English Chess Forum

Avoid touching any pieces if you wish to claim a 3 fold rep or 50 move faffing.
Do not for example pick up your knight on f3 and say I intend to play this pointing to g5 with the knight; this prevents you claiming on that move !

There are many points in FIDE rules where the arbiter should be summoned but rarely is. For example :-

1. Claiming a win on time during a rapidplay
2. Promoting a pawn when the required piece is not available.

Arbiters are probably writing themselves into the rules more often, to feel more important and look busier so they can charge a higher fee or bigger lunches.

Interpreting the rules literally; hardly anyone has ever lost on time in rapidplay as players agree a flag has fallen without the involvement of an arbiter; this must be technical resignation !

E Michael White wrote:Interpreting the rules literally; hardly anyone has ever lost on time in rapidplay as players agree a flag has fallen without the involvement of an arbiter; this must be technical resignation !

That would be a disaster, because the result of the game will be totally different from what it would have been had they summoned the arbiter to claim a flag fall properly...

Alex Holowczak wrote:That would be a disaster, because the result of the game will be totally different from what it would have been had they summoned the arbiter to claim a flag fall properly...

So you agree then ? That's the point; there is not much difference between the RP procedure for claim and the Chesscafe described situation in the first post, other than the type/purpose of claim.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

George Szaszvari wrote: This one almost certainly. I don't think Tony had any decent move other than Ra4 in the final position, so the draw was agreed anyway.

Yes, that's it, thanks. The games between those two tended to be tense and interesting scraps as part of an ongoing
personal feud.

I believe such cases of confusion about the rules amongst GMs are due to the pressures they're under and not due to
ignorance or gamesmanship (with a few infamous exceptions.) Stewart Reuben can no doubt verify or correct me on
this belief. A well known illustration of tension doing strange things to a player was the 21st game of the 1974 Korchnoi
v Karpov candidates final in which Viktor had to verify with the ref that he could legally castle while his rook was
attacked! Anyone not knowing the background of that game might think "huh, how is it possible for a world class player
to not to know such a simple rule?" Viktor was quoted as saying afterwards that the tension got to him, and that he
could not recall ever having had such a situation in any of his games before... so doubts arose, even though he knew
the rules well enough, and Viktor needed the reassurance before he could continue.

Among non-GMs ignorance, or, worse, deliberate gamesmanship, were more frequently seen in my time. One example
was a well known (to older players at least) English player defending a difficult position in a game at one of the Mary
Ward Centre tournaments in London decided to offer me a draw in my thinking time (already a transgression) and in
due course, while I pondered his offer, the position, and my shortage of time, this guy shortly retracted his offer!
It was a beautifully timed and blatant piece of gamesmanship which one arbiter/controller (who didn't actually play
chess himself.. go figure that!) tried to to blow the whole problem away by ruling that the initial offer was illegal,
therefore everything that followed was irrelevant! Another arbiter present (a strong master well known to British
chess and these forums) saw what was happening, was evidently embarrassed by the behavior of my opponent,
someone well known to him, and suggested we agree to a draw. By then my frame of mind was hardly conducive
to continuing the game and my opponent continued to twist and turn every which way, playing the aggrieved one,
before settling on a draw. Episodes like that would put me off playing the game for a while. I guess my skin wasn't
thick enough at the time to deal with those kind of maneuvers.

At the risk of bringing this back on topic, it's worth bearing in mind that a claim of draw by repetition is also considered to be an offer of a draw under the laws of the game. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable to tell your opponent of your intention to claim in my opinion. The arbiter is only required where the opponent does not agree (which does not necessarily mean that there is a dispute).

Sean Hewitt wrote:At the risk of bringing this back on topic, it's worth bearing in mind that a claim of draw by repetition is also considered to be an offer of a draw under the laws of the game. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable to tell your opponent of your intention to claim in my opinion. The arbiter is only required where the opponent does not agree (which does not necessarily mean that there is a dispute).

I think this is exactly right.

Whilst agreeing with SH and AH on where the rules need to be focussed, a childish arbiter might consider that the rule Sean quotes, 9.1(b).3, applies only to claims properly executed, in accordance with what he believes to be an accurate interpretation of the rules.

I suggested Kite marking events once before but no one agreed. Cat 2 conditions/rules are needed, for events specifying a minimum standard of playing conditions and FIDE rules apply, except that the arbiter is called only when the players disagree. For Cat 1 events, ie e2e4, 4NCL etc unadulterated FIDE rules are needed.

E Michael White wrote:Avoid touching any pieces if you wish to claim a 3 fold rep or 50 move faffing.
Do not for example pick up your knight on f3 and say I intend to play this pointing to g5 with the knight; this prevents you claiming on that move !

They really should have changed this when in 2004 they outlawed recording the move before it was played. Other than what the Laws of Chess say, is there any particular reason why you shouldn't play the move, claim the repetition and seek the arbiter only if the claim is rejected or disputed by the opponent. It is after all a draw offer as well, so the opponent can accept even if the claim isn't valid.

This has just reminded me of the last time I made a repetition claim, earlier this year.

I wrote my intended move, declared to my opponent what it was, and that I was claiming a draw.

He replied, "I'll think about it..."

Having followed this thread, I realise I should just have stopped the clocks and consulted the arbiter. But I am left wondering how long I should have allowed him to think about it (the threefold repetition was obvious in this case, but it isn't always), especially as my clock was still running, though I wasn't short of time.

After about ten seconds I pointed out that I was claiming, not offering, a draw (though this thread has clarified that the former implies the latter) and that he could either accept my claim or let the arbiter decide.

In the end he agreed, but I'm still not sure to this day he realises what he was agreeing to!

Tristan Clayton wrote:This has just reminded me of the last time I made a repetition claim, earlier this year.

I wrote my intended move, declared to my opponent what it was, and that I was claiming a draw.

He replied, "I'll think about it..."

Did you say you were claiming a draw by repetition, or did you just say draw? I suppose saying you were claiming a draw under the FIDE Rules of Chess Article 5, subsection 3a, might have caused a blank stare. (If anyone could look up the technical numbering of the various claims, I'd be very grateful!)

Roger de Coverly wrote:

E Michael White wrote:Avoid touching any pieces if you wish to claim a 3 fold rep or 50 move faffing.
Do not for example pick up your knight on f3 and say I intend to play this pointing to g5 with the knight; this prevents you claiming on that move !

They really should have changed this when in 2004 they outlawed recording the move before it was played. Other than what the Laws of Chess say, is there any particular reason why you shouldn't play the move, claim the repetition and seek the arbiter only if the claim is rejected or disputed by the opponent. It is after all a draw offer as well, so the opponent can accept even if the claim isn't valid.

Stewart Reuben suggested precisely this change at the time of the last revision to the Laws in 2008. It was rejected owing to the confusion that could result if the opponent were to reply to the move before the procedure you've outlined above could take place. You will recall the discussions on this Forum about whether an opponent was allowed to a move in reply before the first player had pressed the clock.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

Tristan Clayton wrote:This has just reminded me of the last time I made a repetition claim, earlier this year.

I wrote my intended move, declared to my opponent what it was, and that I was claiming a draw.

He replied, "I'll think about it..."

Did you say you were claiming a draw by repetition, or did you just say draw? I suppose saying you were claiming a draw under the FIDE Rules of Chess Article 5, subsection 3a, might have caused a blank stare. (If anyone could look up the technical numbering of the various claims, I'd be very grateful!)

Can't remember my exact words, but it was something like "Bc5 (or whatever the move was) and I claim a draw." I suppose I could have clarified that it was a claim based on repetition, but it couldn't have been anything else (we were only at move forty or so, so no chance of the fifty-move rule).

I do like the idea of quoting subsections, rules, clauses and the like. Time to download a copy of the official FIDE laws of chess. Is it legal to have a copy beside you during play, or do we have to write the important ones on our arms and hope nobody notices? Ah, takes me back to my schooldays...

Tristan Clayton wrote:I do like the idea of quoting subsections, rules, clauses and the like. Time to download a copy of the official FIDE laws of chess. Is it legal to have a copy beside you during play, or do we have to write the important ones on our arms and hope nobody notices? Ah, takes me back to my schooldays...

Sounds like good material, for, say, a cartoon!

[I must confess, I only twigged just now why your name sounded familiar! I do enjoy those little vignettes of chess humour.]

George Szaszvari >I believe such cases of confusion about the rules amongst GMs are due to the pressures they're under and not due to ignorance or gamesmanship (with a few infamous exceptions.) Stewart Reuben can no doubt verify or correct me on
this belief.<

I believe very few players of any strength deliberately practice gamesmanship. In a different thread E Michael White commented that I mainly ignored disputes or thought them beneath me. I apologise for paraphrasing that, I don't have his words in front of me.
The thread was stopped before I could respond.
I realise a dispute is different from an appeal. But, I reiterate that I have had very few of either. In the 18 British chess Championships I ran, there were just 10 appeals and 5 of those were about what is now 10.2. As the late Harry Baines said, 'Those aren't really appeals.'

Most problems that do arise are not about the basic rules. I can however remember where Larry Gilden a 2300 player didn't play Bb5ch because he thought his opponent could castle out of check. In a lightning (10 second) game Asa Hoffmann played Qxd8ch and Miro Radoicic (about 2200) tried 0-0-0 taking off the queen (probably the mot illegal move I have ever seen). To my surprise, Asa didn't claim a win, he allowed Miro to play Rxd8. When I later asked him, he said, 'Well he just got confused.' Dredging my memory, Murray Chandler played an illegal move and Paul Motwani promptly resigned because it seemed to lose a second exchange. Murray, of course, was very apologetic. Paul did appeal (indeed I might have nudged him into doing so). The Appeal Committee asked what their powers were. I responded, practically unlimited. The loss was confirmed. But most of the problems, such as they are, come from the tournament rules about clocks, recording the moves and so on.

Th matter about whether you can look up the Laws of Chess during the game is a moot one. I would advise against it. But you can ask the arbiter to clarify the Laws. That is not specified in the Laws. It occurs to me it perhaps should be.
As above, I have sometimes reminded players (particularly young ones) of their right to appeal. That only made its appearance in the Laws of Chess in 2009.

Stewart Reuben wrote:The matter about whether you can look up the Laws of Chess during the game is a moot one. I would advise against it. But you can ask the arbiter to clarify the Laws. That is not specified in the Laws. It occurs to me it perhaps should be.

This should be an easy one, add something to Law 13 like:

"The arbiter shall answer any question of fact asked of him relating to these Laws of Chess by a player in the competition."

Or something like that?