FIDE Laws of Chess - 2016 Amendments

Running Chess Tournaments
1

“The time has come” the walrus said “to talk of many things”

2016 will be the year to request amendments for the FIDE Laws of Chess. The next Congress is in Baku starting on 20.September.

The final deadline to have proposals sent to the FIDE Rules Commission is 20.July (60-days prior). We will not consider proposals that come after that date. Shortly a form will also be published to the Rules Commission website that will need to be completed and submitted for proposals to be considered.

We will be having 2 councillors meetings between now and the next Congress (dates not set as of yet).

Proposals will need to have what the wording of the rule should be, the rationale for it, and a brief example of two if possible.

2

Since I have no official connection with FIDE (except that I happen to have a FIDE rating), I’ll let someone else step forward with exact wording, if anybody cares to do so. Meanwhile, here is my idea.

First, a convenience rule. How many places in the FIDE rules is there a phrase like “unless there is no sequence of legal moves leading to the opponent checkmating the player”? A bunch, I would bet. One example would be in the rule regarding a time forfeit. Another would be in the rule specifying a cell phone penalty.

So why not have a definition, early in the rules, that would give a name to the concept? Such as:

  • A position is win-excluded for a player if there does not exist a sequence of legal moves leading to the player checkmating the opponent.
  • A position is a dead position if it is win-excluded for both players.

Then the various existing rules could be stated more simply and consistently. For example:

  • As soon as a dead position arises, the game is drawn, regardless of whether either player’s time has expired.
  • A player whose time has expired shall lose the game, unless the position is win-excluded for the opponent.
  • A player whose cell phone rings shall lose the game, unless the position is win-excluded for the opponent.

Etc etc etc.

Second, a proposal. FIDE might want to adopt a rule similar to USCF’s 14E.

As it stands now, under FIDE rules a position like K+N vs K+B cannot immediately be declared a draw. There are helpmates, so the position is not a dead position.

So how about another definition:

  • A player has minimal material to win who has at most K+N, or K+B, or K+N+N with no opposing pawns, and does not have a forced win.

Then the 14E-like rule could say:

  • A player whose opponent has minimal material to win may claim a draw, even if the player’s time has expired.
  • The arbiter may grant the claim, deny the claim, or postpone making a ruling.

The latter option might be appropriate in a situation where the opponent has a plausible, though not forced, win. By postponing a ruling, the arbiter is giving the opponent a reasonable chance to win through a blunder by the player, while also giving the player a reasonable chance to show that he is unlikely to blunder.

This topic has been touched on, by both Ken Ballou and me, in a couple of other threads in the Articles forum and the Running Tournaments forum.

Bill Smythe

3

Great suggestion to come up with nomenclature for these conditions.

Wouldn’t “lacks minimal material to force a win” or "has insufficient material to force a win" be a bit clearer? “Minimal material to win” implies there’s enough stuff on the board to do the job.

4

Yes, I like that better, especially the first of your two suggestions.

Bill Smythe

5

Sevan,

I’ve lost track. Is there any proposal to shorten the number of rounds required for a norm tournament, preferably to seven? This would make it possible to run them over a long weekend (if you include a game Friday night).

-Matt Phelps

6

Matt - that is part of the Qualification Commission, not Rules.

There are some special exceptions for certain types of events where a 7-round norm is possible but not for regular swiss events.

However don’t hold your breath for regular tournaments to have a 7-round norm.

Additionally you can only do 2 rounds per day for a norm event. 7 rounds would be 3 full days and a half day, not a long weekend with a Friday night game.

At the last changing of title regulations, the GM title was made more difficult where 1 norm has to be achieved over a slower schedule.

7

I think Mr. Phelps means one game Friday, and then two Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

Alex Relyea

8

Yes, Alex has stated exactly what I meant.

I would suggest such an idea for IM norms and below only (i.e. not for GM norms).

Anyway, as Sevan correctly pointed out, this is an issue for the Qualifications committee, not the rules committee.

Never mind :slight_smile:

-Matt