Out with "Zero Default Time"!

Back in 2001, Melbourne's Roland Brockman was a keen supporter of the then new concept of 90m + 30s time control. Scroll down to the bottom of this old ACF newsletter and you can see him take on a couple of heavy-weights. Well, I think we can safely say that Roland was the clear winner of that argument.

But now it seems that after nearly 8 years of quietude, the Melburnian is set for yet another confrontation. And this time he's taking on an even bigger opposition. None other than FIDE! Roland isn't happy about the so-called "zero default time" rule.

In this email to Oceania Zone president, IA Gary Bekker, Roland writes:

I must confess to you [Gary] that I am on the Bandwagon again. You will recall my many years of campaigning for use of the increment instead of guillotine finishes. That battle seems to be all but won. Now however I have a new bee in my bonnet, namely the 'zero tolerance rule' which means that you have to be at the board the instant play starts or you will be forfeited. I.e. even if you are there minutes before the start but get out of your seat to grab a pen you can be defaulted. This rule made a complete farce of the recent Chinese championship, much of which has been written, eg: on chessbase.com.

Now [FIDE general secretary] Ignatious Leong informs me that this ludicrous rule will apply in the upcoming Commonwealth Championship in Singapore. I politely pointed out to him that this would be unlikely to be popular and cited the example of Bobby Fischer who was a few minutes late for his first game with Spassky in 1972; he was caught in traffic.

So here we go again, albeit I think that popular opinion among chessplayers will be much louder and more forceful than in the increment/guillotine debate. At any rate I'll forget any thoughts about going to Singapore this year. The Aus Major in North Sydney is looking good once again.

I think most people would agree with Roland here. The whole concept of a zero default time is totally ridiculous. In any case, the relevant rule isn't supposed to take effect until 1 July this year, so how these organisers can get away with this farce is, quite frankly, beyond me! Obviously, of course, it will already be enforced in time for the said Commonwealth event.

Worth noting, however, is that the Australian Chess Federation has opted for sanity. According to ACF big wig Denis Jessop, the national body will enforce, not the strict "zero default time" but, 30 minutes. Well done to them. All federations should follow their lead.

Viva Two Hands

Chessbase's report on the Hypercube Blitz Chess Tournament contains some details about a minor incident between the current world's youngest GM, Anish Giri, and GM Vladimir Epishin. It seems that at some particular moment the young Giri executed a move by using both his hands and to which Epishin immediately filed a protest.

By some incredible chance, a photo was captured of that very moment. Here's what Chessbase had to say: "In the above picture Anish has the captured piece in his left hand, while executing the move of the capturing piece, his queen, with the right. He then went on to press the clock with his right hand."

Thus, it is clear and I'm sure most of us lightning aficionados have committed the same exact mechanics. That is, we pick up a "capturer" piece with the right hand, pick up the "capturee" with the left, then press the clock with the right hand to complete the move.

So on what grounds was Epishin protesting? No doubt he had in mind these two.

4.1 Each move must be made with one hand only.

...

6.8b A player must stop his clock with the same hand as that with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the button or to "hover" over it.

There is also Appendix B5: "The arbiter shall make a ruling according to Article 4 (The act of moving pieces), only if requested to do so by one or both players."

Look, I don't mind rules myself, but frankly - the strict application of 4.1, in blitz, is nonesense. It's time that we adjusted the rules for blitz so that 4.1 isn't strictly followed. Here's a couple of arguments for it, and I swear I'm really serious.

The first is that using both hands allows for more accurate placement of pieces. An obvious benefit is that we minimise any confusion over which squares your bits are sitting. Secondly, two-handed play reduces the incidence of knocking pieces over. This is because a player is able to nicely grab a single piece instead of two. It's especially the case when capturing a taller piece. Try it, capture a Queen with a pawn, say, and you'll see what I mean. Finally, that using both hands generally only occurs during a time sramble tells us that it we're basically outlawing a behaviour that is, in fact, pretty rare. So why not simply rid our tournaments of one more reason for an entirely unnecessary dispute?

But, the singularly most convincing argument of all is that this is blitz! OK, so the guy moved with both hands. Who cares? I tell you who. Whining pussies.

Killing the Handwriting

Following on from my post about Article 8, here’s an interesting article by the BBC last week – “The Slow Death of Handwriting”:

A century from now, our handwriting may only be legible to experts. For some, that is already the case. But writer Kitty Burns Florey says the art of handwriting is declining so fast that ordinary, joined-up script may become as hard to read as a medieval manuscript.

Forget about medieval manuscripts. Some players these days write in Egyptian hieroglyphs! Just ask anyone who's had to code the games.

Frankly, if there's any part of the Article 8 that needs maximal enforcement, it is surely this: get these players to write legibly and clearly. It's the rule.

Ban Walkabouts During Play

Article 8 of the official Laws of Chess reads: "In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3 [my emphasis]."

I don't know about you but I've always had a problem with that last bolded bit. Of course, I follow the rule, but prior to its introduction my method was to first write down a move before actually playing it. And yes, many a times back then I would re-examine the position, thought for a little more, then changed what I wrote. It is apparently exactly this kind of behaviour that the rule is designed to prevent for, as some would say, it's tantamount to cheating.

Bullshit!

If it's a product of my own thinking process, how in the hec is it cheating? Honestly, it's a total joke.

Look - if there's one behaviour that we ought to stop, it's being able to walk around during your game. Forget the next move or correct plan in a Sicilian Najdorf? Problem solved: just look for a board with a similar opening. If that's not cheating, I don't know what is.

I predict that a couple of years from now, this will be next brilliant idea by FIDE. And they can thank me for it too.

New Laws of Chess

I've got NSWCA boss Bill Gletsos to thank for this. A number of days ago he posted a quick summary of the new laws of chess that are set to take effect as from 1 July. You can see all of them here. A downloadable draft document of the Laws in their entirety is available courtesy of the KNSB.

Now Mr Gletsos is right - the proposed new article, 6.7, what I call the "turn up on time rule", is the most controversial. And that's mainly because it's simply the most ridiculous. Like I said before, it has none whatsoever to do with chess! There are far too many situations that could arise that causes a player to be delayed. He might have a toilet emergency, for instance, as happened in Dresden; or have a little accident on the road; or be hassled by some overly officious club receptionist who just needs to see every damn ID card that proves you are who you say you are!

Still, at least as far as Article 6.7 is concerned there are 2 options under consideration. Lets hope option 1 is successful. Most sane tournament organisers, I think, will not be so harsh.

May the force be with you

I can't help but be amused by what Geurt Gijssen has to say in his latest article for Chess Cafe. Writing about the "0 minutes" rule:

Based on the report made by the chief arbiter of the Olympiad, Ignatius Leong, among other factors, the proposal of the committee was accepted by the RTRC [Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee]. In the meeting of the Executive Board, there was some opposition to the 0 minutes rule. There were several suggestions regarding 15 or 30 minutes, but there was no final proposal. In the General Assembly the discussion started again, and I explained that in effect nothing had been changed, but then the FIDE President proposed something different: Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game.

As you can see, the FIDE President does not like to make any exception. Each tournament committee has to accept the 0 minutes rule and the arbiter has no possibility to accept an excuse for the late arrival of a player, even in case of a clear “force majeure.”

So basically, the "force majeure" excuse is good enough for Kirsan, but not for anyone else. As I noted in my Olympiad round 11 live blog last month, "force majeure" was Kirsan's favourite phrase during his press conference. I think he must have uttered it no less than half a dozen times!

Why was the Qatar GP moved? Force majeure! Why all the changes in world championships...etc...etc? Force majeure! Why did you withdraw your personal guarantee of $750K? Force majeure!

A New Move Order

In response to recent controversy involving blitz games - specifically, armageddon games - Tom Braunlich was moved (no pun intended here) to pen this very lengthy article on the "move rule". See FIDE's rule 6.8a in the Handbook. Being US-based Braunclich also touches upon a USCF-specific rule namely, 11d1 (which, I'm sure, our American friends are familiar with).

I was following almost everything Mr Braunlich had to say until we got to that bit about USCF rules. Well, then, isn't that part of the problem? Two sets of rules! Here's a recommendation guys: get with the rest of the world and dump the USCF rules.

This bit had me smiling just a little:

Players should also defend themselves with a good understanding of the "Insufficient Losing Chances" rules (14H), which can save you if you are in a time scramble with an analog clock. (You might be able to get a clock with delay to be put on your game, for instance.) These rules are complex and TDs tend to administer them haphazardly, and I believe there are also lots of changes in the works for them that are yet unpublished.

Thanks for the tip. When I'm heading off to the World Open, I'll make sure to pack my old BHB. Then when I'm there I'll ask for this delay, whatever the hec that is. But surely, there is nothing more funny than that big colourful table right smack in the middle of Braunlich's article. Just look at that second blue row, "While Making Your Move"

"Touch a piece" - Well, duh!
"'Touch move rule' applies now. You must move it" - Must? Check if it's legal first mate!
"Release a piece on a new square" - Where else mate?
"You are committed to it" - Are you? Check if it's legal first, I said Tom.
"If this move ends the game with checkmate, that's it" - Did you check that the move was legal?

But let's be serious. I have to admit, an article like this has its use, particularly for those who are consistently breaking the rules (e.g. displacing pieces without replacing them) and those who are too unaware or just plain too shy to protest. If you belong in the latter group, I've seen too many of you; and you know what, you have "rights"!

Zatonskih on Armageddon Controversy

So far, it's all been by Irina Krush about "that" final game. At last - we now have Anna Zatonskih's take on the whole thing.

Close to the end of the game Irina knocked her rook over and never put it back. The USCF rules say: "If, during the course of a move, a player inadvertently knocks over one or more pieces, that player must not press the clock until the position has been reestablished."

I remember my very fast thoughts at this point: If I will press ‘pause’ and claim win or extra-time based on illegal actions… I will lose on time! The “Pause” button is a very small one on the front of the clock. So I only had 2 seconds and I didn’t have a time to do it! I know Irina didn’t do it on purpose but I had to move my rook as fast as I could. I didn’t see any other choice for me.

Irina pointed out (in her Open Letter) that I started couple of my moves before she pressed her clock. I’ve always liked to watch on YouTube how strong chess players play blitz. I was amazed how they can make good decisions in just a fraction of a second. During those games players with a 2600-2800 ratings and even world champions occasionally moved before their opponents pressed the clock. This is a common thing in blitz games.

Read more of Anna Zatonskih's view about this and many more, including aspects of her family life, in this interview for Chess Life magazine with Tom Braunlich.

Krush Challenges Zatonskih

Irina Krush just doesn't know when to stop or when a tournament is over. After her first open letter to Chess Life Online regarding her controversial Armageddon match final with Anna Zatonskih for the US Women's Championships, she has again sent another one outlining her "final thoughts".

The reality is, chess players prepare for tournaments by studying the Sicilian, not by updating themselves on the latest wrinkles in the USCF/FIDE handbook. Thus, I sat down to play the final game intending to follow the only rules I know well- “chess” rules. These are the rules I have learned from watching how people behave at chess tournaments over my eighteen years of playing, and these are the rules I instinctively adhere to using my own common sense and judgment. FIDE or USCF rules might need to be referred to once in a while, but for the most part, people do just fine relying on “chess” rules.

My understanding of “chess” rules tells me that it’s wrong to have your hand over or on the pieces while your opponent's time is running and they are executing their move, just like it would be wrong to pull a piece out of your pocket and place it on the board. Whether on the board or on the clock, both these actions have the effect of creating an unfair advantage for one side, and I reject them on those grounds.

Does anyone know what these "'chess' rules" are that she's talking about? Somebody please provide me with a link. Thank you.

And don't we just love this? "In my opinion, everyone should give more weight to 'what is right?' than to 'what does the rule say?' You should not disregard your moral judgments based on a line in a USCF handbook".

Imagine that! So folks, if you don't like an arbiter's ruling, all you have to do is disagree based on moral judgements. Basically, just come up with anything.

And then this: "I am satisfied with my play and shared first in this event, and am quite willing to play Anna Zatonskih in a match if she’d like a chance to demonstrate her chess superiority over me". Whoa! That's what we like to see! Will Zatonskih accept the challenge?

Read more of Irina's final letter here on the CLO website.

Be on time, or else

Our Olympiad players will now need to complete their pre-game rituals in good time if they want to avoid a penalty. According to this news item on FIDE.com:

[T]he most important change is, however, that all players have to be at their table exactly at the beginning of play to shake hands, just like in any other sports, or else they will lose the match. Chess players have yet allowed themselves the luxury of being late up to one hour.

(Note that these rules announced by Ignatius Leong last week are in addition to other Olympiad Rule changes announced in December last year).

Or else they will lose the match? Scary stuff! Fortunately, with a start time per round of 3PM, it shouldn't be a problem. Hopefully.

Making Moves

Here is Gijssen, again, on Article 6.8 in the latest edition of An Arbiter's Notebook for Chess Cafe.

I have mentioned several times that the phrase “made a move” in Article 1.1 is confusing. It is possible to speak of “completing a move” only after the term “chess clock” is introduced, and this happens in Article 6. But this does not provide a sufficient answer to your question: Do you consider the fact that a player may make a move only after the opponent has completed his move (meaning made his move and pressed the clock) as a misinterpretation? My answer is: Yes. This is based on Article 6.8: A player must always be allowed to stop his clock.

In my opinion, this part of Article 6.8 only makes sense if a player makes a move before the opponent has pressed his clock. It means that even when a player is not on move, he is allowed to press the clock in the given situation. The following argument may not be very strong, but suppose a player can only move after the opponent has pressed the clock. Can you imagine how many quarrels we would have in Blitz and Rapid games? And in this case there is no difference between “normal,” Rapid and Blitz games.

Justice or Entertainment?

Happenings in US chess rarely draw my attention. But this morning, as I went about my Sunday morning ritual of coffee and paper, firstly flicking over to GM Ian Rogers' column in Sydney's Sun Herald paper, my attention was provoked.

In the past week, the US decided its latest champions: GM Yury Shulman for the men, and IM Anna Zatonskih for the women. It's the women's event to which we turn our attention. To say that the finish was dramatic is perhaps an understatement. Here's a video of how the title was decided. Watch from about .20 to 1.12.



Reactions to that incident can be read on ChessVibes and on YouTube. But here's GM Ian Rogers' take on it as well as on the so-called Armageddon finish:

Krush was, not surprisingly, devastated yet such scenes are likely to become more frequent as the Armageddon rule seeks to substitute entertainment for justice.

Most worrying is the possibility that the upcoming world title match in Bonn between Vladimir Kramnik and Viswanathan Anand could be decided by such a game.

(You can read the regulations to the Kramnik - Anand match here).

Firstly, on the Krush incident: as far as I am concerned, Krush only had herself to blame. She failed to hustle. Bad time management, bad play and capped off by poor attitude. My sympathies for her are about as much as I give to that hapless side Chelsea FC. Zero!

Secondly, on the use of Armageddon: frankly, I don't see what the problem is. Rogers' notion of "justice" is, well, pretty mysterious to say the least. Maybe we need the simple reminder that we're not here to seek justice, we're here (or you know, there in Bonn) to find the winner. That's it! If we can go about that process with a little entertainment thrown in, then all the better. I think you'll agree that even for aficionados, draw after draw punctuated only by the occasional decisive game (which, you can bet, is what we'll likely witness in the upcoming match) can be terribly boring.

Finally, chess really needs to grow up. We want big sponsorship money, then we need to give results. Armageddon (or penalty shootouts) give results.

I'm in favour of Armageddon. What say you? Look right, scroll up and vote in the poll.

NSWCA: Alarm is not a ring

As we reported last week, Trent Parker lodged an appeal to the New South Wales Chess Association to overturn the result of a game he was involved in at the Ryde-Eastwood Open. The state's chess body has now returned with a decision.

In a posting on the Australian Chess Club Forum, Mr Parker says:

My NSWCA appeal has been rejected on the basis that the alarm is separate from the mobile phone. Also the fact that I should have asked for an appeals committee at the time and not played on.

This baffles me as my interpretation of the rules is that the game should end there and then.

The NSWCA's interpretation of the rule is actually an interesting one and, I have to say, TCG has some sympathy for it. But is that interpretation compliant with the FIDE Laws of Chess? A side-effect to this interpretation is that all arbiters in the land (at least in NSW) will now have to make a determination, on the spot, whether the "ring" was a ring or an alarm. Until such time that FIDE makes a clarification, we could be in for a confusing and argument-filled time over rule 12.2b.

When is a ring not a ring?

Last week, debate raged between Aussie chessers over one of the most contentious rules in the Laws of Chess - rule 12.2b, the "mobile phone rule". It was sparked by an incident at the Ryde-Eastwood Open wherein someone's mobile phone rang but the arbiter, IA Jason Lyons, opted not to declare the game lost for the offending player (Player A).

Player B, Trent Parker, was apparently not very happy with this ruling. He has since lodged an appeal with the NSWCA.

For details, check out this post by Matthew Sweeney in the Australian Chess Club Forum.

Dr Bonham on 10.2

ACF selections coordinator Dr Kevin Bonham is an expert on many things. He's into "gothic" subculture (that includes their weird music), politics/philosophy and (believe it or not?) snails. Yes, those slimy little creatures.

In chess, Kevo, as the good doctor is fondly known by me, is something of an expert on Article 10.2 of the Laws of Chess. Here he is in the latest Arbiter's Notebook. Scroll down.

Capture The King!

As at 1 July 2005, the new FIDE Laws of Chess came into effect. For an excellent summary, see Bill Gletsos' post here.

As I am always a good boy, I don't worry too much about the details. But I do worry about two bits of rules that affect me directly. These are rule 8.1 and Article 1.2. The former pertains to recording of moves. I don't know about you lot but I read Kotov and he said to write your moves first, then play it. Doing this gives you some moments to reflect and double check.

We can discuss rule 8.1 here.

As for Article 1.2, I am hoping and praying, to any god who'll listen, that our arbiters will keep their heads screwed on and not be bludgeoned into submission by such a ridiculous rule. Apparently, capturing the king destroys evidence of an illegal move. But most sane people, and I'm talking 99.9% here, accept that capturing the king is itself the very evidence required. What's the problem?

If you are reading here, then you must agree with me. Amen!

Sanity Prevails

Appearing for the first time on the Chesschat site, Gary Bekker, FIDE Oceania Zone President, finally announced what many of us have wanted to hear.

The failure to play the three games which were agreed drawn means that these games should not be counted for FIDE ratings purposes.

This very correct decision closes some parts of the whole St George Club Championship fiasco. Mr Bekker's announcement supports the view that agreements to draw can only be made "during the game". See law 5.2.c in the Laws of Chess.

Clearly, if players become unavailable, for whatever reason, later in a tournament - then they simply should not be permitted to agree to draws for their remaining games. They are either withdrawn or forfeited.

When is a draw not a draw?

Some weeks ago, SMH columnist, Peter Parr wrote something rather curious: "IM Zong-Yuan Zhao (2420) was in a class of his own winning every game he actually played in the World Rated St George Leagues Club Championship."

You can view the article here. Whatever did he mean?

It turns out that IM Zhao had played only six of his 9 games and did, in fact, win all of them. His other 3 games were draws. Or were they?

We now know that these games never took place. They were merely verbal agreements, far from the board, between IM Zhao and his respective opponents. The important point to keep in mind here is that they ALL agreed. So the question is, does an agreement to draw, by a phone call, say, constitute a proper draw agreement as defined by the Laws of Chess? I think not.

The relevant Article is 5.2.c:

"The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during the game. This immediately ends the game. (See Article 9.1)" [emphasis mine]

There's another aspect to this story - that of ratings. All games from the above tournament were submitted for FIDE ratings, including the 3 non-games in question. This is interesting because the FIDE rules on ratings are quite clear: "Whether these [unplayed games] occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not counted."

Having said all the above, I should mention that the DOP who ran the show, Dr Charles Zworestine, is a man I respect very highly. He has been a regular DOP at many tournaments I've played in going back to my very first ever - the Queen's Birthday Weekender in '96. There was no "fix-up" of results. The 3 non-games submitted for ratings were not, as some have suggested, "figments of his imagination". Indeed, on checking with Dr Z, he was - himself - unhappy with the situation. It was simply an unavoidable situation.

But these questions remain:

1.) what constitutes a proper draw agreement?
2.) should the 3 "games" in question have been counted for ratings purposes?