English Chess Forum

Proposals for New Laws available for comment at www.chessarbiters.co.uk

Some thoughts from a player's perspective:-

6.10 Except where Article 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2(a), (b) and (c) applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

The underlined text is proposed for deletion.

Does this mean that K+N or K+B win on time against K+something? The appeal committee at the recent womens world championship thought so, but the Internet Chess Club online software doesn't and , according to Stewart, the USCF don't either.

Proposal 1 new article

d. The rules of the competition may specify that players cannot agree a draw in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the agreement of the arbiter or his representative.



Proposal 2 new article

d. Players are not allowed to propose a draw. They can claim a draw in positions mentioned in 9.2 and 9.3. In all other positions players cannot agree a draw without the agreement of the arbiter or his representative.

Only proposal 1 is practical - just think league and club chess - no arbiter present.

9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if

a. he writes his move on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, o

Given the general prohibition about writing moves down before playing them - would it not be sensible to reword this to allow the claim to be made after the move is played?

Roger de Coverly wrote:

9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if

a. he writes his move on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, o

Given the general prohibition about writing moves down before playing them - would it not be sensible to reword this to allow the claim to be made after the move is played?

Well, that would break another of the principles of the Laws Of Chess - that you can't make draw claims while it is your opponent's turn to move.

The general prohibition about writing moves down before playing them already has specific exemptions: for draw by repetition claims with your move bringing about the repetition (essentially the same as that proposed rule) and for sealed moves.

Alex McFarlane wrote:Proposals for New Laws available for comment at http://www.chessarbiters.co.uk

This website invites comments but doesn't state to whom they should be sent. Should they be sent to [email protected], [email protected] or somewhere else?

Assumed that you would post here (may give some form of consensus) but [email protected] is fine and I'll pass it on as appropriate.

Well, that would break another of the principles of the Laws Of Chess - that you can't make draw claims while it is your opponent's turn to move.

The general prohibition about writing moves down before playing them already has specific exemptions: for draw by repetition claims with your move bringing about the repetition (essentially the same as that proposed rule) and for sealed moves.

My thinking was that the sequencing for claiming a draw by 50 move or repetition should be the same as for offering a draw or claiming one under 10.2.

Thus

make move
offer/claim draw
press/stop clock
(summon arbiter)
record move

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Well, that would break another of the principles of the Laws Of Chess - that you can't make draw claims while it is your opponent's turn to move.

The general prohibition about writing moves down before playing them already has specific exemptions: for draw by repetition claims with your move bringing about the repetition (essentially the same as that proposed rule) and for sealed moves.

My thinking was that the sequencing for claiming a draw by 50 move or repetition should be the same as for offering a draw or claiming one under 10.2.

Thus

make move
offer/claim draw
press/stop clock
(summon arbiter)
record move

Surely you must make the claim before making the move, otherwise (as with the threefold repetition rule) the claim is invalidated?

Surely you must make the claim before making the move, otherwise (as with the threefold repetition rule) the claim is invalidated?

That's what the current rules say. I'm suggesting that the laws of chess should say that you make the move, then make the claim. As it happens there doesn't appear to be a FIDE proposal to change anything relating to 50 moves or threefold repetition.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Surely you must make the claim before making the move, otherwise (as with the threefold repetition rule) the claim is invalidated?

That's what the current rules say. I'm suggesting that the laws of chess should say that you make the move, then make the claim. As it happens there doesn't appear to be a FIDE proposal to change anything relating to 50 moves or threefold repetition.

Sorry - I'll try to pay better attention in future

Alex McFarlane wrote:Proposals for New Laws available for comment at http://www.chessarbiters.co.uk

My comments are:

1. Proposed new 4.6 - Shouldn't "as per Article 4.5" say "as per Articles 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5."

2. Proposed new 4.6 - If it is necessary to say "if this is legal" in point b., shouldn't it also say this in points a. and c.?

3. Proposed change to 4.7 - Shouldn't this say "deliberately touches a piece with the intention of moving it" so that application of 4.2 doesn't prohibit claims?

4. Proposed new 9.1 d. (2nd proposal) - I think this is an extremely bad rule. Most games are played as part of an event. The player's objective should be to maximise their (or their team's) score in the event. If they think that drawing a particular game will achieve that they should be free to do so.

5. Proposed new 9.2 b. - I assume this change is trying to say that a position where castling would be legal except that the king is in check is different from the same position where castling would not be legal even if the king were not in check. Wouldn't it be clearer to say "Positions are not the same if either player has lost the right to castle between one occurrence of the position and a subsequent occurrence of the position, according to article 3.8." (as 3.8 defines loss of the right to castle).

6. 12.2 b. - It has never been clear to me why disturbances caused by mobile phones are singled out for special treatment when the penalty for any other sort of disturbance is at the arbiter's discretion. If we must have a rule that takes away the arbiter's discretion in some situations, then I suggest that it should not depend on the type of equipment causing the disturbance. It should depend on the type of disturbance caused, which probably means it would be based on the volume of the disturbance or the length of time it lasted. (For example, how can it be right that I lose the game if my mobile phone beeps twice, at a barely audible volume if the phone is in my pocket or my bag, to indicate that it has received a text message? On the other hand, if I'm wearing a wrist watch with an alarm function, or have an alarm clock in my bag and either of these go off, I won't necessarily lose the game, even though the noise is both louder and lasts longer than the phone beeps.)

7. Proposed new 12.2 b. - This rule may be OK for invitation tournaments, but it is not practical for open events and team events where players have to carry their belongings with them (e.g. when they have come straight from work to the game, or checked out from a hotel just before the game). Many devices people may have with them have electronic communication facilities, such as wired networking, wireless networking, Bluetooth or infrared. Obvious examples that people may be carrying, other than mobile phones, are laptop computers and portable music devices. If the penalty for carrying such equipment without the permission of the arbiter is automatic loss of the game, why is there no similar penalty for carrying non-electronic equipment that is specifically chess related (e.g. if I have a chess book in my pocket, perhaps on the opening I expect my opponent to play).

8. 13.7 - Shouldn't the additional sentence say "If a player observes an irregularity in a game other than his own, he may only inform the arbiter." A player is subject to the laws, so this rule is enforceable, whereas a spectator is not, so the rule, as written, is unenforceable.

9. D1 b. - I think this rule is unclear, and the modification does not help. Is a player required to have an up-to-date scoresheet at the point of making the claim, or are they allowed to make the claim and then bring their scoresheet up-to-date? What happens if they are unable to bring their scoresheet up to date after the claim (e.g. because neither player has an up-to-date scoresheet and neither can remember all the moves)? Presumably the claim fails and they lose the game? What happens if neither player has an up-to-date scoresheet, the claimant completes his scoresheet, but the opponent does not agree it is correct? (If the players have been repeating positions prior to the claim, it is quite possible that the players may genuinely believe there have been a different number of repetitions.)

Alex McFarlane wrote:Proposals for New Laws available for comment at http://www.chessarbiters.co.uk

I should caution that I have fluid in both my eyes, as well as cataracts. I have taken as my source the file that is available for download from the Chess Arbiters' website.

I like the trend to brevity, for instance by excising clauses that are explanatory rather than actual laws (e.g "unskilled ..."). I'd suggest that this principle be taken further by moving some definitions and comments to a separate text, for instance article 12.5 includes the words: "The playing venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter." A further instance, as I understand 8.2, making a scoresheet visible does not mean that it must be completely visible all the time; the separate text could mention that the condition is satisfied if an arbiter can determine the number of moves played without an excessive wait; furthermore, having half the scoresheet hidden under the board but with the most recently recorded moves visible is hardly a cause for concern and is a convenience when space is at a premium.

Turning to specific articles.

"12.6 It is forbidden to distract (or annoy) the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw.

"Proposed addition
"It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw and the introduction of a source of noise into the playing hall. "

A minor quibble is that this reads like a *replacement* rather than an *addition*. I should say that some care must be taken when interpreting "the introduction of a source of noise into the playing hall." For instance a mother may be playing in a tournament whilst her toddler is under the supervision of an adult in a different room. It would be natural for the child to slip away and wander into the playing area in search of its parent, making the sort of noise that young children are prone to; I don't like the prospect of the mother being penalised in such circumstances, although I could be in a minority here. I presume the intention of this clause is to crack down more specifically on personal stereos and the like, without the wording being too closely wedded to today's technology, but confirmation could be useful.

I believe there is still not enough harmony between Rapidplay and slower rates of play when it comes to flag falls, e.g. articles 6.9 and B8.

An ancient gripe of mine: is article 7.3 necessary? There is already protection from 12.6, knocking over a piece being distracting. Everyone's experience is different, but I can only recall two types of case: a player accidentally knocks his king over because it is the biggest piece, I have only seen this happen when making his move, it seems to me to already be implicit that the necessary adjustment of the displaced monarch should take place at the expense of the offending party's clock (for doing so in the opponent's time is certainly distracting). The other type of case is when a disgusted player resigns melodramatically, such behaviour bringing the game into dispute. I have rarely witnessed pieces being knocked over, although I admit I am not to be found at junior contests. I can give instances of problems not directly covered by the Laws, what is so special about this one? An arbiter should know to ignore, or issue a mild rebuke for, trivial infractions and penalise the more serious. As a non sequitur, it may be useful for the Chess Arbiters' website to give examples of what to do in situations quite properly not directly mentioned in the Laws of Chess; for instance if a player is temporarily unable to continue through no fault of his own, e.g. if he has an epileptic fit. I'm confident that senior arbiters in such a situation would opt for a closed sealed move, if possible, from the unaffected opponent, assuming there is time and a realistic prospect for a resumption, but how many others would know to adopt such a course?


I was going to mention 9.2 (b), but I see that Ian Thompson has beaten me to the punch; I echo Ian's sentiment that the proposed wording reads badly.

Article 13 deals with the role of an arbiter when acting in an official capacity. Has thought been given to adding a clause to the effect that an arbiter should never act in a manner likely to bring the game into disrepute, even when a spectator (players are already covered by 12.1)?

I prefer not to go into details as to the catalyst for the previous paragraph (no, the offending party does not post here, nor is he a senior arbiter). :-

I confess I expect higher standards of behaviour from an arbiter than I would from a player. Indeed, for instance, in my view, an arbiter making excessive offers of a draw in a game he is playing should be penalised more severely than a player.

There are many cogent comments here. It is difficult to reply to them as the system does not lend itself to that without a great many postings. What you see on the website is the distillation of a great many suggestions. That work was done by a small number of volunteers drawn from the members of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee. Some suggestions were agreed, some turned down and some we could not agree. Geurt Gijssen did an amazing job putting it all together, especially as he had a hip replacement in that period.

1. Roger de Coverley asks whether a bare knight or bishop will still win on time against an opposing force. The answer is yes, unless the Dresden Meeting changes it. We are unimpressed by the difficulties people have. We believe all game should have an add-on, whether it be cumulative or delay, at least in the final phase of the game. That solves all the ridiculous problems.

2. I wanted the repetition and 50 move rule claim to take place with the actual position on the board while the player's clock was running. This would cut about 5 lines of text from the Laws. It seems I was narrowly outvoted on the small committee set up to examine the many suggestions.

3. Simon Spivack asks why not remove the explanation of terms used in the text of the Laws to an Annex. For example, the definition of the venue. We wanted as fewe cross reference as possible.

4. He also asks should there not be a clause saying the arbiter must not bring the game of chess into disrepute. Is this really necessary? It seems to me self-evident.

5. I think he will find the new proposal to have different Laws where there is adequate supervision in rapidplay or blitz as opposed to where there is not, will make the logic more harmonious.

5. Wouldn't it be clearer to say "Positions are not the same if either player has lost the right to castle between one occurrence of the position and a subsequent occurrence of the position, according to article 3.8." (as 3.8 defines loss of the right to castle).
I agree, but Geurt feels that the player does not lose the right to castle when he is in check and must move the king, until he moves that king. But he agrees with the forced draw positions being drawn when there are many pieces on the board. I call it the Wake-up problem. He does not seem to feel the same way about the following. White king h1, white rook h2, white pawn f2. Black king a2, black pawn e4. 1 f4ch Ka3 2 Rh3ch Ka2 3 Ra2ch Kb3 4 Rh3ch Ka2 and White is entitled to claim a draw because Rh2 will repeat the position for the third time. Logically his position should be that the right to make the en passant capture was only lost after the first Ka3. Is a puzzlement.

6. A person taking part in an event observing a game, but not one of the players, counts as a spectator in that game.

7. I am sure the proposal that no agreed draws at all will not go through. The first proposal in that section was my own wording.

As secretary of the RTRC you can pass your comments to me. But don't expect a direct response. I leave for Beijing Monday. The RTRC will discuss and vote in Dresden. Then the Executive Board gets to see a clean copy. Then the General Assembly has the final say. Last time it was referred to the January PB as our flags fell. Often some stylistic changes have to be made after the meetings. The British have had a considerable impact on this last part.
Stewart Reuben

13.7 Was one of my proposals. It came about after the "n" spectator asked me what they should do if they see an irregularity but the players have not. The proposal says spectator because as Stewart points out players in other games are classed as spectators. I first suggested "should inform the arbiter" but this implies an obligation that the spectator does not have so it was changed to "may inform the arbiter."

geoffjones wrote:I first suggested "should inform the arbiter"

Geoff,

What is the current correct procedure (if any) when an irregularity occurs in an "arbiter not present" situation and the game is rated?

Thanks for any clarification, John

Geoff may have his own views. The proposal concerning spectators is in no way a change from the current Laws. It is simply a clarification.
The spectator informs the arbiter and the arbiter decides what action, if any he, the arbiter, should take. This might include his telling the spectator to mind his own business - but I hope he would do that politely!
If there is no arbiter present at the venue, which is quite common for English club matches, then the match captains often act in concert. If this is impossible, the independent spectator can do nothing. I cannot visualise the actual scenario, but he could conceivably wait until the player makes the move, then say, "I would like to bring your attention to something. Would you both like me to do so?" If they agreed, then he could make his comment.
An analagous situation. I was playing in a club match and had finished. There was no arbiter present. There was a mess. I was asked to solve the problem. I asked them whether they would accept me as an arbiter. Any decision I made would be subject to a London League Appeal Committee. They agreed. I now heard what had happened and then made my decision. Nobody argued.
Stewart Reuben