Laws of Chess - changes

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4539
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:11 am

Dear Michael,
The very first sentence of the Preface to the Laws of Chess can be invoked in the ridiculous situation described. Also the first sentence of 13.2. We have been round this before. It is often said that the first sentence of the Preface is the most important of all for an arbiter.
Stewart Reuben

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

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by E Michael White » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:43 am

Stewart

Your approach sounds like adjudication by the arbiter at the end of a reasonable time. Many ECF arbiters would not claim to be strong enough players up to this task. Would even strong players be able to tell quickly whether a K+R v K+N are in one of the positions where a forced mate is possible within say 37 moves if 13 moves have been made since that material situation arose ?

As you know, in any tournament where adjudication may take place none of the results of any players can be used for title norms.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4539
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:54 am

The case quoted was rather absurd and not at all typical. I don't want people thinking that one game in 100,000, played between very weak players, is a reason for not using an incremental mode in the 4NCL. If you really wanted you could ensure that, with an increment of 30 seconds per move, a 200 move game would not exceed 7 hours. Thus
40/80 all in 30, add on 30 seconds per move from the first. The time control for the Olympiads and many other events is very similar, it is just 40/90. That gives you 180 moves before potentially exceeding 7 hours. That gives 5 hours for a 60 move game and, I believe, that is about as efficient use of thinking time as a 6 hour game without increment.
Stewart Reuben

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:52 pm

Not sure this is the right place, but a friend contacted me with a draw by repetition enquiry.

Law states

9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same
position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his
scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of
the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both
players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant
9.2.2.2 a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after
moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

He says, White has Ke1 and Ra1 (neither of which has moved), black has B on g4 etc. (nothing between g4 and d1), game continues:-
1 Ra2 Bh5
2 Ra1 Bg4
3 Ra2 Bh5
4 Ra1 and black claims a draw indicating that he can create a third repetition of position by playing Bg4.

White can no longer castle with the rook, but he would not be able to castle at the start anyway because the bishop is attacking d1.
Is it a draw?

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

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:56 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:52 pm
Not sure this is the right place, but a friend contacted me with a draw by repetition enquiry.

Law states

9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same
position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, if he first writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his
scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of
the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both
players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant
9.2.2.2 a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after
moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

He says, White has Ke1 and Ra1 (neither of which has moved), black has B on g4 etc. (nothing between g4 and d1), game continues:-
1 Ra2 Bh5
2 Ra1 Bg4
3 Ra2 Bh5
4 Ra1 and black claims a draw indicating that he can create a third repetition of position by playing Bg4.

White can no longer castle with the rook, but he would not be able to castle at the start anyway because the bishop is attacking d1.
Is it a draw?
No, it is not a draw. The key sentence is the one which I have emboldened.

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

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by E Michael White » Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:59 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:56 pm
9.2.2.2 ………………………………………………………………... The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.
This law probably needs clarification after the law changes of Jan 2018 with regard to touch move which indirectly affects this law too. Since then the accepted way of looking at those situations is to say "to what stage has the game progressed?" On this forum ( in the sense of whole forum) several examples have been given where a player has restricted choices after touching a piece whether or not he intended to move it, as any nonaccidental contact is considered as intent.

That being the case the player in this example loses the right to castle as soon as he touches the Ra1 and cannot castle, as he touched his rook first, not after he has made a move as the bit you highlighted suggests. However he still has the move and must move the rook but cannot castle.
Last edited by E Michael White on Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4539
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:15 am

David Sedgwick is correct. That was the decision by the Rules Commission when the matter was discussed, in a somewhat different context. Geurt Gijssen was Chairman at the time and I secretary. the position was.
White Ke1 Rh1. Black Qg3 checking the king. kg8. The moves 1 Ke2 qg4 2 Ke1 qg3+ 3 Kd2 qd6+ 4 Ke1 Qg3+. This is not the 3rd time it has occurred, because the right to castle is only lost AFTER the move is made.
Geurt believed this very strongly. I spoke very strongly against it and also voted against it. But the majority was in favour of the chairman, as is normal in FIDE. I believe you can see into the future,
BUT 9.2.2.1. en passant. Kg1 Rh2 Pg2. ka2 pf4 ra8
1 g4+ ka3 2 Rh3+ ka2 3 Rh2+ Kb3 4 Rh3+ ka2 5 White claims a draw writing Ra2 on his score sheet as it has occurred 3 times. Here we have seen into the future and that black could not capture the pawn en passant because he was in check.
None of us thought of this anomaly at the time. Later John Nunn drew Geurt's attention to the en passant rule in this context. But Geurt never thought of the position I described and I left it with, in my opinion, one correct law and one incorrect. I thought it too trivial to bring it up after Geurt ceased to be chairman.
E Michael is correct.
9.2.2.2 A king had castling rights with a rook that has not previously been moved; nor touched, with the intention of moving it, on that move.

Wadih Khoury
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Wadih Khoury » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:53 am

I think I am going to regret going for an arbiter course :lol:

I don't get the latter argument. It feels the difference in interpretation stems from whether the position (and therefore the castling rights) exists:
  • just after the previous player moves and presses the clock
  • just before the player moves and presses his clock
So for the starting position, why are we trying to take into account the player's intent to move the rook, if the position had castling rights the moment the previous player pressed the clock (let's say he played Bg4). At that point, the white player has not started thinking, has no intent yet since his turn just started, he has just discovered black's move.
So why would there be an argument to say that his intent was to move the rook, and hence the position has no castling rights?

Joseph Conlon
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Joseph Conlon » Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:23 am

Wadih: I think the more practical side of threefold repetition is knowing that for the claim to be valid, the move must not have been actually played, but only written on the scoresheet. I wonder how many claims based on loss of castling or e.p. rights ever actually come up.

At a relatively advanced age and rating I got 'done' on this by Peter Purland in the junior squad U21 championship, where he (correctly) disallowed my claim for a draw by a repetition in a lost position because I made the move first and then claimed.

Fortunately my opponent blundered a piece a couple of moves later and so I learnt my lesson cost-free.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:41 am

Joseph Conlon wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:23 am
I wonder how many claims based on loss of castling or e.p. rights ever actually come up.
There was an example at GM level in the 1980s between Karpov and Miles. One of them started a repetition sequence with something like Ra1-a5 followed by a retreat of the Rook back to a1. The draw claim was rejected on the grounds that 0-0-0 had been possible in the initial position.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:50 am

"The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved."

My friend's point was that white didn't have castling rights in the first position... So exactly the same moves were available later on.

John McKenna

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by John McKenna » Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:57 am

White did not have the right to castle Q-side in said position "because the bishop is attacking d1."

White had not lost the right to castle Q-side subsequently, in said position, however.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:05 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:41 am
Joseph Conlon wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:23 am
I wonder how many claims based on loss of castling or e.p. rights ever actually come up.
There was an example at GM level in the 1980s between Karpov and Miles. One of them started a repetition sequence with something like Ra1-a5 followed by a retreat of the Rook back to a1. The draw claim was rejected on the grounds that 0-0-0 had been possible in the initial position.
More or less
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Wadih Khoury
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Wadih Khoury » Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:18 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:50 am
"The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved."

My friend's point was that white didn't have castling rights in the first position... So exactly the same moves were available later on.
I like how programmers of chess software do it:
The player did have castling rights, he simply could not exercise it. So yes, the available moves are the same, but the law specifically mentions if the "right" exists. And until the king or both rooks move, the castling tag should still show that the castling rights are "enabled".

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:05 pm

"So yes, the available moves are the same, but the law specifically mentions if the "right" exists. And until the king or both rooks move, the castling tag should still show that the castling rights are "enabled"."

That's probably the way to phrase it. I agreed with David initially, then I thought the wording could be interpreted another way.

Having spent a career spotting infelicitous wording and trying to change it has got me worrying about these things!

Post Reply