Back to Rules index
Back to SCCU home page
Problem
updated 1.4.05
FIDE LAWS 2005
UPDATE 1.4.05
to our remarks published below
We have just received papers from a BCF working party (Chairman: Dave Welch, BCF Chief Arbiter) which has been looking at the implications of the new Laws for English Chess. Their recommendations are not final, but the final version is expected to go to Council in October. It should really have been April, but April is overbooked already. The recommendations, if agreed, will be binding on all Leagues and Congresses in England. We confine ourselves to the two things most likely to concern the average player.
(1) Recording of Moves
It is felt that forbidding players to write their moves down before playing them would be impossible to enforce in English grassroots chess. The following concessions are proposed. Writing your move down in advance will be tolerated provided that:
(a) You have previously advised the arbiter / tournament controller of your intention;
(b) Every move is so written;
(c) Moves are written in indelible ink, in algebraic notation and without ambiguity or error.
The arbiter will impose the following penalties for any infraction of which he becomes aware.
(1) For a first offence in any game: the opponent receives an extra five minutes thinking time, and the offender loses five minutes or three-eighths of his remaining time, whichever is less. Such adjustment shall not result in the offender having less than 85 seconds remaining, unless he already had less than 85 seconds remaining in which case his clock shall not be adjusted.
(2) For a second offence: as above, and the offender's pen shall be confiscated.
(3) For a third offence: loss of the game. Special cases shall be referred to the Appeals Committee.
The opponent may stop the clocks and call the arbiter if he becomes aware that the player has written a move ambiguously or incorrectly, or in pencil, or not in advance.
(2) Mobile Phones
The new FIDE Laws are simply not appropriate for grassroots chess. The following will apply instead.
In the playing area mobiles will be permitted, in silent mode only, for persons whose trade or profession makes their use indispensable. For example, plumbers or doctors. Mobiles capable of receiving emails will be permitted only for members of the BCF Management Board.
Within the venue, but outside the playing area mobiles will be permitted for any person living or working more than ten miles from the venue, or having at least one wife and two children of or below school age.
All of this is contrary to the FIDE Laws. The Laws permit member federations to adopt rules of their own, for domestic competitions, provided they do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess. This conflicts like no one's business. But let common sense prevail. Who are FIDE to tell us how to run English chess?
FIDE LAWS 2005
3.11.04, revised 4.11.04
The new version of the Laws, as agreed by the FIDE General Assembly of October 2004, takes effect on 1st July 2005. We're not too sure how definitive our copy is, and these remarks are based on a rather quick reading.
Not many changes, in fact. Mostly it's tidying up (in one case, with the introduction of a phrase which isn't English). The numerous misplaced commas are still there, but we never thought they wouldn't be.
[Note 9.11.04. The non-English phrase has been corrected in a later edition.]
We've spotted five real changes. Apologies if our coverage of number (5) has expanded beyond reason, but we suddenly realised there was something to talk about.
(1) Mobile phones have got written in. It had to happen. It is forbidden to bring mobiles or other electronic means of communication into the playing venue, even switched off, and you lose if your mobile goes off during play. The playing venue is the whole premises, not just the playing area. No one at all, player or not, may use a mobile in the venue.
(2) It is now illegal to write your move down before you play it. Not sure how zealously that's going to get enforced in your average local league.
(3) Article 10: the two-minute rule. They've rectified an omission in the 2001 Laws. Currently, if the arbiter postpones his decision he isn't allowed to pronounce until a flag falls. From July 2005 he will be allowed to do so at any time.
(4) Players unable to keep score will no longer be docked time automatically. The arbiter just does what he thinks equitable. In practice this probably happens already. The arbiter is required to deduct "an amount of time", but no rule says it can't be zero.
(5) One we don't understand. As everyone knows, the current Laws permit you to stop writing the moves down if you have less than five minutes left and are not (to simplify a bit) in "time-added" mode. That hasn't changed. What's new is a special rule for the case where you are in time-added mode. Suddenly, when either player has less than five minutes left, both are required to write the opponent's move down before replying to it. This is specifically not required in "ordinary" chess at any time, or even in time-added chess until someone reaches the less-than-five-minutes mark. What's going on?
That was yesterday. New day, new opinion. It seemed paradoxical to make extra demands on a player just when he's short of time. But David Sedgwick has today suggested to us what is going on, and we think we see the point now.
Current Laws, time-added mode. It's my move and I've got less than five minutes left. My opponent has plenty of time. Being short of time I'm two halfmoves behind with my scoresheet - I haven't yet written down my last move or my opponent's reply. I must write the first of these down before moving. So I do, and I move, and my opponent replies instantly. I am now three halfmoves behind, and must write two of them down before moving again. While I'm doing it, my opponent updates his scoresheet in my time. It goes on like this. So long as he keeps moving instantly, all of the move-recording is done in my time. Seems a bit harsh, considering I'm the one who was short of time to start with.
Under the new rule my opponent can't reply instantly because he must write my move down first, and I am at liberty to do the same while he's doing it. If we're both time-efficient - of course we may choose not to be - we write our own moves down in the opponent's time, and the opponent's moves in our time. This seems a much fairer division of labour.
The last two paragraphs have been a bit of a cheat, because it is still true that I'd be better off under the old rule if my opponent was giving me some time to write moves down while his clock ran. The new rule is a compromise, on which this Website is not qualified to pronounce. But, right or wrong, it isn't silly.
The only thing is, we now come to the other compromise. If the new rule is right, why is it not extended to the whole game? It may not make a lot of difference when both sides have plenty of time, but at least the extension would be harmless and tidy. And less confusing, surely. It's not even as though there were a clean division between one phase of the game and the other. People are liable to jump in and out of the five-minute zone. Presumably they'll have to remember to switch from one rule to the other every time it happens. Why ask them to?
While we're about it, let's extend the rule to non-time-added chess. The effect would be small, since players very short of time aren't writing the moves down. But it would do no harm and it would be consistent.
We started by not understanding it and now we're willing to extend it to the whole of chess. It's not a bad special rule, as special rules go. But special rules are anomalies. Why have them, when the special rule (or another) will work perfectly well throughout? Nothing's worse than needless exceptions.
____________________
PROBLEM
One of the tidying-up changes is correct and entertaining. Try this problem, from a suggestion by Stewart Reuben. Current Laws required.
White to play and mate in 1.
The solution is in a fresh page to stop you cheating by accident.
Back to top
Back to Rules index
Back to SCCU home page