Laws of Chess - changes

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:53 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:27 am
Chess.com are reporting that FIDE has decided to prohibit all draws with immediate effect.
Not one of their more imaginative efforts.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:44 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:27 am
Chess.com are reporting that FIDE has decided to prohibit all draws with immediate effect.
NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:53 am
Not one of their more imaginative efforts.
In the chat, a surprising number of people are admitting that they fell for it initially.

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 7167
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by LawrenceCooper » Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:03 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:26 am
NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:22 am
Can we assume there was no increment?
If there wasn't an increment, why wasn't the player with the Rook able to invoke 10.2 or one of its successors before the flag fell?
Maybe like me (in a 1999 North Staffs League match poised at 2-2) he totally forgot about the clock whilst trying to win the position :oops:

Tim Harding
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Tim Harding » Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:14 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:27 am
If there wasn't an increment, why wasn't the player with the Rook able to invoke 10.2 or one of its successors before the flag fell?
That is indeed the motivation of my question. As Stewart says, just full information.

Possibly they were playing without either an increment, or quickplay finish rule.
Alternatively the player with a rook was still trying to win, but became flustered and his time ran out.
When I was a schoolboy we played in a Lightning chess team tournament. That was a move every 10 seconds. I was captain and one of my team mates was defending successfully K+N v K+R. The opponent left his king en prise. Illegal moves lost in that form of chess. Thus my team member won with the king + knight. The opponent made no effort to argue.
As an aside, it used to be possible to win on time with a bare king - butt never in a quickplay finish, because thy were not FIDE laws, but my own rules.
I went to bed after posting the Honner-Nolan game so I'm only seeing the follow-ups now.
There was an increment. It was a very long game.
I don't have access to a copy of the 2019 regulations now but I can see that FIDE rated the game so almost certainly the time limit was 90 minutes for the game with a 30 second increment from move 1 which is the rate of play we normally use in Irish FIDE-rated events (except for the Championship where time is added after 40 moves).
The tournament was played on the same equipment used in the afternoon for the main Irish championship. The game began in the morning and was still in progress when I arrived about 20 minutes before the championship round was due to start.
Matthew's question is irrelevant as this game was played with increment. If Black offered a draw at any stage White would be in his rights to refuse although it would be odd to do so.
Of course if the player with the rook wanted a draw before his time ran out, all he had to do was offer, or if that were refused, just keep blundering the rook (gaining 30 seconds every time) until the opponent took it.
As Lawrence surmises, undoubtedly the player with the rook was trying to win the game; I wasn't in the room when it ended but I suppose Nolan was unaware that it was possible to lose.
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:09 pm

Tim Harding wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:14 pm
I wasn't in the room when it ended but I suppose Nolan was unaware that it was possible to lose.
As I find myself saying quite often, it never hurts to acquaint yourself with the rules of the game you are playing.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Roger Lancaster » Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:50 pm

John McKenna wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:09 am

NB: King and bishop are not able to give checkmate when an opponent has king and rook. (in contrast to king and knight.)
The amusing one is king and bishop versus king and bishop. If they're same-coloured bishops, over-stepping the time control results in a draw. If they're opposite-coloured bishops, it's a loss.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Ian Thompson » Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:01 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:50 pm
The amusing one is king and bishop versus king and bishop. If they're same-coloured bishops, over-stepping the time control results in a draw.
Except that it's not possible to over-step the time control with that material. As soon as the K + same-coloured bishop vs. K + same-coloured bishop position arose the game was over, and drawn, because it was a dead position.

Tim Harding
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Tim Harding » Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:13 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:44 pm
David Sedgwick wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:27 am
Chess.com are reporting that FIDE has decided to prohibit all draws with immediate effect.
NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:53 am
Not one of their more imaginative efforts.
In the chat, a surprising number of people are admitting that they fell for it initially.
Here's a link to ChessBase's dish of the day, courtesy of Carlsen and Nakamura I believe:
https://en.chessbase.com/post/new-arne- ... oud-attack
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:03 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:01 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:50 pm
The amusing one is king and bishop versus king and bishop. If they're same-coloured bishops, over-stepping the time control results in a draw.
Except that it's not possible to over-step the time control with that material. As soon as the K + same-coloured bishop vs. K + same-coloured bishop position arose the game was over, and drawn, because it was a dead position.
Yes, as with checkmate the fact it is a *legally drawn* position overrides the clock surely?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Tim Harding
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Tim Harding » Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:56 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:13 pm
Mick Norris wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:03 pm
You might want to have a look at the recently published FIDE Arbiters Manual :wink:

Ken Regan's notes start on p65 for those interested
...
I hope that the Manual is of reasonably good quality.

That is not to suggest that it is not susceptible of improvement, nor that it is entirely error free. Constructive camments [sic] and suggestions should be submitted as indicated at the end of the FIDE announcement.
So far I've only had time to look at the start of Chapter 3 but it's quickly clear that it needed proof-reading by a native English speaker. Before submitting suggestions, let's discuss a few points here.

Page 60, line 7,
It means that it is the Arbiter's duty to avoid the cheating by the players.
The meaning is clear but the word the before cheating should be deleted.

There are several cases of bad punctuation and omitted full stops at the end of sentences. The last line on page 60 reads
special courses such training is vital for successful application of AC regulations.
A new sentence surely should begin with the word such?

The most serious error I have so far detected, if I am right, is at the start of section 4 on page 62 where it says
In case of a suspicious behavior [sic], the Arbiter must always follow the player on his or her way out of the playing venue (to the bar, toilets, smoking area etc.)...
Surely playing venue should be playing area (as in the subsequent paragraph) as defined on page 58 in the glossary?

This is not just a typographical/ linguistic infelicity; it's an actual substantive error that needs correcting at once, surely?
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:28 pm

Tim Harding wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:56 pm
David Sedgwick wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:13 pm
Mick Norris wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:03 pm
You might want to have a look at the recently published FIDE Arbiters Manual :wink:

Ken Regan's notes start on p65 for those interested
...
I hope that the Manual is of reasonably good quality.

That is not to suggest that it is not susceptible of improvement, nor that it is entirely error free. Constructive camments [sic] and suggestions should be submitted as indicated at the end of the FIDE announcement.
So far I've only had time to look at the start of Chapter 3 but it's quickly clear that it needed proof-reading by a native English speaker. Before submitting suggestions, let's discuss a few points here.

Page 60, line 7,
It means that it is the Arbiter's duty to avoid the cheating by the players.
The meaning is clear but the word the before cheating should be deleted.

There are several cases of bad punctuation and omitted full stops at the end of sentences. The last line on page 60 reads
special courses such training is vital for successful application of AC regulations.
A new sentence surely should begin with the word such?

The most serious error I have so far detected, if I am right, is at the start of section 4 on page 62 where it says
In case of a suspicious behavior [sic], the Arbiter must always follow the player on his or her way out of the playing venue (to the bar, toilets, smoking area etc.)...
Surely playing venue should be playing area (as in the subsequent paragraph) as defined on page 58 in the glossary?

This is not just a typographical/ linguistic infelicity; it's an actual substantive error that needs correcting at once, surely?
Have you submitted your comments to FIDE as I requested? Or are you expecting me to do that?

E Michael White
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by E Michael White » Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:55 am

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:03 pm
Ian Thompson wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:01 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:50 pm
The amusing one is king and bishop versus king and bishop. If they're same-coloured bishops, over-stepping the time control results in a draw.
Except that it's not possible to over-step the time control with that material. As soon as the K + same-coloured bishop vs. K + same-coloured bishop position arose the game was over, and drawn, because it was a dead position.
Yes, as with checkmate the fact it is a *legally drawn* position overrides the clock surely?
Yet another "except" - if the flag drops during a promotion or capture and the arbiter is watching at that point, the laws are not clear. For example at what stage do you consider the position is established as the parts may be executed in any order !

Tim Harding
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Tim Harding » Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:22 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:28 pm
Have you submitted your comments to FIDE as I requested? Or are you expecting me to do that?
No I don't expect you to do it.
When I have had time to read all the sections that are new in 2021, I may send in a list of comments; this could take a week or two.

As the main mistake I found seems in need of urgent correction, I am sending that in this afternoon to the two addresses listed on the FIDE Arbiters Manual page.
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

Tim Harding
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Tim Harding » Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:20 pm

E Michael White wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:55 am
Yet another "except" - if the flag drops during a promotion or capture and the arbiter is watching at that point, the laws are not clear. For example at what stage do you consider the position is established as the parts may be executed in any order !
Here is my take on your capture case. More experienced arbiters may disagree and I welcome their opinion.

I offer a position from the arbiter page in the European Chess Union February magazine, with the addition of
a White Knight on c1. (In the original version the c1 square is vacant.) A White Bishop on c1 would have the same effect.

(If the PGN auto-plays and your screen shows a later position in the sequence, back-space until you see the position with the knight.)



The case where the c1 square is occupied by a White Knight (or Bishop) could be more
complicated. A question was raised on the English Chess Forum about the
correct ruling if a capture or promotion (i.e., a move involving two pieces)
was in progress when the flag fell but the move on the board had not been
completed. If Black has the queen or rook in his hand but has not yet touched
the opposing piece on c1 then he loses because he could move the piece
elsewhere.
Also if Black touches the Knight but not yet his own piece before
the flag falls, then he also loses because he could take it with the Queen
(1...Qxc1+ 2. Qxc1+ Rxc1+ 3. Kd2 no stalemate; and now for example 3...Rc3 4. Kxc3 Kb1 5. Re1
checkmate.)}
However, if he has touched both his Rook and
the Knight but has not yet removed the knight from the board and released his
hand from the Rook on c1 before his flag falls, then logic suggests that the
Arbiter should rule Draw here too because touch-move requires Rxc1 to be
played. (Rule 4.3.3. says "must".)
It may not seem right that a player who has not physically completed the move on the board can benefit from 4.3.3 in this
way but that appears to be the case?
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

Post Reply