Overlooked FIDE Laws of Chess

This is just my personal thoughts and experience so far. Other than serving in a number of informal events, the only official event I have served as an arbiter so far was the National Rapid Chess Championship 2019. While re-reading the very latest version of the FIDE laws of chess under Arbiter's Manual 2019 (updated 1 July 2019), several Articles and the wording of these laws of chess (and the execution) echoed experiences as both a player and a rookie arbiter.

I think to become completely proficient with the FIDE laws of chess, the above FIDE Arbiter's Manual, coupled by UK Chess Arbiter's Association added notes and interpretations, should be a good starting point for rookie arbiters like myself in terms of equipping ourselves with the most fundamental references to make decisions over actual games.

The following are incidents / infringements I think chess arbiters should be more strict with, as well as incidents or scenarios which I thought were interesting enough to highlight, as well as what I consider as good/bad habits for chess players.

• 4.2.1 Only  the  player  having  the  move  may  adjust  one  or  more  pieces  on  their squares,  provided  that  he  first  expresses  his  intention  (for  example  by  saying “j‟adoube” or “I adjust”).
  
  (in Arbiter's Manual)
  Article  4.2.1  may  only  be  used  to  correct  displaced  pieces.  Where  the  opponent  is not  present  at  the  board,  a  player  should  inform  the  arbiter- if  there  is  an  arbiter present –before he starts to adjust the pieces on the chess board.
  
  newbie's thoughts: I have personally come across players who use "adjust" as a means to de-stress during a game, touching and spinning each and every properly placed pieces on the board. I have even heard of stories that a player say adjust on every move (so that he/she is not obliged to observe touch move, LOL).
  
  If the opponent claims, I think these should come under Article 12.9 (Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties).
  
  But as a player, I disagree with the need to inform adjust to the arbiter in an open tournament, when the opponent is not present (too troublesome). I will just say "adjust" loud enough so that neighbouring boards can hear it and serve as witness if necessary. I do find it necessary to say adjust loud enough, especially if the opponent is around, and ideally, even hope the opponent can make a simple gesture acknowledging my request before I perform the actual act of adjustment.
• 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.
  
  5.1.2 The  game  is  won  by  the  player  whose  opponent  declares  he  resigns.  This immediately ends the game.
  
  newbie's thoughts: There is this common issue in kids tournaments, whereby a beginner thought he/she was checkmated and offers a handshake, only to subsequently realise the position is not a checkmate afterwards.
  
  Personally, I disagree with the views of the UK Chess Arbiters' Association on the following:
  
  "Particularly in junior tournaments it can be discovered that one player accepts he was mated to discover later that he could prevent the mate.  If a result is reported by both players that can be accepted.  Where a player announces mate and immediately shakes hands only for it to be discovered seconds later that the move played was not mate he should not be given the win despite any handshake. "
  
  To me, the win should still be valid to the opponent, even if the opponent declared checkmate inaccurately. This is because the gesture of handshake, in response to a checkmate declaration, can logically only be deemed as a genuine resignation gesture at that point in time. Why else would any player shake hands in response?
  
  If there is no taking back of moves, I see no reason a player can be allowed to take back his/her resignation! From a player's point of view, if you are weak enough to not realise you are not genuinely in a checkmate, I think you deserve to lose the game =)
  
  Had it been another gesture, such as the player pausing the clock in response to the checkmate declaration, there could still be some ambiguity in that the player could be seeking arbiters' assistance over the punishment for opponent's wrong checkmate declaration. But not with a handshake response to a false checkmate declaration.
  
  (Yes, I am totally not a "yes-man" when it comes to chess arbitrating. Even though I find the UK Chess Arbiters' Association a really good reference, there are interpretations which I disagree, this being 1 of the few instances.)
• 6.2.3 A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the clock or to "hover" over it.
  (In Arbiter's Manual)
  If a player makes a move with one hand and presses the clock with the other, it is not considered as an illegal move, but it is penalized according to the article 12.
  
  newbie's thoughts: Quite a notable number of players keep making the same wrong claim (usually those are "technical" players wanting their opponent to register an illegal move), and at times, there may be arbiters ruling it incorrectly as an illegal move. Within the FIDE laws of chess, there is a distinction between making/made a move (i.e. moving pieces over the board) as compared to completing/completed the move (i.e. pressing/pressed the clock). For players, you should know this to defend yourself against a wrong claim and hopefully, the arbiter observing your game get it right!
• 6.2.4  The  players  must  handle  the  chessclock  properly.  It  is  forbidden  to  press  it forcibly, to pick it up, to press the clock before moving or to knock it over. Improper clock handling shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.
  
  newbie's thoughts: I have not actually seen any arbiter deal with players abusing (banging) the clocks. While I can understand banging in blitz / rapid games, especially when facing time pressure, I cannot understand for standard games. Shall I be the first (unpopular) arbiter to issue formal warning to players for banging the clocks at each and every move? =)
  
  More interesting to me is that the same is never said about capturing a piece, or making a move with a thunderous thud. I even heard some coaches introduce it to their students as a habit for (legal) means of intimidation LOL. Not something I would encourage, of course, since it could be distracting or irritating to the opponent.
  
  Maybe I can apply Article 11.5 to playing each and every move over the board with a bang. Again, I foresee myself becoming a rather unpopular arbiter to the players ^o^
  
  11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes  unreasonable  claims,  unreasonable offers  of  a  draw  or  the  introduction  of  a source of noise into the playing area
• 6.5  Before  the  start  of  the  game  the  arbiter  shall  decide  where  the  chessclock  is placed.
  
  (In Arbiter's manual):
  In  individual  tournaments  the  chess-clock  is  normally  placed  on  the  right  of  the player  who  has  the  black  pieces.  The  chess  boards  shall  be  placed  so  that  the arbiter is able to check as many clocks as possible at the same time. In  the  case  of  a  left-handed  player  with black  pieces,  the  board,  rather  than  the clock, can be turned
  
  newbie's thoughts: Interestingly, I have seen this (turning of the board) implemented in club-level, unofficial tourneys, but not large-scale ones at the national level. Since this is specifically stated in the manual, shouldn't this be permitted and implemented more regularly for the benefit of left-handed players playing the Black pieces?
• 7.5.3 If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.
  
  (In Arbiter's manual):
  During the game if the arbiter is confident that the clock was accidentally pressed or  it  is  because  of  some  misunderstanding,  he  should  not use  strong  penalties against  the  player.  There  can  be  many  situations  when  it  is  obvious,  so  in  such situation, the arbiter should accurately assess the motive of those actions and find the possible fair solution. For  example:  Player  B  makes  an  illegal  move. Player  A,  instead  of  pausing  the clock, restarts the opponent‟s clock. Is this an infringement of Article 7.5.3? In this case Player A had not deliberately started Player B‟s clock.  Where an opponent's clock may have  been started  in  error  the  arbiter  must  decide  if  this action constitutes an illegal move or a distraction.
  
  
  newbie's thoughts: This (pressing the clock instead of pausing) happens more often than you would think. I *think* most arbiters would only consider treating this as an illegal move if / when the opponent complains. More importantly, I think players need to know this in order to protect themselves from any claims -- remember to pause the clock when there is any irregularity / when seeking arbiter's assistance instead of pressing the clock (to restart opponent's time counting down). 
• 7.5.4 If  a  player  uses  two  hands  to  make  a  single  move  (for  example  in  case  of castling,  capturing  or  promotion)  and  pressed  the  clock, it  shall  be  considered  and penalized as if an illegal move.
  newbie's thoughts: Here, I love the additional notes from both the Arbiter's manual and the from UK Chess Arbiters' Association:
  (In Arbiter's manual):
  Article 7.5.4 is not applicable if the move ends the game according to articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 9.6.1 or 9.6.2.
  (newbie: in other words, if the move results in a checkmate, stalemate, a 'dead' position which there is no legal continuation of moves for either side to deliver checkmate, or when arbiter interferes for the same position arising for at least the 5th time, or at least 75 moves made with no capture and no pawn moves, the game ends there and then, before this becomes an issue. This is actually consistent with articles 4.1 and article 5)
  
  
  4.1 Each move must be played with one hand only.
  5 ...provided  that  the  move  producing  the  (checkmate/stalemate) position  was  in  accordance  with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 –4.7.
  (newbie: For the game-ending move, it counts as long as the actual move over the board is legal, and touch move / release of pieces etc. are all observed. It is okay that the move producing the end of the game be made with 2 hands.)
  
  (By UK Chess Arbiter's Association):
  A player who, for example, castles using both hands but realises this before pressing the clock is entitled to ‘uncastle’ and then do so legally without incurring a penalty.
  
  (newbie: This is similar, if not the same as the situation whereby a player has made, but not completed, an illegal move, i.e. made a move over the board but without pressing the clock. Touch move still applies when the player undo the illegal move.)
• 9.1.2.1 A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard  and  before  pressing  his  clock.  An  offer  at  any  other  time  during  play  is still  valid  but  Article  11.5  must  be  considered.  No  conditions  can  be  attached  to  the offer.  In  both  cases  the  offer  cannot  be  withdrawn  and  remains  valid  until  the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.
  (In Arbiter's manual):
  The correct sequence of a draw offer is clear:  
  1. make a move
  2. offer of a draw
  3. press the clock. 
  
  If a player deviates from this order, the offer still stands though it has been offered in an incorrect manner. The arbiter in this case has to penalise the player, according to the Article 12.9. 
  
  No conditions can be attached to a draw offer.
  Some  examples  of  unacceptable  conditions: The  player  requires  the  opponent  to accept the offer within 2 minutes.
  In a team competition: a draw is offered under the condition that another game in the match shall be resigned or shall be drawn as well.
  In both cases the offer of a draw is valid, but not the attached condition...
  
  newbie's thoughts: it seems that the arbiter is obliged to impose a penalty to the player making the draw offer incorrectly (so long as the opponent does not accept the offer to end the game immediately). Again, I haven't seen it being implemented by arbiters much. Maybe I will start ^o^ This penalty seems fair enough, I'd say.
  
  
• 11.9A  player  shall  have  the  right  to  request  from  the  arbiter  an  explanation  of particular points in the Laws of Chess.
  
  (In Arbiter's Manual):
  For example:A player might ask whether, with Black‟s bishop on a2, White‟s rook on a1 and King  on  e1,  0-0-0  is  legal.  Or  what  the  rate  of  play  is.  It  is  important  that  the arbiter  does  not  mislead  the  player,  nor  advise  him,  nor  advance  any  further.
  (By UK Chess Arbiter's Association):Arbiters should note that whilst it is acceptable to tell a player how to capture en passant, for example, it is not acceptable to answer “Can I take this pawn?”
  
  newbie's thoughts: I have not actually seen many players exercise their right on this. I think what the Arbiter's Manual and the UK Chess Arbiter's Association is trying to bring across, is what the arbiter can do and what the arbiter should not do.
  
  Can do:
  Clarify the FIDE laws of chess (e.g. correct way and sequence to offer a draw, correct way to claim a draw)
  Should not do:
  Tell a player his/her options, or even worse, offer any form of advice which may over-privilege the player who sought clarification).
  
  Personally, I won't even reply if 0-0-0 is legal (as per example in Arbiter's Manual). Rather, I will reply the player who asked, "how to castle" (legally). That's why I think my current habit of holding a copy of the Laws of Chess useful. I think I can just show the requestor the relevant section on castling (Article 3.8).
  
  Drawing back on a past experience -- a junior player was trying to ask if she was in checkmate as she cannot see a legal move (no, she is not in checkmate but she failed to see a legal move), I should have just replied the definitions of checkmate. Instead, I deferred that decision / query to the chief arbiter -- yes, there are all moments we are scared of making a wrong judgement, especially when we start off as newbies.
  
  But of course, I don't think it's fair to pause the clock while making this request. The player shall make this request to the arbiter while his/her own clock is running down, to be fair to the opponent.
• A.2  (Under Rapid Chess) Players  do  not  need  to  record  the  moves,  but  do  not  lose  their  rights  to  claims normally based on a scoresheet. The player can, at any time, ask the arbiter to provide him with a scoresheet, in order to write the moves
  
  (In Arbiter's Manual): Players are allowed to record the moves, but they may stop recording any time they wish. Players may  claim a draw without scoresheet when they are playing on electronic boards.  The  arbiter  also  has  the  right  to  accept  or  refuse  a  claim  without scoresheet based on his observation.
  
  newbie's thoughts: This is where I see value-add as an arbiter in a game. Especially when there are very few games remaining, and when we have no luxury of electronic equipment to rely on, other than observing for potential infringements / flag fall, a good arbiter should also help to count moves (for rapid / blitz games) in anticipation of a claim.
• Scenario:A player resigned, only to subsequently realise that his opponent flag fell. The player who resigned claims that the flag fall happened before his resignation.
  
  newbie's thoughts: First and foremost, I think it is unfortunate that the flag fall happened (if it happened) without arbiter observing so. (That is why the arbiter should come in once the flag fall is observed, to prevent escalation / complication of matters.)
  
  Second, we need to try and establish whether we can confirm the sequence of events (i.e. whether the flag fall happened before or after the resignation). The tricky part of things, is that a resignation can be declared at any time in the game, not just during a player's own turn.
  
  If we cannot establish what came first, by default, I'd say that the player has resigned, so the opponent wins.
  
  Advice for players: When you are contemplating resignation, other than checking out all possibilities remaining over the chess board, also check the time situation before you throw in the towel. That is why some people recommend to never resign! =)

If you have the patience to finish reading this whole post, you probably have some interest in serving as an arbiter, I guess? Keen to join me? =)

Do you agree or disagree with my newbie's views? Feel free to share your thoughts so that we can all learn together! Thanks ahead.


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

Rookie Arbiters Consolidated Thoughts

Most chess arbiters I know don't seem to publicise their experience, their ruling on cases and the likes. I'm totally unlike those!

I love to share, discuss and even debate about how I make a call, the references and considerations I have leading to my judgement. While I may not be always right, I seek to learn and improve. Having recently served as a Rookie arbiter for 1 of the large scale local tournaments (not naming it here in case I'm not supposed to, but my own chess friends would probably know what I am referring to), this is my self-evaluation:

I have little to no knowledge gap when it comes to the current FIDE laws of chess (which I feel is the most fundamental thing chess arbiters need to adequately equip themselves with). I do feel that I lack some experience, which may or may not be a good thing. Arguably, an experienced / seasoned arbiter also runs the risk of becoming complacent or jaded. Whereas a Rookie like myself is still fresh and passionate about my role as an arbiter.

Despite my limited experience serving as an arbiter in formal / official tournaments, there are role model arbiters I seek to learn from. Without a doubt, the 2 local arbiters I currently look up to the most are Mr Christopher Lim, President of the Singapore Chess Federation, Arbiter of the ongoing QCD Team League for Adults, and Mr Tan Tian Wah, who is also a guru in handling DGT chess equipment!

How newbie_learner serves as an arbiter

• Always carry a copy of the current FIDE Laws of Chess. Specifically, I use the version published by UK Chess Arbiter's Association. What is good about this version is that it included interpretations and explanatory notes from the UK Chess Arbiter's Association for different clauses in FIDE Laws of Chess. Things like using different hands to make a move and press the clock is considered an illegal action but not an illegal move (it is only an illegal move to make a move using 2 hands) is clearly explained in this document.
  
  Some friends or observers who don't know me well enough thought that carrying the Laws of Chess with me shows my lack of confidence. This assumption can't be further from the truth. Not only do I carry it with me for quick reference of my own, but it is also intended to (i) show it to any player(s) who are unfamiliar with the current laws of chess, or to players who misquote or misunderstood the laws of chess; and (ii) fellow arbiters who are not familiar with the specifics of the amended laws of chess (this is why in my opinion, being a Rookie arbiter doesn't necessarily put me at a disadvantage compared to a seasoned one-- I need not unlearn or "un-remember" old laws of chess that are no longer in place)

• Always carry 2 extra Queens, 1 of each colour in my pocket. This is to facilitate pawn promotion needs, which is especially important when extra Queens are not available to each set. While some fellow arbiters dismissed it as being redundant (they feel that Queens are usually only needed in the late stage of the game during endgame, when most games would have ended and the player can just grab a Queen from the neighbouring board), it really became important in some of the games I served. From whom did I pick up this good habit from? No other than Mr Christopher Lim himself =)

• Always make yourself useful when observing a game. While it takes experience to decide whether to observe a game in-depth and lose sight of other games in progress, or to observe several games simultaneously to look out for players' claims and to respond to claims in the quickest time possible, I make it an effort to always be doing something, even counting moves to facilitate arbiters' interference for things like 75 moves or repetition of the same position for the 5th time without players need to initiate a claim. I think the problem of some chess players-turned-arbiter is that they care too much about the quality of play and get engrossed in watching the game like a spectator but not serving as an arbiter. The quality of play is entirely none of our business as arbiters. This is something that I need to caution myself from time to time as well.

Pre-move 'equivalent' in OTB chess
One of the most repeated invalid claims I have received from kiddos is that "The opponent started moving before I completed my move". Just to explain things a little, under the FIDE Laws of Chess, there is a difference between having made a move (over the Board) and having completed a move (made the move + pressed the clock). The laws are clear on this:

1.3 A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been‘made’.

So a player can initiate his move when the opponent has made his move, and is in the process of pressing the clock.

Personally, I think this (initiating your own move while opponent is taking time to press the clock) is only useful when playing Blitz, where every second counts. But similar to making pre-move for online chess, this is not without risk:

1. If you (accidentally) start touching the pieces before the opponent has made his move, technically the opponent has the right to complain (because you are not having the move, and you cannot adjust when you do not have the move). Personally, as an arbiter, I would rule this as an illegal action if there is a complaint.
2. Touch-move applies the moment the move is made by the opponent, since once opponent has made the move, you have the move.
3. Also, a stated in Article 4.8,
   
   "A player forfeits his right to claim against his opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1 —4.7 (referring to touch move and release piece obligations) once the player touches a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it."
   
   So if you were holding on to a piece before the opponent has made his move, and the opponent quickly changes move and makes his move while you still hold onto the piece, the opponent may claim that you forfeited the right to claim his change of move based on Article 4.8, LOL

The way I see it, "pre-move" is not necessarily beneficial at all. It may be useful for blitz games or under extremely severe time trouble as a desperate measure, but against a well-informed opponent, it can cause a player more harm than good as well.

Case study: Offering a draw when opponent is holding on to a piece
This actually happened in the final round of a tournament, where prizes and placements are at stake. While this piece of information is irrelevant to how I resolved the case, it is interesting to know that the 2 players know each other (i.e. they are at least acquaintances if not friends), and I happen to know both players (both kids) in person. A fateful encounter with me as the arbiter, perhaps!

Player A (White pieces) has just been penalised for the first illegal move by me as the arbiter. (This was a rapid tournament with 10 seconds increment per move, and the 2nd illegal move would result in forfeiture.)  I just walked away from the board after issuing the penalty, when almost immediately, both Player A and Player B (Black pieces) seem agitated and raised their hands seeking to make a claim against each other.

I don't know if I recall the exact position correctly. The exact position is inconsequential to the incident, but I just want to point out something interesting to me (now as a player). Here, White to move, the assessment of this position should be, that only Black has any winning chance -- White still has some chances to misplay and lose the game. Hence, the easiest move is to play Qxg6+ to exchange Queens immediately and hold an easy draw. But instead, Player A made some other move and all hell broke loose!

What happened is as follows: After White and Black made another move each, it is now White (Player A) to move again. At (almost) the same time when Player A grabbed his White Queen (it was his turn to move), Player B mouthed "draw?". Being down on clock time, on 1 illegal, White was relieved to accept Player's B draw offer. (By the way, whoever claims that there is no element of psychology in competitive chess is either ignorant or lying.)

However, Player B now claims, "Since you touched your White Queen (with the intention to move), you have declined my draw offer and can no longer accept my draw offer.". Both players become visibly upset and both raised their hands for arbiter's assistance. Of course, I rushed back to attend to the game I just left off from. While this was somewhat a not-so-straightforward case, and something was at stake, I did not shun away and defer to the Chief Arbiter. Instead, I tried my best to calm both players down, to establish what exactly happened, and make a ruling.

" 9.1.2.1  A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 (referring to the use of the draw offer to distract or annoy the opponent illegally) must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way"

My follow-up action and evaluation as the arbiter for this situation as follows:

• After calming down both players, both players agree that the draw offer was made at almost, if not the exact same moment, that Player A grabbed his White Queen.
• Player B clearly did not offer a draw after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. However, the draw offer (made at any other time) is still valid.
• Based on the unique circumstances, Player A had no opportunity to react to the draw offer without touching the White Queen.
• My Ruling: Player A did NOT touch the White Queen as a response intended to decline Player B's draw offer through making a Queen move on the board. Hence, the draw offer from Player B is still valid.

Both players accepted my ruling. Player A accepted the draw offer that is still valid. After I updated the case to the Chief Arbiter, he accepted my ruling. In addition, he proposed the following food for thought:

• It may be technically possible to rule differently, that the draw offer from Player B is deemed invalid (Arbiter's discretion and judgement call). However, minimally I would have considered giving Player B an official warning under Article 11.5 (or even escalate it to some immediate penalty under Article 12.9), because this act of "making a draw offer that opponent has no legal means to consider accepting" may be seen as an act of gamesmanship exploiting on technicalities.

I wonder if fellow arbiters and players may have any views on my ruling? Please feel free to share your views, no matter if you agree or disagree. I am happy to learn from you.

Last but not least, these are my thoughts and suggestions for players in situations of dispute:

• If you do not agree with the arbiter's ruling, please APPEAL! To be honest, I do not always agree with the rulings made by (fellow) arbiters all the time =)  Myself included, I may have made bad calls from time to time too, if not now, perhaps in future. If you as a player feel genuinely aggrieved by any arbiters' decision, please make an appeal so that there is at least a chance for corrections to be made.
• (Especially for kids) Please speak up! As an arbiter, I am trying to establish the case so that I can make a judgement call that is fair to both players. If a player makes a claim while the other player does not respond, I can only make a ruling in favour of the claimant. On my end, I hope I do not appear to be too fierce / unapproachable to anyone. I can't change my face, but I will try to work on my tone and mannerisms to be as child-friendly as possible ^o^
• More often than not, justice prevails! We arbiters actually make a mental note of "notorious personalities". I even caught and confronted a couple of players who clearly chose to not observe touch move and were outright trying to deceive. Let's not earn ourselves a bad reputation just to clock 1 or 2 undeserved wins.

Looking forward to any comments  / feedback!


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

QCD Chess League 2019: Flash Update

For the first time since the QCD team league's inception in 2017, the results of the final round will be crucial in determining the overall winning team. In fact, I have a strong hunch we will be applying the tiebreakers to determine the final winner.

(Source: https://chess-results.com/tnr424743.aspx?lan=1&art=0&rd=7&turdet=YES)

"The Dreamers" and "Chess Mates" are currently tied with 13 match points (TB1, 2 match points for each team win, 1 match point for each team draw, no match point for each team loss). In terms of game points, The Dreamers is also holding a narrow lead over Chess Mates (TB2, 26.5 against 25.5). Both these teams have also fought to a team draw against each other in their earlier encounter, so we can be assured of a dramatic, nail biting finish in the final round on 16th August 2019.

Also worth mentioning is that the opposing teams of both title-contending teams in the final round are also playing with something at stake -- thanks to the generous prize money sponsored by QCD, top 8 teams will get a cash prize, and the teams will be striving their best for better placing for bigger rewards.

(Source: https://www.singaporechess.org.sg/images/Forms/Tournaments/2019/QCD%20SG%20Chess%20League%202019_v0.1.pdf)

I have chess friends in both The Dreamers and Chess Mates, so I will not be favouring a particular team to win over the other =) May the better team emerge as the overall winner!

Just a recap of the tiebreakers as stated in the rules and regulations of this team tournament:

Last but not least, some interesting statistics:

(Source: https://chess-results.com/tnr424743.aspx?lan=1&art=13&turdet=YES)

Black actually scored slightly more points than White despite White having the first mover advantage, LOL. I don't know if it could be due to (i) burden of expectations on White to play for a win; (ii) Team match strategy -- perhaps some teams prefer their stronger players to play Black to hold opponents White boards); (iii) White entering the game more relaxed while Black being more serious in their preparations, resulting in the latter performing better; or simply (iv) random "luck" factors.

Also interesting is the very low percentage of drawn games, 24 / (87+24+90) X 100% = 11.9%, while decisive games made up 88.1% of all games, excluding forfeits. It is also good to see the number of forfeits staying low.

A huge diversity of Player Pool
(Reference: https://chess-results.com/tnr424743.aspx?lan=1&art=16&turdet=YES)

Out of the 125 players listed, 75 have a FIDE rating. And it ranges from the highest of 2392 to the lowest of 1138. There are also 50 players without a FIDE rating. Pointing this out because during the initial "matchmaking " phase (i.e. me recruiting players for both new and existing teams), there were players who declined to join, citing "I don't know if I am ready".

Well, I would say that the love for the game, the unique experience of playing in an adults only tournament is probably a more important consideration for most of us on board. I have also asked informally and understand that most players / teams, especially the ones I helped to matchmake, were keen to continue playing next year. There are also players who have been asking actively for training matches to improve themselves so as to become a more valuable player for the team. I have also seen some players in the QCD league who become more interested and active in playing official (rated) tournaments.

So long as you enjoy the game, I don't think you can go wrong playing the QCD league. Hope to see more interested adults coming on board and  enjoying themselves in future runs of the QCD league!


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