FIDE Arbiter's Seminar 25-27 Jan 2019

So I have passed the test in the Arbiter's Seminar, along a number of my chess friends. In fact, I have made a couple of friends in this course!

Missing in picture: Chin Lee -- Please photoshop yourself into the picture, my friend!

I really enjoyed myself -- a lot of my queries were addressed. There is this particularly interesting one. Although this was discussed at the seminar and I hold a minority's view, there was 1 younger arbiter (not a course mate, since we are not arbiters) who actually share my view. I will go through the Singapore Chess Federation to seek a clarification from the FIDE Arbiter's Commission.

In the meantime, this was the 'debate'.
Reference: FIDE Laws of Chess taking effect from 1 January 2018


Hypothetical Situation: In the diagram position below, White, who has already made an illegal move in the earlier phase of the game, pushed his h7 pawn to h8 and pressed the clock (without actually changing the pawn to a promoted piece).

What we all agree
1. White has committed the second illegal move of the game.

"7.5.2 If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn."

"7.5.5 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."

2. There is no checkmate delivered under 'normal means'.

"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. "

The "checkmate" was not delivered since this arises from an illegal move.

What I do not agree (with the rest of the majority)
Because White did not deliver checkmate, and he has committed 2 illegal moves, White forfeits the game. My argument, is that this interpretation and execution of the way the current laws are written did not fully execute the same articles referred. With deliberate emphasis in bold, I argue that even though White committed the second illegal move, the remaining half of the same articles should also be executed.

"7.5.2 If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn."

"7.5.5 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."

The essence of my argument
Why are we selectively applying part of the article rather than the full article? Even with the second illegal move, I should execute the latter part of Article 7.5.2. There is no choice, since this is specifically written in the laws!

So, the pawn that was pushed to h8 must be turned into a Queen.

And now, I apply the "second half" of Article 7.5.5:

Black has no legal moves to checkmate White, and the game should be drawn instead of White having to forfeit the game!

I am really grateful that even though a local Arbiter disagrees with my view (all but one arbiter present disagrees as well), he is at least agreeable to help me write to the arbiter's commission to seek a clarification. This is the type of people I look forward to work with: people who, despite having the different opinion, offers something that is constructive rather than going with "just take what I say as it is".

I genuinely believe I interpreted the FIDE Laws of chess correctly (this is a quality an arbiter needs right, be confident of your own judgement!). Unless, what Article 7.5.5 meant was that you only apply the action taken under Articles 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 at the first illegal move, and omit the actions when the second illegal move was completed. If this is the case, then it makes sense for White to forfeit, as the action to turn the pawn into the Queen need not take place.

But this was not how the Laws were interpreted or explained in any case. If this was the case, there should have been some clarification saying that we do not apply the actions taken under Articles 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 at the second illegal move (which I highly doubt is the case). 

At most, if I am proven wrong, at least I truly learned something and clear my doubts on the laws.

In the meantime, if any of my friends and readers (including but not limited to Arbiters, fellow course mates etc.) have any views of pointers, please feel free to share.

I hope this was not a complete waste of your time! I find joy looking into trivial things in chess, and I hope you enjoy it too. If not, I hope you can find something more worthy of your time soon =)


Yours sincerely
Ong Yujing (Eugene)
a.k.a. newbie_learner
Siglap South CC Chess Quartet