FIDE Laws Of Chess 2023

[Simon Rogers]

The updated FIDE Laws Of Chess have taken effect from 1st January 2023.
They were approved by the FIDE General Assembly on 07/08/2022.
A link was posted on the North Staffs & District Chess Association website on Thursday 5th January.
https://www.northstaffschess.com

[Matt Mackenzie]

Any significant changes from the previous edition?

[Richard Bates]

https://fide.com/news/2164

[Ian Thompson]

Any significant changes from the previous edition?

If you want a draw, and it's impossible for your opponent to win, you can now get an immediate draw by resigning.

There's no longer a requirement that complete scoresheets go in sealed moved envelopes, but no comment on whether claims can be made once the game has been adjourned that would require a complete scoresheet for verification.

Readability of the rules has not been improved by changing all instances of "he", "him", "his" to be "he/she", "him/her, "his/her". Why weren't they changed to "they", "them", "their" wherever possible, which would probably be almost everywhere?

[John Moore]

Next time you get Bishop and wrong coloured R pawn when your King has access to the relevant R1 square, you can resign and then tell your opponent it's a draw. That will work well in the Lower Snodbury League. Apologies to all players in the Lower Snodbury League

[IM Jack Rudd]

It might work in the Lower Snodbury League. Anywhere with an actual arbiter, you'll get an 0 next to your name.

[Roger de Coverly]

Next time you get Bishop and wrong coloured R pawn when your King has access to the relevant R1 square, you can resign and then tell your opponent it's a draw.

I don't think that's the case.

The new wording says

5.1.2 The game is lost by the player who declares he resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the
opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case the result of the game is a draw

Just hypothetically move the King away from the corner square. It's the same premise that you can lose on time without increments in a totally drawn position if no "unable to win" claim has been made.

[NickFaulks]

Why weren't they changed to "they", "them", "their" wherever possible, which would probably be almost everywhere?

This is apparently unacceptable to non-native English speakers.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Readability of the rules has not been improved by changing all instances of "he", "him", "his" to be "he/she", "him/her, "his/her"."

Agreed. The traditional way in legislation has been to say that "he", "him" and "his" refers also to "she", "her" and her". I believe "Magic The Gathering" has gone the opposite route and refers to "she" and "her", and I understand that people reading the rules manage to work out that it isn't a female-only activity.

[Pete Morriss]

I happened to notice the following:

11.3.2.2 If it is evident that a player has ... a [forbidden electronic] device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.

No mention here of sufficient mating material. That might have been discussed here before, but can a player in such circumstances win their game if they have a bare king? And presumably if the device is discovered after the game has finished (even one second after) then the result has to stand, and the opponent does not win? (I hope that I never have to apply this rule, but I should certainly know it, just in case.)

[Richard Bates]

I happened to notice the following:

11.3.2.2 If it is evident that a player has ... a [forbidden electronic] device on their person in the playing venue, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win.

No mention here of sufficient mating material. That might have been discussed here before, but can a player in such circumstances win their game if they have a bare king? And presumably if the device is discovered after the game has finished (even one second after) then the result has to stand, and the opponent does not win? (I hope that I never have to apply this rule, but I should certainly know it, just in case.)

I don’t see why mating material would be relevant in this scenario since the presumption would be that the device was retained (and available for nefarious use) throughout the earlier course of the game. Not so sure about postgame discovery - might depend on the circumstances I guess. If phones are stored in bags next to the table it’s a bit difficult to extract it post game without carrying it on your person!

[Alex McFarlane]

Hi Pete,

A bit worrying that, as an FA, you were unaware of a Law that has been in operation for a considerable number of years (more than 10?) and one that you should therefore have been applying.
If the player is still in the tournament hall and is found with an active phone then the result of the game should be reversed. Richard's logic would still apply.
FIDE will soon be offering Refresher Seminars for Arbiters. I strongly suggest that you look out for these and register for one as soon as possible.

On a positive, it is good to see that you have read the current Laws. I do wonder why you haven't read previous versions.

[Richard Bates]

Hi Pete,

A bit worrying that, as an FA, you were unaware of a Law that has been in operation for a considerable number of years (more than 10?) and one that you should therefore have been applying.
If the player is still in the tournament hall and is found with an active phone then the result of the game should be reversed. Richard's logic would still apply.
FIDE will soon be offering Refresher Seminars for Arbiters. I strongly suggest that you look out for these and register for one as soon as possible.

On a positive, it is good to see that you have read the current Laws. I do wonder why you haven't read previous versions.

Hmmm. Not sure the laws (or certainly the section cited) says anything about the device being “active” does it? Hence the obvious distinction between “during play” and post game (it’s a bit difficult to leave the playing venue with the device without having it on your person - you would need evidence that it was on your person prior to the end of the game). There is also … “on conclusion of the game a player is considered a spectator”. So objectively this sounds like an interpretation, rather than what the words actually say?

Just being argumentative!

[Alex McFarlane]

Clearly there should be no active phones in the tournament hall.
Anyone found with an active one is liable to find their result recorded as a loss, regardless of how long the game has been finished. This would certainly apply to a player walking out of the hall (unless spotted turning it on - when exclusion from the playing hall until the next round would be the most likely punishment.)

However, my comment was more in reference to the fact that the author was unaware that the final position didn't matter and thought that a draw could be the result if the opponent only had a king. That is a worrying lack of knowledge of the Laws as a player never mind from an arbiter.

[Joey Stewart]

But in 4ncl (and probably other big events) you are allowed a phone as long as it is bagged up on the table - what if a game finishes, the players take their phones back and then one goes and tells the arbiter his opponent has cheated and had a phone and they get flagged with it in their pocket even though it had been safely in the bag the whole game.