Kevin Thurlow Kevin.Thurlow@lgc.co.uk
PS I'll find stats for Surrey League over the weekend
From John Cox
30.11.06
I was dubious about David W's reported guidance. But to be fair, and on actually reading it, he may have it in mind (though he doesn’t say) that a claim was made that the player was not trying to win by normal means, the arbiter ordered play to continue, and that he then saw the player repeating further as described, after which time the flag fell. (David says it would be a brave arbiter who then investigated what had happened before he was called; I should have thought this was essential, but perhaps that is a counsel of perfection). One can see then that if there were evidence of considerable previous faffing around without trying actually to give mate an arbiter might conclude that no effort was being made and perhaps moreover (if the players were extremely weak) that the player actually might not have been able to give mate. Still a pretty extreme call.
John Cox JohnCox@dewarhogan.co.uk
rjh: - I don't know. Playing, and repeating, pointless moves with the arbiter watching when the opponent has just claimed you're not trying?
But I wonder if "making no effort" is good enough. Should not "displaying incompetence" come into it somewhere? What do you rule if the opponent, a beginner, is playing on with K+Q v K and has just played 12 checks in a row with the claimant's K in the middle of the board? It would be a hard man who said he wasn't trying to win.
From John McKenna
29.11.06
Yelp!! I've just read the following in the ECF Chief Arbiter's advice about QP finishes -
"There was one case of 'making no effort' when black with lone K on e5 claimed a draw against a K on f2 and a rook on a4. Play continued 1. Rb4 Kd5 2. Ra4 Ke5 3. Rb4 and black's flag fell. The arbiter correctly awarded a draw. Note that the artificial prolonging of the game is the key point of the decision."
Ignoring the last sentence about artificial prolongation (because I am still trying to work out where that principle comes from) I am left wondering if I can really believe what I read. Surely the player with the bare K should not be given a draw unless it is under other rules (eg stalemate, threefold repetition, 50-move, etc). If his flag falls then his opponent should claim (and be given) the win.
(Now I understand how, in the old story, a GM watching two beginners playing with bare kings was told later that one of them had won. The man who told him was the extremely ethical arbiter who had just upheld the claim of a win on time as he felt morally impelled to do so, despite the laws, due to the fact that they were both making every effort to win and neither claimed a draw before a flag fell! Could the path to chess perdition be paved with the decisions of well-intentioned arbiters?)
John McKenna johnrobert_2000@yahoo.com
rjh: - John seems to be advocating the deletion of 10.2b, unless I've misunderstood something.
From Chris Howell
29.11.06
Richard,
Although something tells me I'd be better keeping my head down here, the truth must out...
In the middle of many other changes coming too thick and fast to consider all of them very deeply, it was me as Game Fee & Grading Director who changed the eligibility requirements for gradable games in 1999, not Roger Edwards. I might even have taken Stewart Reuben's advice on the wording, I can't remember; if so it might have been his intention to exclude all adjudicated games from that point but it was not mine, although I agree with him and others that this was and still is a laudable long-term aim. The changes were mainly to sensibly allow Fischer-style timings, which were just coming in, and to remove the legality of junior rapidplay games being graded as longplay (which went on happening anyway, apparently!).
On leagues allowing adjudication, in the Surrey League the players choose the finish; the away player offers two of the three options (QPF, adjournment or adjudication) and the home player accepts one of these two. If the QPF option is chosen, the time-limit is reduced from 35 in 75 to 30 in 60 + 20QPF. This system works very well, and Kevin Thurlow as Tournament Controller would be able to provide statistics as to how many games have which finish chosen. I do know that QPF is far-and-away the most popular, particularly in the higher leagues; for example in the recent Redhill v Coulsdon match in Div 1, all 8 games were QPF under this system.
Chris Howell chris.howell8@btinternet.com
Redhill, Kent County Team, ECF Arbiter (although that maybe should be ex-BCF Arbiter as my CRB clearance is quite old and anyway I'd presumably be sacked for agreeing with the Kent v Essex decision...)
From John Cox
29.11.06
I dare say this ruling was not according to the present laws, but nonetheless I honour the anonymous arbiter for his adherence to the spirit of the game. The present laws are wrong in my view; this ending is simple to hold in anything but blitz (assuming a ‘normal’ starting position) and the quickplay rules were not intended to convert the game into blitz, merely to bring the game to a finish within a decent time. Flagging the opponent in drawn positions is not chess, not the sort of thing one would have expected from a gentlemanly team like Essex, and is best reserved for one’s less desirable ICC opponents (and as Miles would no doubt have added, weekend swisses, the county championship, and that sort of thing). On the other hand it is vexing not to have the chance to make the probably vain attempt to win a drawn position merely because the opponent is short of time.
These conflicting priorities cannot be resolved with the framework of the present rules.
The solution to this problem is simple, in my opinion. When the defending party claims a draw in these theoretically drawn endings the arbiter should have the option to tell the stronger side he can play it on with two minutes against three (or four against five, whatever), blitz rules, and no more squealing to the arbiter. If the stronger side loses on time, too bad.
That gives him his chance to exploit a mistake on the one hand and discourages ICC-style opportunism on the other.
If I’m not mistaken, by the way, this very ending arose in Parker-McShane, 4NCL, a while ago. Neither player had any time or scoresheet. When Parker (with the knight) simplified into the bare R v N ending the matter was resolved with a nod and a handshake. It can be done.
John Cox JohnCox@dewarhogan.co.uk
London
From Richard Palliser
29.11.06
Dear Richard,
I welcome Stewart Reuben's proposals. If a new rule can be drafted, I'm confident that Stewart's experience will help him to draw a good one up. That said, I am a little concerned by his suggestion for rule 10.2b: "If the arbiter agrees that the player would certainly be able to draw the game with two minutes left on his clock plus five seconds additional for each move in the delay mode, he shall declare the game drawn."
The points behind this proposal are very sensible, but does it mean something slightly different to the current situation? I wonder if the 'five seconds additional' may enable more endings to be included in any likely-to-be-ruled drawn category. Under the current rules a defender with, say, rook against rook and bishop will probably have to make 20 or so moves to prove the draw. Imagine if they claimed with just 10 seconds left: they would almost certainly lose. And yet, if the arbiter was to ask himself whether they could hold the position with five seconds a move, he might well be more inclined to rule a draw. Perhaps not, though. Furthermore, under the current rules the defender may well lose due to having to blitz, but five seconds per move (even if only in theory) could well be enough to eliminate panic and thereby help them defend accurately with R v R+B.
I'm afraid that I think this rule 10.2b, which I may well not have fully understood, may well just add confusion to an already tricky area. Far better, I feel, would be for the ECF (or even FIDE) to issue further guidelines (and those issued by David Welch this week are indeed very useful) on the two minute rule. This would be not so much for the benefit of arbiters, but for especially team captains and club championship controllers. These might mention some of the more common claims likely to occur along with guidance on how to act. For example, if the defender claims with NvR and after 10 or so moves the defender's king remains in the centre, a draw may well be awarded.
Another tricky issue is when the draw is claimed: it may be with a full two minutes left or with only seconds. It is not entirely clear too as to what happened when the draw was claimed in the Kent-Essex match. Presumably the captains weren't permitted to act as arbiters and so sent off the position? If so, perhaps the rules should be changed. Two such experienced captains could surely have acted as the arbiter and watched the game continue, noting down the moves in case any further appeal was needed, should the captains have been unable to agree.
On a different issue, it strikes me as rather misguided to even consider not grading adjudicated games. Those leagues still employing them have no doubt had heated meetings over retaining them, but have decided they are the way forwards. Why shouldn't those games be graded if the players wish them to be? Can the ECF not deviate from FIDE policy in some small regards? If not, how come certain leagues are being allowed to continue being graded despite introducing their own rules over mobile phones? At a time when the ECF are (finally) trying to gain more members, taking action against adjudications may well be a foolish step.
Best wishes,
Richard Palliser rpalliser@hotmail.com
rjh: - There was a County match, a few years ago, where the match captains appointed two joint arbiters instead of sending the claim off. It was done through ignorance - no one knew the rules - but the arbiters' decision stood.
From Richard Almond
28.11.06
Richard,
It isn't news to me that QPF is not an entirely satisfactory conclusion to a game beginning in a "classical" form. Particularly without an arbiter present. That is a fact of team chess in the majority of matches in England. Without an arbiter, a player in a match pressure situation as well as being focused on the game has to make a decision as to when and if he has a valid claim. Also at which moment he should make it. If he gets it wrong he automatically loses whereas with an arbiter present there is possibility the game will continue and the draw may still be achieved/awarded on subsequent play. A player terrified of letting his flag fall and costing the team perhaps will also make a claim earlier, as with the small size manual clocks that are commonly used in matches he/she has little idea whether there are 5 or 30 secs. remaining.
I personally favour the Fischer timing system where digital clocks can be provided. If insufficient for all boards the system Stewart mentioned with the substitution of digital clocks at the tail end is well worth considering. To me it is logically superior as at the outset of a game it is not possible to say how many moves have to be played within the time and also it is hard to judge even late in a game. DGT clocks provide flexibility of time options with up to four phases where the number of moves and added seconds can be varied.
Unfortunately the SCCU County Rules don't seem to permit a Fischer timing system. Whilst teams can vary the time controls, it specifically states there must be QPF. FIDE Laws define QPF as where remaining moves have to be made in a limited time.
Fischer timing is perhaps permitted in the ECF County Rules but it states a maximum of 5 hour sessions. If a match was played at a recognised equivalent of 40 moves/100 mins. + 20 mins. with 30 secs per move added
through game, some games will go beyond 60 moves and potentially 5 hours. Which is where the flexibility of DGT clocks come in as it would be possible to increase the bonus time at move 40 and reduce seconds added. Or use an adapted version of the system used at Cappelle La Grande where the increment reduces to 10 seconds after move 80, to ensure a swift end.
The National Club rules recommend the use of a Fischer time system where DGT clocks are used, so it seems inconsistent the ECF County Rules don't? So shouldn't ECF and SCCU rules be amended to provide the option of Fischer Timing?
As regards adjudication. Doesn't adjudication in reality start when the clocks are stopped and the players, stronger/other club mates, computers analyse the position? Apart from positions where the result is extremely obvious and the game would naturally be concluded immediately, isn't the result determined by "non playing" means even if not submitted for adjudication? In the Mid Sussex League where currently adjudication is the only option, I estimate on average 1-2 boards from 5 are unfinished per match. As a deposit needs to be sent for adjudications, it is common sense for both teams to analyse the position to assess the likely adjudication outcome to decide whether to risk
their money or agree the result with the opponents. Statistics of ECF, Leagues etc of positions submitted don't of course take into account results determined by these "self adjudications". So I estimate games decided without being played to conclusion is much higher than adjudication statistics reveal. Surely those games are invalid for grading as well? While 7 positions were submitted to the Sussex Adjudication Secretary, it perhaps is 100 games or more unfinished at end of
playing sessions from 695 played last season in Mid Sussex.
Best Regards
Richard richardalmond141@hotmail.com
rjh: - What are we to say of the "wrong" results achieved mid-session for the good of the team? Perhaps team chess should not be graded.
From Stewart Reuben
28.11.06
Roger de Coverly asked the question whether the FIDE Laws ever allowed adjudication. I am not an archaeologist, but there is nothing in the Kazic book of 1980 to suggest they did at that time.
What is totally certain is that the 1997 Laws outlawed the practice. That is because the Laws start: 'The FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.' Nobody could possibly argue that adjudication is over-the-board. It was entirely deliberate that the Laws do not cover correspondence, internet or compositions. The statement was added because of compositions.
In reply to Jonathan Rogers, the phrase 'it is not possible to win by normal means' has lasted since 1973. How about a new wording for 2009 (when the new FIDE Laws come into effect): -
10.2a If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game except solely on time, he shall declare the game drawn.
10.2b If the arbiter agrees that the player would certainly be able to draw the game with two minutes left on his clock plus five seconds additional for each move in the delay mode, he shall declare the game drawn.
Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
I expect this can be tidied up, Richard Haddrell is excellent at that sort of thing. Prior to it appearing in the Laws, this could appear as a non-binding interpretation. Some readers might consider including the term 'clocking'. This would need defining, that is the only reason I have avoided it.
Stewart Reuben StewartReuben@aol.com
rjh: - It certainly would. I don't know what it means! I won't pretend it's as clear to me as it is to Stewart that the Laws prohibit adjudication, but that's another story. Curiously, the ECF website today publishes some Guidance on Quickplay Finishes by David Welch.
From Robert Elliston
27.11.06
On your request for adjudication statistics: -
Last season 695 games were played in the Mid Sussex League, of which 7 were adjudicated by our panel.
Robert Elliston Robertvelliston@aol.com
Mid Sussex League Adjudication Secretary
rjh: - Thanks. I'll appreciate information from others. I won't promise to publish a letter each time, but I'll publish a table with the answers in.
From David Fryer
27.11.06
The Mid Sussex Chess League for one retains adjudication as a method of determining the result of unfinished games and given the problems associated with quickplay finishes where no independent arbiter is present (we all have our horror stories to tell) it could be argued that the league is very wise to do so.
If I could add a little to the QPF debate it would be to wave the flag for those players who like to try to win drawn positions and feel frustration when their opponent who has managed their clock less well claims they are entitled to a draw. The laws of chess rightly favour the better time manager and I would certainly claim a win with the advantage of R v N where I have not been given sufficient time, through no fault of my own, to try and win.
David Fryer webmaster@midsussexchess.org.uk
From Stewart Rueben
27.11.06
In reply to Chris, on adjudications.
It seems reasonable to me to follow the rules. If you do not like a rule, you can work to get it changed.
Just outlawing games played in events which permit adjudications, would result in their ceasing.
This is not a few games, the Thames Valley League is very big, the Essex league is substantial and there are evnts in Leicestershire and the North.
Of course the adjudication service should continue. It is not just correspondence chess. It is possible to concoct a scenario where it was the best thing to do in an meergency. Why should an event not be run as people want it? It is just that the games from such events should not be graded.
Chris probably introduced the ECF rule. Why does he shy away from it?
Stewart Reuben StewartReuben@aol.com
rjh: - I doubt if Chris introduced the ECF (grading) rule. It first appears in the 2000 grading list, when Roger Edwards was Grading Director. It's not for me to say how Roger meant it to be interpreted.
From Roger de Coverly
27.11.06
Richard
Regarding leagues with rules permitting adjudication, you do not need to look any further afield than the Thames Valley League and Surrey county. I dare say the participants in these leagues would know how many players still favour adjudication as a means of winning by abnormal means.
Adjudications probably predate the BCF. Has there ever been a period when the international rules of chess formally permitted them?
Roger de Coverly rdc@rdc200.fsnet.co.uk
rjh: - Pass. Stewart might know. You can add Kent, Essex and Sussex in the SCCU, and I expect others. The number of games actually adjudicated is probably tiny.
From Cyril Johnson
27.11.06
May I contribute as a Leicestershire Official to the discussion about adjudication? We cannot impose all the FIDE Laws (FL) on local league chess. It is an assumption in the FL that for example an arbiter is present. It is an assumption that mobile phones are banned from the playing room. These two cannot be implemented. To use an analogy from cricket, Barkby Cricket Club rely on the eye of the umpire to give decisions on run-outs as they cannot afford the "magic eye" technology which will be used at Lords. What Stewart is demanding would rapidly lead to some leagues leaving the ECF.
I would add one very good reason for anonymity of arbiters for 10.2 claims. To prevent them receiving a torrent of abuse from disaffected players who never, ever, make a mistake.
Cyril Johnson cyriljohnson@yahoo.co.uk
ECF Arbiter
From Chris Majer
26.11.06
Richard
Picking up on Stewart's comments and proposal with regard to adjudications and grading. The ECF adjudication service only receives about 20 adjudications a year (much less than in former years). I assume that a significant number of adjudications are done locally unbeknown to the ECF. There seems to be two issues for the ECF:
(1) Why is the ECF providing an adjudication service if it is contrary to the FIDE laws of chess? It seems to me that an adjudication service is essential for the County & District Correspondence Chess Competition and may in some circumstances be necessary for local leagues. So I conclude that the adjudication service should be continued.
(2) Should the ECF refuse to accept adjudicated games for ECF grading? My views are firstly that such a rule is difficult or impossible to enforce. Secondly the number of games involved is too few to make it worthwhile taking any action. Indeed adjudications seem to becoming an endangered species. Rather than insisting on the letter of the law, it may be better to encourage leagues to discontinue adjudications. However, I would like to know the views of the chess community at large before determining a course of action.
regards
Chris Majer CEMAJER@aol.com
Acting Director of Home Chess
rjh: - The FIDE Laws don't apply to correspondence chess, and ECF doesn't grade it, so I suppose adjudication there isn't in question. I wonder how many OTB games are adjudicated? How many leagues and counties have adjudication?
From Jonathan Rogers
26.11.06
Dear Richard
As you suggest, we will not say more about the QPF decision in Kent v Essex. Looking at the wider picture, though, it seems to me that the problem lies in the very wording of the "cannot be won by normal means" formula. It is a very inapt way of putting the test which is (I think) rather supposed to be something like "could the opponent conceivably have made progress without co-operation from the claimant which, even given his time shortage, would have been tantamount to suicidal co-operation?". Of course "cannot win by normal means" is much shorter, but it allows for misunderstandings - the arbiter might think that he was being asked instead to decide what the "normal" result would have been (not what it might conceivably have been) or he might think that he was being asked to decide what might have happened (on the board) had the claimant not been very short of time - but of course this cannot be taken out of the equation altogether!
Since it is easy to misapply this test, and possible to dispute the outcome even when it is properly applied, it seems appalling that there should be no right of appeal, and I am surprised that this issue has not arisen before. I seem to recall that sixteen or more years ago SCCU matches were regularly decided by adjudications, so surely we must have had rights of appeal back then - but if so, then why would we have abandoned rights of appeal when we moved from adjudications to QPFs?
best wishes
Jonathan Rogers uctljwr@ucl.ac.uk
A heavy post
Lots of material (not unanimous!) 25.11.06 on the QPF claim. It is in reverse chronological order. Two letters are from emails between correspondents (but I hope intended for publication) and have been abbreviated. Maybe we should shut up shop now, on the merits of the Kent claim.
From Jeff Goldberg
25.11.06
David
Stewart did not need to see the position to make his decision. All he needs to know is that it's K+R v K+N. It could be argued that he might also need to know that there was no immediate win of the R (or indeed a checkmate with the N!). Stewart will have assumed that the N starts from the most favourable reasonable starting position possible.
The fact that the position on the board is a draw with best play is not in dispute. It is enough that the R has practical winning chances if the N goes wrong. The player with the N would not have to make any outrageously bad moves to lose such a position, compared with the kind of outrageously bad moves it would take to lose with a K against K+RP, if the defending K were blocking the promotion square. That position is loseable, but no reasonable player would move his K away from the promotion square so it should be given as a draw. Thats the kind of thing the rule is designed to cover, as well as completely blocked K+P positions. It is not there to prevent a player blundering because he has left himself short of time in an otherwise defensible position.
Jeff noonebutjeff@hotmail.com
From Gary Cook
25.11.06
Dear Richard
When I checked the FIDE rules of chess I came up with the same conclusion as Paul. Now if we assume that all that Jeff has said is factual - and no one has come forward to contradict him - and assuming that the position didn't have a forced knight fork, then I cannot see how the Kent player could actually make the claim - he certainly couldn't do it for reason D1 b and there is no way he could use D1 a. Maybe we should ask for the arbiter in question to go for a period of re-training.
Gary Cook ncclsecretary@yahoo.co.uk
Secretary, North Circular Chess League
rjh: - I don't see what prevents the Kent player making the claim. No one else suggests this.
From Richard Bates
25.11.06
The award of a draw is what I would hope to result (assuming a standard "RvN position" with the Knight close at hand). It really is one of the the easier basic endings to draw given a modicum of thinking time. Perhaps at lower levels the standard of the players could be taken into account, but that is not relevant in this case.
If someone wants to win games like this then I don't think they are really interested in playing chess for the right reasons. The point of quickplay finishes is not to create decisive results in situations like
this.
As for quoting Stewart Reuben, I'm sure Stewart would agree that he has been known to take some license with regard to the rules in his time - he did write a lot of them. I could quote a time in the London Grand
Prix qualifier at Hastings when he ruled that a physically unpromoted pawn should remain as a pawn sitting on the eighth rank!
It is simply not the case that every situation can be codified. It just has to be down to the goodwill of the players a lot of the time, and asking arbiters, or tournament committees, to rule and then criticising their decisions subsequently is just unfair. Most are essentially subjective in nature and can be argued either way.
Richard Bates rabatesuk@yahoo.co.uk
From David Smith
25.11.06
Dear Stewart (et al)
A couple of comments on recent correspondence.
First of all, I certainly did not "chide you on the speed of your response". I just thought it inappropriate to condemn the arbiter out of hand, including a recommendation that he be dismissed, when you do not have all the facts of the case, particularly the actual position on the board.
I have been SCCU County Match Controller I think now for close to 10 years and I can assure you that I have dealt with quite a few QPF claims in that time and that I know the difference between an adjudication and a QPF claim, passing on in every case the full details as required under the Rules.
I hesitate to comment on the actual decision reached in this case as I am not an Arbiter, and not even, as you are well aware, a very strong player. But I do know that if the King and Knight are together in or near the centre of the board the position is drawn.
Incidentally I should tell you that I have not discussed the position, or indeed any of the comments made, with the Arbiter concerned, nor do I have any idea whether he has read the SCCU Website on which many of the comments are posted.
Your other comments concerning the presence of Arbiters and/or the use of digital clocks are interesting but would present a number of practical difficulties in implementation. Perhaps we could institute a discussion on the SCCU Website to see what support they receive from County Officials and Match Captains.
Best Wishes
David davidandjanesmith@ntlworld.com
From Gavin Strachan
25.11.06
Dear Richard,
Jeff says that the position had just arisen and the player with K+N claimed and got the draw. I am going to hypothesise that if the time control was called just before the K+N v K+R position arose then the draw claim is more likely to fail. Ergo, will players who realise that in 5 moves time this drawn position is going to arise, the time control will be called and I have enough time to just sit and wait for it to be called confident in the knowledge that the adjucation will be a draw if I continue to play when their maybe a higher chance that I will actually get the adjudicated win if I stop playing. Now I am not saying that this is a possibility in the above game, but I have witnessed in the past players sitting and waiting for the time control to be called as they are very confident in an adjudicated win. In the forementioned game, the player with the K+R position probably thought that not only could he win on time but he had a superior position so he did not need to do anything particularly unusual.
This reminds me of when you play rapid play on the internet and you have absolutely no pieces whatsoever whilst your opponent has completely smashed you and just needs to force a checkmate but their time runs out and the game is classed as a draw. Computer logic in this case is your opponent has run out of time and you don't have enough material to force the checkmate.
Technically, if you have less than 2 minutes on the clock and no chance of winning and you haven't proven a draw by the opponent not making any progress then the game should play on until all draw criteria have been met. I play lots of congresses and most of the time, when opponents claim a draw because they have less than 2 minutes the arbiter will come along and say play on so that he can see that the claim is proven. It also seems pointless having a clock if every time there is less than 2 minutes on a clock an opponent tries to claim a draw in an attempt to salvage a result. The clock is an important part of the game that was incorporated to stop extreme slow play.
Gavin Strachan gavin@strax.efhmail.com
From Stewart Reuben
25.11.06
Hereunder there are two separate strings, one new.
QUICKPLAY FINISH
In answer to Colin: The part in bold was exactly as intended. A player could play on to win on time with lone knight against lone rook. The QPF Rules are to stop such nonsense.
It must be the first time that an English chess administrator has ever been chided, as by David Smith, for a rapid response to a query. Indeed he wrote laudably quickly himself.
I applaud David for his loyalty to a person who is, in a sense, a member of staff.
But, I am not an expert about other sports. I wonder, does any reader know of another major sports organisation where arbiters (or umpires or referees) or Appeals Committees are anonymous?
The second edition of my book even gives a rook v bishop position as an example where the arbiter should require the game to be played on. That is far more drawish than rook v knight.
What is sad is that as important an event as the Counties Championship should be played without an arbiter being present. This would not need to be an ECF Arbiter, all that is needed is a person with common-sense who is perceived to be disinterested. It would provide very good experience for somebody with ambitions to become a qualified arbiter.
It is also sad that modern technology is not being used to avoid the problems caused by 10.2 and Appendix D about quickplay finishes. It would require two digital clocks per match. I suggest two different rules, I don't know which is best.
(a) In a game where one or both players have reached a position with less than two minutes left on the mechanical clock, a digital clock shall be introduced, if the arbiter deems it desirable or asked for by a player. The thinking time shall be that shown on the clock plus five seconds per move delay mode for both players.
(b) Where a player has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may stop his mechanical clock and request it be changed to a digital clock. The opponent will receive an extra two minutes thinking time. The total thinking time shall be that shown on the clock plus five seconds per move delay mode for both players.
I expect the English can be tidied up. Of course, if play takes place with a digital clock, there is such a mode inbuilt. Such a rule will not add more than ten minutes to the playing session as the five seconds is not cumulative. People would have to learn how to adjust the clock. This system is used in the US, albeit with only two seconds, which I regard as too fast.
Jeff asks why the quickplay finish Laws uniquely permit no appeal against the decision of the arbiter. In the case of 10.2 where an arbiter is present, I agree with him. But the FIDE Rules Committee voted for this 10.2d, despite the opposition of the Chairman Geurt Gijssen and the Secretary, me. In the case of Appendix D, we thought the most likely scenario would be a team knockout match, where time to have a decision and an appeal is very limited. Also we visualised that there would be only one arbiter per league responsible for these decisions. Thus relying on one person would provide uniformity. It has been in the Laws since 1996 and never hitherto been questioned. As Richard said, this law did originate from England as did many others. [I did? - rjh]
************************
ADJUDICATIONS
As an offshoot from these discussions, it has come to my notice that there are games still being played which are adjudicated. This includes Essex and Leicestershire and some Northern events. Organisations are entitled to run events as they wish, although doing away with adjudications in the 1970s was one of the reasons for the English Chess Explosion.
The ECF Rules make it clear that events where there is the possibility of finishing with adjudications cannot be graded. The games must be played to the FIDE Laws of Chess, which certainly do not allow for adjudication as a way of concluding a game. Also the rates of play make no mention of adjudication.
I realise we are in the middle of a season and thus propose: From 1 September 2007, no games played where the possibility exists for them to be adjudicated shall be accepted for grading. Another way of putting this would be: From 1 September 2007, only games which meet the regulations concerning grading shall be graded.
Stewart Reuben StewartReuben@aol.com
Twickenham
From Jeff Goldberg
25.11.06
Just to answer Paul and Kevin's points.
As I said the position had only just arisen so the only possible claim would be that there was no win by normal means (and as it happens the claimant did not have an up-to-date scoresheet anyway and so could not have claimed under (b)).
Like Kevin, I can understand the desire for anonymity but I can't understand the justification for it. We'd all like a position of authority without responsibility but life just isn't normally like that. However, we do not know if the arbiter has requested anonymity (and if so whether it was before or after the decision was questioned) or even if he knows this discussion is taking place. It would be nice to know if the anonymity is at the arbiter's request or merely a decision David has made himself, a reflection of his management style.
And as Richard says, we are all assuming, we hope correctly, that it was sent to a BCF/ECF arbiter, but it would be nice if we could be told it unambiguously for the avoidance of all doubt, given what I would previously have regarded as the unlikelihood of a BCF/ECF arbiter giving this position as a draw.
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com
From Kevin Clark
25.11.06
Dear Richard,
As a matter of interest, I too was involved a few years ago in a K+N v K+R QPF ending in a county match, which was judged a draw, a result which gave Herts our first ever Open league win over Kent!
On that occasion, I was 2 pawns down in the ending but found a resource to give up my rook for knight and the pawns to reach a drawn position. From then, I felt the need to play about another dozen moves before claiming, keeping my king off the edge of the board and my knight close by, to demonstrate that my opponent could not win by 'normal means'. By this term I had understood to mean that my opponent could only win if I had played on making moves inconsistent with my previous play or ran out of time before the 50-move rule could be applied.
The four piece ending is winnable in many positions, and there is no doubt that my opponent tried to reach such a position, but had made no progress and my claim was upheld, I believe, under basis (a). I note that under (a) no copy of the scoresheet is required, but how can an arbiter assess whether the game could have been won by normal means without proof of the claimant's ability to defend such a position, as appears to be the case in the current dispute?
Kevin Clark kevin.clark2@ntlworld.com
ex Herts Captain
From John McKenna
24.11.06
Drowning man saved by straw - is it a miracle?
In the case in question Jeff Goldberg testified that, "With the match at 7.5 - 7.5, on the last board in a quickplay finish, Martin Taylor of Kent, with only seconds on his clock, had K+N against David Sand's K+R, a position which had only just arisen. He claimed a draw."
Presumably, as already said below, the claim was "that his opponent cannot win by normal means", under Appendix D (QPF when no arbiter is present) to the FIDE Laws of Chess. It relates to a restricted case of claiming a draw when there is no arbiter, so he cannot postpone his decision while watching play continue, in order to see if "the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means" and consequently the claim goes to arbitration (not adjudication) after the event.
The 4-man endgame had just arisen, so the player with the N could not claim no effort to win was being made. Therefore, we are only left with the question - was it possible for the player with K+R to win against K+N? The answer depends on the final position, but as he was not allowed to try - because his opponent claimed on the above-mentioned basis - the rules and the position should have been subject to the closest scrutiny to see if a win was possible by "normal means", or not.
Unfortunately "normal means" is not actually defined in the rules, being first mentioned in Article 10 - Quickplay finish. However, Article 9.6 states, "the game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play". If "normal means" should not include (help)mates by "unskilled play" then the rules need to be amended to say so. And, in a QPF without arbiter, if "normal means" does not include winning on time, while also trying to win on the board, in a position not demonstrably drawn, then we might as well throw away the clocks. (NB - Using digital clocks with a "Fischer timing" QPF would help, greatly, in avoiding these problems.)
In this case, the player with less time and material, unilaterally, ended the game by claiming a draw under Appendix D. (Note that in Guidance for Arbiters, below, it says "the benefit of any doubt should be given to the opponent of the claimant".) That the claim was, in all probability, wrongly upheld is not due to a miracle but, more likely, to a misapprehension of the rules. In life, if a drowning man, clutching at a straw, is thrown a lifebelt that is commendable but, in chess, when a losing man is saved by being given a gratuitous draw it is lamentable, and as the decider in high-level 16 board match a potential travesty.
PS In Guidance for Arbiters, quoted below, the example of giving a draw to the player with K+R (and presumably with less time) in his last 2 mins. also seems to go against the laws since, with help, it is possible for the player with K+N to checkmate him. Hence under Article 9.6 the game is not drawn. Consequently, in the Essex-Kent match the player with the N could have claimed a win if his opponent's flag fell first. So, under Appendix D, how can this ending ever be given as a draw for either player unless an actual, as opposed to possible, drawn position is reached?
John McKenna johnrobert_2000@yahoo.com
From Kevin Thurlow
24.11.06
Dear Richard
If the QPF events were as described by Jeff Goldberg (and obviously they were as the Controller did not dispute this), then the 10.2 decision seems surprising. I can understand the desire for anonymity, so probably the best thing to do is to send all the details to David Welch for comment, and he can take action if necessary. This of course would only be necessary if a qualified arbiter made the decision. Was this the case?
Bring on Fischer timing in the county championships, if anyone still wants to play in them.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kevin.Thurlow@lgc.co.uk
Redhill
rjh: - I'm not sure what action David Welch could take. The decision's final (see PB below). The SCCU Tournament Rules say the County Match Controller "shall submit the claim to an appropriate BCF Arbiter", and I'm prepared to assume he obeyed the rules.
To the extent, of course, that he was able to lay his hands on any BCF Arbiters. "ECF Arbiter" seems an acceptable reading, but it's not clear there were any of those. The ECF website today publishes what is, I think, the first list of ECF Arbiters there's been since we had an ECF. There are nine people in it. But I digress.
From Paul Buswell
21.11.06
Richard:
it seems to me that one essential datum is missing from the reports: on what grounds was the player with K + N claiming the draw?
The Laws of Chess state, for QPF with no arbiter present:
Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis
(a) that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
(b) that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it. In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet, which must be completed before play has ceased. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position. The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.
So was he claiming per (a) or per (b)? Or both? And if (b) did he have an up to date scoresheet? Facts please.
Paul Buswell PBusw13724@aol.com
rjh: - Someone will be wanting the position next. I'm afraid the Controller didn't tell me all the details. But apparently the situation of K+R v K+N had only just arisen, so I guess it was (a). If it wasn't, I'm sure the rules will have been followed.
From Colin Mackenzie
20.11.06
Hello Richard,
On QPF claims in the absence of an arbiter. It is interesting that the Guidance to Arbiters, as published on the SCCU website, contains the following (my bold):
APPENDIX D: GUIDANCE FOR THE APPEAL ARBITER
Some chess judgement is required. This is not an adjudication, but an attempt to determine the probable result of the game. The benefit of any doubt should be given to the opponent of the claimant.
A player with a king and rook claiming a draw against an opponent with a king and a knight would be awarded a draw... (opponent cannot win by normal means).
A player with a lone king blocking his opponent's king and solitary central pawn would need to rely on his scoresheet to show that his opponent was making no attempt to advance when the opportunity arose. The claim would be... that the opponent was making no effort to win by normal means, and would be likely to fail if the opponent was trying to make progress. [rjh: hmmmm. The Arbiter might do well to read that in conjunction with the next sentence.]
A good rule of thumb is that the award of a win to the opponent should not bring the game into disrepute.
Is it possible that the bit in bold has been mis-read and applied the other way round?! [rjh: - Colin inserts an emoticon at this point, which my computer has censored.]
Obviously as Jeff points out the decision is wrong (I am assuming that there is no evidence of lack of progress). I had always assumed that the key thing here was "making no effort to win by normal means" (from Appendix D - by the way, Appendix D to what?) and that, in practice, this means demonstrating that some progress is being made. In the case concerned it appears that the player with K + R was given no chance to demonstrate anything.
It also strikes me that the phrase "probable result of the game" is not well defined: taking into account what precisely - the amount of time left, the strength of the players, how well they play endings ...?
Finally, I agree with your "hmmmm" comment. A player with K + P v K may well (if they are not aware of the theory) be trying to make progress in a position that their opponent knows is dead drawn. Surely the test is whether progress is actually being made in a meaningful sense (it is no good advancing the pawn if it does not essentially change the nature of the position).
Keep up the good work.
Regards
Colin Mackenzie colin.mackenzie@atosorigin.com
rjh: - It's Appendix D to the Laws of Chess. The Guidance to The Appeal Arbiter is not FIDE's. It came from the (UK if it's not English) Chess Arbiters Association. This was some years ago, and I don't know whether they would still own it.
From David Smith
20.11.06
Richard
As County Match Controller I feel that I must respond to the comments from Jeff Goldberg on the recent QPF claim in the Essex v Kent match.
Firstly, I should point out that except as oherwise provided by the SCCU County Match Rules, play in all matches shall be governed by the Laws of Chess as published from time to time by FIDE. There is no such thing as the ECF Quickplay Rules to which Jeff refers.
I also find it surprising that Stewart Reuben should rush to judgement in this way including as it does criticism of the Arbiter concerned with a recommendation that he be sacked. In my opinion this is no way to deal with a query of this nature.
Needless to say I shall not be revealing the identity of the Arbiter concerned nor shall I be taking any further action since, as far as I am concerned, the matter has been dealt with in accordance with the Rules currently in force.
David Smith davidandjanesmith@ntlworld.com
SCCU County Match Controller
From Jeff Goldberg
20.11.06
Richard
Firstly thank you for posting my previous email.
You're quite right that I'm not suggesting that the SCCU has not followed the rules. Of course I don't know what procedure the SCCU has followed any more than you do, I just know the outcome is completely unsatisfactory. That is my point.
But you're wrong about the other bit. I am absolutely seriously suggesting that the name of the arbiter be revealed. An Arbiter must apply the rules with a reasonable degree of competence and must be answerable for his decisions. He chooses to take on that responsibility, no-one forces him. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. The ECF goes to trouble to make sure Arbiters are of a certain standard and this requires accountability, not the old chums' network, smokey rooms, closed doors or cover-ups.
Or can we expect arbiters at congresses in the near future to don the burqa?
Jeff noonebutjeff@hotmail.com
From Jeff Goldberg
19.11.06
Richard
I was absolutely flabbergasted today to hear that the result of Kent's claim for a draw on board 4 of the recent Essex v Kent match has been upheld.
With the match at 7.5 - 7.5, on the last board in a quickplay finish, Martin Taylor of Kent, with only seconds on his clock, had K+N against David Sand's K+R, a position which had only just arisen. He claimed a draw. Off their claim went.
Now anyone who understands the quickplay rules should know that this claim has no merit. None. Zero. Zilch. There is no reason that a player with the advantage of R against N cannot play on and try to win. I've looked in ChessBase and even found a game where Hort lost this ending from a drawn starting position.
However, perversely, it has come back as a draw. Did I misunderstand the rule? I decided to check this out with Stewart Reuben, who I emailed, and whose reply I quote with his permission:
"Giving the player the draw with a bare knight is plain stupid. The arbiter should be sacked." [the bold text is Stewart's.]
Clear enough, I think. So, firstly, I'd like to know who the arbiter was and why he has made this bizarre decision.
However it gets worse. The next bizarre thing is that the ECF Quickplay Rules do not allow any appeal against the decision. This was apparently written, like most rules, with tournament chess in mind when an appeal procedure would be impractical due to the need to get on with the next round. But in this case there is plenty of time for an appeal without any disruption to the SCCU Counties Championship.
So we appear to be in a situation where it can be demonstrated that an arbiter's decision is completely wrong, it has cost Essex winning the match, which may well impact on both the Championship itself and the qualification for national stages, but the rule, written for different circumstances, apparently prevents the error being corrected. This seems contrary to natural justice to me. Surely if an error can be rectified without other adverse consequences that should, indeed must, be done.
Assuming the SCCU does not want to be a laughing stock I'd like to know what it is going to do to try to rectify this mess.
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com
Jeff wishes to make clear that his views are personal.
rjh: - I am happy to give them an airing. But I must say two things. Firstly, he cannot seriously expect the SCCU to reveal the identity of its arbiter. Secondly, he does not dispute that the SCCU has followed the rules. It was open to him to seek rule changes in the prescribed manner.
From Paul Durrant
20.10.06
With regard to quickplay finishes - I am not against them but I have very strong views on compulsory quick play finishes. I know of several players who now will not play in leagues that have compulsory quick play finishes. I believe we in the chess world should provide what the chess players want and not dictate how they should play. If we force quick play finishes down the throats of those who are vehemently against them all we will do is encourage those players to give up chess.
To the advocates of slow play the argument runs as follows. "I don't want to play two and a half hours of moderatly good chess and then have the game decided by who blunders the most in a quick play finish. Those that complain that the after the adjournment you are not playing your opponent - you are playing the latest version of Fritz - don't normally adjourn games. If they did they would know that, when adjournments resume, games that follow Fritz for more than 3 or 4 moves are rarer than igloos in August!!!"
...Chess players may be surprised to hear that in the Thames Valley League there is an unwritten rule which is "Captains can between themselves agree any reasonable combination of playing times, finishing times and finishing method and may adjust their board order slightly to attempt to cater for individual players preferences."
I believe the first match that this rule was put in effect was in the Division 1 match last week Surbiton A v Ealing A. Working on the principle that we want to encourage people to play by giving them the time control and finishing method they prefer, Mike Lamb and I drew up our teams so that every player got EXACTLY what they wanted. We ended up with two boards on 30 moves in 75mins, 4 boards 30 moves in 75mins and a 15 minute quick play finish. 1 board on 36 moves in 90 mins. There was one default. To achieve this we only had to switch boards 6 & 7 around and state the time control circumstances that was acceptable for some of the Surbiton players to agree a quick play finish.
I did think the two different time finishes might cause problems so the two games with the shorter time control were played some distance away from the rest. As it happens there was no disturbance and, when you think about it, in a normal chess match chess games are finishing at different times anyway.
The match was played in a very friendly spirit.
I really do think this non rule is the way forward and I would appreciate anyones comments.
I understand that this does mean emails between the captains prior to the match but if this is considered too onerous captains could leave this agreement to the night of the match and only adjust their board order to cater for those players that had strong views on finishing method.
Paul Durrant sculptorpaul7@yahoo.co.uk
Surbiton Chess Club
[rjh: - Don't tell the Thames Valley League! Actually if I read their written rules correctly there seems to be no way you can impose a quickplay finish on your opponent. An adjournment, yes.]
From Peter Sowray
20.9.06
Dear Richard,
Firstly, congratulations on the continued excellence of your web site. It’s pretty much the only place I can find out what is happening at the ECF!
But I was left giggling at yesterday's implication that my candidature in the forthcoming elections is part of some Northern takeover bid. Honestly... I can’t remember the last time I ventured north of Watford.
On the "all-or-none condition", my personal position is as follows. I believe that change in the ECF is necessary (see the New ECF web site for the details) and I’m willing to commit a great deal of time and energy to helping change happen. Of course, it would require a number of like-minded individuals, working as a team, to achieve this. If I were to be elected, but the other election results indicated that there was no appetite for change, I would bow out gracefully (doffing my flat cap as I went).
Best regards,
Peter PSowray@aol.com
From Martin Regan
19.9.06
Richard,
Reference your comments [see ECF page 19.9.06] about my attempts to scale the lofty ramparts of the ECF Board. I too have heard the rumour that I am a front man of Mr O'Rourke. Those who know me would regard the suggestion as beyond parody. As for a Northern takeover (which I have also heard), this really is the stuff of the kindergarten.
But such inneuendo (from where?) neatly detracts from the issue at the heart of this election which is the longterm future of English chess. It is true, as you point out, that my team is somewhat truncated, but some of the reasons are explained on www.new-ecf.co.uk, a website which over 1500 individuals have now visited.
I have brought together a team that includes a multi-millionaire businessman, a former director of a publicly-quoted company, an ex-World Chess Championship contender and two former and very successful board members of the BCF. The managers we have on board, particularly in the junior arena, have unarguable expertise and are drawn mainly from the South. We have created a website and outlined our policies in some detail.
Any questions about our policies that visitors to your forum might have, I will attempt to answer. That is, if I am not busy feeding the whippets.
Martin Regan Regan@excelpublishing.co.uk
Earlier material (lots of it) is in the Archive.
Back to top
Back to SCCU home page