World Senior Chess Championship 14 – 27 November 2022 Assisi – Umbria Italy

[Kevin Thurlow]

Keith has the wrong minor piece... RN vs R draw in 114 moves

[David Sedgwick]

Keith has the wrong minor piece... RN vs R draw in 114 moves

The effort doesn't seem to have taken too much out of Keith. He went on to win this evening's Blitz tournament.

http://chess-results.com/tnr697805.aspx ... =4&flag=30

[Keith Arkell]

There was an incident during my game yesterday, and I was wondering whether anyone who is up on the intricacies of the FIDE laws of chess might be able to shed some light on the correct procedure:

We both had between 1 and 2 minutes left, plus 30 seconds increment per move, with about 6 moves left to time control at move 40.
My opponent made a move and I instantly replied. I then wrote both moves down, but my opponent made another move before writing down his 2 moves and my 1 move.

I stopped the clock and went off to find an arbiter while my opponent continued to look at the position. 2 or 3 minutes later I had explained what happened and the arbiter refused to give me a time penalty but instead told us to continue the game while he watched.

If there is no penalty I see no reason to make such a complaint in future as only I was disadvantaged, both by the blitzing itself and the gain of thinking time for my opponent.

[NickFaulks]

Your opponent was certainly in breach of the Laws, but you know that. Whether that brings some penalty seems to depend upon the individual arbiter. As far as I'm concerned it is cheating and even a first offence should bring at least the minimum penalty of extra time for you. A warning is not a penalty.

[LawrenceCooper]

There was an incident during my game yesterday, and I was wondering whether anyone who is up on the intricacies of the FIDE laws of chess might be able to shed some light on the correct procedure:

We both had between 1 and 2 minutes left, plus 30 seconds increment per move, with about 6 moves left to time control at move 40.
My opponent made a move and I instantly replied. I then wrote both moves down, but my opponent made another move before writing down his 2 moves and my 1 move.

I stopped the clock and went off to find an arbiter while my opponent continued to look at the position. 2 or 3 minutes later I had explained what happened and the arbiter refused to give me a time penalty but instead told us to continue the game while he watched.

If there is no penalty I see no reason to make such a complaint in future as only I was disadvantaged, both by the blitzing itself and the gain of thinking time for my opponent.

I believe that the relevant rule is:

"A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another" according to the FIDE Handbook 8.1 https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

I don't see any specific penalties mentioned for this infringement but the general range listed in 13.4 of the handbook are:

13.4 The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:
a. warning
b. increasing the remaining time of the opponent
c. reducing the remaining time of the offending player
d. declaring the game to be lost
e. reducing the points scored in the game by the offending party
f. increasing the points scored in the game by the opponent to the maximum available
for that game
g. expulsion from the event.

Speaking as a very inactive arbiter I would consider a warning to be the appropriate course of action. With an arbiter not being present it's less clear. I suspect by the time you found an arbiter and explained what had happened then your opponent would have already updated his scoresheet. If he had then the arbiter can't really do anything more than watching subsequent play.

It may still be worth making a complaint if it is annoying/distracting but I don't see how you can do that without him having the opportunity to study the position.

[Mike Gunn]

Another inactive arbiter agrees with Loz. Warning (and explanation of the rule) for the first offence.

[Alex McFarlane]

My guess would be that there was a capture and recapture involved.

In such a case it is a natural reaction to capture without writing down the moves.

When I witness this happening I will normally issue a verbal warning and usually after the game is complete as arbiter intervention is likely to disturb the innocent party as much as the guilty one.

If it were to happen again, or where no capture was involved then it is normal for the arbiter to tap the scoresheet to remind the player of his obligation to record.

It would normally require more than one transgression before the penalty would escalated.

Where the opponent has acted as Keith did then the arbiter would need to confirm with the offender that they had acted in the manner indicated and only if agreed could they take any action (similar to an unwitnessed touch move claim). If the situation was agreed by both players then an addition to Keith's time would have been in order.

In a recent case similar to Keith's but one which I had witnessed, I awarded the player in Keith's position an extra 30 seconds as they had obviously been disturbed by the opponent's action.

These situations are awkward as the guilty party often gets more benefit from being penalised than from the incident going unnoticed. To give two examples I had. In one I warned the player (after the game) that if he did that again I would add time to his opponent. The opponent stated that he had not realised it had happened and that he would not have welcomed the interruption. In the second case, where the innocent party had more time, the game ended before the time control was reached. I pointed out to the losing player that he could have been penalised for his behaviour. The winning player indicated that they would have been annoyed if I had stepped in and thanked me for showing common sense.

These situations can be awkward for the arbiter who must decide whether it is better to step in or to wait.

[David Sedgwick]

I disagree with Nick Faulks and I agree with Messrs Cooper, Gunn and McFarlane.

I stopped the clock and went off to find an arbiter while my opponent continued to look at the position. 2 or 3 minutes later I had explained what happened and the arbiter refused to give me a time penalty but instead told us to continue the game while he watched.

If there is no penalty I see no reason to make such a complaint in future as only I was disadvantaged, both by the blitzing itself and the gain of thinking time for my opponent.

For a relatively minor offence of this nature, I think the pragmatic course of action is to let it go, at least on the first occasion. If your opponent reoffends, call the arbiter and explain why you didn't do so the first time. If there is no recurrence, you can still mention it to the arbiter after the game.

That said, my advice above is contrary to that given by John Nunn in one of his books. He recommends calling the arbiter immediately or not at all.

[Roger de Coverly]

For a relatively minor offence of this nature, I think the pragmatic course of action is to let it go, at least on the first occasion.

I had this at the weekend. My opponent reacted to a double check by leaving the king in single check. I pointed at the piece giving check and the only legal move was substitited. That the follow up was mate in one no doubt influenced my decision not to engage the rite of arbiter summoning.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I stopped the clock and went off to find an arbiter while my opponent continued to look at the position."

I had the same in a Seniors event in Austria. Both the arbiters I consulted refused to take action, and while I was complaining the opponent updated his score sheet. I then blundered a winning endgame into a draw. I did later get an explanation. At the end of the event, the normally very dour opponent was smiling and laughing with the two arbiters...

[Keith Arkell]

Thanks for the replies guys.

The reason I went to the trouble of stopping the clock and hunting down an arbiter was because in the Ger v Eng World Senior Team Ch match in, I think, 2015, I said and did nothing, after which it nagged away at me for the rest of the time scramble, possibly even affecting the outcome of the game.

Reading your various responses on here puts me at my ease as clearly the arbiter acted reasonably.
I sometimes dine with the fair play chap and he told me later that his policy would be warning, then additional time for me, then time off my opponent's clock, with a 4th offence being forfeit of the game.

For the record, although there were no captures involved in the sequence I'm sure my opponent didn't infringe the rules deliberately, and we had a perfectly warm hand-shake at the end.

[NickFaulks]

Warning (and explanation of the rule).

Oh, come on. This was a very experienced player who knew the rule perfectly well.

[David Sedgwick]

Warning (and explanation of the rule).

Oh, come on. This was a very experienced player who knew the rule perfectly well.

Have you never picked up your pen to write down your move, only to find that you have neglected to write down your previous one?

[NickFaulks]

Have you never picked up your pen to write down your move, only to find that you have neglected to write down your previous one?

If I have, I did not need an arbiter to explain to me that I shouldn't have done it.

[Matt Mackenzie]

The point is surely that you can easily do such a thing by accident, with no gamesmanship element even coming into the picture.

A repeat offender would suggest something more, I agree.