D.1 - Two Rulings

[Neill Cooper]

Tricky in many local leagues where premises have to be vacated at a set time.

You can adapt the timings (e.g. 5 sec increment) to cope with this.
In any league which allows adjournment then you can go on for 30 mins or more after the end of session anyway (see here)
At our venue, and in school matches, there is no 'vacate by' time.

[Mike Truran]

Paul: Absolutely. Local leagues above all depend on goodwill and sportsmanship given limited playing time, lack of arbiters, non-FIDE rules etc. The OCA guidance to captains includes a "fair play" clause (of course unenforceable in the last resort) reminding captains and players of this.

Neill: A number of clubs in the OCA at least are still analogue based. I suppose until the last one breaks down irreparably we're probably stuck with non-incremental time limits. A number of OCA clubs (church halls, social clubs, pubs etc) are also a bit constrained on closing times.

[Roger de Coverly]

Basically nothing works well if your opponent is unreasonable and the circumstances permit.

There are some problems with increments. If you use 30 second increments, the game might go on for far too long even where the premises can stay open. If you use 10 seconds or less, you could run into problems terminating the game by repetition or 50 move rule because score isn't kept. You could reinstate adjudication where venue time really had run out, you would need a move rate which ensured that it was at a high number of moves and that it wasn't possible to exploit that with 31 minutes on the clock, you had a position you didn't know how to play and 30 minutes to the venue closure time.

If you use an intermediate time control with increments of less than 30 seconds, you have the problem of whether to have the move counter switched on or off. If it's on, then the clock can tell the players, possibly incorrectly, that they've reached the time control. If it's off, then you have the issue, hated by some players, of having to allow the clock to reach zero before getting the extra time.

I expect over time the solutions to these and other as yet unidentified problems will become apparent. One idea not yet explored in league play is to use a setting tried in the Candidates and London Classic, which is that the increment only applies after move x, usually 60. Older digital clocks don't support this, so you may need clock substitution. It may however work in a club with a mixed stock of traditional and digital clocks.

If you can do clock substitution, you have a local 10.2 variant possible, which is that on a 10.2 claim you substitute a digital clock with increment or delay. Another variation on that theme is that you play G/90 but a ten second increment comes into effect when either player is down to ? minutes ( ? is 5 or 2).

[Paul McKeown]

There are some problems with increments. If you use 30 second increments, the game might go on for far too long even where the premises can stay open. If you use 10 seconds or less, you could run into problems terminating the game by repetition or 50 move rule because score isn't kept. You could reinstate adjudication where venue time really had run out, you would need a move rate which ensured that it was at a high number of moves and that it wasn't possible to exploit that with 31 minutes on the clock, you had a position you didn't know how to play and 30 minutes to the venue closure time.

Thames Valley League Rules (amended September 2010):

16

[... snip ...]

If both players agree then Fischer timings with a 5 second increment per move can be used. If such a game is not finished by the end of the playing session then the game must be adjudicated.

[E Michael White]

I am not of aware of this happening but what should be the result in the following Appendix D scenario? :-

A league plays FIDE LP 42/75 + G15 without arbiters and captains don’t act as arbiters. Player A is the exchange up, with 30 seconds left and the opponent has 15 minutes. 75 moves have been made, when A makes a 10.2 claim under both bases, which B decides not to agree. The position is noted on both score sheets. The diagrams and moves are both signed by both players and both sets are submitted to the 10.2 arbiter for the league. So far everything is in accordance with League rules and FIDE Appendix D for QPF without arbiters.

The arbiter then plays through the game to examine the last 10 moves, to see if B was making any attempt to win other than on the clock. He then notices an illegal move was played on move 67, recorded and missed by both players.

I don’t think this is directly covered by the rules but similar situations are:-

FIDE 7.4a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated.

Fide 13.1 requires the arbiter to strictly enforce the rules, which suggests the relevant position to be assessed should be after move 66.

During a LP tournament arbiters are required by rule 13.1 to point out an illegal move if they see one but many don’t do that, believing it is a player’s responsibility to claim it.

So where does that leave things ?

When adjudications were common, FIDE regulations specified that a game was still in progress until the adjudicator made their final decision, so the game would need to revert back to before the illegal move if one occurred.

On the other hand it might be suggested that the situation is similar to well established league rules for adjudications, where a signed position is taken as accurate and any prior illegal moves are ignored. The FIDE ruling was overruled by a BCF variation for BCF Tournaments, which stated that a position once signed would be the position adjudicated; many leagues adopted this for league adjudications.

It might be argued that as both players signed the final position, they certified it as correct and the illegal move should be ignored. On the other hand it might be argued that the players also signed the score sheet moves as required by the rules and so certified those as correct. Both the scoresheet and the final position are required by the arbiter to assess the 10.2 claim and the preceding moves are more important in a 10.2 claim.

So what should a league decide if they are unfortunate enough to meet this situation ?

[Roger de Coverly]

So what should a league decide if they are unfortunate enough to meet this situation ?

I would suggest that you have to work on the basis of the positions as submitted. If the moves are available, that's an added bonus. If both players have less than five minutes, you have no rights to the moves anyway.

If the league rules require the player to complete his moves in less than x minutes, then the only sensible basis for a 10.2 claim is if the position is totally won for the claimant or completely drawn.

Arbiters exaggerate their importance if they believe that a higher standard of play should apply when the game is "observed" than when it isn't.

[E Michael White]

In the 10.2 claims I have seen or heard of, usually one player has much more time than the other so many of the moves will be available. I think this is because with more or less equal times the better placed player will press on. The Bristol League recommends players record down to inside 5 minutes to be able to support 10.2 claims.

Under D1 basis (b) the final position is not really relevant in itself but only as a door stop to end the assessment period over which the arbiter determines whether B has been making any effort to win other than on the clock. There is of course a subtle difference in wording between the arbiter absent and arbiter present rule for 10.2, as the preceding moves have to be taken into account by the arbiter. Granted in some cases these may not be available so the arbiter should see if sufficient progress has been made since the last recorded position.

My point is: should the arbiter point out and be influenced by the illegal move, particularly if made by B; even the most retrenched arbiter might regard that as not normal means.

[Dan O'Dowd]

Firstly, I feel we should distinguish between that which qualifies as "not normal means" and that which doesn't. If a player makes a single illegal move, it would be overbearing to assume this was part of not normal means to try to win - in this situation especially, an exchange down is not a huge material deficit in the first place. If the arbiter is playing over only the last 10 moves, isn't that a bit short-sighted? I agree it's a possible scenario but we should assume the arbiter is competent and should play through the game from the point at which material was gained, or from the start. The arbiter would also, I hope, give benefit of the doubt to the plaintiff re the illegal move.

This all leads to another point - if as Michael says, FIDE rules are being strictly interpreted, and the game is in progress, then the arbiter/players can re-convene, add 2 minutes to A's clock, and the game be supervised, with the arbiter to declare final result. If the arbiter is in no reasonable doubt about the correct answer, this is irrelevant. When adjudicating, the arbiter can look at the whole game, but pay particular attention to manoeuvres or moves designed to gain B some thinking time, or rather, deprive it of A. A similar example, to my mind at least, would be in a K+P v K ending which is theoretically drawn. If a player repeated even one set of moves as the aggressor against a low-time rated opponent, I would be seriously inclined to award the draw if it were claimed, since a repetition shows implicit lack of desire to make progress over the board.

My own personal feeling is that an illegal move without adequate supervision should be treated as accepted by both players, just as a result is once the scoresheet is, as here, signed, since it should be claimed as soon as it is made. Imagine the controversy if the arbiter adjudicated the game from 66, and that before that B made no attempt to win solely on time, and even had a winning position, lost because of his illegal move. This would be close to bringing the game into disrepute I think.

As far as positions, if both sides have any decent portion of material A would be hard pressed to have his claim accepted without particular reason. The closer you get to an endgame without glaringly countered pawn structures or anything odd, the easier it gets for him, and of course pure R V N/B can be given the draw unless there is any danger to A's King.

If venues close at a fixed time, the easiest way is to play with a margin for that closing time, and start earlier, which sounds very haughty but is very true. Up here in Cumbria all of our clubs have digital clocks bar one or two; but I doubt any of our clubs are yet solely digital in matchplay (Carlisle, my club, certainly isn't, though I hope to change that in future), so we use a straight G90 for city championship games, and G120 for county league matches. There is a clause saying Fischer time +30/move can be used with mutual consent, but to my knowledge it's never yet been invoked. Perhaps I'll have to be the first - I have to get my time trouble under control somehow!

[David Sedgwick]

Appendix D states that the claim "concludes the game".

Presumably based on this, the CAA Guidance Notes state that Law 7 (about correcting irregularities) does not apply as the irregularity was not discovered "during the game".

This does seem to me to be the sensible and pragmatic approach.

I've been asked to give a ruling under Appendix D about three times in the last ten years or so. I'd expect to encounter the situation described about once in a hundred years.

So I have to confess that I've not spent a lot of time considering whether the irregularity would influence my decision as to whether or not Player B was trying to win by normal means.

[Roger de Coverly]

If a player repeated even one set of moves as the aggressor against a low-time rated opponent, I would be seriously inclined to award the draw if it were claimed, since a repetition shows implicit lack of desire to make progress over the board.

Ignoring the illegal moves issue, one might hope that a claim by the defender in a drawn K v K+P position would be accepted. The more controversial issue is whether a claim in a lost K v K+P position should be accepted just because the potential winner repeated the position a single time. I would say not, even if arbiters disagree, because you shouldn't have to demonstrate a higher standard of play just because an arbiter is watching.

In a letter to this month's Chess, Mike Basman is critical of increment based time limits, saying they lack drama. Elsewhere too, there are those in FIDE who wish to remove them. If you don't have increments, do arbiters accept that the player who runs out of time should lose regardless of the quality of their opponent's play, with an exception only if the position is completely drawn (or completely won for the claimant)?

(edit) An additional exception being if the watching arbiter notices a threefold repetition of position or counts up to fifty without a pawn move or piece capture (/edit)

[Alex McFarlane]

I agree with David. The game is already ended so there is no possibility of going back as there is with adjournments.

Also, I would expect that you would only look back at the moves if you were unhappy to award the draw on the final position.

As it stands, the situation is too hypothetical to rule firmly.

I disagree with Dan on the single repetition showing a lack of desire to win. It could be a legitimate tactic to use up more of the opponent's time or it could occur due to one line having failed and another being tried from the 'initial' position.
I would also be loathe to automatically award a draw only on my believing the position had occurred for a third time. I could be wrong, especially regarding the player to move.

[Sean Hewitt]

I agree with David. The game is already ended so there is no possibility of going back as there is with adjournments.

Absolutely.

Also, I would expect that you would only look back at the moves if you were unhappy to award the draw on the final position.

Not so sure about this. Doesn't it depend it depend on whether one is considering can't win by normal means (in which case I agree the moves are likely to be less relevant) or not trying to win by normal means (in which case the moves are critical).

[E Michael White]

I had in mind the D1(b) situation where the arbiter should satisfy himself that the opponent has been making progress in the moves leading up to the final position. As the wording for the arbiter absent rule says has been no effort to win by normal means, the moves leading up to the final position are more important than the final position itself. Regarding the final position as set in concrete is unhelpful.

The unsatisfactory part to me is where the only progress is as the result of an illegal move in the last few moves. The arbiter would be aware of the illegal move. I don’t think this is as unlikely as our senior arbiters think. Don’t forget 95% of estimated probabilities are incorrect !

Using the rule that the claim concludes the game does give finality to the process for League games and so is workable but opens up unsatisfactory possibilities/situations. I doubt whether when FIDE specified the game concludes on a 10.2 claim they considered the possibility of a proximate illegal move.

What should be the outcome if a player claims his opponent has made a previous illegal move and then his opponent immediately makes a 10.2 claim ? Is the move legitimised and the game terminated ? DS seems to suggest that.

Likewise a rogue player picks up a pawn on the sixth and moves it to the seventh promoting to a queen on the seventh (so far as happened to me in a rapid tournament ! ) but after touching the square b7 with his queen but before releasing it claims a 10.2. draw. Under the rules the move is not yet made as he still holds the piece so he may make a 10.2 claim but no other move can be made.

I know these last two examples are unlikely and mildly amusing but it’s as well to remember the Black Swan phenomenon; that’s Taleb’s BS not Tchaikovsky’s.

[Alex McFarlane]

I assumed that the phrase 'under both bases' meant that player A was claiming a draw under either reason. In which case there are any number of positions when being the exchange up would virtually guarantee a draw, especially if a major exchange rather than a minor one.

If an illegal move claim is made before the end of the game then it should be investigated.

Isn't it 97.6% of statistics that are made up?

[Joey Stewart]

So if I were in a situation where an opponent tried to make a claim of a draw while I had the move could I allow him to stop the game and send off the scoresheet, safe in the knowledge that it would fail, or is sombody present obliged to tell him that he has to wait until I have moved before he can then make a claim?

I dont especially like this rule - it does serve its purposes in stopping people skanking a win on time in a clearly drawn position, but too many players seem to treat it as a "get ouf ot jail free" card which can be used the instant their clock reaches less then two minutes and they are not willing to play on.