an illegal move. That would be less ridiculous than trying to classify different types of two-handed move - some openings result in pawn promotions early in the game and others result in late castling, quite possibly meaning that a player will sometimes promote a pawn before castling.

Is it intentional that this rule only applies to moves that require two pieces to be moved? it would not be an illegal move if, for example, you picked up a piece with one hand and put it back on the board, on its new square, with your other hand.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would doubt if any evening leagues will want to enforce the 2017 FIDE Laws in their entirety.

I'm not sure what specific exceptions can be documented if you've already specified that mobile phones don't lose. Perhaps a general expectation of tolerance would be in order. Unless someone pro-actively investigates, no-one other than a handful of arbiters is likely to be aware of the changes. They aren't quite as far reaching as banning writing the move down before playing it.

Never mind two handed promotion or castling, it can be difficult enough to get some club players to press the clock with the same hand as they move the piece.

[Alex McFarlane]

David,

Completing the move is pressing the clock.

What you describe is illegal (though because of your circumstances would not be classed as such). The same would apply to anyone who has difficulty moving with only one hand.

Making a move with two hands cannot be undone. For a normal illegal move if a player corrects it before pressing the clock then no penalty exists. This would not be the case here.

At one point arbiters were being told that castling with two hands whilst in check would count as two illegal moves and would immediately lose. Fortunately the more sensible got that one quashed. But for many of the other changes it has been battering the head against a brick wall.

Ian,

That is why I am waiting on clarification on this. It would have been better if the Laws had said that a second illegal move in a player's final 5 minutes of a session lost the game. (I'm trying to get this interpretation rather than the intended interpretation of any two at any time.)

Roger,
Because it says make, as long as the move is made with one hand, completing it by using the other to press the clock is not an illegal move (although it is illegal). I tried to point out the absurdity of this but all I got was confirmation that it is not an illegal move.

[Tim Spanton]

"It would have been better if the Laws had said that a second illegal move in a player's final 5 minutes of a session lost the game."

Surely this could open up another potential field of arguments over whether an illegal move occurred before or during a player's final five minutes?

[Michael Farthing]

Am I alone in thinking that the needs of the "professional" game and the absurdities of a few awkward so-and-so's is spoiling the game for the vast majority of us who recognise the triviality of all this and simply smile at our opponent and say, "don't worry about it"? I once impishly suggested to Stewart that there should be a rule that notation should be done with the same hand that made the move as otherwise one hand could be used for notation while the other was making the move meaning that the player could potentially be writing a note to himself. Current changes make this suggestion look incressingly on the cards.

[NickFaulks]

Am I alone in thinking that the needs of the "professional" game and the absurdities of a few awkward so-and-so's is spoiling the game for the vast majority of us who recognise the triviality of all this and simply smile at our opponent and say, "don't worry about it"?

I can't entirely agree. Take the question of playing a move and pressing the clock with different hands.

You come across elderly club players who do this, generally with a fair amount of time in between. I don't mind that. However, you occasionally see juniors ( not beginners ) resorting to this practice when short of time and thereby gaining a clear advantage. They must be told to stop it and, if they persist, defaulted. What else can you do?

[Alex Holowczak]

No, why should I? I am not an official or an arbiter and I wouldn't know who to email. (Remember, I am not in the UK.)

I posted this as soon as I spotted it.

This is FIDE's mess to sort out. I thought I might get some thanks for pointing out the problem.

Because if one has an interest in solving the problem, rather than appearing as if you just want a whinge, then informing those who might be able to do something about it directly is the thing to do about it.

Am I alone in thinking that the needs of the "professional" game and the absurdities of a few awkward so-and-so's is spoiling the game for the vast majority of us who recognise the triviality of all this and simply smile at our opponent and say, "don't worry about it"?

No, but don't hold your breath.

I attended the Conference that Alex McFarlane mentioned above. I did suggest in the Chat at one point that it'd be better to do something like this, and the Chair laughed at the idea.

I'd like to see a set of rules, and then other rules for L1, L2, L3 and L4 events. L1 are official FIDE events, L2 are FIDE titlenorm events, L3 are FIDE-rated events, and L4 are other events. These are actually defined in the anti-cheating rules, but we could use them for this purpose here.

This would mean that for L1 events you could have very tight competition rules, but for other levels you can be much more liberal. L4 already exists in some sense, in that the ECF has set its own tolerances for events that it is prepared to grade.