Laws of Chess - changes

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Mick Norris
Posts: 10328
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Mick Norris » Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:03 pm

Wadih Khoury wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:53 am
I think I am going to regret going for an arbiter course :lol:
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
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:10 pm

John McKenna WhIte HAD lost he right to play 0-0-0 because the position given us only had the R and K on the board. So it was now - or never.
We have glossed over the fact that the position was totally illegal anyway. There was no Black king on the board.
It is one of the most common errors, not being given all the information.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Nick Grey » Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:06 pm

What is the penalty for not being given all the information.

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 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pm

Nick Grey wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:06 pm
What is the penalty for not being given all the information.
That you cannot get a sensible answer.
If you want experienced arbiters like Stewart to give up their time answering queries, then please present a complete and legal position and all relevant facts.

On a couple of points earlier:

a) In Ireland, the rule that if your phone makes any sound then you lose the game is strictly enforced.
Doctors on call should probably not be playing a rated game.

b) The case of a player with K+R v K+N losing on time actually occurred in one of the subsidiary events of the 2019 Irish Championship; FA Ivan Baburin made the correct ruling.
For the record, here is the game.

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 » 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
Mick, thank you for the plug.

The publication of the FIDE Arbiters' Manual 2021 was announced on the Arbiters' Commission website about a week ago, but on the main FIDE website only today.

https://www.fide.com/news/1008

Of the fourteen people whose contributions are acknowledged, four are (now) British arbiters and four, not quite the same four, are current or previous members of this Forum.

Hence 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 and suggestions should be submitted as indicated at the end of the FIDE announcement.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:02 pm

British arbiters have an advantage over arbiters from elsewhere. FIDE conducts its business in UK English.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:51 pm

"It is one of the most common errors, not being given all the information."

You don't need that information - the issue is clear without it.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Matthew Turner » Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:45 am

Tim Harding wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pm
Nick Grey wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:06 pm
What is the penalty for not being given all the information.
That you cannot get a sensible answer.
If you want experienced arbiters like Stewart to give up their time answering queries, then please present a complete and legal position and all relevant facts.

On a couple of points earlier:

a) In Ireland, the rule that if your phone makes any sound then you lose the game is strictly enforced.
Doctors on call should probably not be playing a rated game.

b) The case of a player with K+R v K+N losing on time actually occurred in one of the subsidiary events of the 2019 Irish Championship; FA Ivan Baburin made the correct ruling.
For the record, here is the game.

An interesting add-on to this is would make a difference if Black offered a draw? Is there a difference between Black offering draw on move 100 or offering a draw on move 102?

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:22 am

Tim Harding wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pm
b) The case of a player with K+R v K+N losing on time actually occurred in one of the subsidiary events of the 2019 Irish Championship; FA Ivan Baburin made the correct ruling.
Can we assume there was no increment?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Roger de Coverly » 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?

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:33 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:26 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 queation. As Stewart says, just full information.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by Stewart Reuben » 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.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:43 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:27 am
Possibly they were playing without either an increment, or quickplay finish rule.
Possibly all sorts of things, that's why I asked.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

John McKenna

Re: Laws of Chess - changes

Post by John McKenna » Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:09 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:10 pm
John McKenna WhIte HAD lost he right to play 0-0-0 because the position given us only had the R and K on the board. So it was now - or never.
We have glossed over the fact that the position was totally illegal anyway. There was no Black king on the board.
It is one of the most common errors, not being given all the information.
Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:51 pm
"It is one of the most common errors, not being given all the information."

You don't need that information - the issue is clear without it.
E Michael White wrote:
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...

SNIP

That being the case the player in this example loses the right to castle as soon as he touches the Ra1...

SNIP
... Or TOUCHES the Ke1.

If it is all so clear how to reconcile what is quoted above?

NB: King and bishop are not able to give checkmate when an opponent has king and rook. (in contrast to king and knight.)

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 11:27 am

Chess.com are reporting that FIDE has decided to prohibit all draws with immediate effect.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/breakin ... ss-updated

Post Reply