WORD FROM THE AUTHOR

 

   Dear readers, in front of you is a reference book for FIDE Laws of Chess, titles and rating. First edition which was printed four years ago is now assimilated with changes and additions adopted at the Congress in Dresden 2008 during the Olympics, coming into force on 1. July 2009.

   This time author dedicated more space to blitz chess (fast chess) which causes doubts and controversy in praxis but among chess players blitz chess is the favorite. This part (FIDE Laws of Chess) is printed in two languages as previous (in two rows – author’s protected patent) for practical reasons, with commentary on the Laws and many practical examples which make this book unique and authentic.

   In this part we give you authors general view on changes in chess legal act, which is elaborated in reference book ( FIDE Laws of Chess, International Title Regulations and Rating Regulations), by publishing the text which “SAH MAT LISTA” and “Vojvodjanski sah” ( number 2, April 25^th 2009) took from the site www.chessdiagonals.com 

_______________________________________________________________

   After changes and additions of FIDE Laws of Chess in Dresden

             * WORSE THAN IT WAS BEFORE

How qualified for this job is Committee for Laws of Chess

 

   In FIDE Congress held in Dresden, November 2008, during Chess Olympics, Laws of chess (further Laws) were discussed also. Some changes were accepted and some will be on FIDE Board meeting in the beginning of March 2009. Enforcement of those changed Laws will begin on 1. July 2009.

   It is little unusual for Board to discuss changes and additions but obviously it can be done. As common practice was to change the Laws on Congress it would be wise to discuss about the questions on which the Board have to decide before the Congress, and then during the Congress Committee for Laws of Chess (further Committee) should have filtered recommendations of Laws.

   Some of my colleagues already commented on recommended changes and addition, and their ratings are similar to the title of this text. Also, in conversations with my colleagues there is the same thought: there is nothing spectacularly new, and that what’s new is worse than previously.

   My impression is that Committee, or at least those who are in charge, think that they have to change something on every congress! And that is the big mistake. The best are those Laws who don’t have to change so often. Chess was played for centuries and we change the Laws every four years. Maybe Committee with those frequent changes wants to give themselves special credit.

   Before I give my humble opinion on the Laws I must say something about Committee which worked on changes and additions. There are 23 (twenty three) members of the Committee and its original name in English is Laws and Tournament Regulations Committee and Geurt Gijssen presides. I established that among the members there are two grandmasters Nigel Short and Stefan Djuric, then IM John Donaldson, two CM (FIDE Candidate Master) Reuben Stewart and Christian Krause, two more that have rating little over 2000 points and one who is waiting to be on the rating list ( Aboghasem Najib). Chief of the Committee doesn’t have any title as a chess player! I don’t know how many members of Committee were present when they pass the Laws, but I gave myself the benefit of the doubt about the presence of members with international chess titles. And by the title I mean FM (no one in the Committee with that), IM and GM, as in tournaments.

   Question about delegation of members of this Commitee is another story and I will leave it for another time. I only know that some of them become members of the Committee just because they were at the Congress.

   Aproximatly one year ago (March 2008) personaly in e-mail I got suggestion of changes and additions, first from Geurt Gijssen and then from Reuben Stewart, with a plee to review those suggestions and eventually give my comments and recommendations. I accepted with great pleasure and forwarded two of my suggestions. One was about a situation when the opponent of the player whose flag is down can claim victory. Till now this could be clamed and achieved if he could checkmate even with unskilled counterplay of the opponent. My suggestion was that player could claim victory against player whose flag fell, only in condititon that at that moment he can INDEPENDENTLY checkmate (art. 5.2, 6.10 and 7.4b old numerations). Second suggestion was to cancel rules of adjourned games.

   This suggestion could still be seen on web site www.chessdiagonals.com because the Laws are not accepted deffinitly. FIDE Board meeting in March 2009 is waited. *

   First suggestion is with more details explained in Reference book four years ago (!). Then I wrote that if my suggestion would be accepted …”it could not happen that a knight win the game against the lot of opponents figures only because in that lot there is also a KNIGHT or a bishop or a rook!”

   My suggestion was that player could win a game against a player whose flag fell, only if he has material for INDEPENDENT checkmate. This means that famous formulation of “unskilled” counterplay is off. Also, two knights are not enough material for independent checkmate. I remind you that earlier Laws had this clause. To be completely precise, by my suggestion in that situation player could claim victory if he has at least: two bishops, bishop and knight, rook, queen or at least one pawn!

   I have no knowledge of who was present when the decision about changes and additions to Laws was made in Dresden, but I sincerely doubt that any of chess players were there. Just can’t believe that this clause about material for independent checkmate wouldn’t have been accepted by majority if it has been stated at all!?! For the past four years since unfortunate rule about unskilled counterplay is valid, all the players I spoke with agreed that my suggestion would be much more fair and that this change should be recommended.

   What happened in Congress in Dresden on November 2008?

   About my first suggestion in mentioned Laws the term unskilled counterplay was omitted! And, off course nothing was gained. On the contrary, it is worse! You will ask yourself why? Simply, because unskilled counterplay was descriptive part for the arbiters to know when they could declare victory in case when opponents flag fell. I will not be surprised if now some arbiter declares victorious the player with only king against the player with a lot of figures and fallen flag!! So that was change for the sake of change.

   The same happened with my other suggestion: in Appendices adjourned games are under C instead under A!! What a change. This really doesn’t need any comment. It’s enough to peek in FIDE regulations to see that not one pace predict possibility of adjourned game. So that part is unnecessary. Everything is like my colleague Bogoljub Dankovic said: “Sitnije, Cile, sitnije…” (“Smaller steps, Cile, smaller steps…” – lyrics from a folk song).

   On this occasion I want to emphasize one more change which in my opinion completely justifies title of this text. It’s about claming a draw in articles 9.2 and 9.3. Instead previous obligation for player to stop the clock now it’s only a possibility. So, a player doesn’t HAVE TO but he CAN stop the clock. The same switch is in article 10.2 of Laws. Stopping the clock is not obligatory, e.g. not stopping will not be penalized (penal was rejection of the claim). Now here is the question: what is a player claming, which position, if he didn’t stop the clock? Does that mean if the same position occurs for the third time the game could continue until arbiter came from some other table where draw was clamed earlier?!? Because of such possibilities (lot of similar situations could be mentioned) I consider stopping of the clock necessary. And I think this is a big failure. Position which some player claims by any means must be fixed (immovable).

   This is a process which has to be precisely regulated and formal so it could be efficient. Now the Board will decide how a game begins although the beginning never was at issue. If player is more than an hour late he loses the game. Handshake was implied no matter if some player is late for the game. But claiming of something must be precise. Namely, there will be lot of shouting between players and arbiters, especially in situations when many players have the right to claim something. Further, if a player doesn’t stop the clock arbiter will not know when the player began his claim, in other words, when he began to call for arbiter!

   Cheers to proposer of changes where number of arbiters will have effect on which rules will be implied. It is settled that rules for rapid chess will be implemented in cases when there is not adequate number of arbiters (adequate is one arbiter for three games the most). For blitz chess adequate number of arbiters is one arbiter per game! If it is not so, the rules for rapid chess implies except where they are switched with rules for blitz chess.

   How will it looks if on a soccer game one of line referees is missing and the rules for mini-soccer are applied? What a circus that would be!

   As for our organizers one arbiter is one too many, we can imagine when on tournaments for blitz and rapid chess will be ADEQUATE number of arbiters. Or when the Laws of chess (regular or standard rules) will be applied on some blitz chess cadet championship (State, European or World). The story about adequate number of arbiters seems funny to me, and in the same spirit I suggest to put someone near the table who will measure time and blow the horn in the end of the game!

  Proof that Committee is not adequate is the fact that it could not solve dilemma from article 6.7. Of Regulations for the beginning of the game and that was left for Board to decide.

   To finish: rules for every sport, including chess, MUST be JUST, FAIR and EFFICIENT. After the changes in Dresden they are less just, fair and efficient than they were before. We can only wait for the next Congress!

_______________________________________
*Text was written before the meeting of the Board

  This is only one part of text WORD FROM THE AUTHOR
   Integral text on the book Commentary on the Laws of chess