Radjabov - Smeets rules question

[Tom O'Donnell]

From chessninja.com

"Update in a bit, but wanted to share what happened in Radjabov-Smeets (1/2). Radjabov played 39.Re7 but knocked the piece over and hit his clock. Smeets pressed his clock and said something like "correct the piece." Radjabov then flagged. In the ensuing mess, the arbiters couldn't decide what exactly should have been done since both players had infractions. You have to correct a piece on your own time and you can't speak to your opponent. Apparently you are supposed to stop the clocks and then you'll get a time bonus, but it's hard to imagine anyone having the sang froid to do that with a few seconds left even if you knew that's what you're supposed to do. And had Smeets done that it's quite possible Radjabov would have been physically able to make his 40th move and had a winning position."

Evidently the FIDE rules are not totally clear on this, based on the subsequent discussion at chessninja.

It doesn't make sense to me to have to go fetch an arbiter when your opponent knocks over a bunch of pieces in a time scramble. Shouldn't the player just consider the opponent's move illegal and hit the clock back? What would the IAs on here rule if say X has 10 seconds on his clock, makes a move, knocks down a bunch of pieces and Y immediately hit the clock back forcing X to fix the board before X could hit the clock, thus completing the move?

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

Hitting the clock back can wreck the move counter in the clock,which is important in this time control. Example - if Radjabov had not flagged while correcting the 39th move, the clock would have assumed the "correction" was in fact the 40th move and thus he would not have flagged even if he took 15 minutes to make his 40th move.

So, if Smeets wants to make an issue of it, he could call over an arbiter and be awarded extra time (2 minutes I believe).

In this case since Smeets turned around and broke a rule himself, I'd go and give both of them an extra two minutes.

[Dan Mackie]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

W/o referring to FIDE, CFC(joke), or even USCF rulebooks, wondering if the result would have been different if Smeets had punched prematurely.Old Toronto rules (ie. Vucko, Knox, MacDonald, Dutton, even Yaeger, etal) would prob rule win for Smeets for active and speed for sure; but for regular rated maybe Smeets does have to stop clock. W/ Monroi and DGT at least antiquated question of recorded moves intact is no longer relevant. How many official club games have had similar base arguments... countless prob.
Result was ok for both players, smeets gets upset draw (though he is rapidly improving) and Radj. only gets 1/2 pt slap on the wrist.

[Gordon Taylor]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

I think that in this instance the proper thing to do is this just restart White's clock, say nothing, and to hell with the move counter. White must know he's done wrong, and he has to set it right. This "option" of stopping the clocks, calling an Arbiter, and maybe getting two minutes added to your time is most unsatisfactory. You maybe already had lots of time so what's two added minutes to you? The key point is that the offending player is going to be able, under this scenario, to step back and draw a deep breath, study the position at his leisure, and once the Arbiter restarts the clock, know exactly what he has to do. If that's the rule, it seems to heavily favour the offending player. I rather prefer the rule which says that if you make an illegal more then you suffer a time penalty right then and there, and if that results in a time forfeit, then that equals a loss.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

Unless I'm mistaken, the latest FIDE rules of chess have removed all time penalties, so the only option time-wise is to add time to the opponent.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

I tend to agree with Gordon. If X has mere seconds, it is definitely helpful to his cause if Y has to call an arbiter over to correct the situation. What would stop anyone from knocking over pieces when extremely short of time and getting reflection time while an arbiter is tracked down, the pieces reset, etc.? Adding two minutes to Y's time might be almost totally useless to Y (as in Smeets's case here).

It reminds me of a case I heard of where a fairly well-known GM made a completely spurious three-fold repetition claim with little time in one of these neverending +5sec controls in order to stop the clock and go to the washroom while the arbiters played through the game. Sure, his opponent got a couple of minutes added to the time, but that didn't matter as it was the GM's time, not his opponent's, that was on the GM's mind.

[Alvah Mayo]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

In Tom's scenario, the solution is simple: If your opponent knocks over the pieces, he must replace them on his own time. Punch the clock to allow him to do so; if he loses on time so be it. The FIDE Laws of Chess are perfectly clear on the subject.
Article 7.3 states, "If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter's assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces."
The first line states what SHALL happen; there is no ambiguity or "optional" aspect. Line two is predicated on the condition "if necessary" and as the agrieved player I would never use this option. Line three is supplemental to line one and not a replacement of it.
The infernal digital clocks issue (due to extra punches) can be easily resolved by consulting the scoresheet and taking away the extra time erroneously added by the clock. A shame that some arbiters can't seem to grasp this simple concept.
Bottom line, the aggrieved party in this game was 100% correct.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

Were they not using increments in the quoted game? If so - 30 seconds (or whatever) is plenty of time to replace a fallen piece and not lose on time. However - it would screw up the total times for the players if they pressed each others clock without actually making a move.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

You can't speak to your opponent at all?

Does that mean you can't even tell them that you are stopping the clock to get an arbiter?

And if your opponent corrects the pieces while you are gone to get the arbiter while the clock is stopped & maybe even starts your clock while you are doing so?

Is the arbiter supposed to recreate the knocked over pieces and then start your opponents clock so that he has to set them up on his time, not stopped clock time?

I don't see anything wrong with starting your opponents clock when s/he's messed up the pieces and not corrected them before starting her/his clock.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

FIDE already has a ruling on this situation and it comes from Canada. The game was Levtchouck vs somebody in the Quebec Open (?) (1976?). Levtchouck was in Smeets position. I think Larry ruled a draw, it was appealed to the NAC, then refered to FIDE. Ultimately Levtchouck (aka Smeets :-) ) was ruled the winner (although by that time it was ancient history and had no impact). One of the old En Passants mentions the ruling I think.

(later edit: although the rules may have progressed so far as to invalidate this ruling).

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

I remember that Levtchouk game. I can't remember the opponent's name - but if I have a look at the crosstable when I get home, I should recognize him.

If I recall all this correctly: I was TD; someone knocked over pieces; there were several presses of the clock before the prices were set up again (possibly incorrectly), and a flag fell before the required number of moves were made. I ruled it a draw; there was an appeal (possibly from BOTH players) - the three-man appeals committee was split down the middle: 1-0; 1/2-1/2; and 0-1. My draw ruling stood.

[Guy Brunet]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

See video and press conference on Chess Vibes:

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/ra...ally-happened/

[David Ottosen]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

Were they not using increments in the quoted game? If so - 30 seconds (or whatever) is plenty of time to replace a fallen piece and not lose on time. However - it would screw up the total times for the players if they pressed each others clock without actually making a move.

No increment at 1st and 2nd time controls in this tourney I believe.

[Dan Mackie]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

[U]http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/...e.htm#comments[U] Further comment post site... note Shirov's message..

Also, here's Jon's (IA) opinion:Jonathan Berry | January 29, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply
Pressing back has been standard for some decades.

In 1972, the Yugoslav Chess Federation and the organizers of the Skopje Olympiad published a booklet containing all of the Interpretations to the FIDE rules, as approved by the Rules Commission. When I inherited this booklet (sent one per national federation) in 1975, it was a real eye-opener. I hadn't known that "Interpretations" existed, and they answered some of my own questions. As the contact (not the delegate) to FIDE for my national federation, I submitted over half a dozen questions, including the one at hand, and FIDE answered that the offended player should press back. That was added to the Interpretations.

Some years later, FIDE discontinued "Interpretations" (which although invaluable, weren't that well propagated) and decided that everything should be in the Laws themselves.

Pressing back became part of the Laws proper. Then, I'm guessing, digital clocks came on the scene, and the flipping over of the time control (adding an hour at move 40 and showing minutes only, not seconds), combined with most controls being incremental (both of which have been mentioned in this thread) made them change the procedure.

With increments, old-fashioned time scrambles no longer happen, and the vast majority of displaced piece incidents should be resolved without immediate loss of the game coming into anybody's mind. Surely that was the default situation which the drafters of the rules had in mind.

However, in a tournament like Corus 2009, which although it uses up-to-date digital clocks, has no increment for the first or second time controls, it seems to me that Smeets's action, to press back, is correct. The rules specified something else because they were written for old-style digital clocks and/or increments. Also the arbiters' decision that Smeets won on time seems correct. Allowing him to agree to a draw may not be correct, but it saved a lot of potential ill-will.

FIDE and the arbiters have been blamed by some. I don't see any fault with the arbiters. But I would question why the organizers even in 2009 have no increment. Well, it's obviously to maintain the excitement of time scrambles at move 40 and at move 60. It is a kind of old-time religion. The Corus press officer was crowing about round 10 being possibly the most exciting Wijk round ever. Why? The Smeets and Radjabov incident was a big part of it, and the latent cause was the time control.

I recommend a 60-second (not 30) per move increment. That stands both as a player and as an arbiter. Sponsors who like incidents and scandals may view it differently.

Finally, in the Krush-Zatonskih incident at the US Women's Championship, White more than once knocked over pieces, which would have (further) complicated matters had Black decided to press back without moving.

Jonathan Berry, IA

[Kai G. Gauer]

Re: Radjabov - Smeets rules question

Chris,

Wouldn't Jan Smeets be correct? To me, it seems more important that a player should complete those articles which pertain to the acts of moving & correctly completing the moves of the pieces than to worry about trying to correctly complete the act of starting one's clock, which is what I presume Radjabov did, correctly or otherwise. It would seem that what happens on the boar is more important than what happens away from the board, especially in a time-scramble, & the opp. of a player whom has upset the pieces by not correctly correcting them in a timely fashion with an adequate complete amount of game time given to him should suffer a time forfeit loss if that player were unable to perform such a simple action as correctly completing a motion of a piece, covering a majority of a legally eligible square, to which it was intended (how can the opponent be expected to know whether the player had intended to play an illegal move or not to confuse the opp.? - an unnecessary distraction). If the TD really wishes to remain picky after the 40 move barrier time-scramble, he can then ask them to also complete the task of correctly updating their scoresheets, too, but that's a totally different matter...