New Chess Rules

[Alvah Mayo]

Re: New Chess Rules

The proper procedure is to stop both clocks and ask for the arbiter's assistance. You should never restart your own clock because if an increment is used, you will add time to both yourself and your opponent and it will add one more move to the clock move counter.

No thanks; I'll stick with the Laws of Chess. These stipulate that the pieces are to be replaced on the offender's time, not with a stopped clock. Therefore, the correct process I will always follow is to start the opponent's clock immediately to ensure he resets on his own time. I don't need an arbiter to sort it out.

As for the "move counter" and "extra increments", there are two solutions to this:

Arbiter resets clock to take both the extra increment time and moves off of the clock.

Better yet, don't use a clock that has either move counter or increment. Such clocks are demonstrably only an imperfect reaction to a problem created by a solution designed to fix a non existent problem.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: New Chess Rules

This is always improper. No player is allowed to restart the opponent clock without making a move. This is totally illegal. It was allowed prior to 1997 when the were no increment and no move counter
in the clock.

The Laws says that the player has to replace the pieces on it own time but nowhere it mentions that a player has the right to restart the clock. As the Laws says, if necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks.

When is it necessary? It is necessary if the clock has been pressed. With the Fischer mode, each time a clock is pressed, 30 second are added to each player time. Your are clearly not allowed to give to yourself and to your opponent this extra time.

Furthermore, modern chess clocks count the moves. They do that to comply with FIDE Tournament Rules that mandate that the clock must at all time display the time remaining to the player to complete his next move. Because of that, the clock must add time at move 40. Because you have pressed the clock without making a move, the addition will occurs at move 39 instead of move 40. This is a huge deference that could lead to a time forfeit situation being not reported by the clock. The clock believes that 40 moves have been played but in reality, only 39 were played.

When the arbiter arrives, he will not only subtract time from your opponent clock, he may also penalized him.

This should be in the 2012 Laws: The players must handle the chessclock properly. It is forbidden to press it before making a move; to punch it forcibly, to pick it up, or to knock it over. Improper clock handling shall be penalised in accordance with Article 13.9.

It was very clear to me that pressing the clock without making a move is illegal, but FIDE will add it to the text on July 1st 2012 to make it clear to everybody.

Article 7.3 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.

No thanks; I'll stick with the Laws of Chess. These stipulate that the pieces are to be replaced on the offender's time, not with a stopped clock. Therefore, the correct process I will always follow is to start the opponent's clock immediately to ensure he resets on his own time. I don't need an arbiter to sort it out.

[Alvah Mayo]

Re: New Chess Rules

[QUOTE=Pierre Denommee;57292[I]]"This is always improper. No player is allowed to restart the opponent clock without making a move. This is totally illegal. It was allowed prior to 1997 when the were no increment and no move counter
in the clock." [/I]



On the contrary, this is totally proper and fully in accordance with the requirements of Section 7.3 which reads:

"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."

There is no mention made here of the 1997 date you mention nor is there any indication in this section that this accepted practice has been changed.



"The Laws says that the player has to replace the pieces on it own time but nowhere it mentions that a player has the right to restart the clock."



If an opponent illegally stops his time from running after displacing pieces, a player certainly has the right to immediately stop his clock thus restarting the offender's time. The relevant section stipulates that the situation must be remedied on the offender's OWN time. This is distinctly different from fixing the problem with stopped/paused clocks. The opponent's time MUST be running while he fixes the pieces he displaced.

If as you claim the arbiter is the only person permitted to do this, then the section would NOT include the words "if necessary" as all such cases would require an arbiter. Since the words ARE included, it means that there are cases where the situation can be remedied without an arbiter.

By definition, this means that the offended party can restart the opponent's time as I originally outlined.



"As the Laws says, if necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks.

When is it necessary? It is necessary if the clock has been pressed."




The Laws of Chess state no such thing.




"With the Fischer mode, each time a clock is pressed, 30 second are added to each player time. Your are clearly not allowed to give to yourself and to your opponent this extra time."




As shown, the Laws of Chess contain no such prohibition against restarting the opponent's clock in cases of displaced pieces. Indeed, Section 7.3 sanctions this action.

If you are using one of the silly digital chess clocks (as mentioned before, an attempted solution for a problem created as an attempt to solve a non-existent problem) and a clock is restarted in accordance with Section 7.3, the arbiter's proper response is contained in Section 6.10 (b):

"If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks was incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall stop the clocks immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move counter. He shall use his best judgement when determining the correct settings."

The arbiter resets the move counter and rescinds the increment as mandated by this section.




"Furthermore, modern chess clocks count the moves. They do that to comply with FIDE Tournament Rules that mandate that the clock must at all time display the time remaining to the player to complete his next move."



Are you now claiming that analogue clocks are not permitted under FIDE tournament rules?


"Because of that, the clock must add time at move 40. Because you have pressed the clock without making a move, the addition will occurs at move 39 instead of move 40. This is a huge deference that could lead to a time forfeit situation being not reported by the clock. The clock believes that 40 moves have been played but in reality, only 39 were played.

When the arbiter arrives, he will not only subtract time from your opponent clock, he may also penalized him."



The arbiter is certainly free to do either of these things in ADDITION to the requirements of Section 7.3, but the arbiter cannot rewrite the Laws of Chess by attempting to apply these penalties IN LIEU of compliance with 7.3.




"This should be in the 2012 Laws: The players must handle the chessclock properly. It is forbidden to press it before making a move; to punch it forcibly, to pick it up, or to knock it over. Improper clock handling shall be penalised in accordance with Article 13.9."



However, the text you mention is NOT in the FIDE Laws of Chess (as posted at FIDE's own website). Section 6.7 (c) contains no provision forbidding a player to press his clock without making a move. An arbiter cannot rewrite the Laws to suit their personal philosophy and make rulings based on such an invention.



"It was very clear to me that pressing the clock without making a move is illegal, but FIDE will add it to the text on July 1st 2012 to make it clear to everybody."



July 1, 2012 has come and gone, yet the Laws of Chess contained on FIDE's own web site do not contain any such added text.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: New Chess Rules

The FQE supposedly banned analog clocks from tournaments as of Sept. 1 last year. (I can't find the reference on their site). At recent FQE events, I have seen a couple of analog clocks being used (without penalty), as well as some non-incremental digital clocks in an event with incremental time controls.

I don't know about FIDE rules regarding analog clocks.

[Alvah Mayo]

Re: New Chess Rules

I'd be interested in seeing the FQE rationale for banning analogue clocks when they meet the criteria outlined in Section 6 (and specifically 6.1) of FIDE's Laws of Chess.
Given that, I can't see that it would be enforceable for any FQE event they plan on having FIDE rated.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: New Chess Rules

It is very fortunate that you are not an arbiter.

I have been an arbiter since 1978 and I have a copy of every rule book that has been available in Quebec during this time period. This is 6 FQE books, 3 USCF books and three FIDE books. The current Laws will certainly not state at which date the changes have been made, but don't worry, I was there and I know. I went to the box with all the obsolete rule books and I realize that the rule allowing a player to restart the opponent clock without making a move was a rapidplay rule.

The requirement that the pieces must be replaced on the opponent time is different from the permission to restart his clock without making a move. You stop the opponent clock, the arbiter arrives, he measures how long the player took to correct the situation and he subtract this amount from your opponent clock. After that, the arbiter may penalize your opponent. The only requirement of the Laws is that the time used to replace the pieces be subtracted from your opponent clock, the Laws do not specify how to do it neither nor they give you the permission to restart the opponent's clock. Your pretension that you can restart the opponent's clock clearly ignore article 6.7 a. Except for the situation at the beginning of the game, Article 6.7 a is the only Article in the Laws that give a player the permission to start the opponent's clock. There is nothing at article 7 that dispense you from obeying Article 6.7 a . Furthermore, study of obsolete rules demonstrate that when this right existed, it was explicitly written in the Laws that the player is allowed to restart the opponent clock without making a move. The fact that this right has been removed must be significant.

What you called a silly digital clock is the official timer of the Word Championship, the Word Cup and the Olympiads. It is obvious that you have never used one of those clocks.

A digital clock has to be programmed before the start of the game. Sometime, this programming is wrong, for example the 30 second is not added or the length of the second period is wrong. 6.10 b covers the case of an improperly programmed clock, it has nothing to do with a displaced piece when it is immediately discovered.


I made a mistake with the July 1st 2012, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Laws of Chess would know that they can be changed only once every 4 years. The next date for a change is July 1st 2013. The draft of the 2013 Laws can be found here http://chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=2828 . It is only a draft, but according to my reliable source, the new Article 6.2 c has been accepted.

I am saving this thread in case I am appointed again as lecturer in an FQE Arbiters Seminar. It is a useful example of an unacceptable interpretation of the Laws.

If as you claim the arbiter is the only person permitted to do this, then the section would NOT include the words "if necessary" as all such cases would require an arbiter. Since the words ARE included, it means that there are cases where the situation can be remedied without an arbiter.

By definition, this means that the offended party can restart the opponent's time as I originally outlined.



If you are using one of the silly digital chess clocks (as mentioned before, an attempted solution for a problem created as an attempt to solve a non-existent problem) and a clock is restarted in accordance with Section 7.3, the arbiter's proper response is contained in Section 6.10 (b):

"If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks was incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall stop the clocks immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move counter. He shall use his best judgement when determining the correct settings."

The arbiter resets the move counter and rescinds the increment as mandated by this section.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: New Chess Rules

The organizer decides the time control of an event. If the time control is not incremented, the event cannot be FQE rated. Although it is legal to organise in Quebec a FIDE rated tournament that is not FQE rated, you should expect that such tournament will not attract many players. You should expect to loose money running such an event, so nobody will try.

I fully support the FQE decision to rate only incremented tournaments, except for rapidplay and blitz.

I'd be interested in seeing the FQE rationale for banning analogue clocks when they meet the criteria outlined in Section 6 (and specifically 6.1) of FIDE's Laws of Chess.
Given that, I can't see that it would be enforceable for any FQE event they plan on having FIDE rated.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: New Chess Rules

The FQE supposedly banned analog clocks from tournaments as of Sept. 1 last year. At recent FQE events, I have seen a couple of analog clocks being used (without penalty), as well as some non-incremental digital clocks in an event with incremental time controls.

Analog clocks may be allowed for a single game as a last resort, when no digital clocks are available.

[Lucas Davies]

Re: New Chess Rules

TBH, if you adjust pieces on your opponent's move then you're somewhat of a scumbag. Also if you adjust your opponent's pieces when it's unnecessary.

[Alvah Mayo]

Re: New Chess Rules

Pierre wrote:]"It is very fortunate that you are not an arbiter."

Wrong again. I have served as an arbiter in many chess tournaments over the years.

"...I have a copy of every rule book that has been available in Quebec during this time period. This is 6 FQE books, 3 USCF books and three FIDE books."

A man can own twenty Bibles; it does not make him a minister. Knowing, FOLLOWING and correctly applying the rules is what makes a good arbiter.

"The current Laws will certainly not state at which date the changes have been made, but don't worry, I was there and I know."

Please provide us the dates and years for which you were present at FIDE Congresses (as this is where the Laws of Chess are adopted). Failing this, I ask that you admit your claim is false.

"The requirement that the pieces must be replaced on the opponent time is different from the permission to restart his clock without making a move."

As I have already shown by direct quotation from the actual Laws of Chess, no such permission is required. I challenge you to post the text from the Laws of Chess which specifically establishes that arbiter approval is required to restart the opponent's clock under Section 7.3.

"You stop the opponent clock, the arbiter arrives"

You persist in your erroneous assertion that the arbiter is required. As previously noted, the text "if necessary" would NOT have been included in the Laws if your assertion were correct. The fact that it has been included proves you are wrong.

"he measures how long the player took to correct the situation and he subtract this amount from your opponent clock. After that, the arbiter may penalize your opponent. [B]The only requirement of the Laws is that the time used to replace the pieces be subtracted from your opponent clock."

That is not what the Laws state. Section 7.3 states that the pieces SHALL be replaced on the opponent's time. "Shall" means that it will happen; it is not an option.
In spite of your claim to the contrary, Section 7.3 does not contain ANY text or provision stating that an arbiter measures time and manually subtracts the time from the clock.
Section 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."
As we can see, three seperate and distinct sentences. Sentence one provides that if a player displaces pieces, he MUST fix them ON HIS OWN TIME. This is accomplished by the opponent or the offender himself restarting his clock and restoring the position.
Sentence two allows THE PLAYERS the OPTION to stop the clocks and call for the arbiter IF NECESSARY. If neither player chooses to do so, the arbiter is not called. The third sentence gives the arbiter the option (since the word "may" is used) to assess a penalty (found in Section 13.4) to the offending player.
By definition, this penalty is seperate from the remedy in sentence one since that sentence uses the word "shall" which means MUST. You cannot have a provision which compels an arbiter to act and then gives the arbiter an option to choose not to act; the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

"the Laws do not specify how to do it neither nor they give you the permission to restart the opponent's clock."

Without an arbiter (which as already shown is not required in such cases according to the Laws of Chess), we have two players left and presumably spectators. Spectators are not permitted to interfere in a game (as per Section 13.7). That leaves the two opponents.
It is possible that the offender will not restart his own clock. Since Section 7.3 states the offender MUST restore the position on his own time, it is permissible for the offender's opponent to restart his opponent's clock to ensure that happens. We also have the fact that this has been accepted tournament practice for decades.

"Your pretension that you can restart the opponent's clock clearly ignore article 6.7 a."

Section 6.7 (a) states in part: "During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock..."
As we can see (yet again), the text of this Section does not agree with your claim. Section 6.3 (a) contains absolutely no restriction against restarting the opponent's clock in compliance with Section 7.3.
To fit with your assertion, the text would have to include something like ..."each player, ONLY AFTER having made his move on the chessboard...". Since Section 6.3 (a) does not contain any such statement, your claim is without merit.

"Except for the situation at the beginning of the game, Article 6.7 a is the only Article in the Laws that give a player the permission to start the opponent's clock."

We have already seen that Section 7.3 allows this action.

"There is nothing at article 7 that dispense you from obeying Article 6.7 a."

In actual fact, the two sections have nothing to do with each other. Section 6.7 provides that you hit your clock after making your move. Restarting the clock in compliance with Section 7.3 does not mean you haven't hit your clock after making your move.

"Furthermore, study of obsolete rules demonstrate that when this right existed, it was explicitly written in the Laws that the player is allowed to restart the opponent clock without making a move. The fact that this right has been removed must be significant."

You are free to make suppositions as you have many times in your previous posts. Unlike you, I will stick with the actual Laws of Chess.

"What you called a silly digital clock is the official timer of the Word Championship, the Word Cup and the Olympiads. It is obvious that you have never used one of those clocks."

Obvious to you perhaps, but nonetheless wrong. I have used digital clocks in over 100 rated tournament games. It does not change my contention that they are silly and are demonstrably inferior to analogue clocks.

"A digital clock has to be programmed before the start of the game. Sometime, this programming is wrong, for example the 30 second is not added or the length of the second period is wrong."

This is not a problem with analogue clocks.

"6.10 b covers the case of an improperly programmed clock, it has nothing to do with a displaced piece when it is immediately discovered."

I point out that Section 6.10 (b) says no such thing. It makes absolutely no mention of improperly programmed clocks nor does it restrict itself to such cases.
Section 6.10 (b) states: "If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks was incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall stop the clocks immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move counter. He shall use his best judgement when determining the correct settings."
There is no text here about clock programming, improper or otherwise. Furthermore, your statement is absurd on its face. It requires us to believe that FIDE's finest arbiter minds would write an essential part of its clock regulations in 6.10 (b) and have it apply ONLY to digital clocks when analogue clocks are permitted and used around the world.
I have yet to see a digital clock where selecting the incorrect time controls before the game would affect THE MOVE COUNTER. A digital clock move counter is governed by how many times the button is depressed and not by the time control.
Section 6.10 (b) is clearly applicable to a situation where the move counter or clocks are showing incorrect numbers. In the case of Section 7.3 being enforced, Section 6.10 (b) is an appropriate remedy for the arbiter to correct the move counter.

"I made a mistake with the July 1st 2012, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Laws of Chess would know that they can be changed only once every 4 years."

Since you made the initial statement as well as the one quoted above, can we then logically conclude that you do not have "even a cursory knowledge of the Laws of Chess"?
Given your previous pronouncements, I was already rapidly coming to that conclusion.

"The next date for a change is July 1st 2013. The draft of the 2013 Laws can be found here http://chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=2828 . It is only a draft, but according to my reliable source, the new Article 6.2 c has been accepted. "

Thanks for the news. I'll care about it AFTER the proposed revisions are finalized and come into effect as the official Laws of Chess. Until then, they mean nothing. In the interim, I'll continue to strictly abide by the Laws of Chess as currently written.

"I am saving this thread in case I am appointed again as lecturer in an FQE Arbiters Seminar."

If you are indeed a lecturer for the FQE Arbiter's Seminar, this may go a long way in explaining why I have witnessed (with great regret!) such rampant incompetence among the arbiters in Quebec tournaments.

"It is a useful example of an unacceptable interpretation of the Laws."

I agree; your deliberate and repeated mischaracterizations of the Laws of Chess are indeed unacceptable in one purporting to be a a chess arbiter.
In closing (in reference to your opening phrase), I also consider myself "very fortunate"... that I have not been subjected to a tournament with you as an arbiter.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: New Chess Rules

If you are indeed a lecturer for the FQE Arbiter's Seminar, this may go a long way in explaining why I have witnessed (with great regret!) such rampant incompetence among the arbiters in Quebec tournaments.

I was curious enough to check on the FQE website. You had only one chance to witness the "rampant incompetence among the arbiters in Quebec tournaments", since you played only once in Quebec (at the Canadian Open 2002, held in Montreal).

I also consider myself "very fortunate"... that I have not been subjected to a tournament with you as an arbiter.

Arbiters at the Canadian Open 2002 were Gaétan Morin and Pierre Dénommée.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: Re : Re: New Chess Rules

All the 2002 arbiters have been trained by Robert Finta or Yves Casaubon. We were a crew of 4, so Louis forgot two arbiters. The other players congratulated the arbiters after the tournament. You just missed that in your story.

With only a single tournament in played Quebec, you cannot judge Quebec arbiters. Quebec arbiters are all the persons on this page http://www.fqechecs.qc.ca/cms/story/arbitres, there are many of them. Furthermore, the list contains only the name of current FQE members. I let you count the number of persons that you have insulted, most of which you have never witness in action.

I was curious enough to check on the FQE website. You had only one chance to witness the "rampant incompetence among the arbiters in Quebec tournaments", since you played only once in Quebec (at the Canadian Open 2002, held in Montreal).



Arbiters at the Canadian Open 2002 were Gaétan Morin and Pierre Dénommée.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: New Chess Rules

I will not loose my time trying to reason a person who knows nothing about "silly" clock.

Your interpretation of the Laws is as bad as the Jehovah Witness interpretation of the bible. As it is almost impossible to convince a Jehovah Witness that he his wrong even if all the theologians of all the other Christian religions disagree with them.

As Mr. Spock would say, your logic is flawed. You deduce things that does not follow from the premises.

[Alvah Mayo]

Re: Re : Re: New Chess Rules

Louis,
I have also had occasion to play events outside Quebec where the arbiter(s) was/were both incompetent and from Quebec (an examination of my tournament history will reveal which ones). I included these in my totals; I refuse to believe the incompetence would stop at the provincial border!

Further, at the Canadian/Quebec Open in 2002 I witnessed repeated and egregious examples of arbiter ineptitude from multiple individuals. I hasten to add that this problem is NOT limited to your province and that I am hopeful that there are many competent arbiters within Quebec.

In any event, you have successfully uncovered the reason(s) why I have refused to return to your beautiful province to play chess.

[Alvah Mayo]

Re: New Chess Rules

With only a single tournament in played Quebec, you cannot judge Quebec arbiters...I let you count the number of persons that you have insulted, most of which you have never witness in action.

While I have no doubt that your English is better than my French, it does not change the fact that you have made yet another basic error. I suspect this error, like your numerous errors with respect to the Laws of Chess, is due to an imprecise knowledge of the English language.

The phrase I used was, in part, "....rampant incompetence among the arbiters in Quebec tournaments."

When I witnessed a minimum of twelve examples of arbiter incompetence (amongst multiple individuals) just in my OWN games in a single event (leaving aside non-Quebec events with Quebec arbiters) on very basic and easy points of the Laws of Chess, I define that as rampant incompetence.

You have chosen to reply as if my phrase claimed incompetence amongst ALL Quebec arbiters.

This is not the case. I did not use the word, "all".

Therefore, I have not "insulted all of the people on your list" as you indicate.


[QUOTE=Pierre Denommee;57382]
"I will not loose my time trying to reason a person who knows nothing about "silly" clock."



You are the person who claimed that selecting the wrong time control on a digital clock while programming it results in errors in the move counter. Such claims are very amusing, although not based in reality.


Then again, neither are your ramblings/re-inventions involving the Laws of Chess.


The most charitable way I can find to interpret your recent verbal diarrhea is that you are being deliberately obtuse.



"Your interpretation of the Laws..."



As an arbiter and as a player, I abide by the actual text of the Laws of Chess. You would do well to try it in lieu of your current practice of making it up as you go along.



"As Mr. Spock would say..."


It is indeed apropos that you reference a fictional character considering that so much of your argument is also fiction.

I will similarly comply with your wishes and refrain from wasting further time replying to you.

After all, they say that "ignorance is bliss" and I would not wish to disturb your happiness.