Brew Master vs Tyrant Giant Chess Blitz Match

I was privileged to be asked to serve as the match arbiter between the "Brew Master" and the "Tyrant". Both players prefer to not publicise their actual names, so only the chess friends amongst us would know who they are. These are my opinion of them:

The Brew Master is a young chess player who has proven to be a very successful local chess event organiser.

The Tyrant, despite his personal denial, is a very famous chess personality whose tweets never fail to make it onto the biggest chess sites. 

The 2nd Giant Chess Blitz Match which I serve as the arbiter. There were a couple of big mistakes I made in the previous Defender v.s. Tyrant Match . Hence, my key desire in officiating this match is to avoid mistakes altogether. Although I did not make any mistake for this match, there were still learning points for me as the match arbiter.

There are some differences, in that we were playing under the time control of 5+3 (5 minutes initial time + 3 seconds increment starting from move #1) instead of 3+2 that was used in the previous match. But first thing's first, let's enjoy some nice pictures from the event!

Isn't the background lovely? It's a pity not many people know about the Giant Chess set available for booking at Singapore Sports Hub. A lot of my personal friends have been asking me after seeing my pictures shared on social media account. It's right here: https://www.sportshub.com.sg/free . To book this facility, you need to write an email to the Sports Hub and make your request approximately 1 week in advance. These giant chess pieces will be kept when there are no reservations.

Once we finish setting-up, I thought we would be ready to play. Couldn't be more wrong. Make a guess at what would be stopping us from starting right away!

That's right, the passers by! Many were fascinated by the chess pieces and dropped by to take pictures with them. This reminded me of why Chess caught my eye in my teenage days -- I actually feel these "3D" pieces were more elegant looking than Chinese Chess, as Chinese Chess pieces were merely represented by Chinese characters! Although eventually, the reason I picked up Chess over Chinese Chess has more to do with the values and philosophical differences I felt so strongly about. I will probably blog about my personal view on the difference between the 2 in a separate post in the near future.

Beautiful setting sun.

Apparently, even some Black Pink fans were attracted by the aesthetics of the chess pieces before the concert starts! 

We actually waited quite a while for many members of the public to take pictures with the giant chess set before commencing our chess match. But once we start, it's all serious business!

Our yoga neighbours. I'm glad we weren't distracting enough to upset their tranquility! 

During the course of the game, the Tyrant managed to take time to talk a distance away to take some great pictures -- while his clock is running. Do you think chess Goddess Caissa will reward him for contributing to chess promotion and publicity, or punish him for being too full of himself?

Brew Master posing before the actual commence of the match. 

Since the Tyrant is the photo-taker, you are seeing the Brew Master in action.

Yes, the arbiter is watching the clock attentively and didn't move much ^o^

The match is actually ongoing! The Tyrant was taking pictures from afar and the Brew Master obliges with a pose!

There's no need to worry about nightfall as it is well lit.

It's really challenging to manage kiddo spectators. On one hand, we're happy to see kids interested in chess. On the other hand, they were really too near the chess "board". I'm more concerned over their safety, as the 2 adult players are dashing across the board fast. This is 1 of the challenges faced.

Did you guess the result correctly? Even though the best of 10 match could've ended 0-6 in favour of the Tyrant, Brew Master has specifically requested to finish the 10 games -- since the facility has already been booked, let's not waste it! I really like his fighting spirit, and I also respect the Tyrant for playing real chess to the best of his abilities and not dropping any game points out of pity.

A deflated Brew Master throws in the towel. This is actually done specially for a local chess lady =)

  Some Boring Stuff: Arbiter's Match Report X Other Observations X Thoughts as a Chess Fan

• I tend to like to propose the "A-B-B-A" system frequently used in tennis tie breaks to even the odds/pressure of White/Black. I actually hope more chess matches consider adopting this system.
• In the first game, the Brew Master committed an illegal move which was immediately noted by both the arbiter and the Tyrant. However, the Tyrant insisted on not imposing the usual penalty of +1 minutes to the opponent, as the Tyrant was already having a huge time advantage of 2-3 minutes without this 1 minute "gift". There were no further incidents of illegal move made in the remaining 9 games. 
• The Brew Master lost all games largely due to time forfeit / severe time pressure. There were at least 2 games which the Brew Master had very promising, if not winning positions.
• In some of the games, the Tyrant simply played moves which require the Brew Master to react to, where he is furthest away from the clock, due to time pressure. The Brew Master could only make a couple of Heroic struggles living on the 3 seconds increment, but not survive longer.
• There was a single moment whereby the Brew Master touched a piece, hesitated, and then simply asked the arbiter whether touch move applies in this match. Actually, the arbiter saw the incident when it first occurred, but because the "touch-move" appeared to arise out of a slip, the arbiter did not call "touch-move". It was only after the Brew Master asked, and the arbiter confirmed, that the Brew Master honoured the touch move. Precious seconds were lost. On one hand, I am really happy to see such a sporting act, on the other, I'm not sure if I am the cause of Brew Master's plight. Had I called "touch-move" on Brew Master in the first instance, those precious seconds would not be lost. But I genuinely thought it was a slip and was not seeing it as a "touch-move". Oh well. Where judgement call matters!
• There was another instance whereby the clock was paused because of an unwanted external disruption. An adult couple wanted to take pictures in the midst of a game! Even though they were making their request politely, I only wished that they could wait until the game finishes first. I am thankful that both players did not kick up a fuss and we simply paused the clock and continued after the photos were taken and the couple left the chess "board.
• Last but not least, it is important for the arbiter / organisers to "over-prepare" a little. I'm glad I brought this to put the chess clock. If not, I probably have to hold it with my bare hands throughout the match, LOL.
• As the Tyrant continues to clock more and more experience in the Giant Chess Blitz Matches, he will become harder and harder to beat. Any serious challengers should consider training him/herself up before issuing a worthy challenge! 

Glad I brought this portable chair to for the chess clock to rest on. Bought this more than a decade ago when I served as a part-time assistant / runner for a Taiwanese actor who came to Singapore for filming. It also served as an additional seat option when taking the MRT ^o^ 

All in all, I was not expecting the Giant Chess Board to be so well-received amongst members of public. And such a match is actually very fun to watch and officiate over.

Yours sincerely

Ong Yujing (Eugene)

a.k.a. newbie_learner

Siglap South CC Chess Quartet

Provocation over the Board

Lost a game today at Siglap South CC Chess Club that is so... unforgiveable. I don't have enough time to analyse it move-by-move (back to office reality tomorrow!) , so I will have to rely on the "one-click" tactical analysis function of Chessbase 15 for now.

So vulnerable to such provocative approach. Oh well, learning something new every game ^o^


How white manage to lose from such a promising position is beyond me. I just played badly, and the severe time pressure and disadvantage didn't help to the situation.

The full game replay can be found here:

http://view.chessbase.com/cbreader/2019/2/10/Game1939987843.html 

Yours sincerely

Ong Yujing (Eugene)

a.k.a. newbie_learner

Siglap South CC Chess Quartet

Candidate Moves and Thinking Process

Introduction

As we enter into a new year based on the Chinese Calendar, I thought I'd experiment writing and presenting my chess thoughts in another way =) 

This is my attempt towards self-learning. I would greatly appreciate the sharing of any thoughts or comments/feedback for learning and improvement's sake. Perhaps, if anything, you can see how a newbie in chess thinks ^o^

Thanks ahead!

Candidate Moves and Thinking Process

I will try to illustrate the concept of candidate moves through a game I played at Cashew Chess Club yesterday evening. Regrettably, I can't visit the Chess Clubs located in the West as often as I wish. In any case, this is my self-attempted review to examine my thought process. Through examining my thinking process, I hope to identify my key weaknesses / issues and seek to address them.

Adult Player v.s. newbie_learner

(As per my current practice, I will not identify my opponents in an unofficial game, unless I have specifically obtained permission to do so. As for official games, anyone who wants to know could've checked chess results anyway, so that's that.)

Even though I recorded this rapid game (15 minutes of initial time + 10 seconds increment for each move starting from the first), I did what some of my stronger chess friends in Singapore Chess Meetup suggested -- try to reconstruct the game from memory. I'm not sure if this trains visualisation or memory, but will do it since everyone recommended me doing so. I failed to reconstruct the full game based on my own memory, but I managed to get everything correct until move 18. Between move 19 and 23, I got the move order wrong, although we transpose back to the game position at the end of move 23.

1. e4 c6

2. d4 d5

3. e5 Bf5

newbie: Here is 1 of the most played line in the advance variation. An alternative would be the interesting 3...c5. It is not purely a "waste of time" to move the same pawn twice. (I suspect most fellow chess newbies would think like that on first sight, but that is not the case -- feel free to do a little bit of research on your own if you are interested.)

4.Nf3 e6

5.c4 Ne7

newbie: So far so good. I don't think there's anything too unusual. I did notice that if Black initiates 5...dxc4, White's d4 pawn becomes exposed as a backward pawn. However, that also gives White a free developing move with 6.Bxc4 recapturing the pawn. Hence, I decided to play ...Ne7 instead. I am concerned, but not overly concerned over the dark square Bishop still on f8 square. Depending on the situation, I thought Black even had ideas like ...h6 and ...g5 to consider deploying that Bishop to g7 instead, or consider challenging White's pawn centre with ...f6. The dark square Bishop on f8 didn't have that many better squares to move to anyway, so I think blocking it's scope temporarily is an acceptable "concession".

Worth mentioning is the possibility of 5...Bxg1 6.Rxg1 Qa5+ to pick up the a2 pawn. But I never believed in such manoeuvre. Whenever I play greedily like this, it almost always backfires ^o^ I'd rather stick to the general opening principles (develop, centre control, king safety). Winning a pawn in this fashion seems to help White gain development moves. 

6.Bd3 dxc4

7.Bxc4 Nd5

newbie: Since White has spent a move with 6.Bd3, 6...dxc4 is no longer giving White a free tempo. I played 7...Nd5 because I want to improve my dark square Bishop from f8 to e7. Without which, I cannot castle short. I see that White has the option to play 8.Bxd5 but I'm not really concerned, since after 8...cxd5 Black's route to complete development seems easy enough: ...Be7, ...Nc6, ...Qd7 etc.

8.0-0 Be7

9.Nc3 0-0

10.Re1 Nd7

newbie: These are all normal developing moves. Worth mentioning is that I prioritise short castling for King safety. Hence I completed my Kingside development before continuing developing my Knight on the Queenside.

11.Nxd5 cxd5

newbie: On hindsight, I don't think White should have initiated this exchange of Knights. While this addresses the concern of exposing the backward pawn on d4, the centre pawns are completely locked up, and both sides will be focusing their attention to the Queenside of the Board. It's probably playable, just that I do not think that Black will be worse playing on the Queenside.

Another reason to play 11...cxd5 instead of exd5 is that the e-file remains shut down, so the value of White Rook on e1 is diminished.

12.Bd3 Bg6

newbie: The candidate moves I saw for Black were 12...Bxd3, 12...Bg6 and 12...Bg4. Before that, I felt obliged for my Bishop on f5 to move in response. Otherwise, Black's pawn structure will be damaged after White plays Bxf5. 

I did not want to initiate 12...Bxd3 because I thought that simply helps White to develop the Queen to d3 "for free". I some time concluding that 12...Bg6 is a better move than 12...Bxd3, since if White initiates 13.Bxg6 hxg6, my argument is that despite the slightly weakened pawn structure, Black has gotten rid of a potential backrank issue -- often when the major pieces faces each other off (very likely when fighting over the control for the c-file in this case), we want to make sure there is no backrank checkmate. And the most common way to do that is to make a pawn move on the Kingside for the King to escape. Hence, if White initiates Bxg6, I argue that Black has saved 1 move for this purpose. 

Admittedly, I did not spend enough time to compare with 12...Bg4, pinning the White Knight on f3. I see nothing wrong with this in my post game review. During the game, I had some concerns over whether Bxh7+ is a possibility. I think I'm "seeing ghost" =)

Engine: After 12.Bd3, the engine recommends 12..Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Nb8 un-developing the Knight temporarily to relocate it to a better square of c6 to pressurise the d4 pawn.

After 12...Bg6, the engine recommends 13.Bxg6, and opines that White has advantage if Black recaptures with 13...hxg6 14.g3 or 14.h4 immediately, imagining a direct Kingside attack. (13...fxg6, opening up the f-file for the f8 Rook maintains equality).

Same thing in subsequent moves, the engine opines that Black should have just taken on d3 to avoid even that little bit of pawn weakness on the Kingside, and that White should have initiated Bxg6 to create that weakness (and attack Kingside!)

What can I try to learn from this: Don't under-estimate pawn weaknesses, especially over the Kingside when there is still some attacking potential. The easiest for Black is to go for 12...Bxd3.

13.a3 Qb6

14.b4 Rfc8

newbie: White decides to expend his Queenside space while Black decided to complete opening development by connecting the backrank Rooks. I chose to move my f8 Rook instead of my a8 Rook to c8 in view of a number of considerations. First, I actually have some concerns over White playing Qa4 (it's better for the Rook on a8 to remain to keep the a7 pawn protected without committing the Black Queen to b6). Second, when asking myself which is the "worst placed piece", I actually feel it should be the f8 Rook -- I may want to push my a7 and b7 pawns eventually, since we are fighting on the Queenside. Third, from a defensive point of view, I may want or need my undefended Knight on d7 to be relocated to f8. All these factors prompted me to play 14...Rfc8.

15.Bg5 Qd8

newbie: White's move surprised me. I thought White would play something like 15.Bb2 as an attempt to shut down the c-file, diminishing the value of my Rooks / major-pieces on this open file. I spent quite a bit of time on this move. First, I find 15...Bxg5 unappealing, if not potentially disastrous. Specifically, I do not even want to entertain the thought of 15.Bg5 Bxg5 16.Nxg5 with some Qf3 ideas after exchanging off the light squared Bishops. I also ruled out the possibility of winning a pawn with 15.Bg5 Bxg6 16.Nxg5 Qxd4, because the tactical considerations have not ended: 17.Bxg6! Qxd1 (the Black Queen is undefended) 18.Bxf7+ followed by 19.Rxd1 (either Rook) would be disastrous for Black.

So I have ruled out initiating the capture on g5. But my Bishop on e7 is also hanging. Luckily I found 15..Qd8, a move I liked very much. The Queen on b6 does not seem to be doing a lot -- the d4 pawn is immune for now. The Queen on b6 is also arguably misplaced -- it is stopping my Queenside pawns from advancing to fight back. Above all, I now see potential for my d7 Knight to be routed to b6 and challenge for control over c4 and a4 squares.

Engine: 15...Bxg5 is still better. If White realises 16.Bxg6, Black must find 16...fxg6 rather than 16...hxg6.

What can I try to learn from this: Got to realise the dynamic possibilities of ...fxg6 -- Black can at least plant a major piece on f8 to fight back. With ...hxg6, Black has no such possibility.

16.Bf4 Nb6

17.Rc1 Rxc1

18.Bxc1 Rc8

newbie: I kind of understand 16.Bf4, although I think White might as well have initiated mass exchanges with something like 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Bxg6 hxg6 18.Rc1. I thought this makes the position easier to hold. 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 pulls the Queen away from the backrank, which undermines Black's efforts to pile up the major pieces on the c-file. 17.Bxg6 liberates the White Queen of it's defensive obligations over the d3 light square Bishop. After what was actually played in the game, I felt Black definitely has something-- just a matter of whether it is sufficient to win the game.

19.Qd2 Qc7

20.h3 Qc3

newbie: 19.Qd2 feels like White Queen is still burdened by the need to defend the light square Bishop on d3. Here, I decided to double my major pieces on the c-file and do what I can to exploit for maximum damage. Time factor (I was down on time) contributed to my decision to play 20...Qc3 as an attempt to simplify rather trying 20...Nc4. In any case, I thought that it was unwise to play 20...Nc4 since White has the resource of 21.Bxc4 anyway. Notice that White spent a move 20.h3 to give an escape square for the White King. In comparison, Black was waiting for White to initiate Bxg6 to save a move.

21.Bxg6 hxg6

22.Qxc3 Rxc3

newbie: These moves aren't exactly "forced" or only moves, but White's position feels difficult, and I can understand why White was "encouraged" to play them. Now Blacks moves are much easier to find -- consider ...Nc4 or ...Na4 and work on White's hanging pawns.

23.Bb2 Rc2

24.Bc1 Nc4

25.Bg5 Bxg5

26.Nxg5 Nxa3

27.Ra1 Nb5

newbie: Even when reviewing the game after its conclusion, I'm not sure if 23...Rc2 or 23...Rb3 is more accurate. During the game, I was quite down on time at this juncture (probably at 1 minute or less). So I thought that minimally, I do not want to risk giving up control over the c-file to any mistakes. And my opponent admitted that he did not realise that 27...Nb5 defends the a7 pawn. Not only is Black 1 pawn up, White's pawns, particularly the d4 and b4 ones, are still vulnerable. These factors should be decisive for the game.

28. g4 Kf8

29.Kg2 Ke7

30.Nf3 Rc4

newbie: Here I just want to stay as safe as possible. 28...Kf8 was to take away any potential backrank (the Knight on g5 took away h7 square from Black King). 29...Ke7 is centralising of the King, and moving towards the side of the board where it counts -- my pass pawns will emerge on the Queenside. I believe I still have just enough on the Kingside to not allow White to make a meaningful pass pawn. In fact, the doubled pawns are very useful to stop / slow down White's pawn advancement on the Kingside. 30....Rc4 threatens to win more loose pawns.

31.Rb1 Nxd4

32.Nxd4 Rxd4

33.Rc1 Rc4

newbie: consistent with the plan to stay safe. After grabbing the d4 pawn, Black is ready to offer exchange of Rooks with 33...Rc4. On hindsight, perhaps 33...Kd7 is better. The King on d7 has already taken away the c6,c7 and c8 squares from White's Rook, while the Rook on d4 is still pressurising the b4 pawn.

34.Rb1 Kd7

35.b5 Kc7

36.Kg3 Kb6

37.h4 Rc5

38.h5 Rxb5

This was the last recorded position. Black proceeded to win the game after more moves were played.

0-1

The full game replay using Chessbase 15's Tactical Analysis function can also be found in the following link:

http://view.chessbase.com/cbreader/2019/2/9/Game1846240500.html

Yours sincerely

Ong Yujing (Eugene)

a.k.a. newbie_learner

Siglap South CC Chess Quartet

Maiden Arbiter for Defender VS Tyrant Blitz Match

Introduction
I was blessed by good chess friends who offered me to clock my maiden experience as an arbiter for their best-of-10 Blitz match. Both of them prefer to keep a low profile for the match, so unfortunately, the interesting things (photos and videos) taken will be within our private chat group. I shall only refer to the players as the "Defender" and the "Tyrant". The "Defender" is the best regular at the Singapore Chess Meetup, and the "Tyrant" is a well-known personality in the chess community.


Background to the Match
We had wanted to play a 10-game blitz match using "SPORTS HUB GIANT CHESS" set in the open. Unfortunately, upon clarification, we were informed that we need to make a request DAYS in advance for the pieces to be made available. (This is not a complaint, but a suggestion to make this requirement clear beforehand, preferably on the booking page itself. Currently, the "book now" button leads to writing an email, but it does not state such requirements.). Fortunately, there is another giant chess set in the Sports Hub Library, so we proceeded to play indoors (with air-condition!).

There were probably some under-estimation of the physical demands for the match. The Defender hit the gym earlier in the morning while the Tyrant did not clock adequate sleeping hours. Perhaps their fatigued, "not-so-handsome" look displayed by both players after the game contributed to their reluctance to allow pics or vids go public. There was another common friend, whom I shall refer to as "J", who served multiple roles (spectator, supporter, photographer, interviewer, assistance etc.)

There were some differences over the preferred time controls, but both players were eventually game enough to try out playing 3+2 (3 minutes initial time + 2 second increment with each move, starting from the first). Some house rules were necessary out of practical reasons. For instance, one is allowed to use both hands to make a move, to keep things in order, players were not allowed to start making their move before opponent presses the clock -- 2 warnings of this nature will result in penalty of an illegal move, adding 1 minute to the opponent. To address the lack of an extra Queen for pawn promotion, I brought 2 T-shirts, White and Black, from PubXChess -- a Queen will be represented by wrapping the shirt around any piece.


Conduct of the Games & Results
The warm-up game (not counted towards the results) was perhaps telling of the physical condition of both players. To our minor surprise, the Defender, who is deemed fitter than the Tyrant, seems very exhausted. The Tyrant, on the other hand, seems to be in much better condition. In the end, the Tyrant won the match 6-2 with 2 games not played out. A quick summary as follows:

Game 1: The Defender committed 2 illegal moves and forfeited the game. The Defender mixed up the pawn from the Bishop. But to be fair, even myself found difficulties sorting things out when restoring the pieces back to the starting positions =)

Game 2: The Defender threatened mate in 1 (big "one-move-threat") to even the scores.

Game 3: The Defender forfeited on time. Here I was rightfully reprimanded by the Tyrant from screwing up the clock -- in my eagerness to penalise the Tyrant for breaching the house rule (moving the piece before opponent pressed the clock), I accidentally pressed the clock (which triggered time increment) instead of pausing the clock =(

Things improved when the clock position was adjusted to a position which I can have a better look at the clock. Learn and avoid the mistake again was the way to move forward.

Game 4: The Defender committed 2 illegal moves again. One of the 2 illegal moves were so blatant (2 pawns were captured in a single move, LOL), that both myself and the Tyrant called it out. We were more surprised that the Defender was surprised by the (obvious) call ^o^

Games 5, 6, 7 and 8 were all decided by resignation.


Arbiter's Thoughts, Learning Points and "Match Report"
1. It was a very interesting experience. Both players were game, and it was an excellent physical and brain exercise combined!

2. I'm really sorry for the mistakes made as an arbiter. I will try to mimimise them in future. I'd also add that I am happy to say I have been impartial to both players. (The mistakes were due to lack of capability and not due to any bias towards either player). I have been penalising both sides quite evenly, in terms of warnings, calls for "touch-move" and the likes.

Just to digress a little-- Previously, as a player, I have never bothered claiming touch move on my opponent, because my personal view is that if a player intends to honour touch move, he would have done so at the onset (and hence, a claim is unnecessary). This assumption is actually not correct. Both players in this match are highly reputable, and both were reminded of "touch moves". Sometimes we are so focused in our thoughts, we are simply not fully aware of our hands actual actions. Both players honoured touch move after reminders.

So I should be doing the same as a player moving forward -- to "remind" my opponent of touch-move if they committed it (and not assume they have no intention to honour it just because they violated touch move).

3. While the players were taking their well-deserved break in between round, a teenager, who was following the game, approached me to inform that I overlooked an illegal move committed. Even though I thanked him and explained that the arbiter cannot interfere once the opponent made the move, the truth is I did not see/realise it. My point of view of the game was not so good, and I was focusing to ensure the house rules were being followed etc. My fear is that a seasoned / "lazy" arbiter would find all sorts of excuses to not play a proactive role.

4. I find fast games much harder to serve as an arbiter -- everything happens so fast, I am actually scared of pressing the clock (instead of pausing the clock) wrongly again. Even though the organisers, I have to say, I'd prefer to serve in standard games. I feel it is not so stressful, and if anything, we can always restore the game before the first irregularity. I don't mind committing longer hours to observe standard chess.

5. People (on top of Player) management is quite important. There was 1 user of the Sports Hub Library who complained about our noise level due to pieces falling and shouting out to make calls (e.g. warning, illegal move, touch move), stating the expected low to no noise level in a library. I apologised to him and the librarians after the match and wished them good day. I don't think there was a need to escalate the unhappiness further (luckily he did not hear the Tyrant's retort).

6. It is really important to ensure we understand the players correctly. The Defender indicated "giving up" during game 6, which results to the scores being 5-1 in favour of the Tyrant. I wanted to make sure I understood whether the Defender was giving up round 6 only, or was giving up the match. As the arbiter, I was actually secretly hoping that the Defender was giving up the match. Because being a pacifist, I hope the match ends as soon as possible, so that I can quickly proceed to apologise to "that guy" and avoid any escalation. But as a general chess enthusiast. I definitely wish the Defender would play the games out. I am glad that the games were played out to 6-2. It's scary how a match arbiter's bias can influence the course of the match, so I hope I, as well as any other aspiring chess arbiters, would take their role seriously!

Playing on the large chess board is quite an interesting affair. The Tyrant is already exploring possible interesting formats for the next match. Stay tuned!


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

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

Day 1 of FIDE Arbiter's Seminar

I felt super energised during day 1 of the FIDE Arbiter's Seminar held at the Singapore Chess Federation (25 - 27 Jan). I will try to make this short and sweet, so that I can sleep early for tomorrow's session commencing at 10am.

First the reference:
http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories/downloads/2018/Arbiters-Manual-2018-v1.pdf
It contains explanatory comments by the FIDE Arbiter's Commission, which is useful to understand laws and certain situations. Although for purely chess players, the FIDE Laws of Chess would be sufficient I think.

Learning Points, Opinion and Remaining Queries [feel free to correct if I am wrong]

• General sentiment: It may seem too harsh at times, especially for "kids events" to fully enforce the laws of chess.
• General sentiment: The laws of chess has changed quite a bit over the years. Don't assume you know the correct things. Don't need to feel embarrassed if you don't know everything. Even a certain (former) world champion does not know how to make certain draw claims!

• [With reference to Article 4.2.1] You are not allowed to say "I adjust" for each and every move to circumvent the obligation of "touch move". Players doing that should be warned / punished accordingly for repeated offences. Also, the purpose may only be used to correct displaced pieces. *Recalls his own tournament experience whereby players really make major adjustments of all pieces when they were not displaced in the first place (probably as a form of de-stress). This is actually an abuse of the allowed adjusting feature.*

• [Practical advice for players] If an opponent makes a move such that a piece is placed cutting across more than 1 square, the best course of action is to pause the clock and seek assistance from the arbiter. It is actually not best for the player to pause the clock and request the opponent adjust the badly placed piece, because there is a risk of turning around and accuse the opponent that he/she was trying to adjust a piece not during his own move. So better let the arbiter address the situation. The player who placed the piece badly ought to be penalised.
  
  Follow-up question to ask: What if a player on his move, released a piece cutting across squares and then there is a dispute on whether the piece was placed on a square over the other? Should the player on the move be allowed to adjust (during his own turn) to make clear his intended move? I think the player should still be allowed to adjust, since it is still his move (move not completed), but will see what the course facilitator says.

• [Practical advice for players] With reference to Articles 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.2.2 (as well as 6.2.1.1., 9.6.1 and 9.6.2)] While it is not necessary to press the clock when the move you make lands a checkmate, stalemate or a "dead position" (no legal moves to win for either side), as these are deemed to be completed moves, to avoid dispute, it is still better to press the clock, in case the clock falls to 0.00 and dispute arise over whether the move was made within time control.
• (Opinion, in response to a good chess friends complain over an incident, whereby an opponent hesitates over which piece to use to complete a capture) -- A player with the move has quite a bit of rights -- it is his right to take his time to complete the move, including the action of making a capture. You can try to complain about distraction (he took away your piece but never complete the move / decide which piece to capture with), but an arbiter is most likely to disagree with the claim.
• Simply by virtue of chronological order, if a player declares checkmate wrongly and then the opponent resigns (wrongly) when the position was actually a stalemate, the game result should stand as 1/2 - 1/2. This is because the stalemate position must have arrived before the wrong resignation. Personally, if I am ever serving as the arbiter, I probably would have also considered issuing a warning to the player who declared checkmate wrongly. But I also learn that this is probably not appropriate in a "kids event". I guess my etiquette as an arbiter may not be that desirable either ^o^
• [General] A player should not ask, and an arbiter should not answer questions such as the number of moves made.
• [Raised by course mate, with reference to Article 6.11.2, for discussion]
  Situation described as follows: "My opponent paused the clock and walked to get recording sheets."
  
  While the course facilitator agreed that the correct course of action was to pause the clock to ask for recording sheets from the arbiter, I personally really don't think it is that big a deal. I've seen events whereby the arbiter was there to provide the recording sheets for both players. So even though this might be a "wrong action", I really don't see anything particularly wrong about the opponent's act of pausing the clock to get the recording sheets. (Although so far, I would personally spend/waste that bit of time on my own if no arbiter is near sight).
•  [General, Opinion] Time controls with neither increment nor delay really "sucks". Hopefully, all such tournaments will be phased out over time. Just think of any instance dragging the game out to win on time in drawn positions such as Rook v.s. Rook. Is that playing chess or engaging in a piece moving exercise? LOL
• [With reference to Article 7.5.1] If multiple illegal moves had been completed and realised, we will restore game position to the last move whereby the position was still legal. The player who made the first illegal move in the series shall be deemed to have made 1 illegal move (2 illegal move forfeits the game), and touch move still applies. The arbiter has discretion over how the time situation over the clock shall be adjusted.
• [Practical tips for players, with reference to Article 7.5.5] Since the punishment for making the first illegal move is that the arbiter shall give 2 minutes extra time to the opponent, the best way to address a completed illegal move, is to seek arbiter's assistance.
• [Practical tips for players, with reference to Article 8.3] If you realise you recorded the moves wrongly, you can try to request to borrow the recording sheet of your opponent. You should do it only when your own clock is ticking, and return the borrowed recording sheet to your opponent before you complete your move (i.e. before pressing the clock). If you meet a situation whereby your opponent declines your request, you can still make this request to the arbiter. This is possible because "The scoresheets are the property of the organiser of the competition.", and most reasonable arbiters should grant such request. I guess if the arbiter refuses the player who requested, the requestor should really self-reflect on why the arbiter hates him/her, LOL
• [This is an extremely hypothetical situation, whereby I'm still not fully clear after Day 1] Article 9.1.2.1 states "A playing 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 written 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."
  
  If you offer a draw without making a move, the opponent may request that you make a more while retaining the right to accept or decline the draw offer. The hypothetical situation I have is, what if, after the opponent offered a draw, I touched a piece which I cannot move? Should I be deemed to have lost the right to accept the draw, since I rejected it? Or since that move cannot be made, it should not be "registered"? Personally, I still go with my initial understanding, that this should indeed be deemed as rejecting the draw offer (this article is only concerned with whether the act of touching a piece was made with the intention of moving or capturing it, and not whether the move can or cannot be legally made), but there is still some uncertainty.
  
  Because no conditions can be attached to any draw offer, we cannot fix draws in team events (e.g. if you offer us a draw on board 1, we will offer you a draw on board 2).
• A technicality which I observed correctly:
  
  Article 9.1.2.2 states that "The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his scoresheet with the symbol (=)."
  
  Article 9.1.2.3 states that "A claim of a draw under Article 9.2 (claiming draw whereby the same position arise for at least the 3rd time) or 9.3 (50 moves completed by each player without moving any pawn and without any capture) will be considered to be an offer of a draw.".
  
  My question: So if a player is making the "threefold repetition" claim or the "50-move" claim, both players should also indicate the symbol (=) on the scoresheet?
  
  Facilitator's reply: That is correct. But nobody actually does this.
  *Actually, I do! Great job for someone who likes to observe the trivial, unimportant details, LOL*

To be continued...


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

Fun Games and Updates on 20 Jan 2019

A quick update on the Siglap South CC Chess Quartet:

• "Sunday Chess Uncle", Eric, has finally returned after a few weeks' absence. And he did it with a bang, beating our #1 player, Seng Chin within the Chess Quartet. Now within the 4 of us (Seng Chin, Willim, Eric and myself), nobody has perfect record against each other anymore. 
• If there is a way to monitor improvement, I think William definitely improved the most over recent days. His preparations and his games with Weng Chew probably helped (I personally do agree that we learn the most from long games).
• Another reason I really enjoy games with William is because nobody else I played with played the way he does. Mainly opening choice but also a bit to do with playing style. At present, I find the opening very "technical" to play against. It's like the usual style of play I use doesn't work well at all =( But it's good. It makes my overall play experience more complete, I believe.

I really love it that everyone has levelled up. There were less attendees today as many were involved in the kickoff tournament held at Nanyang CC. I'm really happy to know many of my chess friends did well! Still, I hope everyone enjoyed themselves. I definitely played more blitz games than I wanted to, and I still have some big question marks in my head while reviewing some opening lines for sure.

This was the only rapid game I recorded, between William and myself.

Personal Thoughts and Learning Points

• Being the first over-the-board (OTB) encounter against the Colle Zukertort, I thought it was decent. I mean, where I misplayed, I pick up and learn. So I learn that I can actually go directly with ...b6 and ...Bb7 without fearing any sort of early Bb5 pin.
• I'm glad I at least realised the problem of 12...dxc4 right after playing it.
• This was probably the biggest miss on my part. Interestingly, I had this exact move and idea in mind. But I was too fixated over the fear of getting the Black Queen trapped after 25...Qc2 26.Rf2!, and played an inferior move.

Position after 25.Rae1. Did you find the BIG MOVE for Black here?

• After 29.Qh6!! Qd5 30.Be4 Qxe4 31.Rxe4 Bxe4 I was genuinely waiting for 32.Qf4 to resign. But White went astray with 32.h4 .Rc2. Even then, 33.Rf1 should still be okay but after 33.Ba8?? Black has the super strong 33...Rg2+ Kh1. But unfortunately, Black was living on incremental and did not see to converting a win.

Black has a guaranteed perpetual check with seconds left on his clock (15+10 format, 10 second incremental per move). Would you play this position out as Black?

The game replay in comparison with Chessbase15's "objective" Tactical Analysis can also be found here: 

http://view.chessbase.com/cbreader/2019/1/20/Game134227171.html

Time to face the music in office again... Sorry, thank you for your time!

Yours sincerely

Ong Yujing (Eugene)

a.k.a. newbie_learner

Siglap South CC Chess Quartet