Rules question

John Upham · Post by **John Upham** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:34 am

I feel I ought to know the answer to this but do not...

In a team match player A plays 1.e4 (and starts his clock) having been told who his opponent was going to be X then finds his opponent has been replaced by Y.

Is A entitled to change his move from 1.e4 to something else? I suspect not.

Roger de Coverly · Post by **Roger de Coverly** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:15 pm

John Upham wrote: Is A entitled to change his move from 1.e4 to something else? I suspect not.

I would have thought it courteous to allow White to reconsider in the light of the new opponent. If you needed to legalise it, regard the initial game as annulled by the non-appearance of the opponent and a new game started, but with the late substitute suffering a time penalty. If you are re-paired in a tournament, you start a new game without question.

Ian Thompson · Post by **Ian Thompson** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:52 pm

John Upham wrote:In a team match player A plays 1.e4 (and starts his clock) having been told who his opponent was going to be X then finds his opponent has been replaced by Y.

Is A entitled to change his move from 1.e4 to something else? I suspect not.

Yes. It's a new game, so the pieces should be put back in the starting position ready for the new game to start.

MJMcCready · Post by **MJMcCready** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:41 pm

If it is a rated game then the name on the team sheet should stand. You should win by default if the opponent has not arrived.

Roger de Coverly · Post by **Roger de Coverly** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:46 pm

MJMcCready wrote:If it is a rated game then the name on the team sheet should stand. You should win by default if the opponent has not arrived.

Various British leagues, not least the 4NCL, have rules which can allow substitution if a reserve is available. They are correct to do this, given that the player receiving the default may have travelled a long distance.

Alex Holowczak · Post by **Alex Holowczak** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:53 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
MJMcCready wrote:If it is a rated game then the name on the team sheet should stand. You should win by default if the opponent has not arrived.
Various British leagues, not least the 4NCL, have rules which can allow substitution if a reserve is available. They are correct to do this, given that the player receiving the default may have travelled a long distance.

There was an interesting cockup the other night in the Birmingham Summer League.

I was unable to play in the team I captain on Thursday, but I had managed to find a team of 4 without me. No harm done - except one of them is usually late. My well-intentioned deputy decided to substitute in another player for him, and put him in the team accordingly.

However ... this took us from 423 to 444 as a total grade for the division. This took us over the grade limit of 440, and the penalty for this is to lose the match 4-0, and the four boards count as defaults.

An independent rule says that for every four boards you default in the league, you have a 1 matchpoint penalty. And so, we went from a 2.5-1.5 win to a 4-0 default loss; a three matchpoint swing the other way.

Substitutes are fine, when used correctly.

MJMcCready · Post by **MJMcCready** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:30 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
MJMcCready wrote:If it is a rated game then the name on the team sheet should stand. You should win by default if the opponent has not arrived.
Various British leagues, not least the 4NCL, have rules which can allow substitution if a reserve is available. They are correct to do this, given that the player receiving the default may have travelled a long distance.

Well, I don't know. If the game can start alongside other match games then perhaps yes, though it is fairer to give the choice to the team opposing a defaulted player given that matches are a team event. I don't think it would be fair to wait 25 minutes for a player and then start a new game and clocks behind everyone else. If someone has traveled a long way they might not get home until very late. The name put on the team sheet should start at the same time as all other games. If that person isn't going to make it, they shouldn't be put on the team sheet in the first place. All games should start at the same time and teams that have to rearrange or use substitutes shouldn't be in a position to decide if a substitute can be used. The opposing team may agree but it should be their decision in my opinion.

Clive Blackburn · Post by **Clive Blackburn** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:50 pm

I don't see that the player can have it both ways. Either he stays with his original first move and maintains an advantage on the clock or the clocks are reset and he makes a different move.
Looking at it from the substitute's viewpoint, could he also insist that it should be treated as a new game and ask for the clocks to be reset?

Ian Thompson · Post by **Ian Thompson** » Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:32 pm

Clive Blackburn wrote:I don't see that the player can have it both ways. Either he stays with his original first move and maintains an advantage on the clock or the clocks are reset and he makes a different move.
Looking at it from the substitute's viewpoint, could he also insist that it should be treated as a new game and ask for the clocks to be reset?

You're confusing two different things here.

A game of chess "is played between two opponents" (FIDE rules). There is no provision for substituting a player once a game has started. (Of course, there's nothing to stop a league saying they will allow this, but then the game is not being played according to the FIDE rules, so it shouldn't, for example, be graded.)

On the clock times, there is nothing wrong with the tournament rules saying, for example, that the substitute player loses the time on his clock between the scheduled starting time of the match and the time at which he was substituted and became a player in the match.

Clive Blackburn · Post by **Clive Blackburn** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:03 am

Ian Thompson wrote: A game of chess "is played between two opponents" (FIDE rules). There is no provision for substituting a player once a game has started. (Of course, there's nothing to stop a league saying they will allow this, but then the game is not being played according to the FIDE rules, so it shouldn't, for example, be graded.)

Thank you very much for that Ian

The next time that I am beaten by a substitute player in our local league, I will insist that the game should not be graded!

Roger de Coverly · Post by **Roger de Coverly** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:41 am

MJMcCready wrote: I don't think it would be fair to wait 25 minutes for a player and then start a new game and clocks behind everyone else. If someone has traveled a long way they might not get home until very late.

This is missing a key point. In a League, the substitute starts with the clock time from the original nominated start time. The 4NCL have a particularly strong rule on this, which is that the substitute always starts 55 minutes down.

Stewart Reuben · Post by **Stewart Reuben** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:40 am

Ian Thompson >A game of chess "is played between two opponents" (FIDE rules). There is no provision for substituting a player once a game has started. (Of course, there's nothing to stop a league saying they will allow this, but then the game is not being played according to the FIDE rules, so it shouldn't, for example, be graded.)<

That is wrong. If Black has not replied to White's first move then, according to the Laws of Chess, no game has taken place. If White never turned up, but Black did, again even more obviously no game took place. Thus no game has started. So, of course, one can take place with a substituted player. Of course White can change his first move. The game has been aborted.

According to the FIDE Rules a player can refuse to play a substitute. Various leagues in England amend that and probably also do so for non-FIDE Rated tournaments. In most English leagues you do not know the name of your opponent until moments before the game. Thus the complaint that you had prepared for one opponent, but now had another, is less valid.
In a tournament it is common for the time elapsed to be ignored or, if it is substantial, shared between the two willing players. In Britain we are very conscious of trying to get a player a game. It is very different elsewhere.
If you accepted the substitution, if you did not want the game rated or graded, then you would have to say so before the game started. If you did so, it is very likely the attempt to provide you with a game would be abandoned.

Michael Flatt · Post by **Michael Flatt** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:42 am

Being intimately familiar with the FIDE Laws of Chess and local league Rules is becoming increasingly important given the highly competitive nature of the modern game at all levels.

Is there a tendency for distinctive UK competitions to disappear in favour of the FIDE form?

More Arbiters, anyone?

Stewart Reuben · Post by **Stewart Reuben** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:05 am

Every effort is made for there to be no difference between the FIDE Laws of Chess and local league rules. Only if leagues use adjudication, which of course does not conform to the FIDE Laws, should there be any problem.
The FIDE Laws are basically written on the assumption that an arbiter is present. Indeed, in the absence of an arbiter, games cannot be FIDE Rated. When there is no arbiter present, it is impossible to apply the laws about mobile phones stringently. There is nobody there to apply any penalty.
The new FIDE Laws come into effect 1 July 2014. Most leagues do not start until September. Thus there should be no problem. The next change will be 1 July 2017. But the right is retained to make interim changes if necessary. This would only be at all likely in the case of problems caused by electronic means of communication and cheating.
All leagues should state the following:
Games shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess except as amended hereunder:...

Having an arbiter present lends gravitas to any event. The silliest is the London Chess League. Here usually two matches are usually played simultaneously. Thus at least 40 players. Charge them each £1 for each match and it would be easy to have an arbiter always present.

Christopher Kreuzer · Post by **Christopher Kreuzer** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:15 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:Having an arbiter present lends gravitas to any event. The silliest is the London Chess League. Here usually two matches are usually played simultaneously. Thus at least 40 players. Charge them each £1 for each match and it would be easy to have an arbiter always present.

You really think all the players who play in the London Chess League are going to stump up an extra £1 per match? How much would that add to the existing league subscriptions? And this only works if you mean the matches played at the Golden Lane community centre. I've never looked at the exact numbers, but a large number of matches are played at other venues, including many of the Cavendish matches.

(Do arbiters really charge £40 for an evening's work? I'm not questioning it, just asking if that really is the going rate.)

English Chess Forum

Rules question

Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question

Re: Rules question