European Union Youth Chess Championships

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Chess Scotland is reporting that one of their players fell foul of a five minute default time, notwithstanding being at the board before the start of play.

http://scotchess.s4.bizhat.com/scotches ... 79-15.html

Oh dear.

"...shook hands with his opponent and wrote both names onto the score sheet. Which is written evidence that he was present at or near to the start. The arbiter claimed he had to make a move. This is I believe incorrect, and the player has to be present."

[player then spent 6 minutes buying a bottle of water, and was limping as well apparently]

So what is the rule? And why isn't the water free??

[Alex Holowczak]

So what is the rule?

6.6a) Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.

Going on what's been said here, the 0 minute default time was legally specified otherwise to be 5 minutes.

Furthermore, he clearly arrived at his board within the default time - the scoresheet provides the evidence - and he then left the board again.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Furthermore, he clearly arrived at his board within the default time - the scoresheet provides the evidence - and he then left the board again.

So the denied appeal was incorrectly denied, in your opinion? They should have locked the doors and done a headcount and then unlocked the doors. So much simpler.

[Roger de Coverly]

They should have locked the doors and done a headcount and then unlocked the doors. So much simpler.

Not having this damaging rule in the first place would be even better. It's unclear whether I would decline an invitation to play in such an event, but it would be very tempting.

[Alex Holowczak]

So the denied appeal was incorrectly denied, in your opinion?

Yes. The player in question was pushing his luck, but I don't see a problem.

They should have locked the doors and done a headcount and then unlocked the doors. So much simpler.

I don't see how that would break any fire-safety regulations at all ...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

They should have locked the doors and done a headcount and then unlocked the doors. So much simpler.

I don't see how that would break any fire-safety regulations at all ...

I agree. But it happened at an event I was at. Admittedly, this was a much smaller one.

[David Shepherd]

I would have thought the game starts when the clock is started, if the player was there when the clock was started then I think the appeal should have been upheld and both players given the point.

[Andy McCulloch]

The actual rule is as follows:-

"6.6
a.
Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.


b.
If the rules of a competition specify a different default time, the following shall apply. If neither player is present initially, the player who has the white pieces shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.

Matthew had arrived at his board before the session started. After shaking his opponents hand, he left the board to buy water. He did not return to the board until 6 minutes after the start of the session. He was defaulted.

The Law does not say that you have to be seated at the board, only that you must not arrive after the start of the session. If you arrive at the board before the session starts, what reasonable interpretation of the Law means you must be defaulted for not being at the board? No mention is made of having to make a move, the justification used by the arbiter. Would said arbiter default a player who took more than the default time of 5 minutes to decide on his/her first move?

This Law, the product solely of Kirsan's diktat, is absolutely ridiculous. It has no place outside of professional chess, and even there it serves little purpose.

[David Sedgwick]

The actual rule is as follows:-

"6.6
a.
Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.


b.
If the rules of a competition specify a different default time, the following shall apply. If neither player is present initially, the player who has the white pieces shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.

Matthew had arrived at his board before the session started. After shaking his opponents hand, he left the board to buy water. He did not return to the board until 6 minutes after the start of the session. He was defaulted.

The Law does not say that you have to be seated at the board, only that you must not arrive after the start of the session. If you arrive at the board before the session starts, what reasonable interpretation of the Law means you must be defaulted for not being at the board? No mention is made of having to make a move, the justification used by the arbiter. Would said arbiter default a player who took more than the default time of 5 minutes to decide on his/her first move?

This Law, the product solely of Kirsan's diktat, is absolutely ridiculous. It has no place outside of professional chess, and even there it serves little purpose.

At the Dresden Olympiad 2008 there were several instances of this sort. The wording of the Law subsequently adopted, which you quote above, was designed to stop a repetition of this kind of episode. I concur with your view that this was not a "reasonable interpretation" of the Law.

However, I would draw your attention to Article 12.2 of the Laws:

"Players are not allowed to leave the ‘playing venue’ without permission from the arbiter. 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. The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter."

As Matthew had White, was he not in breach of the last sentence of this Law? That is not something for which I would default a player, but it's technically within the arbiter's power to do so.

I think this sad incident demonstrates that, when playing under the zero tolerance rule or similar, it remains prudent not to leave the board until you've made your first move.

[Richard Bates]

I'm not sure that the decision to give the player a loss is wrong. It seems to me to be pretty much in accordance with the spirit in which the law was written. Now of course i will argue vociferously that the law is ridiculous, unjust and unnecessary but that is a different issue.

If one considers the believed origin of the law - Karpov keeping Kirsan + dignitary waiting at the start of a game - then i don't really see the material difference between someone turning up late and someone turning up early and then disappearing for the start of the round. The purpose of the law is not to establish that you will be present at some point to play the game, it is simply to be present.

[David Sedgwick]

I'm not sure that the decision to give the player a loss is wrong. It seems to me to be pretty much in accordance with the spirit in which the law was written. Now of course i will argue vociferously that the law is ridiculous, unjust and unnecessary but that is a different issue.

If one considers the believed origin of the law - Karpov keeping Kirsan + dignitary waiting at the start of a game - then i don't really see the material difference between someone turning up late and someone turning up early and then disappearing for the start of the round. The purpose of the law is not to establish that you will be present at some point to play the game, it is simply to be present.

There is a difference, surely, between (say);

a) coming in twenty minutes beforehand, writing your name on the scoresheet, and then disappearing until after the start; or
b) being present a couple of minutes before the start, shaking hands with your opponent, and then going off for a few minutes.

To default a player in situation b) seems to me to be against both the letter and the spirit of the Law as it is currently written.

[Alex Holowczak]

Do we know if the arbiter knew he was there at the start of play? If he did, then there's no question that he can't be defaulted. If he didn't, then I can't see how he can default him; he has no evidence that he wasn't there, and the player has written on his scoresheet, which suggests he's there.

A cynic would point out he was playing an Austrian, in Austria, with an Austrian arbiting team.

[Roger de Coverly]

If he didn't, then I can't see how he can default him; he has no evidence that he wasn't there, and the player has written on his scoresheet, which suggests he's there.

It has been suggested that the evidence that he wasn't there, was that he had the white pieces, hadn't played a move and wasn't present at the board after 5 minutes. Still that's only leaving the playing area whilst it's your move which doesn't normally result in the loss of the game.

I'm aware this is a tournament where an English team is sent every year. Even so, why not invoke the Fischer approach, namely if you have these regulations and that interpretation of them, then we won't send a team?

[Alex McFarlane]

However, I would draw your attention to Article 12.2 of the Laws:"Players are not allowed to leave the ‘playing venue’ without permission from the arbiter. 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. The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter."As Matthew had White, was he not in breach of the last sentence of this Law? That is not something for which I would default a player, but it's technically within the arbiter's power to do so.

David, I do not agree that Matthew 'had the move'. White does not have the move until the clock is started. Under your interpretation we could have dozen's of White moves (and presumably Blacks as well) before the game has officially started!!

[E Michael White]

RdeC
A player is not defined as having the move until his opponents move has been played. So if White is there at the start, which avoids being defaulted, he may subsequently leave the playing area before making his first move and return later.

Various arbiters dont like what is written in the rules in this respect because it destroys their stance on a number of other issues.

David, I do not agree that Matthew 'had the move'. White does not have the move until the clock is started.

This is also not quite right the opponent has to have made a move in addition to the clock having been started at the begining of the game, before a player is said to have the move and therefore be liable to be penalised for leaving the playing area. There is a distinction in the rules between having the move and it being a players duty to commence the game. On the very first move this make a difference.

This may be poor rule drafting.