1 1/2 points per game

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:47 am

Christopher. When a player has released a piece on the square, he has made the move. provided it was legal. This immediately finishes the game in the following five situations where it was:
1. Checkmate
2. Stalemate
3. 9.7 Of the nature that neither side can possibly deliver checkmate. e.g. K + N v K. See http://rules.fide.com/faq/13-faq/96-rtrc-faq.html 9.7 for more fanciful examples.
4. 9.6a. where the same position has appeared, as in 9.2b, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by each player.
5. 9.6b. Any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn an without any capture. If the last move resulted in chckmate, that shall take precedence.

4 and 5 were new to the Laws which took effect 1 July 2014. I expect 9.6a to change 1 July 2016 in view of decisions that will be made in Abu Dhabi this September.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:02 pm

Ah, I think I get it now. The reason for the focus on illegal moves has been because of the way you can lose a game after making illegal moves? So people have been defining precisely when an illegal move is 'completed'? So for legal moves the bit that matters is when you touch and release the piece. For illegal moves, the bit that matters is when you press the clock. Is that right?

Is another way of saying this is that if you make an illegal move with a piece that cannot make any legal moves, then touch-move can't apply? (I knew that already, but it helps to have it confirmed). A common situation is someone not realising a piece is pinned to the king and trying to move it. If the pinned piece can *capture* the pinning piece, then a legal move is possible. If not, then no legal move is possible with that piece.

Of course, if someone carefully and deliberately touched and adjusted all their pieces that were unable to move (blockaded pawns for example) just to annoy their opponent, the arbiter would rightly come down on them like a tonne of bricks for distracting the opponent. It can be tempting though. :D

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

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:37 pm

The first paragraph is correct as far as moves finishing games is concerned.
However, your move does not finish the game. The flag falls before you have pressed the clock. Your last move was the 40th of the first time control and you had video evidence that your hand quite the piece before the flag fell. You still lose the game because you have not completed 40 moves.

Second para. If you try to make a move with a piece that cannot be moved, then of course touch-move can't apply. If you complete that illegal move, there is of course a penalty. Your king might be on e8. you are checked by a Queen on a4. Trying to move a knight on g8 is illegal. The arbiter might penalise you, although you never completed Nf6 by letting go of it and pressing the clock.

Last para. As an arbiter it mibht be tempting to come down any time on the player like a ton of bricks. It makes little difference if it is a ton or tonne. The difference is only 40lbs. But, in my limited experience, I have never come across the behaviour you describe.

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

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:01 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote: The flag falls before you have pressed the clock. Your last move was the 40th of the first time control and you had video evidence that your hand quite the piece before the flag fell. You still lose the game because you have not completed 40 moves.
Assuming no video evidence, suppose that it's White's 41st move and he observes that Black's flag is down. I would hope that White has a valid claim of a win on time, assuming no actual arbiter observation, but I think I've seen alternative interpretations. If White actually makes a 41st move, he would forfeit any right to claim.

E Michael White
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by E Michael White » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:19 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Assuming no video evidence, suppose that it's White's 41st move and he observes that Black's flag is down. I would hope that White has a valid claim of a win on time, assuming no actual arbiter observation, but I think I've seen alternative interpretations. If White actually makes a 41st move, he would forfeit any right to claim.
Roger, I think you need to break this down to several separate scenarios depending on whether the moves are made or completed and whether any illegal moves were completed.

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

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Brian Towers » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:20 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:When a player has released a piece on the square, he has made the move. provided it was legal. This immediately finishes the game in the following five situations where it was:
1. Checkmate
2. Stalemate
3. 9.7 Of the nature that neither side can possibly deliver checkmate. e.g. K + N v K. See http://rules.fide.com/faq/13-faq/96-rtrc-faq.html 9.7 for more fanciful examples.
4. 9.6a. where the same position has appeared, as in 9.2b, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by each player.
5. 9.6b. Any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn an without any capture. If the last move resulted in chckmate, that shall take precedence.
The rules (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article) certainly agree with you regarding 1, 2 and 3 but not 4 and 5 for obvious reasons. I've asked international arbiters from two different federations and they agree that this is a "Bishop Berkley" case (if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it fall did it really fall?). If an arbiter doesn't see it happen then it doesn't count as a draw. In other words, neither of these events "immediately finishes the game".

If there was a stalemate on the board and both players played on (obviously playing at least one illegal move in the process) and one of them then lost the loss wouldn't count if the stalemate was later noticed, say by a teammate going over the game, because "stalemate ends the game".

If the same situation occurred with either 5-fold repetition or 75 moves with no captures or moves the game would remain a loss because neither occurrence "ends the game".

Edit: Dear me, the rules are badly written. Stalemate, checkmate, resigns, etc are defined as game ending events. The two draw options are not.
However, in 6.2 a we have this cheeky little aside:
FIDE Handbook 6.2 a wrote: A move is also completed if: 1.the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c, 9.6a, 9.6b and 9.7),
the implication of which is to add the two new draw options to the list.

This begs the obvious question: what happens in games where score keeping is not required like rapid and blitz, or the last 5 minutes where there is no increment?

A real can of worms for arbiters.
Last edited by Brian Towers on Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

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

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Brian Towers » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:39 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Of course, if someone carefully and deliberately touched and adjusted all their pieces that were unable to move (blockaded pawns for example) just to annoy their opponent, the arbiter would rightly come down on them like a tonne of bricks for distracting the opponent. It can be tempting though. :D
No. If you complain to the arbiter he will likely warn your opponent, at least for a first offence, if he judged that your opponent was deliberately trying to annoy rather than deliberately adjust the pieces (eg if he actually picked one of the pieces up). It is his turn and if he'd first said "j'adoube" the warning would be to you for wasting the arbiter's time.

Note that some white players will start the game by saying "j'adoube" before adjusting all their pieces and possibly some of yours as well. A very small minority will omit the "j'adoube". This is still perfectly legal because it is clear that they are touching the pieces with the intention of adjusting rather than moving or capturing. It may be bad manners but is not something that calls for intervention from the arbiter whether you call him to complain or not.
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: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:47 pm

E Michael White wrote: I think you need to break this down to several separate scenarios depending on whether the moves are made or completed and whether any illegal moves were completed.
There's only one scenario. Black has played a legal 40th move and started White's clock. It's then observed that the Black flag has fallen. As White I would claim the game, but I'm not sure all arbiters would support the claim.

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

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Brian Towers » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:53 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:There's only one scenario. Black has played a legal 40th move and started White's clock. It's then observed that the Black flag has fallen. As White I would claim the game, but I'm not sure all arbiters would support the claim.
I'm not sure any good arbiter could deny your claim in view of 6.8 and 6.9 which are very clear:
6.8
A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

6.9
Except where one of Articles 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player.
You bring to the arbiter's attention that black has made his 40th move but not completed it because his flag has fallen. What could be clearer? He has stopped his clock and started yours but his flag has already fallen.
Last edited by Brian Towers on Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

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

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:04 pm

Brian. The 5 fold occurrence of position was possibly the most difficult law I have had to write. I suggested 9,6(a) be abandoned because of that.

The position has occurred 5 times with the same player to move each time. But nobody notices, including the arbiter. He is much more likely to notice if they are one after another. My associates disagree and want to remove the word consecutively.
For obvious reasons the Laws agree with me. I wrote that one.
The game 'continues'. There is a different result. Let us say White wins.
Both players sign the scoresheet as 1-0. Later it is discovered there was a 5 fold occurrence of position earlier. What is the result?
8.7 tells us the result stands unless the arbiter decides otherwise. e.g. He might decide draw - if it is one minute later. He will decide 1-0 if it is after the next round in a Swiss has taken place.
His decision is subject to appeal.

E Michael White
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by E Michael White » Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:13 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:There's only one scenario. Black has played a legal 40th move and started White's clock. It's then observed that the Black flag has fallen. As White I would claim the game, but I'm not sure all arbiters would support the claim.
In that scenario it seems to me that these rules apply:-
FIDE rule 6.8 wrote: A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.
FIDE rule 6.4 wrote: Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.3 a. must be checked.
Thus the clock and score sheets have to be examined as soon as the arbiter notices the flag is down or the player claims the flag is down.
FIDE rule 6.3 wrote: When using a chessclock, each player must complete a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time with each move.
As the clock has only been recording Black's time taken prior to Black completing his 40th move the game has been won by White.

As to what to do if the arbiter disagrees:-

a) ask him/her why. The most likely reason is that you didn't claim immediately. If so point out that the flag had not fallen until you make the claim so that by definition you did claim immediately.
b) if they do not award it to you or give an inappropriate reason make an appeal.
c) if no appeal is possible c1) withdraw from the event c2) inform the ECF Director of Home chess about the arbiters decision. He has the power to suspend arbiters who cannot fulfil their roles. c3) ask the organisers to refund your entry fee.
Previously Roger de Coverly wrote:If White actually "makes" a 41st move, he would forfeit any right to claim.
I'm not convinced that that is correct. It is if White "completes" his 41st move before claiming, as Black's clock is recording and it is not clear whether black's 40th move was completed after flagfall. I can't see anything in the rules that says the claim lapses after White "makes" a move, without pressing the clock, as White's claim and the flagfall happen simultaneously, and as above, according to the rules Black had not "completed" his 40th move in time although he had "made" it. Black's clock was only recording Blacks time while it was his turn to move.

However its not even as simple as that; there are real complications in the sequence :-

Black makes his 40th move but does not press the clock - White replies with his 41st and tries to press the clock but cannot as it's already recording as Black's time. At that point if White makes a claim Black has not yet completed his 40th move and his flag has fallen. The rules may not say here what players wish the rules to say.
.
Roger de Coverly wrote:but I think I've seen alternative interpretations
I would not be surprised at that. I have played since 1956 and seen a great number of conflicting interpretations by National Arbiters under identical circumstances; you only need to read through comments made on this forum by both new and Senior Arbiters.

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

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:20 pm

Here is an interesting situation that could arise, albeit infrequently.
The event is a Swiss being held outside the UK. Thus Bucholz or Sonneborn-Berger are used to break ties. It is the last round of a tournament.
White completes his 40th move in good time and Black makes his 40th. But he forgets to press his clock, thus not completing his move. He goes to the toilet. White is oblivious of this and continues thinking. The arbiter starts to hover, unobtrusively but anxiously.
Black returns, realises what he has done. Says 'oops' and presses his clock, but his flag falls.
The Arbiter correctly declares that Black has lost on time.
White says, 'No. He made his 40th move is good time. Let's continue the game'.
The arbiter demurs, but White says it is following Article 12.2a. The arbiter shall ensure fair play. (A new Law introduced 1 July 2014)
The arbiter says 'OK, its your game' and the game continues.
A third player now complains. It might be after completion of the game when White didn't win. He has played White, but not Black. Thus his Bucholz tiebreak isn't as good. He appeals.
What should the decision of the Appeal Committee be?

geoffgammon
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:01 pm

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by geoffgammon » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:56 pm

The appeals committee should surely uphold the arbiter's original decision that White won on time when Black's flag fell.

6.8
A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

The arbiter observed the flagfall and correctly awarded the loss.

I cannot believe that Article 12.2a was intended to be used to override the Laws of Chess at a player's request.
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is obviously as confused as I am!

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

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:28 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:The arbiter says 'OK, its your game' and the game continues.
A third player now complains. It might be after completion of the game when White didn't win. He has played White, but not Black. Thus his Bucholz tiebreak isn't as good. He appeals.
What should the decision of the Appeal Committee be?
The arbiter's decision was not in accordance with 12.2 b) "The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition."

Allowing players to ignore rules is unlikely ever to be in the best interests of the competition because anything they agree is likely to have an adverse effect on someone else in the tournament.

Let's change your example slightly - it's the last round and Black will win a rating prize if he draws or wins the game, but someone else gets it if he loses. White is over the rating limit and not eligible for the prize. Would anyone say Black's loss on time shouldn't be enforced in these circumstances?

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

Re: 1 1/2 points per game

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:23 pm

LOL, of course, law 12.2b could reasonably be held to have some bearing on the original question of when it might be reasonable to award 1 1/2 points in respect of a single game. The arbiter should obviously take into account the circumstances of the game in question but to what extent does any requirement to "act in the best interest of the competition" require him or her to take account to take into account the impact of his or her decision on other players in the competition?

Post Reply