How to work with the Laws of Chess

by ChessBase
3/13/2024 – "As arbiters, we must first and foremost have full knowledge of the Laws of Chess. The Laws of Chess are like the Bible, everything starts there." In this article IA Alon Shulman shares his thought process in dealing with cases, on implementing the Laws of Chess. Arbiters must first and foremost have full knowledge of them, everything starts there. Those laws are the basis of every decision that are make. "Secondly, we must always bear in mind that those laws don’t cover everything, and we need to impose the rational of the laws as a whole." | Photo Mark Livshitz

ChessBase 17 - Mega package - Edition 2024 ChessBase 17 - Mega package - Edition 2024

It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it. Start your personal success story with ChessBase and enjoy the game even more.

More...

IA Alon Shulman, Councilor of the ECU Arbiters Council

I believe the way to work with the Laws of Chess is as follows: Whenever a dispute occurs, you first go to the Laws of Chess and seek the relevant article. If the article covers and matches the case completely – It’s an easy decision. If the case is different to some extent and the article does not cover the facts partially or completely – we use the laws as a base and exercise our judgment based on the rational of the relevant article/s and our sense of justice. In dealing with the Laws of Chess we either conduct an application meaning we apply the law as it is on our case. Or we conduct a distinction meaning we conclude the principles of the article do not match our case and the law is not to be applied. I wish to give two “twin” examples where I had concluded a distinction from the article:

First example – The Coerced Resignation

I was DCA at the European Youth Rapid and Blitz Championship. The issue with rapid chess is that the games are not recorded, which means arbiters must be way more vigilant. At the Girls U-10 section there was a wild game. Player 1 was totally winning but failed to find the winning path. Player 2 was able to counter attack. Player 1 looked upset for squandering her winning chances and appeared kind of resigned to her fate

Player 2, elated by the turn of events in her favor, suddenly made a move, gleefully announced “Mate”, and extended her hand to her opponent. Player 1, in a dejected state, reluctantly shook opponents hand, just to realize a second later that it’s actually not mate and she could continue the game. Player 2 demanded a win claiming Player 1 had resigned.

In approaching the case what do you do first? Go to the Laws of Chess and look for the applicable article. 5.1.2 The game is lost by the player who declares he/she resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

In this case the result of the game is a draw. According to this article 5.1.2, it looks like a shut and done case. Player 1 resigned, game over – isn’t it? However in that case I decided that the game should be continued. I applied a distinction.

Reason was that I had concluded that Player 1 did not declare that she resigned as specified by the article, but instead was led to believe erroneously that she was mated, and immediately upon realizing the mistake, retracted her agreement that she was mated.

In that circumstance I concluded that resignation did not take place, in accordance with article 5.1.2. and the game should be continued. Before finalizing the decision I had consulted with the CA and he concurred. I did not punish Player 1 because I had concluded that Player 2 had contributed to the disturbance by her mistake.

Second example - The Short Handshake

Another European Youth Rapid & Blitz Championship. This time I’m CA. 2 girls are playing at the Girls U-16 section Rapid Championship. Player 1 enjoys an advantage throughout the game. Player 2 fights to stay in the game. At a certain point, Player 2 seemed to have lost hope and started extending her hand in resignation. However, before there is physical contact between hands, Player 2 realized she still had defense, retracted her hand and made a move. Player 1 paused the clock demanding a win claiming Player 2 had resigned. In approaching the case what do you do first? Same as previous example - Go to the Laws of Chess and look for the applicable article 5.1.2.

In this case the result of the game is a draw. As we see it’s the same article as previous example but facts of the case are different. Here Player 2 can’t claim she was deceived by opponent. She decided, out of her free volition, to extend her hand. Here too I had concluded there was no resignation. The reason was that the resignation was not completed. Article 5.1.2. states declares resignation but here I concluded there was merely an attempt to declare resignation and the act was aborted before completion.I did sanction Player 2 by adding 2 minutes to Player 1 because she created unnecessary disturbance. Game continued and was drawn.

Conclusion

I’m happy to share both those “twin” cases associated with the same article about resignation. I support those decisions but am not stating in any shape or form that those were necessarily and unequivocally the correct decisions. Judges / Arbiters often disagree with each other. Every Judge/Arbiter brings his/hers worldview and values to the job. It is imperative that regardless of the position and arbiter status you believe you are part of – it is beneficial to consult with other arbiters. It is beneficial to do brainstorming and hear other points of view. It is beneficial to share your thought process with other arbiters, and hear their views. They learn from you, you learn from them – Win-Win situation.

Source: ECU Magazine February 2024, reproduced with kind permission.


Reports about chess: tournaments, championships, portraits, interviews, World Championships, product launches and more.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 3/17/2024 11:32
Genem, a move has been made when the player let go of the piece. (Completing a move is also stopping your clock.) If a move has been made and it is mate, everything that happens afterwards is irrelevant, like claiming that the flag has fallen before that. You don't have to announce mate. Mate is mate because it is mate and that ends everything
The right way to claim your opponent's flag has fallen, is to stop the clock and call the arbiter. Who will most probably already be there (or an appointed assistant), because of the time trouble. An arbiter should notice that a flag has fallen before making the mating move. That also ends everything, making the mating move irrelevant. If an arbiter doesn't do this, he is responsible for solving such uncomfortable situations.
genem genem 3/17/2024 10:19
What would Arbiter Alon Shulman do when - the White player, with only 3 seconds remaining on her clock (no delay nor increment), hesitates but then makes her move a announces "Mate!". Yet the Black player rejects White's announcement by claiming that White's clock flag fell 1 second before White completed her mating move. Here the Arbiter might wish the Laws of Chess eliminated its unnecessary clock-press exception/exemption for a Mating move. If White had to press her clock after her mating move, the clock would prove the outcome simply. But with this unnecessary exemption, the Arbiter and the players are put into an uncomfortable avoidable situation. :-(
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 3/13/2024 11:34
I imagine if you had shaken hands, any arbiter would award you a win in the case of a dispute
PhishMaster PhishMaster 3/13/2024 01:35
This was under the USCF, but in 2022, I had an 1852-rated 11-year-old kid stick out his hand without saying anything, and I thought he was resigning since he was so lost, and I am a long-time Master. Just in case, I asked, but he offered me a draw. Not only did I turn it down, but this 62-year-old gave him a lecture right there at the board on the proper way to offer a draw (make the move and offer the draw), and told his father about it after the game. He was trying to pull a fast one.

Of course, had I shaken his hand, and he went to the TD claiming a draw, I would have equally claimed that he resigned. His position was so bad that he resigned only one move later.
1