Latest Updates:
Normal Topic Draw or not draw (Read 570 times)
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1170
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Draw or not draw
Reply #4 - 03/12/21 at 20:42:16
Post Tools
Confused_by_Theory wrote on 03/12/21 at 19:27:55:
What the arbiter is saying is not terribly interesting, more so the situation itself, but obviously he has a clear idea and is willing to justify his decision - very good. That being said I think his reasoning is to shallow to definitively say this is the correct decision an arbiter should do. Pointing to the rules is generally fine but not as much if they're ambiguous.

This is the crux of it. The rules will *always* be ambiguous in the sense that there are situations that are not precisely covered, and require some reasoning and extrapolation on the part of the arbiter. What to do in the face of this uncertainty is as much a philosophical problem as a legal one.

The old way quite characteristically said c'est la vie, the then-current rules were enough and left it up to the arbiters. For example, regarding the 50-move rule, the laws said this could be extended for certain positions, but they would not do this in the rulebook itself. It was up to the organizers to spell it out at any particular event. That went overboard sometime in the 1990s, the argument was tablebases, completely ignoring that the previous rulebook already handled the situation gracefully.

Other reasons for ambiguity are intolerable in a rulebook -- vagueness, inconsistency, up to self-contradiction. There's a very conscious bias towards adding words to fix word problems. Just like there is a bias towards "talking things out" to fix inter-personal communication issues. Sometimes less is more.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 413
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Draw or not draw
Reply #3 - 03/12/21 at 19:27:55
Post Tools
Hi.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/12/21 at 15:39:41:
It's pretty common to link to other websites for additional information. In that case it's optional to go to the external website. But I think it's a poor idea to link to another website for the entire content of the original post! In that case it's no longer optional to visit the external website. At minimum you should have summarized the original case for the chesspub readers.

You are right in principle. Explaining a situation like this is a bit bothersome though.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/12/21 at 15:39:41:
That supposed fact is not true. There is a 30 second increment.

The player would already be in the negative so if he gets +30s per move that would only be a benefit if there is some serious irregularity that enabled him to play on regardless.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/12/21 at 15:39:41:
The FIDE laws (as opposed to rules, there is a difference!) used to be clear that it's actually a fourth reason you don't mention: The rules cannot cover every possible scenario, so the arbiter is (or was) expected to use their judgment when applying existing rules to new scenarios. In fact that's what the ChessBase article is about. The author is not saying that the rulebook says it's a draw. The author is saying that his judgment is that it's a draw. And yes, he gets his judgment by applying all the rules you have quoted. But did you see this early comment on the ChessBase site?

What the arbiter is saying is not terribly interesting, more so the situation itself, but obviously he has a clear idea and is willing to justify his decision - very good. That being said I think his reasoning is to shallow to definitively say this is the correct decision an arbiter should do. Pointing to the rules is generally fine but not as much if they're ambiguous.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/12/21 at 15:39:41:
FIDE was originally a French organization, and the structure of the laws was strongly influenced by their Civil Code. Rulemakers in countries with a common law can't abide that, and so there has been a bit of a mission creep over the decades. One of the problems with a civil code is that it relies highly on the quality of the jurist applying the code. One of the problems with a common law is that adding more rules and interpretations (i.e. precedent) gives more opportunity for contradiction, poor definitions, confusion, and ultimately argument. That's what happened here, "arising" is a word which isn't defined in the laws; using that word instead of one of the two defined words -- "determined" or "completed" -- causes ambiguity. And in fact a weak arbiter who cannot understand a civil code with everything clearly written in a small number of words is not any better able to understand a common law with orders of magnitude more words in disparate locations. Argument is not a problem for lawyers, they live for it. But chessplayers should let their moves do the arguing with the clock ticking, so to speak, and would be better served by less argument off the board.

Arbiters may of course have difficulty understanding certain types of text in certain situations. Irregardless of which system is used for inspiration I hope they try and change the rules for the better here. If that means adding more explanation or trying to get more consolidation I don't know. Probably consolidation of words, as you mention, is a good step if easily done.

Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1170
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Draw or not draw
Reply #2 - 03/12/21 at 15:39:41
Post Tools
It's pretty common to link to other websites for additional information. In that case it's optional to go to the external website. But I think it's a poor idea to link to another website for the entire content of the original post! In that case it's no longer optional to visit the external website. At minimum you should have summarized the original case for the chesspub readers.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 03/12/21 at 09:54:39:
The fact that player A would have had no time left to play the moves needed to reach the actual stalemate position becomes irrelevant.

That supposed fact is not true. There is a 30 second increment.

Confused_by_Theory wrote on 03/12/21 at 09:54:39:
The fact that the present situation is missing in the list implies either it was not given thought when the rule was made, the rulemakers thought the situation was already clear or it was actively not meant to be among the situations where a move is considered to have been made.

The FIDE laws (as opposed to rules, there is a difference!) used to be clear that it's actually a fourth reason you don't mention: The rules cannot cover every possible scenario, so the arbiter is (or was) expected to use their judgment when applying existing rules to new scenarios. In fact that's what the ChessBase article is about. The author is not saying that the rulebook says it's a draw. The author is saying that his judgment is that it's a draw. And yes, he gets his judgment by applying all the rules you have quoted. But did you see this early comment on the ChessBase site?
Quote:
Frits Fritschy 3/8/2021 01:23
The FIDE laws of chess should give a definition of 'a position has arisen'.

Edited:
I see now you discussed this. I shouldn't be skimming things at work and then posting without understanding.

FIDE was originally a French organization, and the structure of the laws was strongly influenced by their Civil Code. Rulemakers in countries with a common law can't abide that, and so there has been a bit of a mission creep over the decades. One of the problems with a civil code is that it relies highly on the quality of the jurist applying the code. One of the problems with a common law is that adding more rules and interpretations (i.e. precedent) gives more opportunity for contradiction, poor definitions, confusion, and ultimately argument. That's what happened here, "arising" is a word which isn't defined in the laws; using that word instead of one of the two defined words -- "determined" or "completed" -- causes ambiguity. And in fact a weak arbiter who cannot understand a civil code with everything clearly written in a small number of words is not any better able to understand a common law with orders of magnitude more words in disparate locations. Argument is not a problem for lawyers, they live for it. But chessplayers should let their moves do the arguing with the clock ticking, so to speak, and would be better served by less argument off the board.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 413
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Draw or not draw
Reply #1 - 03/12/21 at 09:54:39
Post Tools
Hi.

This is my take. Be aware it's probably one of the most technical arbitration situations I have ever seen.

1.
I'm on board with the arbiter that you don't seem to be required to reach the actual stalemate position to end a game under the correct circumstances.
This is indeed because of 5.2.2.:

The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

The moves are all forced and inevitably leads to the stalemate position. Therefore one condition for the game to end immediately per the 5.2.2. rule would have been met. The fact that player A would have had no time left to play the moves needed to reach the actual stalemate position becomes irrelevant. Sidenote: Just an opinion but this seems quite counterintuitive and should be changed imo.

Unfortunately this is as far as the Chessbase paragraph goes.



2.
What I don't see is any discussion about the other conditions. The first being that the 5.2.2. draw happens "when a position has arisen".
In this case a very natural question to ask is if dropping a piece on a square and not pressing the clock means the position has still actually arisen. This has almost naturally been debated in the comments to the chessbase article; as there seems to be no clear definition of when a position has arisen in the rules.

One way of looking at it is that dropping the piece on a square actually determines that the piece will need to move there because of rule 4.7. The implication is that the position has been determined by that and thus that a position can be seen to have arisen.
Another is of course that positions arise only after completion of moves and that moves being determined is not enough.
Since clear right and wrong between these choices does not exist, normally it would be up to the arbiter to decide on whichever one by using whichever justification.
So this second condition for the 5.2.2. rule to take effect could well be met if the arbiter agrees. Rule texts for reference:

4.7
When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is considered to have been made in the case of:

4.7.1
a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand,


4.7.2
castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal. If castling on this side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king (which may include castling with the other rook). If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move.


4.7.3
promotion, when the player's hand has released the new piece on the square of promotion and the pawn has been removed from the board.




3.
The third condition for 5.2.2. to be valid would be that for the game to end immediately there would need to be a move. Normally we are taught that for a move to be completed one needs to have pressed the clock. Under various circumstances though moves are made without being completed. See for example 4.7, that lays out some scenarios where moves are just made without mentioning anything about completion.
It has to be said though that none  of 4.7.1, 4.7.2 or 4.7.3 (above) are about the case at hand and I don't see why they would be used to determine a move has been made in this specific case. The fact that the present situation is missing in the list implies either it was not given thought when the rule was made, the rulemakers thought the situation was already clear or it was actively not meant to be among the situations where a move is considered to have been made.

What you could say is that "When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square" in 4.7 could imply that releasing a piece on a square can constitute a move or part of a move...
...But you can also basically say an implication is not enough to draw conclusions and something needs to be written plainly. Also we don't really get guidance on if the action of putting a piece on a square is a move or part of a move and for 5.2.2. to work it needs to be a move.

All in all I would hesitate to say 4.7 defines the game situation as there having been a move made. That just seems inconclusive to me and thus not really to be used as a big justification behind making a specific call as an arbiter.

There is also some text in the chessclock section; basically clarifying where the exceptions to the clock needs to be pressed rule lie.

6.2.1
During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:


6.2.1.1
the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.6.1 and 9.6.2), or


6.2.1.2      
the player has made his next move, when his previous move was not completed.



This only causes one to look at the articles mentioned in 6.2.1.1. and well... The only relevant one for this case is 5.2.2. For context I will give all though.


5.1.1            
The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.


5.2.1
The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.


5.2.2.
The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.


9.6.1
the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

9.6.2
any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.


So that just brings you back to 5.2.2. If it's applicable in the situation at hand then 6.2.1.1 would also be applicable but for 5.2.2 to be applicable it could potentially need 6.2.1.1 to be applicable.



4.
There is also a fourth condition for 5.2.2. to end the game immediately. Namely that "the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7."

This seems to be met. Again though you probably need something saying the game situation was a move.



Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 413
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Draw or not draw
03/11/21 at 10:49:25
Post Tools
Hi.

I came across this article on chessbase.
https://en.chessbase.com/post/ecu-what-should-the-arbiter-do

The arbiter decided it was a draw although is it?

Regards
/CbT
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo