The

Chess
Organisers
Handbook
Third Edition
incorporating the
2005 FIDE
Laws of Chess

Stewart Reuben

DEDICATED TO:
HYLTON, SUZIE, LAUREN, NIGEL, PAULA

Acknowledgements
Many players, arbiters and organisers have contributed to this book. Without certain people this
book would have been much inferior, or might never have existed at all. The errors are all mine,
much of what is good that you will find here is due to their advice and help.
They include:
Casto Abundo; David Anderton; Leonard Barden; Lara Barnes; Richard Beville; Les
Blackstock; Steve Boniface; BCF Management Board; Mark Bryant, Almog Burstein; Paul
Buswell; Caleta Hotel staff; Florencio Campomanes; Chess Arbiters Association; David
Clayton; Tony Corfe; Eric Croker; Colin Crouch; Dirk de Ridder; John Donaldson; Edward
Dubov; Dr Ehmendi; Abdelhafid Elamri; Nick Faulks; John Fernandez; FIDE Organizers,
Qualification Commission; Rules and Tournament Regulations, Swiss Pairings, Technical
Commission, Titles and Ratings Committees; Dr Andrzej Filipowicz; Nigel Freeman; Tony
Gaffney; Israel Gelfer; Geurt Gijssen; Bill Goichberg; Neil Graham; Richard Haddrell; Phil
Haley; Hans Lahlum; Abd Majid Hamid; Willy Iclicki; Carol Jarecki; David Jarrett; Ray Keene;
Christian Krause; Hans Lahlum; Ignatius Leong; David Levy; Gunther Lowenthal; London
Chess Association; Sergio Mastropietro; Georgios Makropoulos; Mikko Markkula; Alex
McFarlane; Rod McShane; Sevan Muradian; Viacheslav Neklyudov; Panagiotis Nikolopoulos;
Richard OBrien; Kevin OConnell; Bill ORourke; John Player; Eddie Price; Peter Purland;
Miguel Quinteros; Adam Raoof; John Robinson; Cathy Rogers; John Saunders; Eric Schiller;
David Sedgwick; Werner Stubenwohl; Colin Tribe; Viron Tsorbatzoglou; John Turnock; Ashot
Vardapetian; Igor Vereschagin; Gerry Walsh; Manuel Weeks; David Welch; Pranesh Yadav.
The late: Harry Baines; Arpad Elo; Richard Furness; Harry Golombek; George Goodwin;
Bozidar Kazic; George Koltanowski; Peter Morrish; Peter Shaw; George Smith; Jack Speigel;
Frankie Torregrosa; Bob Wade; David Wallace.

CONTENTS
Preface
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Chapter 21

A Year in the Life of a Chess Congress Organiser

The Organisers Objectives
What Type of Competition?
Deciding the Prize Structure
Preparing the Budget
Venues for Chess Events
The Role of the Arbiter
Equipment
Chess Clocks and Timing Games
Swiss Pairing Systems
The 2005 FIDE Laws of Chess
Comments on the Laws of Chess
Withdrawals
Tie-break Systems
FIDE Title Regulations
FIDE Rating Regulations
Comments on Ratings and Title Regulations
Information System
Inputting Games
How to be a tournament Webmaster
Peripheral Activities
Events for Children
Appendices

4
6
7
14
17
19
22
26
31
36
52
74
79
81
84
102
114
120
122
127
131
134

Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4

Blank Crosstables and Berger all-play-all tables

Tables for the Scheveningen System
Hilton Pairings
Calculation of Ratings of New Players

136
139
140
142

Bibliography
The Chess Competitors Handbook

Bozidar Kazic

Federation International des Echecs Handbook

British Chess Federation YearBook
US Chess Federations Official Rules of Chess
Ratings of Chessplayers, Past and Present

Arpad E. Elo

Arbiting Matters, Journal of the Chess Arbiters Association

PREFACE
A Year in the Life of a Chess Congress Organiser
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.

Determine your objectives (Chapter 1)

Determine the format and prizes (Chapters 2 and 3)
Prepare the budget (Chapter 4)
Raise the funds
Arrange the venue (Chapter 5)
Arrange the dates
Arrange accommodation for players
Prepare an entry form
Arrange Insurance
Print the entry form
Distribute the form
Issue invitations in good time
Arrange pre-publicity of the event
Receive entries
Arrange other controllers and stewards (Chapter 6)
Arrange security
Prepare non-cash prizes
Arrange concessions
Arrange bulletin production (Chapter 18)
Arrange equipment (Chapters 7 and 8)
Arrange accommodation for staff
Prepare for website (Chapter 19)
Arrange internet connections for all (Chapter 19)
Prepare programme
Liaise with venue administrators
Finalise refreshments
Tournament charts
Pairings (Chapter 9)
Prepare venue
Opening ceremony
Run the event
Display literature
Publicity during the event
Issue questionnaire
Control the event (Chapters 6, 10, 11)
Attend to visiting dignitaries
Listen to tales of woe and might-have-been
Determine the prize list (Chapter 13)
Arrange the prizegiving
Clear up venue
Return equipment
Post-tournament publicity
Send out prizes not collected
Send in results for rating (Chapters 14, 15, 16)
Issue thank you notes
Pay bills

47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

Send out bulletins, cross-tables

Do the accounts
Have the accounts audited
Evaluate questionnaire
Review the event
Start planning for next year

CHAPTER 1
The Organisers Objectives
When designing up an event, it is extremely desirable to determine what you are setting
out to achieve before finalising the arrangements. Otherwise you are likely to be left with a
vague feeling of dissatisfaction after clearing up at the days end. Below are some of the
objectives that should be considered.
1. That the players should enjoy themselves.
2. That the event attracts publicity for chess.
3. That the event attracts publicity for the sponsors.
4. That at least some of the players have the opportunity to improve their playing strength.
5. That the event makes a surplus of income over expenditure.
6. That the organisers make a profit.
7. That the organisers enjoy themselves.
8. There will also be specialist objectives, specific to each event.
Everything pales into insignificance by comparison with the players being satisfied. This
may be that they make money from the event. But few are in chess solely for the money.
Many organisers fallaciously believe publicity matters little without sponsors. We are
fighting for our place in a competitive market against other leisure activities. The steady drip of
publicity can be extremely effective. In addition, the players will be happier if the event seems
important and are thus likely to return. Gone are the days when sponsors were satisfied with a
crumb of publicity. They are entitled to everything that can be wrung from the event. Then, they
are more likely to repeat, making for happier players; also new sponsors will be encouraged.
Organising events to help develop players is a common objective.
If an event is budgeted to break even, inevitably over a number of years it will sometimes
lose money. Some think it is morally wrong to make a surplus. This is nonsense. If nothing else,
that money can be used as a cushion against future calamities.
Again, there is nothing wrong with running an event as a business. However, care should
be taken not to disguise this. In particular, donations should not be used for personal profit, nor
should fellow well-meaning organisers be taken advantage of.

CHAPTER 2
What Type of Competition?
There are many different ways in which a chess event can be put together. The choice
depends on the organisers objectives. When dealing with a sponsor, it is important to listen to
their agenda.
1. Matches
These head-to-head contests are the oldest type of chess event. A confrontation between
two evenly-matched opponents can certainly stir the blood. Whoever wins will have
unequivocally demonstrated his superiority in that particular series.
Most matches are played over a restricted number of games. For example, 24 in many
World Championship matches. The winner is the first to have scored more that 50% of the total,
12.5 points in our example. The match is usually terminated once the match has been won since
the creative juices of the players are likely to be exhausted and the dead games will be
uninspired.
Thus spectators wont buy tickets for the last games where the winner must achieve a
certain number of wins, often six in various World Championship matches. This isnt realistic in
modern society, it is impossible to know when the match will conclude. Disaster struck in 19845 when Karpov led Kasparov by five wins to three with 40 draws. Florencio Campomanes, then
FIDE President, controversially stopped the match after five months. Such a match is unlikely to
appeal to newspapers, or television companies with deadlines and budgets to consider.
Players alternate White and Black. Usually the first round draw is made the night before.
This should be done by lot, there is no good reason to give one player the option of choosing the
colour in the first game.
2. Team Matches
In Britain more than half of the competitive chess played is between teams. In America
there is very little of this type of chess. It seems strange such a fiercely individualistic game as
chess should inspire team loyalty but there is no doubt such events as the English Counties
Championships, 4NCL, European Club Championship and the Olympiad are hugely popular.
It is normal to require the teams to be played is strict order of playing strength. If not,
there may be a totally fallacious result. Consider two teams A and B which are evenly matched.
A1 and B1 are rated 2800, A2 and B2 2550, A3 and B3 2300, A4 and B4 2050. The expected
scores with various pairings are shown below for a ten game match. The probability tables of
Page 100 have been used to determine the results.
Pairings
A1-B1
A2-B2
A3-B3
A4-B4
TOTAL

Result
5-5
5-5
5-5
5-5
20-20

Pairings
A1-B2
A2-B3
A3-B4
A4-B1

Result
8-2
8-2
8-2
0-10
24-16

Pairings
A1-B3
A2-B4
A3-B2
A4-B1

Result
9.5-0.5
9.5-0.5
2. -8
0 -10
21 -19

Pairings Result
A1-B4
10-0
A2-B1
2-8
A3-B3
5-5
A4-B2
.5-9.5
17.5-22.5

Naturally such strikingly different ratings are wildly improbable. They have been chosen
to clarify the problem. With the growth of rating systems, captains are less likely to be able to
get away with teams which are massively out of line. But what if a substitute is brought in after
the round starts? It is claimed the Board 1 hasnt turned up unexpectedly. In steps the player who
is naturally the weakest. The fourth column shows how devastating this can be. The controller
can only rely on the captain not cheating or demand an unpleasant walk-over.
Again the colours should be decided by lot. Otherwise match captains often place their
players who fare better with Black on odd boards, not necessarily in strict playing strength, and
then take Black on odd if they win the toss. Many perfectly honorable people dont even realise
they are cheating. The Scheveningen System (see later) overcomes these uncomfortable
problems.
For round robin team tournaments (leagues) the initial score may be decided on team
match points or on total points scored. In the former case, it matters little whether any matches
are won at all. E.g. a team that loses 10 matches 5.5-6.5 (55 points) will score better than a team
which wins 8 matches 6.5-5.5 and loses the other two 1-9 (54 points). European competitions
and the London League use the former system and the Olympiad the latter. If there is a tie-break
required, the other score is often used. Using team match points has the advantage of fostering
team spirit, but then winning by 2-1 is nearly as good as 4-0. In the last European Team
Championship Russia coasted to the gold medal winning each match by the minimum score.
It seems to me the best solution may be combined team match points and total points
scored. Thus, in a 4 board match, the winning team receives 2 points plus its score 2 to 4; if
drawn, they both receive 4 points. It would be more complex to outsiders, but probably would
meet everybodys objectives.
3. Knock-out
An event resolved by a series of knock-out matches has several advantages. It is simple
to understand, each round is vital to the contestants and the event builds up to a grand finale.
Thus it is the best type when chess is being sold as a spectacle, particularly on television. In
addition, there can be no collusion between opponents, eventually one must win. Both all-playall and Swiss System tournaments suffer from the problem that one player may throw a game to
his opponent. It was of this possibility that Fischer complained in the Candidates series for the
World Championship. This led to that event being resolved by a series of knock-out matches. At
the time of writing, FIDE are intent on trying an 8 player double round all-play-all to resolve the
World Championship in 2005. I wish them luck, but very much doubt this system will survive
for long.
One problem with a knockout is that people may travel long distances, only to be
knocked out at an early stage. Also a player must be prepared to commit himself to the entire
period of the event, but again may be knocked out in the first round. Attempts have been made to
remedy this by the players transferring to a Swiss after failing (similar to a plate competition)
and being given a score in the Swiss which depends on how far they advanced. This isnt
entirely satisfactory as the players have a feeling of anti-climax and also it is difficult to assign a
totally fair score.

Another solution is for players to play off for places after they are knocked out. The
feeling of let-down usually makes this unsatisfactory.
A minor problem is that, unless there are precisely 2n contestants, (e.g. 2, 4, 8, 16) some
players will receive a bye in the first round or there be lucky-losers and this is patently
inequitable.
The main difficulty lies in resolving tied matches. Exactly the same problem exists in the
Football World Cup and the solution there of penalty shoot-outs is most unsatisfactory.
Sometimes the tie is resolved in favour of a condition pre-existing the match, e.g. the player with
the better score in the preliminaries. This is absolutely wrong as it gives one player draw odds.
Ideally there should be a day between rounds of a knock-out and the tie resolved by two game
mini-matches at an ever-increasing speed. But television schedules may interfere and how much
agony can you put a player through? Thus eventually one game sudden-death is employed. This
leads to the problem that one player has the advantage of the White pieces. Matches resolved by
one player having White and five minutes against Blacks four, but Black having draw odds are
frankly absurd - albeit better than drawing lots. Better is to have the game four minutes for
White, five minutes Black and every time a player moves, from the very first, he receives an
extra 10 seconds thinking time. These sudden-death one game matches should then continue
until one player wins. Wherever one game ties are played the draw should be made by lot.
Neither player should have the right to decide whether he prefers White or Black.
For further material on tie-breaks see Chapter 13.
Another problem of the knock-out for purists is that the winner may beat, in the first
round, the player who should have finished runner-up. Thus there can be no totally satisfactory
ranking after the first.
Knock-outs have the advantage that, if a player is doing badly, he can go home, instead
of having to battle through many more rounds, although uninspired.
Despite the problems, the knock-out has a great deal to recommend it and I expect to see
a rise in this type of event.
Hastings System
I wrote most of the above in 1997. In 2004 Hastings was faced with a financial crisis, yet
few wanted to solve the problem simply by simply having a big open Swiss with no round robin
Premier. Several people contributed towards the system actually used. There were 10 rounds and
84 entries. The event was a one game knockout until there were only 8 players left standing. The
remaining rounds were played as two game matches and this part of the event was called the
Premier.
To bring the numbers back to 64 for the second round, all players who drew the first
game, but lost the playoff were lucky losers. This still left 19 players to be found. They were
first chosen to balance the colours. Then selection was made commencing with the highest
pairing. This was there was still some bias toward higher rated players, but nothing as great as in
Germany where they simply select the highest rated.

There still remains the problem that, in a one game knockout, White has a substantial
advantage. To overcome this, the rate of play used was 70 minutes for White, 90 for Black for
the first 40 moves, followed by all the moves in 20 minutes, adding on one minute per move fro
m the start. Several people were unhappy with this innovation, often simply because it was
radical. I was disappointed that no critic thought to ask what the scores were for the two colours.
White scored 197 and Black 195. One event proves nothing, but it does suggest the system
fulfilled its objective here.
I believe the system would become quite popular if used for 5 years, however the funds
are lacking for waiting for experimental systems to catch on. Hastings 2005-6 is to be a typical
open master Swiss.
4. Repecharge
This variation on the knock-out is primarily used in Fencing and in blitz chess
tournaments. When players have lost they are put into the draw with other players who have also
lost. No player is eliminated until he has lost two matches. Thus it is still possible to come
second even after having lost in Round 1. It is possible for two players to be paired together
more than once but this should be avoided if possible.
5. Round Robin (Also known as all-play-all, American or League System.)
Most higher level international tournaments are run using this system. Players like to be
able to prepare against their opponents in advance. I note Hans Lahlum in Norway even makes
the pairings a week in advance in order to help with preparation. The pairings are not dependent
on the vagaries of a system. The final rankings of all the players is absolute, if you score more
points, you have the better result. Once the tournament is underway no arbiting work needs to be
done regarding pairings.
In a single round tournament with an even number of contestants half the players will
have one more White than the other half. This problem can be resolved with a double round
tournament and, as Korchnoi said to me of one such Hastings Premier, Youve organised the
type of tournament every player wants.
Tournaments with an odd numbe of players suffer from the disadvantage that one player
is hanging around all the time. They are financially inefficient as 11 rounds are required for an
11 player tournament.
A round robin can only deal with a small number of contestants. The main disadvantage
is that players often pre-arrange draws in order to conserve their energy. Worse still, players
faring badly may throw games to their friends. These problems can be ameliorated by a
judiciously ordered prize fund and awarding win money. The selection of players can be a fine
art; it is not desirable to have tournament bunnies in the event. The English Football League
awards 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss. The Laws of Chess permit such
variations.
Unfortunately the tournament may not build to a climax. The first round may prove to be
the most important. Fixing the pairings so that the highest rated players meet in the last round
might prove even worse. If tied for first and uncatchable they will probably agree a perfunctory
draw.

10

6. Swiss System
As you will see from the chapter devoted to different methods of doing Swiss Pairings, it
is difficult to define this method of organising tournaments. Let us define it as: A system where
each players pairings depend on his previous results in the tournament.
1.
2.
3.

The basic Swiss usually has the following three rules:

No player may meet the same opponent twice.
In each round, players should meet opponents on as closely similar scores as possible.
At the end of each round, players should have had as close to an equal number of Whites
and Blacks as possible.

It has been suggested that the system was used in Go Tournaments as long ago as the
14th century. In chess it was first devised and used by Dr. J. Muller of Brugg, Switzerland, in
1895. It was little seen until after the Second World War when it developed into a most popular
way of dealing with a large number of competitors and few rounds.
As the tournament progresses players with high scores meet each other as do players with
low scores. Thus the method has similarities to a knock-out, but all competitors play through to
the end and players can recover from poor starts.
I suspect the Swiss System would be unsatisfactory for a game where only two results are
possible, e.g. single frame snooker or a one set tennis match.
As games are drawn, a Swiss can cope with more players than a knock-out. Assuming
approximately 20% of the games are drawn, 128 players would reduce to one with 100% after
five or, at most, six rounds, whereas a knock-out requires seven.
With a sophisticated pairing system it is possible to find the correct winner from an
enormous field. 260 players took part in the 1975 National Bank of Dubai Championship at the
Evening Standard Congress in London where Accelerated Pairings were used. Grandmaster
Bojan Kurajica won with 5/6 and any analysis will show him to have been a well-deserved
winner - he met the strongest opposition.
It is unlikely it will be possible to attach much validity to lower places which are
established by raw score. Where there is a large number of rounds, the earlier games are less
vital that those at the later stages. If a player starts off well, he will meet stronger opposition than
a player who starts off badly, but comes with a late burst. Grandmaster Jonathan Mestel has
offered the opinion that there is nothing necessarily wrong with any Swiss Pairing System. The
defect lies in establishing the merit of a performance based solely on raw score.
Another disadvantage of the system is that it is impossible after the first round to
determine ones opponent well in advance. Thus it is difficult to prepare against his openings.
On the other hand, it is possible this is one of the reasons there is a lower percentage of draws in
Swisses than in round robins. Arguments may also arise over the pairings and the system is
administratively more complex.
The next three systems all partly have the objective of organising round robin
tournaments less expensively than the standard system. Such artificial methods exist partly

11

because a player had to secure his international title over 30 games unless at least one round
robin or Olympiad was included. In such cases, only 24 games were required. That a
Scheveningen is regarded as a round robin is purely a convention that has grown up in the
regulations. This prejudice in favour of the round robin over the Swiss is nonsensical, but it was
never challenged. It had the advantage of encouraging the financially less efficient all-play-all.
That type of event has the advantage of encouraging pre-game preparation and generally most
people prefer that and it is a widely held view that round robins help players develop their skills
more than the rough and tumble of Swisses. Now 27 games are required irrespective of the type
of tournament, the Swiss is becoming ubiquitous except in top level events and knockouts.
7. Scheveningen System
The ability of people to pronounce this place name correctly was used by the Dutch as a
test for German spies in the Second World War. The system was first used for chess in 1923. A
team of players meets all the members of the opposing team. Thus, if there are nine on each side,
each player will meet nine opponents, none of them from his own team.
It used to be used solely for team matches. In particular the USSR and Yugoslavia played
a whole series of such events. More recently the system has been used to enable people to
achieve title norms. One team might consist of three GMs, six players one of whom is even an
IM and include four non-English contestants. The other team might consist solely of
international masters, including four non-English. Thus all nine IMs have a gm norm
opportunity and the six untitled players can secure IM norms.
Naturally the total score achieved does not indicate the players standing among all 18
contestants, only relative to his own team members. Comparisons can however be made using
the rating system.
Scheveningen events in which unrated players participate are not rated by FIDE, nor can such
events lead to title norms.
8. Wade System
This is another type of team tournament where the player meets not only the opponents but
also his fellow team members in a round robin. E.g. 6 players on each side, a contestant meets 11
opponents. This has the advantage of providing another hook on which to hang publicity.
9. Schiller System
Yet another team tournament. Here there may be four teams each comprising three
players. Each player meets everybody except his own team mates. This has the advantage that
one team can consist solely of GMs and thus a nine round all-play-all can be achieved with
twelve contestants instead of only ten.
10. Sonneborn-Berger System
This is most frequently used as a tie-break system. Each players total is determined by
summing the scores of the opponents he beats, plus half the sum of the scores of the opponents
against whom he draws. In my opinion this system is less accurate than drawing lots and more
laborious.

12

However it was used to good effect in the London Schools League when I was a
schoolboy. Each team played eight matches over six boards against teams chosen at the start of
the season. Their score was determined by multiplying the total score of each of their opponents
by their score against them in their individual match. The four leading teams were then brought
together for a knock-out to decide the winner.
The advantage of this system is that some teams were able to stipulate in advance they
wanted to meet strong opposition, others weak opposition and still others that they didnt want to
travel far. In addition the opponents are known at the beginning of the season. The Controller
could meet all these objectives. I have no knowledge of this elegant system being used
elsewhere.
12. Ladder System
This is usually used in club tournaments. The players are placed in order on a ladder.
Players are then entitled to challenge opponents higher than themselves on the ladder. If they
win they move up a number of places and their opponent moves down. If the leader wins, he
moves more and more points higher up the scale. Unusually for tournaments two people may
meet more than once.
This system has the advantage that players can arrange to play on an ad hoc basis without
complex schedules. People can enter the competition after play has started. Others can drop out
without causing too much anguish.

13

CHAPTER 3
Deciding the Prize structure
The prize money distribution structure has a substantial effect on the whole tournament.
The organiser may well be able to get away with spending less on prizes plus fees combined
than solely on prizes. Yet it is better publicity to have prize money only.
If the first prize is much more than double the second, the chess is often extremely
artificial. The players work together to thwart the organiser's desire for high drama in the last
round. On occasion they will cheat by throwing games.
Round Robins
These often used to have prizes for the top half players only. Thus a player with 7/13
might receive something and another, with only half a point less, nothing. It is better to have
prizes for all the players. This gives them something to fight for even in the last round and you
won't want the bottom-marker to feel out of things at the prizegiving.
GLC London 1986 Prize fund for 14 players: 5000, 3000, 2000, 1500, 1000, 800, 700,
600, 500, 400, 300, 200. Best Game Prize 1000. Best score by a player relative to his rating
400. Total 18,000.
You will note, no matter how high the first prize, at the bottom one prize will differ little
from that immediately above it. Best Game Prizes are valuable for publicity but provide a great
deal of work. Thus I avoid them unless for a substantial sum; judging the winner must be above
suspicion.
Win money is sometimes provided where players receive an amount per win. The danger
is, if this is open-ended, you may go over the budget. To avoid this, a total pool can be provided
and this divided among the wins.
Swisses
It is better not to tail off with tiny prizes. This will result in their being shared among
many people, all of whom will collect a trivial sum. You won't be thanked for this work.
Smith & Williamson British Championship 2005 Prize Fund. 10,000, 5,000, 2,500,
1,500, 1200, 900, 700, 500, 300. Plus 250 for each of the following highest in their
category: below2150; 2151-2299; Under 18; Under-21. British Ladies Champion 500.
The structure has been modified slightly since I introduced it in 1997, but the gradient is
still steeper that I would have wished. I chose a 10,000 first prize, causing such a steep decline
in the prize structure, because it is attractive to the media. In retrospect, it would probably have
been better to have 6000, 4000 and the rest as above, holding back 5000 for start money.
Professional players prefer to be certain of at least breaking even.

14

Special Prizes
No prize is offered in the British Championship for unrated players. If they qualify good
luck to them, but there is no special reason to encourage their participation. In the above there is
no stipulation that no player may win more than one prize. Such a rule leads to headaches,
especially if the special prizes are comparable in size to the main ones. In the British above, an
under-21 female rated under 2300 could win first prize and collect 1000 extra.
Consider the following prize list: 4000, 2000, 1000, 600, 400, 300, 200, 150,
100. Highest rated 2300-2395 500. Highest rated under 2300 350.
Players 1, 2 and 3 win their prizes alone and their ratings are irrelevant. Players 4-8 tie
for places 4-8. Players 6 and 7 are rated 2300-2395. Player 8 is rated 2250.
Players 4-8 share 1650 in place money, each receiving 330. Had players 6 and 7
chosen their rating prize, each would have received only 250. Naturally player 8 chooses his
rating prize of 350. This now leaves 4-7 sharing 1500 and each receives 375. But this is
unfair, poor 8 suddenly receives less than the others. One solution is for all of 4-8 to receive
370. Effectively what has happened is that 4-7 have received a portion of an Under 23000
rating prize.
Many players tied for 8th place, splitting 250, none of them rated 2300-2395. Player 9 is
on the next score group down and is the only one rated 2300-2395. Thus he receives 500. But
paradoxically his reward is greater for achieving a whole point less than either player 6 or 7.
O.K. we'll put players 6 and 7 up to 413.33 and player 9 down to the same sum. Wait a minute,
players 6 and 7 received a small fraction of the under 2300 prize. That cant be fair.
Some organisers say, "the prize fund will be decided by the arbiter". But the solutions
offered above are subjective; you may well have chosen a different and better answer. People
who use this rider are often the ones most indignant about not using a precise pairing system.
You can't be faced with such decisions in the hurly-burly of the end of a congress. I was Chief
Arbiter of the Commonwealth Championship in Mumbai in 2003. There was a rule decided on
by the organiser that nobody could win more than one cash prize and the effect was it took about
four hours to work out the prize fund. Whats more, there is no possibility we got it right; that
nobody complained is hardly the point.
The only sensible solution is to permit a player to win more that one prize and/or keep
the special prizes tiny. Don't fall into the other trap of announcing the rating prizes as Under2400, Under 2300, Under 2200. Then an Under 2200 might receive half the Under 2200 prize,
all the Under-2300 and one-third of the Under 2400. The purpose of these special prizes is to
encourage weaker players, thus causing them to pay the entry fee and also keeping the
tournament competitive. Another interesting choice is a first round losers prize. Multiple prizes
are unlikely in the British Championship because it is so strong.
Rating prizes are highly popular. Using relative rating performance is easy to organise in
a Swiss using a computer, provided most players are rated. In our above example the 2300-2395
prize goes to the player who achieves the best rating performance, relative to his own rating.

15

Relative Rating Performance = Score achieved - Score expected

Now players are most unlikely to tie. In our scenario above, Player 6 wins 500, Players
4, 5, 7 and 8 receive 375 and the 350 under 2300 prize cascades down the system to Player 9.
This also has the advantage of ironing out the inequities in the Swiss System. The player with
the better performance receives the prize. He may even have a lower score.
Where some players are unrated, this Relative Rating Performance system cannot be
used. If the money is small or a trophy, the tie can be resolved in favour of the lowest rated,
youngest, oldest, etc., depending on the nature of the prize. This must be announced in advance.
For further discussion of tie-breaks in a Swiss, see Chapter 13.
Even mature players frequently prefer a small trophy to a small cash prize. Naturally it is
desirable to have an extremely large number of prizes for a childrens event. Ideally every child
should go home bearing something.
Knock-out
The standard formula for the prize money distribution for a match is 62.5:37.5. The
problem for a knock-out tournament is that, when the match initially tied, the winner by speed
games gains enormously. This is unfair since there is a substantial random element. It would be
better if such losers received an extra 20% of the differential, as in the World Championship.
Skins
This system can be introduced to add further tension to a knock-out match and encourage
positive play. A proportion of the prize money is set aside as win money. The total prize fund
might be $1 million with $50,000 for each win. However the money collects as each game is
drawn. In the Brain Games Network 2000 Garry Kasparov v Vladimir Kramnik Match they
played 15 games, with only two wins.
Kramnik would have won $100,000 because he won the second game. He would then
have won a further $400,000 for winning game 10. Kasparov would have collected none of this.
Then the $500,000 remaining would have been split $333,333 to $166,667. Kramnik would have
gone home with $833,333 and Kasparov only $166,667.
Ironically such a system was suggested by Garry, but only after the contracts had been
signed. Vladimir was uninterested in diverting his attention from the matter at hand so they stuck
to the original agreement. Once terms have been decided, it is nearly always unwise to try to
negotiate variations. These matters should be considered right at the beginning.
You will note they only played 15 games. Originally it had been announced that all 16
would take place, even if the match was over. As in 1993 this never happened. Clearly the
organisers did not take my advice on Page 8.

16

CHAPTER 4
Preparing the Budget
Inevitably chess events cost money to run. How do you intend to pay for yours? This list was
drawn up basically from the British Championships, Hastings, the Ron Banwell Mind Sports
Olympiad Masters, Gibraltar Congress and a number of international tournaments. The items are
listed roughly in order of magnitude, from biggest to smallest. You will note that the list for
items of expenditure is substantially longer than the list of items under the next heading.
Expenditure
Prizes
Venue hire
Strong players:
expenses
appearance fees
Staff expenses:
fees
accommodation
food
travel
sundries
Entry form printing
Entry form distribution
Postage
Scoresheets
Stationery
Equipment:
computers
purchase
hire
carriage
FIDE fees
National fees
Photocopying
Bulletin production
Bulletin distribution
Cross-tables
Web site
e mail
Telephone and fax
Answerphone service
Bank charges
Preliminary venue visits
Furniture, table cloths
Carpeting

Insurance:
public liability
equipment
Security
Demonstration board operators
Move runners
Electronic display screens
Commentator
Mementoes, possibly for resale:
sweat-shirts
first-day covers
button badges
pennants
pens
posters
Branding, including banners
Street signs
Advertising
Seeking sponsorship or donations
Coaching
Publicity, staffing and expenses
Committee Meetings
Administration
Medical and first aid
Visiting dignitaries
Transport
Refreshments during play
Recreational facilities
Trophies:
purchase
repair
engraving
Bursaries, grants
Special chess events
Special non-chess events
Web site maintenance

Programme:
printing
distribution
Entertainment
Hospitality
Opening ceremony
Closing Ceremony
Entry fee refunds
Auditor
Sundries*
Contingencies#
Income
Sponsorship
Entry fees
Donations
Admissions
Programme sales
Memento sales
Bulletin sales
Video, TV rights
Web rights
Concessions:
Bookstall
Computers
Other games
Refreshment sales
Advertising
Investment Income

It is recommended that the budget be drawn up net of tax.

17

*Sundries are expected expenses which are too small to have a single heading and which may
vary from year to year.
#Contingencies are a sum which should be set aside against the possibility that something may
go wrong or in case there is an emergency. When the final accounts are prepared these should be
itemised specifically. Examples have included: purchasing fans due to the heat; table lamps to
compensate for poor lighting; fees for unexpected GMs; helping players in straitened
circumstances; replacing stolen equipment; special travel arrangements; bringing in extra control
staff; compensating players for poor service. Naturally the unexpected is more likely to happen
in a new event and thus the contingency provision should be higher.

18

CHAPTER 5
Venues for Chess Events
Players generally prefer to play in one large hall rather that several separate ones. This
also reduces the number of controllers required. However, extra noise may be introduced if
several events on a different schedule are going on at the same time. Roughly 2 square metres
are required per player. This can reduce to 1.7 square metres for a very large event or rise to 3
for a small one. The available space is affected by pillars in the room, the number of fire exits
and the shape of the area. Naturally top level events require more room and the FIDE Technical
Commission recommends 4.5 square metres per player. Never be misled by brochures for
venues, when they refer to capacity, they are thinking of banqueting. Twice that space is need
for chess events and classroom or examination capacity is a much better guide.
Team events require more space because of the need to separate out matches. The Chess
Olympiad requires even more. There are approximately 700 players but match captains, fellow
team members and many spectators want to have access to all the games. Such milling crowds
can be reduced by demonstrating the games. It is probably impossible to satisfy everybody, but
about 6000 square metres might be adequate.
It is important not to place games too close to doors. Even if there is no noise created by
people going in and out, there will be constant movement across the field of vision of the player
trying to concentrate.
It is best not to set tables in long unbroken lines as then it may be difficult for players to
move in and out. Thus breaks in each direction are preferable with the occasional wide avenue. It
helps in setting up the venue to think of what would happen if there were to be a fire. There
should be a minimum of 2.5 metres between rows of players. Where possible players should
play on individual tables, even a small gap helps. This is because some players vibrate and
wont, if on separate tables, irritate players in other games.
When numbering the boards it is usually best, when coming to the end of a row, to
continue the next row when turning back. The players will not then, when seeking say Board 21,
reach Board 20 at the end of the row and find that they have to walk all the way back.
If possible, top games should be demonstrated. This adds to the status of the event and
reduces crowding around the higher boards. However, putting these games on a stage is not
always effective; the spectators may not be able to see everything. I dislike placing the arbiters
on the stage; this makes them the focus of attention. Others disagree with me because it makes it
easier to observe what is going on. Often it is best to have the leading games at standard level
and only the display boards on the stage. Spectator seating may be also desirable. The spectators
should be a minimum of one metre from the games. In Britain we dont find necessary to
provide a barrier, this may well differ in other countries.
The lighting should be of similar quality to that required for examinations.
Approximately 800 lumens is satisfactory. White table-cloths help improve the impression of
brightness if required. Lighting should not throw shadows or cause points of light to be reflected
from the chess pieces. Beware of direct daylight. If the sun shines into the playing hall, it can
make it almost impossible to play due to glare on the board. Then blinds will have to be drawn

19

with a consequence loss in ambient light. Thus, when inspecting a hall which has natural
daylight, you should make certain of its effect throughout the playing schedule.
The ventilation, air-conditioning, heating and the noise they create need to be assessed. It
is important to inspect the premises at a similar time to when the event is due to take place. A
venue may be O.K. in the winter, but become an oven in the summer, etc.
The floor covering is important. Carpeting is usually best, but sometimes may be
expensive or impractical. A sprung ballroom floor can be the very worst and should be treated
with great suspicion. It is very difficult to observe the effect of a large number of people playing
chess prior to the event. It is important to observe how noisy it will be when a player leaves his
seat.
Conditions will be less noisy if the doors do not lead directly into the rest of the building.
Where this happens, it is better to put lesser games near the exits, although such players will be
indignant if publicly classified in this way.
A separate analysis room should be provided which is close to the playing hall. If two or
more such rooms are available then different ones can be designated for quiet analysis or
smoking. If you do not ensure the sets are put out in the analysis room, nobody else will.
Again, the refreshment area should not lead off immediately from the playing area, yet
should be close at hand. If far distant, it may be helpful to put some boards and sets in the area to
lure people there, especially where the venue administrators are seeking income from sale of
refreshments. The cost, type and availability of refreshments must be determined prior to the
event, otherwise there can be unexpectedly high bills.
The bookstall and other concessions should be obvious to the players and be on their
route from the outside to their boards. It is better for security reasons if the bookstall can be
locked up separately from play. Nobody who is selling goods will ever be satisfied with the
space provided.
A lounge area may be highly desirable. Where many small children are involved in an
event, something in the nature of a crche should be considered.
The administrators of the venue may believe they have adequate restroom facilities, but
most chess events have a very high proportion of male players. It is essential to check this part of
the building and ensure their regular servicing.
Offices need to be close to the play. Organisers differ as to whether they like to do part of
their job in the playing hall. Control tables will be needed where people can contact staff and for
handing in the results.
The following should also be investigated: access to the venue by car, public transport
and walking: ease of finding the venue: parking spaces; method of delivery of goods; access for
the disabled; cost and method of installation of dedicated telephone lines; if the venues own
lines are to be used, the cost of this; accessible electrical points; closed circuit television;
arrangements for first aid; suitable places to stay or eat. The hours of access to the venue must be
determined in advance. Also the times at which clearing up can be done; removing rubbish such
as dirty cups is noisy so this should only be carried out when there is no play. Hanging notices

20

on walls may not be permitted and display boards will then be required. The time of access for
setting up needs to be determined and the number of helpers required. Similarly the time at
which the venue will be vacated each day must be discussed. When the venue must be ready for
the next occupant must also be determined.
Where and how you can erect banners or put up signs advertising the event must be
investigated. I have been to many chess events where it seemed as if the organisers are trying to
keep secret the fact that a chess event is taking place.

21

This chapter is outdated and included

only for historical purposes and
accuracy to the original printed version
of this book.

CHAPTER 6
ARBITERS

2.1. Requirements for the title of International Arbiter. All of the following:
2.11. Thorough knowledge of the Laws of Chess and the FIDE Regulations for chess
competitions.
2.12. Absolute objectivity, demonstrated at all times during his activity as an arbiter.
2.13. Sufficient knowledge of at least one official FIDE language. In the case that the
Arbiters native language is one of the official FIDE languages, the knowledge of another
official FIDE language is required.
2.14. Experience as chief or deputy arbiter in at least four FIDE rated events such as the
following:
(a) The final of the National Individual Adult Championship (not more than two).
(b) All official FIDE tournaments and matches.
(c) International title tournaments and matches.
(d) International chess festivals with at least 100 contestants.
(e) All official World and Continental Rapid Championships (maximum one norm).
2.15. The norm reports supporting an IA title application must be for at least two different
types of tournaments, or for at least one international event according to 2.14 (d), and
achieved in events with starting dates that fall within a six year period. The application
must be submitted not later than the second FIDE Congress after the date of the latest
event listed.
2.16. The title of International Arbiter for each of the IBCA, ICSC, IPCA shall be equivalent
to one norm.
2.17. Beingamatch arbiter in an Olympiad is equivalent to one IA norm. No more than one
such norm will be considered for the title.
2.18. Applicants for the title of IA must already hold the title of FA.
2.19. Applicants for the title of IA must be at least 21 years old. Norms can be achieved
before this age.
2.2. Requirements for the title of FIDE Arbiter. All of the following:
2.21. As in 2.11.
2.22. As in 2.12.
2.23. Sufficient knowledge of at least one official FIDE language.
2.24. Experience as chief or deputy arbiter in at least four FIDE Rated events (national or
international).
2.241.Applicants from federations whichare unable to organize and tournaments valid
for titles or ratings may be awarded the title onpassing an examination set by the
Arbiters Council.
2.25. The norm reports supporting an FA title application must be for at least two different
types of tournament, or at least one international rated event,and achieved in events with
starting dates that fall within a six year period. The application must be submitted not
later than the second FIDE Congress after the date of the latest event listed.
2.26. The title of FIDE Arbiter for each of the IPCA, ICSC, IPCA shall be equivalent to one
FA norm.
2.27. As 2.17.
2.28. As 2.19.

22

The Role of the Arbiter

Basically this is to ensure the games are played according to The Laws of Chess under
the best conditions possible. Often the greatest compliment the arbiter can be paid is that the
players are not conscious of his being around. However, his very presence is often enough to
discourage disputes.
I strongly believe where possible there should be an Appeals Committee. This protects
the players from the poor decisions I have occasionally made. It is difficult to appoint this in
advance. A large number of alternates are needed. Players appointed to an Appeals Panel often
leave hurriedly if they realise a dispute is possible. It is better to appoint the Committee on the
spot and secure the players agreement to the members in writing. Appeals should be in writing,
made not more than an hour after the original decision and accompanied by a suitable deposit.
This is returnable if the appeal is successful or if it is thought the appeal was sensible, although it
failed. An Appeals Committee has very great powers and can certainly go beyond the letter of
the Laws of Chess in seeking a fair solution. For example, I have twice been a member of such a
committee where the decision was made to revert to a position earlier in the game. I dislike the
tendency of FIDE to appoint specialist Appeals Committees. These are very expensive and have
little to do.
Geurt Gijssen and I were very disappointed that the FIDE Laws of chess were amended
to that the arbiters decision is final relating to quickplay finishes (see Article 10 of the Laws of
Chess.) We both believe that players should be protected from our rare, but possible, errors.
Whenever there is a dispute it is impossible to satisfy both players. This is why the
arbiter is such a senior official. Conduct discussions about disputes in private. Then other players
arent disturbed and things said in the heat of the moment are less likely to return to haunt the
players. Sometimes players are rude to arbiters in the heat of battle. Dont worry about this,
although it is nice when you receive an apology later.
Where a confrontation becomes inevitable, then it should rest squarely on the shoulders
of the senior official. Certain players are famous as whingers (constant and professional
complainers) and I have consoled myself by carrying a list of World Champion whingers in my
head. Children usually provide no problems. But their parents can be appalling. This is true of all
sports. It is common practice in childrens events to bar parents from the playing area.
Sometimes an arbiter will make a decision with which both players disagree. In one
Lloyds Bank Masters I saw a player touch a bishop with the clear intention of moving it; the
move lost immediately. He released the piece and made a better move with a different one. I told
him he must move the bishop, but he claimed he never touched it. The second time I told him to
move the bishop, his opponent agreed he never touched the piece. This was a game being played
on a lower board, not in the glare of publicity, so I left the players to get on with their own game.
I was relieved when later two spectators told me I was correct. For a moment I had doubted my
own sanity. Leaving the players to sort out their own problems is correct, but what if the game
had been played in front of a large gallery? I was rather pleased when the opponent eventually
won the game.
I was Chief Arbiter in Mumbai at the Commonwealth Championship in 2003. Despite
my and players protests, the last round started in the morning. Sunlight was streaming in on the
boards before play started. I arranged for blinds to be drawn before the start of play. This meant

23

there was no possibility of one player wanting the blinds drawn and the other preferring more
ambient light. Thus no conflict was possible and I think this small action was probably my most
valuable contribution to the whole event.
For very large events I work to one arbiter for every 50 players and one steward for every
100. Clearly each time scramble cannot then necessarily be followed. It is perfectly satisfactory
to appoint an observer in such circumstances. Round robins are more likely to have one arbiter
and one assistant for 10-20 players. In 1986 for the World Championship in London we had
about 50 staff for two players. Admittedly only three of these were actual arbiters and three were
members of the Appeals Committee. Presumably, if ever I organise an event for no players at all,
that will require the entire population of Britain to service it!
It is useless to read out a number of regulations prior to start of play. No player ever
listens, instead they will become irritable. I prefer to start off each days play in the same, calm
manner. Yes, a joke may break the ice. However, it is more likely to break a players
concentration. Information should be presented in writing beforehand to the players. If there is a
change in the schedule, every player should be informed individually. He should attest his
acceptance and knowledge of the change in writing.
Thus seeking out problems and solving them prior to play is essential. Most of an
arbiters work should be done prior to the start of play and after its conclusion, especially if the
event is a Swiss.
Treat a players complaints with respect, even if unwarranted. Show him the relevant
regulations. Often the complaint is that the player does not like the rule. Enabling him to read it
in black and white may transfer the complaint from you to the rules.
Newcomers (adult or child) to competitive chess may not know the following, which are
obvious to us: the first-named player takes White; Swisses are not knock-outs; touch-move is a
strict Law; a player must arrive within a certain time after the start of the game; how the clock
works; how to keep score; how to hand in the result; how to find their name on a nonalphabetical list; that there is only one game per round. Any good arbiter should be able to
explain titles and ratings to the novice.
A player is entitled to ask an arbiter about The Laws of Chess. However information
should not normally be volunteered prior to being asked. There may be exceptions. Games in the
British Under-11 Championship used to be adjourned. The arbiters would inspect the sealed
move for correctness before the envelope was sealed. When Afghanistan first played in the
Olympiad, they had no experience of international chess. One of their players forgot to press the
clock in the early stages of his first game. I interfered and did this for him, then leaving him to
the game once he understood the process. The opponent questioned this, but was content with
my explanation.
Some arbiters believe they are only responsible for the playing conditions, the game on
the board, the pairings and the tournament chart. I disagree with this view. The Chief Arbiter
should always determine the distribution of the prize money at the end. However this may not be
his final responsibility; that may rest with the person who signs the cheques, probably the
treasurer. If the website or bulletin is defective in displaying the information or games, then the
arbiter should contribute to identifying the problems and solving them. Sometimes the health of
a player should be considered. The Chief Arbiter should have inspected the venue before its use

24

has been agreed. Organisers should consult the arbiter on matters such as the prize fund
structure, format of the event and rate of play.
Remember there is only one way to avoid ever making a mistake and that is to do
nothing - which is the biggest mistake of all. Be prepared to admit when something has gone
wrong. If nothing else, it takes the wind out of the sails of any critic. If you do not know what
action to take, dont be shy, ask for help. Finally, be careful, it is easy to fall into the trap of
being too bossy or interfering too much.
Qualities of a good Arbiter
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Common-sense.
A liking for chessplayers and chess.
A good sense of humour.
An excellent understanding of and ability to apply all the rules.
A good understanding of chess.
A willingness to take pains to find solutions to problems.

There is nothing mystical about being a good arbiter. I have had people do good work who knew
nothing about chess or the Swiss System. My youngest assistant ever was Nathanael Lutton who
was six years old at the Mind Sports Olympiad. Under suitable direction, he did a good job. The
players didnt even seem to notice when he collected results.

25

CHAPTER 7
Equipment
The list below seeks to be exhaustive. Naturally no single event will require everything
included.
1. Playing equipment
Sets, boards and clocks
About 10% extra should be allowed for defects and early promotions. Dont forget those
for the analysis room (Usually the only way this will be set out satisfactorily is to do it yourself.)
Top level tournaments used to supply each player with a board and set on which to analyse in
their hotel room. Now they analyse on their computer and this is less necessary. It is best to use
identical equipment for play; players particularly prefer not to use different clocks for different
games. Indeed, where electronic clocks are only used on the top boards, this is unfair to weaker
players who only occasionally play there.
The FIDE Technical Commission recommends a king height of 7-8.5cm, with a base a
little under 50% of the height. The square on the chessboard should have a size 5-6.5cm. The
size square should be twice the diameter of a pawns base. Geurt Gijssen suggests, Four pawns
should fit exactly on one square. When a rook is laid down it should fit precisely on one
diagonal.
Preferably wooden boards should be used, but plastic are also acceptable. They should be
at least semi rigid. Some players do not like a raised border on the board. The colours should be
contrasting dark and white, as should the pieces. Stark black and white is always off-putting.
Neither boards nor pieces should be shiny.
It is common practice in the US to require players to provide their own equipment in
large events. White has choice. If Black complains it is for the arbiter to decide whether the
equipment is acceptable.
If the games are being watched by spectators, the clock face should be large enough to be
viewed or seen on closed circuit TV.
Electro-sensitive boards are available where, immediately a move is made, it is
transferred to a computer screen and the clock times shown. The moves played are also
displayed. The information can also be transmitted down a telephone line and to the web or a
national teletext system. The players are still required to press a separate chess clock and to keep
score. This complies with the current Laws of Chess, but that does not mean that alternatives
cannot be considered in the future.
Spectators may be confused by the different times displayed by the electro-sensitive
board and the clock used by the players. Ideally the latter should be hooked up electronically and
only that displayed.

26

Scoresheets
These should be large enough for the moves to be recorded but not too large for the table.
Usually the player keeps one copy and the organiser one or more. NCR (no carbon required)
scoresheets are much less messy than inter-leaving with carbons. The scoresheets are the
property of the organiser. They should be designed so that a new one is required neither just
before a time control nor just after the first. Many events are played 40 moves in 2 hours,
followed by a further 20 moves in one hour. Thus a scoresheet of 60 moves is appropriate. There
should be no space at the bottom of a column. Backing cards should be provided for the
scoresheet. Some events provide books of scoresheets so that the players have a permanent
memento. Monroi Electronic Chess Assistants are as yet untested.
Result slips
These are often used to hand in results where scoresheets are not collected. They are
essential for team events and are often called the protocols.
Adjournment envelopes
These should have the required data printed on the outside and be large enough so that
the scoresheets do not have to be folded more than once.
Board numbers
These should be used for Swisses. It is best not to rely solely on name-cards which may
be put incorrectly.
2. Furniture
The table should have a minimum length of twice the chess board and a width 15-20cm
more than the board. Ideally each game should be played on a separate table about 80cm wide,
74 cm high and120 cm long. Two games can be played comfortably in an open event on one 2
metres long. Struts should not interfere with the legs of the players. The tables should be sturdy
and not rock easily. If the lighting in imperfect, white tablecloths help. The chairs used by both
players should be identical and not swivel unless mutually agreed otherwise. A soft base is
desirable. Young children may need cushions to bring the chair to the required height.
Flooring
It is best if the playing hall is carpeted. If not, players should be encouraged to wear soft
shoes.
Rubbish bins
Smoking is forbidden. Thus ash-trays are unnecessary. But players and organisers need
somewhere to put their rubbish. Adequate provision is rare.

27

3. Arrangements for spectators

Demonstration Boards
These should be large enough to be viewed throughout the spectating area. If electronic
and this is not so, additional screens should be provided. Players may be disturbed by flickering
screens and thus they should be sited forward of the players. In small areas care needs to be
taken to ensure good sight-lines and particularly that the players and demonstration board
operators dont get in the way. Whose move it is should be shown and also the last piece moved.
If operated by hand, it is difficult to display the clock times accurately and thus it is best
to rely on the players chess clocks. Displaying the number of moves played is difficult in time
scrambles and it is best to stop doing so at this stage of the game, especially as the players may
be misled. The demonstration boards should give details about the players. Demonstration board
pieces are often stolen.
It is difficult for the arbiter to see the play and not get in the way of the spectators. It is
possible to do this by having the clock face away from the spectators and the arbiter sitting just
behind the board, facing the audience. This method is not recommended when seeking to
promote chess as a spectator sport.
Flags of the countries of the players should be displayed. If on the playing table, these are
best sited behind the chess clock. It is sometimes easier to display these as part of the players
name cards.
Viewing
If there is room, the players should be on staging. The spectators should be at a
reasonable distance from the players (12 metres used to be required for the World Championship
but that was unnecessarily big even for that event) and a barrier erected if necessary. Spectators
close to the players should not be allowed to analyse on pocket sets.
Earphone commentary
Commentators must be in a sound-proof box. Earphones mustnt be allowed too near the
players as leakage of sound may disturb their concentration. Commentators must be warned not
to make the audience laugh.
Sound-proof playing rooms
Kasparov played Anand inside a glass box in 1995. It is difficult for the sound-proofing
to be totally adequate and spectators must still not be allowed to move before the eyes of the
players.
Commentary room
An expert comments on the games in progress to an audience. Moves are transmitted to
him by hand or electronically. The commentator will often have several games going at the same
time. He frequently prefers to see the new moves before the audience. The audience will usually
prefer a grandmaster to an excellent commentator.

28

4. Notices
These are to direct people to the appropriate playing hall; different sections; analysis room;
refreshments; commentary room; toilets; controllers offices; bulletin office; bookstall; sponsors
rooms; where to hand in results; no entry areas; no smoking; quiet; message board. Frequently
these are not thought out in advance and become a scrawled mess. When there are too many
notices about activities, they are not read or overlooked. Putting notices on the playing tables
causes clutter and should be removed at the end of a round.
5. Arbiters requirements
A suitable place to work away from the players. Comfortable, quiet footwear. When not
computerised: Swiss Pairing Cards; tables for round robin events; tournament charts; round-byround pairing sheets; pairing boards; leader boards.
Clerical needs:
Headed note-paper; computer and accessories; photo-copier and accessories; including
enlargement facilities; paper for notices; notepads; marking pens; pencils; pens (some for sale to
players); eradicators; masking tape; sellotape; blue-tac; pritt; paper clips; staple gun and staples;
rubber bands; drawing pins; calculator; envelopes; carbons; certificates, including those for title
results and ratings. Increased computerisation means there is less need for these items.
If computerised it is still necessary to be able to justify particular pairings in a Swiss. It is
usually best to prepare Pairing Cards just in case. A PC and accessories are needed; adaptors for
computers, including those for the use of foreign competitors; tournament charts need to be
photo-copied and enlarged for display; access to e-mail.
Reference Material:
Chess Organisers Handbook, Laws of Chess, FIDE Handbook, local handbook;
International Rating List; National Rating List; players special needs; Prizes List.
6. Treasurers Requirements
Completed entry forms; cheque book; payment authorisation forms; receipt book; cash;
cash account book; box to maintain money securely; details of money to come; details of money
to pay out; budget and on-going analysis of it.
7. Publicity Officers Requirements
Lists of media addresses and telephone, fax and e-mail numbers; biographies of players
and how to make contact when not in play; photographer and digital camera; envelopes suitable
for posting photos; interview room; branded insignia readily available for visual opportunities:
banners, pennants, tee-shirts, sweat shirts, jackets.

29

Press Room
This needs computers; typewriters (some journalists may not be computer literate); fax
machines; telephones; writing stations; notice boards; note-paper. In a large event this will
require separate accounting procedures of its own. With the growth of access to chess on the
Internet, fewer members of the press attend in person than in the 1990s.
Website
Do not fall into the trap of assuming all you need is a couple of computers and phone
lines and it will then fall into place. A separate webmaster is required and reporting procedures
and a schedule must be determined in advance. A means of creating a flow of press stories, other
than just bare game scores, needs to be created.
8. Bulletin Production
Computer with ChessBase or similar; storage of scoresheets; adverts; notes to be
included. With the growth of computerisation of games scores, the days of the printed bulletin
are numbered, indeed they may be an unnecessary expense. However the thirst for chess games
is greater than ever.
9. Concessions
The provision of a chess bookstall provides a service to the contestants and spectators. It
is quite common for commercial organisations to pay in cash or kind for the privilege at larger
events. The display may extend beyond books to chess computers, sets, clocks, other games,
memorabilia, first day covers. Mementos of the event such as: programmes, badges, pens,
postcards, umbrellas, medals may be sold separately. The company requires a high profile area
which is secure. No bookstall provider with ever be content with his amount of space. It should
be well-signposted and on the players routes.
10. Refreshments
Players require easy access to light refreshments during play. It is desirable to have a
water-dispenser available. Round robin tournaments usually have a table with light refreshments
so that players can help themselves.
11. Organisers Requirements
Brochures of own event; brochures of other events and display system; programmes;
Grand Prix Charts and rules; special prizes; trophies; telephone numbers such as: doctor, local
hospital, police, taxis; change - particularly for the telephone and cash entries; parking passes;
stamps; string; plastic folders; lists of local places: to stay, to worship, to eat, for entertainment;
badges for staff; security badges; fax machines; answer phone; computer; list of functions of
administrators and how to contact them; first aid box - including particularly headache relief for
self.

30

CHAPTER 8
Chess Clocks and Timing Games
It should be a relatively easy task for a chess organiser to choose a suitable clockwork
clock depending on how much he can afford and whether he wants the display to be visible to
spectators. Although electronic clocks have existed since the 1970s, none is perfect. The
following is a list of what to look for in a electronic clock:
Visibility and display
Many clocks are set at 45 degrees, ergonomically the optimum angle. A large display is
desirable, especially for the arbiter and spectators, but this increases the cost and difficulty of
transportation.
Determining which player is to move
Players want to be able to see whether their clock is in motion from across the room.
Thus the levers need to be distinct. A light can be used to show which clock is in motion. This
leads to a high drain on the batteries and the warning display may not be visible from behind the
clock.
Reliability
This can only be verified with long term usage.
Appearance
The clock should look like a quality product and be sturdy. None is acceptable that shifts
around on a shiny table.
Noise of operation
A loud cracking sound is heard when the button is pushed on some electronic clocks.
This disturbs other games. However the switching mechanism becomes soft with usage on some
clocks.
Ease of operation
It should be possible to switch on the clock and use it immediately. The arbiter must be
able to make any necessary adjustments and to check the parameters easily.
Time and move display
No clock can be perfect unless both the time and the move number can be displayed
simultaneously. A large display is required so the players, spectators and arbiter do not become
confused. It is essential it be easy to see at a glance whether the clock is displaying the time in
hours and minutes, minutes and seconds or just seconds.

31

Indication of conclusion of a time phase

In a standard play game, the clock can be programmed to freeze when the player
oversteps the limit. But what if an illegal move is made? Then the opponent usually presses the
clock button, the move is corrected, the button again pushed and the game continues. Yet the
clock thinks one more move has been made than is the case. If the number of moves is
displayed this can be corrected. Otherwise anarchy rules.
In speed games the clock should not be programmed to freeze when one players time is
used up. The clock should display which is first to use up all the time and it should be possible
for the other clock to run to zero, if the player fails to notice. Once both flags are down, the
game is drawn. Any alternative would change the FIDE Laws
Sound option
This seems only to be valuable for blind players.
Electro-sensitive boards
The moves and their number are registered on such a board and the clock times on a
chess clock with the two linked together. The data is shown on a computer and the Internet.
Options
A balance has to be found between offering many options and ease of operation. There
is greater expense and danger of confusion. On the other hand the market is increased. The
following are the minimum options:
All the moves in 1 time period.
All the moves in 2 time periods, with and without the move counter.
All the moves in 3 time periods, with and without the move counter.
An unlimited number of time periods, with and without the move counter.
Cumulative (Fischer) mode.
Delay (Bronstein) mode.
Such as 40 moves in 2 hours, all the moves in 30 minutes, adding on 30 seconds for each
move from 41.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Types of Time Controls

(a) All the moves in 5 (Blitz or Game 5) or 30 (Rapidplay or Game 30) minutes are both
popular. The former speed is viewed less favorably by weaker players.
(b) All the moves in 2 hours ( Game 150). This is the minimum time for a game to be FIDE
Rated for players over 2200 and currently also for title norms. Such rates are rarely seen.
Some players are extremely ill-disciplined and will end up making all the remaining moves in
5 minutes, even if they had 3 hours at the start. It is nannyism to prevent players doing this,
but someone has to exhibit a measure of control. Spectators would become extremely bored
watching a game where nothing happened for 2 hours.

32

(c) 40 moves in 100 minutes, followed by all the moves in 20 minutes. This is popular for
weekend Swisses in Britain.
(d) 40 moves in 2 hours, followed by all the moves in 1 hour. This used to be the minimum time
to count for title norms. This has been popular for international tournaments where two games
are played on one day.
(e) 40 moves in 2 hours, 20 moves in 1 hour, followed by all the moves in 30 minutes. This is
sometimes called Classical. Sudden-death is rare and recourse to 10.2 of the Laws of Chess
rarer still. 7 hour sessions are now rare.
(f) 40 moves in 2 hours, followed by 20 moves in 1 hour thereafter, usually with adjournment
after 6 hours. This is now rarely seen and only popular with those who dont have electronic
clocks and also dislike quickplay finishes. Most players intensely dislike adjourning games.
(g) Cumulative mode. Below are equivalents:
Blitz: all the moves in 3 minutes, but every time a player moves he receives an extra 2
seconds thinking time.
Rapidplay: all the moves in 20 minutes, but every time a player moves he receives an extra 10
seconds thinking time.
Weekend: all the moves in 80 minutes, but every time a player moves he receives an extra 30
seconds thinking time.
FIDE: 40 moves in 90 minutes, followed by all the moves in 15 minutes, but every time a
player moves he receives an extra 30 seconds thinking time. This is the closest equivalent to
type (b).
Tournament: 40 moves in 100 minutes, followed by 20 moves in 50 minutes, followed by all
the moves in 10 minutes but every time a player moves he receives an extra 30 seconds
thinking time. This is the equivalent of type (e)
For the blitz mode I personally prefer all the moves in 3 minutes, adding on 3 seconds
every time a move is made. As a wrinkly I find 2 seconds too little extra time to react.
I am convinced an add-on time of 30 seconds is inadequate for a player to keep score and
decide on his next move. Events I run have time controls such as 40 moves in 80 minutes, all
the remaining moves in 20 minutes, adding on one minute for each move from the first.
All the cumulative variations have the advantage that they eradicate the wild time
scrambles which mar so many games. Once a player has 30 seconds add-on he is required to
keep score throughout so that games arent lost to posterity. Article 10.2 is totally
unnecessary. It is true the games arent of fixed length, but this has never provided a problem.
Dr. John Nunn feels that standard play games with such rates are blander. It is true the
players make fewer blunders but also there are fewer highlights as players cant take the risk
their opponent will fail to analyse correctly due to time trouble. There can be little doubt the
cumulative mode is better in the last session.

33

(h) Delay mode. This is used in the US. I have no experience of this. In a slow game there would
never be a let-up in the final stage, once a player was in time-trouble.
It is true the swashbuckling excitement of seeing the players thrash around in agony in
time trouble is lost in these add-on modes. Relatively few games are played with large numbers
of spectators present. Sudden-death modes can continue to be used if preferred where chess is
being displayed as a gladiatorial conflict.
Above, the first time period always comes after 40 moves. It is very much in the interest
of the players for this to be standardised. If a player is used to a climax after 36 moves, he will
be troubled by needing to make 40 moves. Having got used to playing 40, gearing up to 45 will
cause problems.
After the last fixed time control there should always be 10 minutes added before going
into the final cumulative or delay mode. This provides a comfort stop in which players can
recover from a time scramble. Also it enables players to meet the requirements of 8.4. If you are
not convinced of the reliability of the clock, it is better to use all the moves in a given period.
I am very impressed with Bent Larsens viewpoint that it is good to have different events
with a variety of methods of timing games.
Where a cumulative mode is used, arbiters should check the clocks ever hour. This is
arithmetically difficult without a move counter, but there have been occasions where clocks were
set incorrectly. Also occasionally the display blanks out and a record of the times used, though
not up to date, may be useful.
Comments on some Commercial Electronic Clocks Available early in 2005
This section of the book is the one that has undergone the most extensive revision since
1997. Nothing dates a book more than description of advanced technology.
DGT XL
This clock is endorsed by FIDE. The position of the lever indicates which player is to
move from either side of the clock from some distance. An extremely versatile range of options
is offered. It can be connected with a computer. Most of the earlier problems have been ironed
out and, in my experience the clock is quite reliable.
Excalibur Game Time II
This clock is endorsed by the USCF. It is an unusual design and the display is fairly
small, but everything you need to know is there. It shows the time, the number of moves and the
mode. I am puzzled as to why it has not been sent in for consideration of endorsement by FIDE.
Since I have not used it in tournaments, which is the only true test, I cannot comment on its
reliability. The fact that the arbiter would not be able to see the clock times at a distance is
irrelevant in the US, few arbiters there look. Which button has been pressed can be seen at some
distance.

34

Schach Timer Silver

This is a good-looking solid piece of equipment. It doesnt precisely fit the FIDE
Regulations, but a future edition no doubt will address this issue. The light which shows which
clock is going is difficult to see from any distance. The clock face however is larger than most
others. It has provided no problems in events in which I have competed.
CHRONOS
This is of the few clocks where both the time and the number of moves can be displayed
simultaneously. Very few are produced annually, indeed I dont know whether it is still in
production. The explanatory booklet is difficult to understand, partly because the features are
changed without indicating this on the body of the clock. It is impossible to tell from the back
which clock is going.
SAITEK MARK 2
This is an attractive looking clock. It has all the usual features and is easy to programme.
It is impossible to tell from the back which clock is going. Players must learn to press down the
button firmly, otherwise there is a risk of it not registering the change. I have not used it very
much and thus cannot comment on its reliability.
Please do not take this to imply a recommendation on my part. New equipment is coming
out all the time. I have not commented on the cost of the above products. This is not a Which
survey.
One or two more mature players have had difficulties with perception with digital
displays. Whether this is simply being reactionary, or a genuine problem with eyesight, I dont
know. For a time rate such as 40/2, all in 1 there would be no problem with changing the clock
for a mechanical one. Whether an arbiter would accede to such a request would be their decision.
The opponent would also have to be consulted. This option would be quite impossible when
using the cumulative or delay modes.

35

CHAPTER 9
Swiss Pairing Systems
Different systems have different objectives. Thus it is impossible to design one which
will meet everybodys requirements. However we can agree there should be no in-built bias of
any type and that players with similar rating performances should achieve similar scores.
Generally players like to be able to predict their next round opponent.
A number of computer programs are available to help the controller. Christian Krause
Chairman of FIDE Swiss Pairings Committee has said, it is the controller who makes the
pairings. The computer is just a tool which he may use. I resisted the introduction of
computerised pairings in England until experimentation had ceased on the BCF Seeded Pairing
System. I feared its introduction prior to that would stultify fresh consideration of the rules.
Mr. Krause designed PROSIM which is able to simulate Swiss System Tournaments by
generating results in accordance with the expected score according to the FIDE Rating Tables
(Page XXX). This could prove to be a powerful tool in due course to help investigate the
efficacy of each pairing system.
Colour Bias
No matter what system is used, tournaments with an odd number of rounds innately
favour players who have White in round 1. Usually an attempt is made to maintain alternation.
Thus such players are likely to have 5 Whites in, for example, a 9 round Swiss. Assuming White
scores 57%, such a player would score 4.57 if he meets opponents of the same average strength.
A player meeting exactly the same opposition, but with 4 Whites would be expected to score
only 4.43. There are two further factors. Doing well in the last round catapults a player into a
higher score. White in the last round helps a player achieve this. Finally, if you start well in
Round 1, then you are likely to continue performing well.
Thus an even number of rounds seems fairer. But an odd number of rounds has one
significant advantage. It is very rare in a 9 round Swiss for any player to have other than 5 games
of one colour and 4 of the other. In 10 rounds, inevitably a few players will have 6 and 4. Three
Prosim tournaments of 60 players, one using Dubov, one Dutch and one Lim Pairings Systems
and the 1995 British Championship after 10 rounds were investigated. The first two tournaments
resulted in 4 players having 6 Whites, the third 3 and the fourth 5. The average score of the
White-favoured players was 5.16 and the disadvantaged players 3.5. This may be inadequate
information to be statistically valid, but the pattern was identical in all four systems.
We expect players who have White to fare better. Thus there should always be an
imbalance of more players seeking Black in the next round on the higher scores and a similar
imbalance of White seekers on the lower scores. It may be impossible to eradicate this. A start
can be made for round 2 of a seeded Swiss. Every fifteenth higher rated player due White could
be giver Black in Round 1.
In 2004-5 at Hastings we tried giving Black more time than White partly in order to
compensate for this bias. The overall result was 155-153, but one event is inadequate data.
The lower number of participants can be partly attributed to this innovation and Hasting has
inadequate funds to pursue this idea.

36

Validity of Places
The following has often been asserted. For every extra place that needs to be determined,
two extra rounds, above the number required for a knock-out are needed. I have never seen any
statistical or mathematical justification for this equation.
Any Swiss system will find the winner reasonably efficiently. Doubt will always be cast
on the remaining places. Grandmaster Jonathan Mestel has stated there may be nothing wrong
with a pairing system; it is assessing the results on raw score that is incorrect. Some other
methods are considered in the chapter on Tie-breaks.
It should not be assumed increasing the number of rounds automatically leads to more
accurate placing. If a tournament continues too long, all the leaders will have met and will need
to delve into the pack of lower scores. A degree of randomisation may result and thus there is
probably a mini-max number of rounds.
Lottery Swiss
The system offered in previous editions is extremely simple and there is no bias
whatsoever caused by, for example, ratings. It seems pointless to include it here when nobody
seems to use a lottery system. Any random system has the defect that, at the end of the event,
some players may have been disadvantaged. If the tournament were to be repeated, others could
be affected. The other disadvantage is that it is impossible to predict the pairings. This may have
the effect that the controller cannot prove that he isnt biased.
If you want to have a computerised Lottery System, why not use the Seeded system, but
assign the players rankings randomly?
Seeded Swiss Systems
These are widely accepted and computer programs are available for running tournaments.
Two systems are recognised by FIDE, Dutch and Lim. For reasons of space only the former is
included here. The Australian, British and United States Chess Federations all have their own
variations, as no doubt do other countries. One system, Swiss Perfect, is available free but
reputedly it does not live up to its name. The BCF System is extremely similar to the Dutch,
although developed independently. I have never heard comments about the Swiss 46 and higher
numbers for the Dutch System giving the wrong pairings.
They are all based on the premise that throughout the tournament all players on all score
groups are paired top half v second half in rating order, after taking into account colour
equalisation and then colour alternation.
The Seeded Systems work extremely well to find the winner. However there are fears
that they are uniformly all basically flawed. Players at the top of the second half may be
perpetually disadvantaged. Consider a 64 player tournament and compare the opponents of
players 32 and 33 assuming all games are won and go according to seeding. After 4 rounds they
will have both scored 2/4. 32 meets 64, 15, 48 and 19, the sum of which is 146. 33 meets 1, 50,
17 and 46. Now the sum is 114. 32 has encountered easier opposition. The effect is most marked
if all the games are drawn by all players in the first three rounds. Then 32 plays 64, 62, 60 and

37

58. 33 meets 1, 3, 5 and 7. This is particularly unfair to players of static strength who take part in
events of similar rating structure. I have twice observed this effect for one or two players in the
British Championship over the past 25 years. However computer simulation does not exhibit
such bias after extremely limited experimentation.
Players dislike the bouncing effect. In 2001 in Bermuda I played a five round Swiss. I
won Round 1, 3 and 5 with White against players I was expected to score virtually 100%.
Rounds 2 and 4 I lost with Black against opponents much higher rated than me.
David Welch, the BCF Chief Arbiter has suggested the following way of pairing round 1.
Place the players in rating order and then divide into 6 groups. Then pair Group 1 v Group 3,
Group 2 v Group 5 and Group 4 v Group 6. Subsequent rounds follow the normal Seeding
System. This has the objectives of avoiding pairing together players of tremendous different
rating and avoiding the potential bias against the top of the second half. I dont know whether
this has ever been tried.
Burstein System
Almog Burstein of Israel has devised a Swiss System based on pairing by Buchholz
Score (Sum of Opponents Scores). After some rounds (normally 3-4) of a normal Seeded Swiss,
players on a score group are ranked in their Buchholz order. If there are 8 players, then 1v8, 2v7,
3v6 and 4v5 are the pairings, avoiding players meeting twice and adjusting for colours.
This avoids the problems of the Seeded Swiss described above. However, it may be too
late to avoid bias if not started until Round 5. It has the merit that later pairings are made on data
from the actual tournament, not on historical ratings. It has the disadvantage that players cannot
predict their opponent unless they know the Buchholz scores (which information can however be
provided). Unless computerised the system is laborious. The precise rules have only been
provided for the Olympiad. It is particularly effective for that event.
Dubov System
Edward Dubov of Russia devised this system which has similar objectives to the Burstein
System. After each round, on a given score group, the players seeking White are listed in order
of the Sum of their Opponents Ratings. The player with the lowest sum is placed at the top. The
players seeking Black are listed alongside, ranked according to their rating, with the highest
rating at the top. Then the White top players are paired with the Black top players, following the
normal Swiss requirements.
This is easier to apply without a computer than the Burstein System. It is heavily reliant
on accurate ratings. I have little direct knowledge of how effective the system is. It would almost
certainly be better than the Seeded Swiss for a tournament, such as the Continental
Championships, where a large number of players qualify for the World Championship.
Accelerated Systems
Unless otherwise indicated, follow the standard procedure of the Seeded Swiss. Accurate
ratings and a wide range of abilities are required to avoid anomalies. At least 75% of the players
should be rated and there should be a rating range of at least 400 points.

38

Basically in the first round the top quarter is paired against the second quarter and the
third quarter against the fourth, all in rating order. In the second round the winners from the top
half are paired together. The winners from the bottom half are paired with the highest rated
players who did not win in the first round. The latter are listed in rating order, irrespective of
whether they drew or lost. In the third round players with 2/2 from the top half are paired
together. The players with 2/2 from the bottom half are paired with the highest rated players with
less than 2/2. The process is continued in Round 4 if necessary, unless the tournament is only of
5 rounds, in which case the Seeded System is used after Round 3. There are many variations on
this basic system. One of its problems is that, once controllers have grasped the basic principle,
they often branch off into their own ideas, without first grasping the finer points.
Some complain this isnt a true Swiss System as players are frequently paired together
who do not have the same score. It all depends on ones definition.
It is extremely effective in dealing with large numbers of players in few rounds. It is also
valuable in keeping apart players where title results are a major objective. The bouncing effect is
reduced relative to a Seeded Swiss. Thus bias against the top of the second half is reduced and
no doubt replaced by other bias. However this can be varied from event to event by changing the
cut.
Phil Haley was the first person to devise Accelerated Pairings. When it was explained to
me in Atlantic City in 1964 I didnt grasp the nuances. This resulted in my accidentally
designing a system different from Phils. The French have a computerised version of his system
available free on a website. In my limited experience it is inferior as weak players may readily
break through into the higher score groups.
Systems such as the Lottery, Crouch or Reuben systems have been explained in previous
editions. That named by me after me, although viable, was partly written as a joke for the
previous edition. However, the principle was used for the Hastings System event of 2004-5.
THE DUTCH SYSTEM
This is now available as a windows computerized program. I have never known it to provide an
incorrect answer and am puzzled as to why anybody bothers with any other computerised seeded
system.
Dutch System
Swiss System Based on Rating
A. Introductory Remarks and Definitions
A1. Rating
It is advisable to check all ratings supplied by players. If no reliable rating is known for a
player the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible before the start
of the tournament.
To convert British BCF use BCF x 8 + 600 = FIDE

39

A2. Order
For pairing purposes only, the players are ranked in order of, respectively:
(a) score
(b) rating
(c) FIDE-title (GM-WGM-IM-WIM-FM-WFM-no title)
(d) alphabetically (unless it has been previously stated that this criterion has been replaced
by another one).
The order made before the first round (when all scores are obviously zero) is used to
determine the pairing numbers: the highest one gets #1 etc.
A3. Score brackets
Players with equal scores constitute a homogeneous score bracket. Players who remain
unpaired after the pairing of a score bracket will be moved down to the next score bracket,
which will therefore be heterogeneous. When pairing a heterogeneous score bracket these
players moved down are always paired first whenever possible, giving rise to a remainder
score bracket which is always treated as a homogeneous.
A heterogeneous score bracket of which at least half of the players have come from a higher
score bracket is also treated as though it were homogeneous.
A4. Floats
By pairing a heterogeneous score bracket, players with unequal scores will be paired. To
ensure that this will not happen to the same players again in the next round this is written
down on the pairing card. The higher ranked player receives a downfloat ( ), the lower
one an upfloat ( ).
A5. Byes
Should the total number of players be (or become) odd, one player ends up unpaired. This
player receives a bye: no opponent, no colour, one point. A bye is considered to be a
downfloat.
A6. Subgroups
To make the pairing, each score bracket is divided into two subgroups, called S1 and S2.
In a heterogeneous score bracket S1 contains all players moved down from a higher score
bracket.
In a homogeneous score bracket S1 contains the higher half (rounding downwards) of the
number of players in the score bracket.
The number of players in S1 is indicated by "p", indicating the number of pairings to be
made.
In both cases S2 contains all other players of the score bracket.
In both S1 and S2 players are ordered according to A2.

40

A7. Colour differences and colour preferences

The colour difference of a player is the number of games played with white minus the
number of games played with black by this player.
After a round the colour preference can be determined for every player.
(a) An absolute colour preference occurs when a player's colour difference is greater that 1
or less than -1, or when a player played with the same colour in the two latest rounds.
The preference is white when the colour difference is < 0 or when the last two games
were played with black, otherwise black. In this case the (obligatory) colour is written
down on the score card immediately. This rule does not apply when pairing players with
a score greater than 50% in the last round.
(b) A strong colour preference occurs when a player's colour difference is unequal to zero.
The preference is white when the colour difference is < 0, black otherwise.
(c) A mild colour preference occurs when a player's colour difference is zero, the preference
being to alternate the colour with respect to the previous game. In this case the colour
difference is written down as +0 or -0 depending on the
colour of the previous game
(white or black respectively).
(d) Before the first round the colour preference of one player (often the highest one) is
determined by lot.
A8. Definition of x
The number of pairings which can be made in a score bracket, either homogeneous or
heterogeneous, not fulfilling all colour preferences, is represented by the symbol x.
x can be calculated as follows:
w = number of players having a colour preference white.
b = number of players having a colour preference black.
q = number of players in the score bracket divided by 2, rounded upwards.
If b > w then x = b-q, otherwise x = w-q.
A9. Transpositions and exchanges
(a) In order to make a sound pairing it is often necessary to change the order in S2. The
Rules to make such a change, called a transposition, are in D1.
(b) In a homogeneous score bracket it may be necessary to exchange players from S1 and
S2. Rules for exchanges are found under D2. After each exchange both S1 and S2 must
be ordered according to A2.
B. Pairing Criteria
Absolute Criteria
These must not be violated. If necessary players must be moved down to a lower score
bracket.
B1. (a) Two players shall not meet more than once.
(b) A player who has received a point without playing, either through a bye or due to an
opponent not appearing in time, shall not receive a bye.

41

B2. (c) No player's colour difference may become >+2 or <-2.

(d)No player may receive the same colour three times in row.
Relative Criteria
These are in descending priority. They should be fulfilled as much as possible. To comply
with these criteria, transpositions or even exchanges may be applied, but no player may be
moved down to a lower score bracket).
B3. The difference of the scores of two players paired against each other should be as small as
possible and ideally zero.
B4. As many players as possible should receive their colour preference. (Whenever x of a score
bracket is unequal to zero this rule will have to be ignored. x is deducted by one each time a
colour preference cannot be granted.)
B5. No player should receive an identical float in two consecutive rounds.
B6. No player should have the identical float to that of two rounds before.
Note:B2, B5 and B6 do not apply when pairing players with a score greater than 50% in the last
round.
C.

Pairing Procedures
Starting with the highest score bracket apply the following procedures to all score brackets
until an acceptable pairing is obtained. Afterwards the colour allocation rules (E) are used
to determine which players will play white.

C1. If the score bracket contains a player for whom no opponent can be found within this score
bracket without violating B1 or B2 then:
if this player was moved down from a higher score bracket apply C12.
if this score bracket is the lowest one apply C13.
in all other cases: move this player down to the next score bracket.
C2.

Determine x according to A8.

C3.

Determine p according to A6.

C4.

Put the highest players in S1, all other players in S2.

C5.

Order the players in S1 and S2 according to A2.

C6.

Pair the highest player of S1 against the highest one of S2, the second highest of S1
against the second highest of S2, etc. If now p pairings are obtained in compliance with B1
and B2 the pairing of this score bracket is considered complete.
in the case of a homogeneous score bracket: the remaining players are moved down to
the next score bracket. With this score bracket restart at C1.
in the case of a heterogeneous score bracket: only players moved down have been
paired so far. Start at C2 with the homogeneous remainder group.

42

C7. Apply a new transposition of S2 according to D1 and restart at C6.

C8. In the case of a homogeneous (remainder) group: apply a new exchange between S1 and
S2 according to D2. Restart at C5.
C9. Drop criteria B6 and B5 (in this order) for downfloats and restart at C4.
C10. In the case of a homogeneous remainder group: undo the pairing of the lowest moved
down player paired and try to find a different opponent for this player by restarting at C7.
if no alternative pairing for this player exists then drop criterion B6 first and then B5 for
upfloats and restart at C2.
C11. As long as x is less than p: increase x by 1. When pairing a remainder group undo all
pairings of players moved down also. Restart at C3.
C12. In the case of a heterogeneous group: undo the pairing of the previous score bracket. If in
this previous score bracket a pairing can be made whereby another player will be moved
down to the current one, and this now allows p pairing to be made, then this pairing in the
previous score bracket will be accepted.
C13. In the case of the lowest score bracket: the pairing of the penultimate score bracket is
undone. Try to find another pairing in the penultimate score bracket which will allow a
pairing in the lowest score bracket. If in the penultimate score bracket p becomes zero (i.e.
no pairing can be found which will allow a correct pairing for the lowest score bracket)
then the two lowest score brackets are joined into a new lowest score bracket. Now another
score bracket is the penultimate one, C13 can be repeated until an acceptable pairing is
obtained.
C14. Decrease p by 1 (and if the original value of x was greater than zero decrease x by 1 as
well). As long as p is unequal to zero restart at C4. If p equals zero the entire score bracket
is moved down to the next one. Restart with this score bracket at C1.
D.

Transposition and Exchange Procedures

Example: S1 contains players 1, 2, 3 and 4 (in this sequence); S2 contains players 5, 6, 7
and 8 (in this sequence).

D1.

Transpositions within S2 should start with the lowest players, with descending priority:
(a) 5-6-8-7
(b) 5-7-6-8
(c) 5-7-8-6
(d) 5-8-6-7
(e) 5-8-7-6
(f) 6-5-7-8
(g) 6-5-8-7, etc.
Hint: put all numbers constructable with the digits 5, 6, 7 and 8 in ascending order.

43

D2. When applying an exchange between S1 and S2 the difference between the numbers
exchanged should be as small as possible. When differences of various options are equal,
take the one concerning the lowest player of S1.
Exchange one player
S1
5
6
7

4
a
b
d

3
c
e
g

Exchange two players

S1
2
f
h
I

S2

5+6
5+7
6+7

3+4
j
k
m

2+4
l
n
p

2+3
o
q
r

The above matrices contain the sequence in which exchanges should be applied.
Exchanging one player: a) 4 and 5; b) 4 and 6; c) 3 and 5; etc. until i) 2 and 7.
Exchanging two players: j) 3+4 with 5+6; k) 3+4 with 5+7; l) 2+4 with 5+6 etc.
After each exchange both S1 and S2 should be ordered according to A2.
Remark: if the number of players in a score bracket is odd, S1 contains one player less
than S2. So with 7 players S1 contains players 1, 2 and 3, S2 4, 5, 6 and 7. The exchanges,
needed in that case, can be found from the above ones by deducting all numbers in S1 and
S2 by 1. The last column of the second matrix has then become obsolete.
E.

Colour Allocation Rules

For each pairing apply (with descending priority):

E1. Grant both colour preferences.

E2. Grant the stronger colour preference.
E3. Alternate the colours to the most recent round in which they played with different colours.
E4.

Grant the colour preference of the higher ranked player.

E5.

In the first round all even numbered players in S1 will receive a colour different from all
odd numbered players in S1.

F.

Final Remarks

F1.

After the pairings are complete, sort the pairings before making them public.
The sorting criteria are (in descending priority)

the score of the higher player of the pairing involved;

the sum of the scores of both players of the pairing involved;

the rank according to A2 of the higher player of the pairing involved.

44

F2. Byes, and pairings not actually played, or lost by one of the players due to arriving late or
not at all, should not be taken into account with respect to colour. Such a pairing is not
considered illegal in future rounds.
F3.

A player who, after five rounds, has a colour history of BWW-B (i.e. no valid game in
round 4) will be treated as -BWWB with respect to E3. Similarly WB-WB will count as WBWB and BWW-B-W as - BWWBW.

F4.

All players are in one homogeneous score bracket before the start of round one and are
ordered according to A2. Thus the highest player of S1 is paired against the highest player
of S2. If the number of players is odd, the lowest ranked player receives a bye.

F5.

Players who withdraw from the tournament will no longer be paired. Players known in
advance not to play in a particular round are not paired in that round. They score 0, unless
the controller agrees otherwise.

F6.

Once official pairings have been made public, they shall not be changed unless the
absolute pairing criteria in B1 or B2 are violated.

F7.

If a game was played with the wrong colours, or a player's rating has to be corrected, then
this will only affect future pairings.
Whether it will affect a pairing already made public but not yet played shall be decided by
the arbiter.
Unless the rules of the competition state otherwise:

F8. Players who are absent for a round without notifying the arbiter will be considered to have
withdrawn.
F9.

Adjourned games are considered draws for pairing purposes only.

F10. To determine the final standings the following criteria apply in descendingpriority.
the highest number of points scored: should this be equal for several participants, the
prize money should be shared;
where it concerns first place: the best results in games played against each other
the highest average rating o the opponents
drawing of lots
(See Chapter 13 for alternative tiebreak systems.)
ACCELERATED SWISS PAIRING RULES
In an Accelerated Swiss Tournament the pairings are designed to avoid games between
players of widely differing rating and to reduce the number of players on the 100% score level.
In tournaments with seven rounds or fewer, it is permissible to pair weaker players on the
100% score level with stronger players not more than one point below them. When no weaker
players remain on 100% the acceleration ceases.
For tournaments with eight or more rounds the procedure can also be applied to the score
level immediately below 100%. Steps marked * may only be used for these longer events.

45

Accurate ratings are required in an Accelerated Swiss Tournament if anomalies are to be

avoided. The system is unlikely to work unless at least 75% of the participants are rated and
there is a rating range of at least 400 points.
Unless otherwise stated, pairings at each stage are conducted in accordance with the normal
seeded Swiss Pairing Rules.
1. Divide the cards into two sections. The highest rated players are placed in the top section. The
top section must contain at least as many players as the bottom, with the division usually
pitched at some convenient rating gap. The top section must contain an even number of
players.
2. For Round One - Pair each section within itself.
3. For Round Two
(a) Pair together all top section players with 1 point.
(b) Pair bottom section players with 1 point against top section non-winners, who are
taken in rating order regardless of their score.
* In longer tournaments be careful to leave sufficient top section players on 0 points to
accommodate step (d)*.
(c) * Pair together all remaining top section players with point.
(d) * Pair bottom section players with point against top half players with zero.
(e) Pair together all remaining players
4. For Round Three
(a) Pair together all top section players having 2 points.
(b) Pair all bottom section players with 2 points against top section with either 1 or 1 point.
(c) Pair together all remaining top section players with 1 points.
(d) * Pair bottom half players on 1 points with top half players on 1 point and, if necessary,
point.
(e) Pair together all remaining players.
5. If necessary the principle of this process is continued in further rounds until the bottom
section players have dropped at least point, (* at least a full point for longer tournaments).
It is ESSENTIAL however that any tournament concludes with at least two rounds
determined by normal Swiss Pairing Rules. Acceleration should not normally be needed
beyond round Four and usually is only needed for three rounds.
6. Steps (b) and (d*) are special pairings and not regarded as floats. For float pairings involving
top section players on the top score level (* top two score levels), the downfloater is chosen
according to normal seeded rules, but the upfloater is the highest rated player of the correct
colour remaining after the special accelerated pairings have been made. All other steps form a
normal seeded draw.
DUBOV SWISS PAIRING SYSTEM
This is designed to maximise the fair treatment of the players. This means that a player
having a higher score than another player in a tournament should also have a higher rating
performance.

46

If the average rating of all players throughout the tournament is roughly equal, as in a
round robin tournament, the goal is reached. As a Swiss System is a more or less statistical
system, this goal can only be reached approximately on a given score group.
The approach is an attempt to equalise the average rating of the opponents of all players
of a score group. Therefore the pairing of a round will pair players who have played low rated
players with players who have high ratings.
A number of changes have been made to the wording to be found in the FIDE Handbook.
These changes are not indicated in this text. A number of comments have been made on the text.
These are in italics.
1. Definitions
1.1. R is the rating of a player
1.2. ARO is the average rating of a players opponents. ARO must be calculated after each
round as basis of the pairings system. This can be simplified to Sum of Opponents Ratings if
no player has a bye.
1.3. Due colour of a player is white
- if he has played more games with black than white.
- if these numbers are equal and he has played black his previous game.
Due colour of a player is black
- if he has played more games with white than black.
- if these numbers are equal and he has played white his previous game.
2. Pairing limitations
2.1. Players cannot meet more than once.
2.2. A player who has had a bye or won or lost a game by default, shall not receive a bye.
2.3. The difference of the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater
than 2 or less than -2.
2.4. A player shall not have the same colour three times in a row.
2.5. Transfers. Unless a player cannot otherwise be paired; apart from the last round a player
shall not be transferred to a higher score group:
2.51. in two consecutive rounds.
2.52. more than three times if the tournament has 9 rounds or less.
2.53. more than four times if the tournament has more than 9 rounds.
3. Colour allocation
When pairing two players their colour allocation shall be decided as follows in order of
decreasing priority:
3.1. give both players their due colour
3.2. bring as close to equality as possible the numbers of black and white games played.
3.3. alternate the colours of both players, looking for the first difference in their colour history
going back from the previous round to the first round.
3.4. assign white to the player with the higher ARO
3.5. assign white to the player with the lower R

47

4. Odd number of players in the tournament

The player from the lowest score group, who has the lowest R is given the bye.
(This seems wrong. Should it not be the player from the lowest score group, from the
dominant colour group, of lowest R?)
If there are players with the lowest R in both the colour subgroups, then the player to get
the bye must be due the dominating colour and in case there are several players with equal
R, the player to get the bye must have the higher ARO.
The player receiving the bye has played without colour in that roundand scores 1 point.
5. Pairing for the first round
This is as Round 1 for any Seeded Swiss.
6. The standard pairing procedure for the remaining rounds
6.1. Standard requirement (Special cases see below chapter 7.):
The number of players having the same score is even and the number of players due white
and black is the same. Each player in the score group has at least one possible opponent in
the score group
6.2.

First attempt
The players who should play with the white pieces are arranged in order of increasing
ARO. Where the ARO is the same the player with the lower R is placed higher. If ARO
and R are identical, the players are placed alphabetically (presumably the player later in
the alphabet is placed first).
The players who should play the black pieces are arranged in order of decreasing R. Where
R is the same, the player with the higher ARO is placed higher. If ARO and R are
identical, the players are to be placed alphabetically (presumably the player earlier in the
alphabet is placed first).
Two columns of numbers are written down, thereby arranging the pairs.
For example:
White (ARO)
Black (R)
2310.0
2380
2318.4
2365
2322.3
2300
2333.7
2280
2340.5
2260
2344.6
2250
The names of the players are then written down, and only one fact is checked - whether the
players have played their opponents before.

48

6.3.

Improvements
If the players have already played each other, then the player seeking white is paired with
the first player seeking black whom he has not played before, from the lower rows;
If such a coincidence takes place in the last row for a group of players with the same score,
then the last but one row is changed.
If a coincidence takes place in a row No. k of a group with the same score and all the black
seekers from the lower group have already played with the white No. k, then we change
the pairing in row No. k - 1, if this does not work, in row No.k-2, etc. If the last row is
exhausted, proceed up row k + 1, etc.
If the white seeker No. k has already played all the blacks seekers, we look for an
opponent for him, beginning with the white seeker No.k+1 down to the end of the column,
and then, beginning with the white seeker No. k -1 down to the white seeker No.1. The
colours of the pairings are assigned by the colour allocation rules Chapter 3.

6.4.

Floater
The aim of the pairing procedure is to pair the maximum number of players within their
own score group.
If this cannot be achieved the remaining unpaired players are transferred to the next lower
score group and treated according to chapter 8.
If there is a choice the floaters are chosen by the following procedures in order of
decreasing preference:
the player had not already floated from a higher score group and can be paired in
the lower score group.
the player had not already floated from a higher score group and cannot be paired
in the lower score group.
the player had floated from a higher score group and can be paired in the lower
score group.
the player had floated from a higher score group and cannot be paired in the
lower score group.

7. Transfer of players to meet the requirements of Chapter 6

If the requirement of the standard pairing procedure is not fully fulfilled the following
transfers shall be carried out in the order listed below
7.1. if a player has already played with all the players of his own score group, a player from
the next possible lower score group is transferred to the score group to be paired who has
not yet played with the player in question and can be paired according to the colour
allocation rules

49

The player to be transferred shall fulfil the following requirements in descending priority:
the due colour is opposite to the due colour of the player in question.
if there is a choice, then the player with the highest R is to be transferred.
if there is more than one player having the same R then the one with the lowest
ARO is transferred.
7.2. If the number of players in the score group is odd, a player from the next possible lower
score group shall be transferred to the score group to be paired, who has not yet played
with at least one of the players of the higher score group and is allowed to be paired
according to the colour allocation rules.
The player to be transferred shall fulfil the following requirements in descending priority:
his due colour is opposite to the dominating due colour of the higher score group.
if there is a choice, then the player with the highest R is to be transferred.
if more than one player has the same R, then the one with the lowest ARO shall
be transferred.
7.3. If the number of players in the score group is even and the number of whites exceeds the
blacks by 2n, then n white players, who have the lowest ARO, are transferred to the black
group. If their ARO is equal, the player with the higher R is chosen. Should both (ARO
and R) coincide completely, the list of the players is arranged alphabetically, the transfer
being made from the earliest alphabetically.
7.4. If the number of players with the same score is even and the number of whites is smaller
than the number of blacks by 2n, then n black players, who have the highest ARO, are
transferred to the white group. If their ARO is equal, the player with the lower R is chosen.
Should both (ARO and R) coincide completely, the list of the players is arranged
alphabetically, the transfer being made from the earliest alphabetically.
8. Treatment of floaters
8.1.

Priority of floater-pairing
The floaters due white are arranged according to chapter 6.2
The floaters due black are arranged according to chapter 6.2
Beginning with the highest white floater the floaters are paired one by one going down to
the lowest floater alternating between white and black.

8.2.

Pairing the floaters

Each of the floaters is paired with the player having the highest R, if possible due the
opposite colour. If there is more than one player with equal R, the player with the lowest
ARO is chosen.

50

9. Final remarks
The list of AROs should be published after each round to make it possible for players to
calculate the pairings on their own.
If a situation arises which is not covered by the specific instructions, the controller shall
use his best judgement according to the basic principles of the system.

51

This chapter is outdated and included

only for historical purposes and
accuracy to the original printed version
of this book.

CHAPTER 10
THE 2005 FIDE LAWS OF CHESS

The FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.

The English text is the authentic version of the Laws of Chess, which was adopted at the 75th FIDE
Congress at Calvia (Mallorca), October 2004, coming into force on 1 July 2005.
In these Laws the words 'he', 'him' and 'his' include 'she' and 'her'.
PREFACE
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they
regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the
Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are
discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound
judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of
judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and
special factors.
FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:
a.
b.
c.

do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess
are limited to the territory of the federation in question; and
are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating
tournament.

BASIC RULES OF PLAY

Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of chess
1.1

The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces alternately on a
square board called a 'chessboard'. The player with the white pieces commences the game. A
player is said to 'have the move', when his opponent's move has been made.

1.2

The objective of each player is to place the opponent's king 'under attack' in such a way that the
opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have 'checkmated' the
opponent's king and to have won the game. Leaving ones own king under attack, exposing
ones own king to attack and also capturing the opponents king are not allowed. The opponent
whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

1.3

If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate, the game is drawn.

Article 2: The initial position of the pieces on the chessboard

2.1

The chessboard is composed of an 8x8 grid of 64 equal squares alternately light (the 'white'
squares) and dark (the 'black' squares).
The chessboard is placed between the players in such a way that the near corner square to the
right of the player is white.

52

The chessboard is placed between the players in such a way that the near corner square tto the
right of the player is white.
2.2

At the beginning of the game one player has 16 light

light-coloured
coloured pieces (the 'white' pieces); the
other has 16 dark-coloured
coloured pieces (the 'black' pieces):
These pieces are as follows:
A white king, usually indicatedd by the symbol
A white queen, usually indicated by the symbol
Two white rooks, usually indicated by the symbol
Two white bishops, usually indicated by the symbol
Two white knights, usually indicated by the symbol
Eight white pawns, usually indicated by the symbol
A black king, usually indicated by the symbol
A black queen, usually indicated by the symbol
Two black rooks, usually indicated by the symbol
Two black bishops, usually indicated by the symbol
Two
wo black knights, usually indicated by the symbol
Eight black pawns, usually indicated by the symbol

2.3

The initial position of the pieces on the chessboard is as follows:

2.4

The eight vertical columns of squares are called 'files'. The eight horizontal
horizontal rows of squares are
called ranks'. A straight line of squares of the same colour, touching corner to corner, is called a
'diagonal'.

Article 3: The moves of the pieces

3.1

It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour. If a piece
moves to a square occupied by an opponent's piece the latter is captured and removed from the
chessboard as part of the same move. A piece is said to attack an opponent's piece if the piece
could make a capture on that square according
accord
to Articles 3.2 to 3.8.
A piece is considered to attack a square, even if such a piece is constrained from moving to that
square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack.

3.2

The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands.

3.3

The rook may move to any square along the file or the rank on which it stands.

3.4

The queen may move to any square along the file, the rank or a diagonal on which it stands.

3.5

When making these moves the bishop, rook or queen may not move over any intervening pieces.

3.6

The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same
rank, file or diagonal.

3.7

a.
b.
c.

The pawn may move forward to the unoccupied square immediately in front of it on the
same file, or
on its first move the pawn may move as in (a); alternatively it may advance two squares
along the same file provided both squares are unoccupied, or
the pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent's piece, which is diagonally in
front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece.

3.8

c.

a pawn attacking a square crossed by an opponent's pawn which has advanced two squares
in one move from its original square may capture this opponent's pawn as though the latter
had been moved only one square. This capture is only legal on the move following this
advance and is called an 'en passant' capture

d.

When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting

starting position it must be exchanged as
part of the same move for a newqueen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. The
player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This
exchange of a pawn for another piece is called
called 'promotion' and the effect of the new piece
is immediate.

a.

There are two different ways of moving the king, by:

i.

moving to any adjoining square not attacked by one or more of the opponent's
pieces.

or
ii.

castling'. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour on the same
rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is
transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook, then that rook is
transferred to the square the king has
ha just crossed.

(1)
a.
b.
(2)
a.
b.

3.9

The right to castle has been lost:

if the king has already moved, or
with a rook that has already moved
Castling is prevented temporarily
if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the
square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be
effected.

The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if
such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place
their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same
colour to check or leave that king in check.
c

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

4.1

Each move must be made with one hand only.

4.2

Provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying "j'adoube" or "I adjust"), the
player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares.

4.3

4.4

Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the
chessboard
a.

one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved , or

b.

one or more of his opponent's pieces, he must capture the first piece touched, which can be
captured, or

c.

one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent's piece with his piece or, if this is
illegal, move or capture the first piece touched which can be moved or captured. If it is
unclear, whether the players own piece or his opponents was touched first, the player's
own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent's.

a.

If a player deliberately touches his king and rook he must castle on that side if it is legal to
do so.

b.

If a player deliberately touches a rook and then his king he is not allowed to castle on that
side on that move and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3(a).

c.

If a player, intending to castle, touches the king or king and rook at the same time, but
castling on that side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king
which may include castling on the other side. If the king has no legal move, the player is
free to make any legal move.

d.

If a player promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has
touched the square of promotion.

4.5

If none of the pieces touched can be moved or captured, the player may make any legal move.

4.6

When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot
then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the
relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled:

4.7

a.

in the case of 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;

b.

in the case of 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;

c.

in the case of the promotion of a pawn, when the pawn has been removed from the
chessboard and the player's hand has released the new piece after placing it on the
promotion square. If the player has released from his hand the pawn that has reached the
promotion square, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to play
the pawn to another square.

A player forfeits his right to a claim against his opponent's violation of Article 4.3 or 4.4once he
deliberately touches a piece.

58

Article 5: The completion of the game

5.1

5.2

a.

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 a legal
move.

b.

The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends
the game.

a.

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 legal.

b.

The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the
opponents 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 legal.

c.

The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during the game. This
immediately ends the game. (See Article 9.1)

d.

The game may be drawn if any identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the
chessboard at least three times. (See Article 9.2)

e.

The game may be drawn if each player has made at leastthe last 50 consecutive moves
without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. (See Article 9.3)

COMPETITION RULES
Article 6: The chess clock
6.1

'Chess clock' means a clock with two time displays, connected to each other in such a way that
only one of them can run at one time.
'Clock' in the Laws of Chess means one of the two time displays.
'Flag fall' means the expiration of the allotted time for a player.

6.2

a.

When using a chess clock, each player must make a minimum number of moves or all
moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time
with each move. All these must be specified in advance.

b.

The time saved by a player during one period is added to his time available for the next
period, except in the 'time delay' mode.
In the time delay mode both players receive an allotted 'main thinking time'. Each player
also receives a 'fixed extra time' with every move. The countdown of the main time only
commences after the fixed time has expired. Provided the player stops his clock before the

59

expiration of the fixed time, the main thinking time does not change, irrespective of the
proportion of the fixed time used.
6.3

Each time display has a 'flag'. Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.2(a)
must be checked.

6.4

Before the start of the game the arbiter decides where the chess clock is placed.

6.5

At the time determined for the start of the game the clock of the player who has the white pieces
is started.

6.6

If neither player is present initially, the player who has the white pieces shall lose all the time
that elapses until he arrives; unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides
otherwise.

6.7

Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hourafter the scheduled start of the
session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides
otherwise.

6.8

a.

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own
clock and start his opponent's clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock.
His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move
that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1 and 5.2)
The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and
starting his opponent's clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.

6.9

b.

A player must stop his clock with the same hand as that with which he made his move. It is
forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the button or to 'hover' over it.

c.

The players must handle the chess clock properly. It is forbidden to punch it forcibly, to
pick it up or to knock it over. Improper clock handling shall be penalised in accordance
with Article 13.4.

d.

If a player is unable to use the clock, an assistant, who is acceptable to the arbiter, may be
provided by the player to perform this operation. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter
in an equitable way.

A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has
made a valid claim to that effect.

6.10 Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not
complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player.
However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the
players kingby any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.
6.11 Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident
defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall replace the clock
anduse his best judgement when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess
clock.

60

6.12 If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then
a.

the game shall continue if it happens in any period of the game except the last period.

b.

the game is drawn if it happens in the period of a game, in which all the remaining moves
must be completed.

6.13 a.

If the game needs to be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the clocks.

b.

A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter's assistance, for instance
when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.

c.

The arbiter shall decide when the game is to be restarted in either case.

d.

If a player stops the clocks in order to seek the arbiter's assistance, the arbiter shall
determine if the player had any valid reason for doing so. If it is obvious that the player has
no valid reason for stopping the clocks, the player shall be penalised according to article
13.4.

6.14 If an irregularity occurs and/or the pieces have to be restored to a previous position, the arbiter
shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the clocks. He shall also, if
necessary, adjust the clock's move counter.
6.15 Screens, monitors, or demonstration boards showing the current position on the chessboard, the
moves and the number of moves made, and clocks which also show the number of moves, are
allowed in the playing hall. However, the player may not make a claim relying solelyon
information shown in this manner.
Article 7: Irregularities
7.1

a.

If during a game it is foundthat the initial position of the pieces was incorrect, the game
shall be cancelled and a new game played.

b.

If during a game it is found that the only error is that the chessboard has been placed
contrary to Article 2.1, the game continues but the position reached must be transferred to
a correctly placed chessboard.

7.2

If a game has begun with colours reversed, then it shall continue, unless the arbiter rules
otherwise.

7.3

If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own
time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter's
assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces

7.4

a.

If during a game it is found that an illegal move,including failing to meet the

requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponents king, has been
completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the
position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue
from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted

61

according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal move. The
game shall then continue from this reinstated position.
b.

7.5

After the action taken under Article 7.4(a), for the first two illegal moves by a player the
arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal
move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player.

If during a game it is found that pieces have been displaced from their squares, the position
before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity
cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the
irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. The game shall then continue
from this re-instated position.

Article 8: The recording of the moves

8.1

In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent
in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic
notation (Appendix E), on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition.
It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to
Article 9.2 or 9.3.
A player may reply to his opponent's move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record
his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the
scoresheet. (Appendix E.12)
If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who is acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided
by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.

8.2

The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter throughout the game.

8.3

The scoresheets are the property of the organisers of the event.

8.4

If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not
have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet
the requirements of Article 8.1. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his
scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard

8.5

a.

If neither player is required to keep score under Article 8.4, the arbiter or an assistant
should try to be present and keep score. In this case, immediately after one flag has
fallen, the arbiter shall stop the clocks. Then both players shall update their scoresheets,
using the arbiter's or the opponent's scoresheet.

b.

If only one player is not required to keep score under Article 8.4 he must, as soon as
either flag has fallen, update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the
chessboard. Provided it is the player's move, he may use his opponent's scoresheet, but
must return it before making a move

c.

If no complete scoresheet is available, the players must reconstruct the game on a second
chessboard under the control of the arbiter or an assistant. He shall first record the actual

62

game position, clock times and the number of moves made, if this information is
available, before reconstruction takes place.
8.6

If the scoresheets cannot be brought up to date showing that a player has overstepped the allotted
time, the next move made shall be considered as the first of the following time period, unless
there is evidence that more moves have been made.

8.7

At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of
the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

Article 9: The drawn game

9.1

9.2

a.

A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard
and before stopping his clock and starting the opponent's clock. An offer at any other time
during play is still valid, but Article 12.5 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.

b.

The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his scoresheet with a symbol (See
Appendix E13).

c.

A claim of a draw under 9.2, 9.3 or 10.2 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw.

The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position,
for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves)
a.

is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter
his intention to make this move, or

b.

has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the
same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both
players are the same.
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer in
this manner be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.
9.3

9.4

The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if
a.

he writes his move on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this
move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the
movement of any pawn and without any capture, or

b.

the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of
any pawn and without any capture.

If the player makes a move without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in
Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.

63

9.5

9.6

If a player claims a draw as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, he shall immediately stop both clocks. He is not
allowed to withdraw his claim.
a.

If the claim is found to be correct the game is immediately drawn.

b.

If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent's
remaining time. Additionally, if the claimant has more than two minutes on his clock the
arbiter shall deduct half of the claimant's remaining time up to a maximum of three
minutes. If the claimant has more than one minute, but less than two minutes, his
remaining time shall be one minute. If the claimant has less than one minute, the arbiter
shall make no adjustment to the claimant's clock. Then the game shall continue and the
intended move must be made.

The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any
possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the
game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.

Article 10: Quickplay Finish

10.1 A 'quickplay finish' is the phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a
limited time.
10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw
before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
a.

If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or
that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn.
Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

b.

If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and
the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare
the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn
if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent
was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

c.

If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time.

d.

The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c.

Article 11: Scoring

11.1 Unless announced otherwise in advance, a player who wins his game, or wins by forfeit, scores
one point (1), a player who loses his game, or forfeits scores no points (0) and a player who
draws his game scores a half point ().
Article 12: The conduct of the players
12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

64

12.2 a.

During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information,
advice or to analyse on another chessboard.

b.

It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication,

not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a players mobile phone rings in the
playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall
be determined by the arbiter.

12.2 The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offers of a
draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.
12.4 Players who have finished their games shall be considered to be spectators.
12.5 Players are not allowed to leave the 'playing venue' without permission from the arbiter. The
playing venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, area set aside for
smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the
arbiter.
12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes
unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw.
12.7 Infraction of any part of the Articles 12.1 to 12.6 shall lead to penalties in accordance with
Article 13.4.
12.8 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the
game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent.
12.9 If both players are found guilty according to Article 12.8, the game shall be declared lost by both
players.
Article 13: The role of the arbiter (see Preface)
13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.
13.2 The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition. He should ensure that a good playing
environment is maintained and that the players are not disturbed. He shall supervise the progress
of the competition.
13.3 The arbiter shall observe the games, especially when the players are short of time, enforce
decisions he has made and impose penalties on players where appropriate.

65

13.4 The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:
a.
warning,
b.
increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
c.
reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
d.
declaring the game to be lost,
e.
reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
f.
increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for that
game,
g.
expulsion from the event.
13.5 The arbiter may award either or both players additional time in the event of external disturbance
of the game.
13.6 The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess. He
shall not indicate the number of moves made, except in applying Article 8.5 when at least one
flag has fallen. The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed
a move or that the player has not pressed his clock.
13.7

a.

Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a
game. If necessary, the arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue.

b.

It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any area
designated by the arbiter

Article 14: FIDE

14.

Member federations may ask FIDE to give an official decision about problems relating to the
Laws of Chess.

APPENDICES.
A.

Adjourned games

A1. a.

If a game is not finished at the end of the time prescribed for play, the arbiter shall require
the player having the move to 'seal' that move. The player must write his move in
unambiguous notation on his scoresheet, put his scoresheet and that of his opponent in an
envelope, seal the envelope and only then stop his clock without starting the opponent's
clock. Until he has stopped the clocks, the player retains the right to change his sealed
move. If, after being told by the arbiter to seal his move, the player makes a move on the
chessboard, he must write that same move on his scoresheet as his sealed move.

b.

A player having the move, who adjourns the game before the end of the playing session,
shall be considered to have sealed at the nominal time for the end of the session, and his
remaining time shall so be recorded.

A2. The following shall be indicated upon the envelope:

a.
the names of the players
b.
the position immediately before the sealed move
c.
the time used by each player
d.
the name of the player who has sealed the move

66

e.
f.
g.

the number of the sealed move

the offer of a draw, if the proposal is current.
the date, time and venue of resumption of play.

A3. The arbiter shall check the accuracy of the information on the envelope and is responsible for the
safe-keeping of it.
A4. If a player proposes a draw after his opponent has sealed his move, the offer is valid until the
opponent has accepted it or rejected it as in Article 9.1.
A5. Before the game is to be resumed, the position immediately before the sealed move shall be set
up on the chessboard, and the times used by each player when the game was adjourned shall be
indicated on the clocks.
A6. If prior to the resumption the game is agreed drawn, or if one of the players notifies the arbiter
that he resigns, the game is concluded.
A7. The envelope shall be opened only when the player who must reply to the sealed move is
present.
A8. Except in the cases mentioned in Article 6.10 and 9.6, the game is lost by a player whose
recording of his sealed move
a.
is ambiguous, or
b.
is recorded such that its true significance is impossible to establish, or
c.
is illegal.
A9. If, at the agreed resumption time
a.

the player having to reply to the sealed move is present, the envelope is opened, the sealed
move made on the chessboard and his clock started.

b.

the player having to reply to the sealed move is not present, his clock shall be started. On
his arrival, he may stop his clock and summon the arbiter. The envelope is then opened
and the sealed move made on the chessboard. His clock is then restarted.

c.

the player who sealed the move is not present, his opponent has the right to record his
reply on the scoresheet, seal his scoresheet in a fresh envelope, stop his clock and start the
absent player's clock instead of making his reply in the normal manner. If so, the envelope
shall be handed to the arbiter for safe-keeping and opened on the absent player's arrival.

A10. The player shall lose the game if he arrives at the chessboard more than one hour late for the
resumption of an adjourned game (unless the rules of the competition or the arbiter decides
otherwise).
However, if the player who made the sealed move is the late player, the game is decided
otherwise, if:
a.

the absent player has won the game by virtue of the fact that the sealed move is checkmate,
or

67

b.

the absent player has produced a drawn game by virtue of the fact that the sealed move is
stalemate, or a position as described in Article 9.6 has arisen on the chessboard, or

c.

the player present at the chessboard has lost the game according to Article 6.10.

A11. a.

If the envelope containing the sealed move is missing, the game shall continue from the
position, with the clock times recorded at the time of adjournment. If the time used by each
player cannot be re-established the arbiter shall set the clocks. The player who sealed the
move makes the move he states he sealed on the chessboard.

b.

If it is impossible to re-establish the position, the game is annulled and a new game must
be played.

A12. If, upon resumption of the game, either player points out before making his first move that the
time used has been incorrectly indicated on either clock, the error must be corrected. If the error
is not then established the game continues without correction unless the arbiter feels that the
consequences will be too severe.
A13. The duration of each resumption session shall be controlled by the arbiter's timepiece. The
starting time and finishing time shall be announced in advance.
B.

Rapidplay

.
B1. A Rapidplay game is one where either all the moves must be made in a fixed time from 15 to
60 minutes; or the time allotted + 60 times any increment is from 15 to 60 minutes.
B2. Play shall be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess, except where they are overridden by the
following Laws of Rapidplay.
B3. Players do not need to record the moves.
B4. Once each player has completed three moves, no claim can be made regarding incorrect piece
placement, orientation of the chessboard or clock setting.
In case of reverse king and queen placement castling with this king is not allowed.
B5. The arbiter shall make a ruling according to Article 4 (The act of moving pieces), only if
requested to do so by one or both players.
B6. An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is then
entitled to claim that the player completed an illegal move before the claimant has made his
move. Only after such a claim, shall the arbiter make a ruling. However, if both Kings are in
check or the promotion of a pawn is not completed, the arbiter shall intervene, if possible.
B7. The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The
arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall.
B8. To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim
to be successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his opponent's flag down after the clocks
have been stopped.

68

B9. If both flags have fallen, the game is drawn.

C.

Blitz

C1. A blitz game is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed time of less than 15 minutes
for each player; or the allotted time + 60 times any increment is less than 15 minutes.
C2. Play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Appendix B except where they are
overridden by the following Laws of Blitz. The Articles 10.2 and B6 do not apply.
C3. An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is
entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot
checkmate the players king by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled
counterplay, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move.
Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected
D.Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue.
D1. Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two
minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis
a.
b.

that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or

that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The
opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.

E.Algebraic notation
FIDE recognizes for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic
System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and
periodicals. Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in
cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that
a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player about of this
requirement.
Description of the Algebraic System
E1. In this description, "piece" means a piece other than a pawn.
E2. Each piece is indicated by the first letter, a capital letter, of its name. Example: K = king, Q =
queen, R = rook, B = bishop, N = knight. (In the case of the knight, for the sake of convenience,
N is used.)

69

E3. For the first letter of the name of a piece, each player is free to use the first letter of the name
which is commonly used in his country. Examples: F = fou (French for bishop), L = loper
(Dutch for bishop). In printed periodicals, the use of figurines for
for the pieces is recommended.
E4

Pawns are not indicated by their first letter, but are recognised by the absence of such a letter.
Examples: e5, d4, a5.

E5. The eight files (from left to right for White and from right to left for Black) are indicated by the
small letters, a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h, respectively.
E6

The eight ranks (from bottom to top for White and from top to bottom for Black) are numbered
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, respectively. Consequently, in the initial position the white piece
pieces and
pawns are placed on the first and second ranks; the black pieces and pawns on the eighth and
seventh ranks.

E7

As a consequence of the previous rules, each of the sixty-four

sixty four squares is invariably indicated by
a unique combination of a letter and a number.

E8

Each move of a piece is indicated by (a) the first letter of the name of the piece in question and
(b) the square of arrival. There is no hyphen between (a) and (b). Examples: Be5, Nf3, Rd1.
In the case of pawns, only the square of arrival is indicated. Examples: e5, d4, a5.

E9

When a piece makes a capture, an x is inserted between (a) the first letter of the name of the
piece in question and (b) the square of arrival. Examples: Bxe5, Nxf3, Rxd1.
When a pawn makes a capture, the file of departure must be indicated, then an x, then the square
of arrival. Examples: dxe5, gxf3, axb5. In the case of an "en passant" capture, the square of
arrival is given as the square on which the capturing pawn finally rests and "e.p." is appended to
the notation. Example: exd6 e.p.

E10 If two identical pieces can move to the same square, the piece that is moved is indicated as
follows:
1.

If both pieces are on the same rank: by (a) the first letter of the name of the piece, (b) the
file of the square
uare of departure, and (c) the square of arrival.

2.

If both pieces are on the same file: by (a) the first letter of the name of the piece, (b) the
rank of the square of departure, and (c) the square of arrival.

If the pieces are on different ranks and files, method (1) is preferred.
In the case of capture, an x must be inserted between (b) and (c).
Examples:
There are two knights, on the squares g1 and e1, and one of them moves to the square f3: either
Ngf3 or Nef3, as the case may be.
There are two knights, on the squares g5 and g1, and one of them moves to the square f3: either
N5f3 or N1f3, as the case may be.
There are two knights, on the squares h2 and d4, and one of them moves to the square f3: either
Nhf3 or Ndf3, as the case may be.
If a capture takes place on the square f3, the previous examples are changed by the insertion of
an x: (1) either Ngxf3 or Nexf3, (2) either N5xf3 or N1xf3, (3) either Nhxf3 or Ndxf3, as the
case may be.
E11

If two pawns can capture the same piece or pawn of the opponent, the pawn that is moved is
indicated by (a) the letter of the file of departure, (b) an x, (c) the square of arrival. Example: If
there are white pawns on squares c4 and e4 and a black pawn or piece on the square d5, the
notation for White's move is either cxd5 or exd5, as the case may be.

E12 In the case of the promotion of a pawn, the actual pawn move is indicated, followed immediately
by the first letter of the new piece. Examples: d8Q, f8N, b1B, g1R.
E13 The offer of a draw shall be marked as (=).
Essential abbreviations:
0-0
castling with rook h1 or rook h8 (kingside castling)
0-0-0 castling with rook a1 or rook a8 (queenside castling)
x
captures
+
check
++ or # checkmate
e.p.
captures en passant
Sample game: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 exd4 4. e5 Ne4 5. Qxd4 d5 6. exd6 e.p. Nxd6 7. Bg5
Nc6 8. Qe3+ Be7 9. Nbd2 0-0 10. 0-0-0 Re8 11. Kb1(=)
F. Rules for play with Blind and Visually Handicapped Players
F1.

Tournament directors shall have the power to adapt the following rules according to local
circumstances. In competitive chess between sighted and visually handicapped players (legally
blind) either player may demand the use of two chessboards, the sighted players using a normal
chessboard, the visually handicapped player using one specially constructed. The specially
constructed chessboard must meet the following requirements:
a.
b.

at least 20 by 20 centimetres;
the black squares slightly raised;

71

c.
d.
e.
F2.

a securing aperture in each square;

every piece provided with a peg that fits into the securing aperture;
pieces of Staunton design, the black pieces being specially marked.

The following regulations shall govern play:

1.

The moves shall be announced clearly, repeated by the opponent and executed on his
chessboard. When promoting a pawn, the player must announce which piece is chosen.
To make the announcement as clear as possible, the use of the following names is
suggested instead of the corresponding letters, algebraic
A-Anna
B-Bella
C-Cesar
D-David
E-Eva
F-Felix
G-Gustav
H-Hector
Ranks from white to black shall receive the German numbers:
1-eins
2-zwei
3-drei
4-vier
5-fuenf
6-sechs
7-sieben
8-acht
Castling is announced Lange Rochade (German for long castling) and Kurze
Rochade (German for short castling).
The pieces bear the names: Koenig, Dame, Turm, Laeufer, Springer, Bauer.

2.

On the visually handicapped players chessboard a piece shall be considered touched

when it has been taken out of the securing aperture.

3.

A move shall be considered executed when:

a.

in the case of a capture, the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard of
the player whose turn it is to move;

b.

a piece is placed into a different securing aperture;

c.

the move has been announced.

Only then the opponents clock shall be started.

As far as points 2 and 3 are concerned the normal rules are valid for the sighted player.

72

4.

A specially constructed chess clock for the visually handicapped shall be admissible. It
shall incorporate the following features:
a.

A dial fitted with reinforced hands, with every five minutes marked by one dot, and
every 15 minutes by two raised dots.

b.

A flag which can be easily felt. Care should be taken that the flag is so arranged as to
allow the player to feel the minute hand during the last 5 minutes of the full hour.

5.

The visually handicapped player must keep score of the game in Braille or longhand or
record the moves on a tape recorder.

6.

A slip of the tongue in the announcement of a move must be corrected immediately and
before the clock of the opponent is started.

7.

If during a game different positions should arise on the two chessboards, they must be
corrected with the assistance of the controller and by consulting both players game scores.
If the two game scores correspond with each other, the player who has written the correct
move but executed the wrong one must adjust his position to correspond with the move on
the game scores.

8.

If, when such differences occur and the two game scores are found to differ, the moves
shall be retraced to the point where the two scores agree and the controller shall readjust
the clock accordingly.

9.

The visually handicapped player shall have the right to make use of an assistant who shall
have any or all of the following duties:
a.

Make either players move on the chessboard of the opponent.

b.

Announce the moves of both players.

c.

Keep the game score of the visually handicapped player and start his opponents
clock, (keeping rule 3.c in mind).

d.

Inform the visually handicapped player only at his request of the number of moves
completed and the time used up by both players.

e.

Claim the game in cases where the time limit has been exceeded and inform the
controller when the sighted player has touched one of his pieces.

f.

Carry out the necessary formalities in case the game is adjourned. If the visually
handicapped player does not make use of an assistant, the sighted player may make
use of one who shall carry out the duties mentioned under point 9a and b.

73

This chapter is outdated and included

only for historical purposes and
accuracy to the original printed version
of this book.

CHAPTER 11
Comments on the Laws of Chess

The Laws of Chess were last changed in 2001. Several of us worked on a major overhaul
of the Laws in 1997 and we did not want to make substantial changes either in 2001 or 2005. It
is too easy for people to become confused if rules are changed frequently. If only our politicians
followed this principle.
Technology changes matters. The menace of mobile phones has had to be dealt with,
although I feel the reaction of some arbiters is virtually paranoid and the Law, as expressed, is
positively draconian. The major new change is in 8.1., a player may no longer write his move
down in advance of playing it. Bobby Fischer objected to this practice in 1970, but it was ruled
acceptable at that time because it was so widespread among Soviet players. Provided a player
does not change his mind, it seldom matters. But if a player writes down a move, thinks further
and then crosses it out and makes another, he is clearly making notes. This is definitely against
Article 12.23 of the Laws. I was against the change because I believe in a 12 year cycle without
major changes, but others disagreed with me. An arbiter is not expected to leap immediately on a
player the first time he writes his move down before playing it. He should take him to one side
when it isnt his move and warn him the practice is no longer permissible. Oddly the fact that a
move needs to be written in advance in order to claim a draw by repetition or 50 move rule is
covered, but not a sealed move. It was pointed out in time.
IM Malcolm Pein was most upset at this change. He said it helps children avoid making
gross blunders. They may now have to be taught to sit on their hands before making their move.
It would be foolish to teach them a practice that they would find to be illegal when later playing
serious competitive chess.
Virtually all the other changes are of a minor nature. Some are cosmetic, some trying to
clarify certain Laws and some correct small errors such as punctuation or typos. I am particularly
proud of my spotting one error in 3.7e. Introduction of the word new means that it is not
allowed to promote using a piece already on the board. The drafting error slipped into the Laws
in 1997, but prior to that they were not absolutely clear on this point either. Of course it doesnt
really matter, because nobody had ever thought of promoting in this manner. Have I really
rewritten a rule that hasnt hitherto been correctly stated for 1500 years?
It is hoped that the Laws are written in such a way that an intelligent teenager could learn
how to play from them. Such a person would only need to study the first section, Rules of Play.
The Competition Rules are much more complex and it would be extremely laborious to try to
understand them without real-life practice.
It has often been said that the Preface is the most important section of the Laws. To give
one example, consider the matter of 5.1a. It is just commonsense; clearly the move giving
checkmate must be a legal one. Otherwise 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Qxf7mate would conclude the
game. Now consider the following game in rapidplay or blitz 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4
Qh5 Nd4 5 Qxf7 mate. What has happened is that White picked up his queen on move 4. Black
knew there was only one possible move with the queen and played Nd4 before White had taken
his hand off the queen. Thus White seized the opportunity and played Qh5 followed by the mate,
which itself would be entirely within the Laws of Chess. The arbiter, if called in, would simply
rule against White, quoting the Preface that the Laws cannot cover all possible situations and/or

74

Article 12.1 against bringing the game into disrepute. We havent written the Law to make this
scenario impossible because we dont know how to express it. I dont think I would forfeit
White in this game, he is simply being cheeky. But I would make him move the queen again on
move 5; after all he had touched it.
Herewith comments, some of which I have made in previous editions.
1.2. Chess teachers and arbiters are always concerned when new players get the
impression the idea of the game is to win ones opponents king. The Laws of chess would be
much simpler if it were so, but of course the idea is to checkmate the king. In blitz taking the
king has been a time-honoured way of claiming a win, when a king is left en prise. Some arbiters
dislike this and have now managed to outlaw it through a sort of front door. If I am ever faced by
the situation where a player had left his king en prise and then found it had been captured, I
would not award a win to the kingless player. He should not profit from making an illegal move.
I would reinstate the correct position and continue the game.
4.3b). Consider COH1. White picks up his bishop and plays 1 Bxf6ch. This is illegal and
he must now replace the bishop and play 1 Rxf6 which loses. It is contrary to the spirit of the
Laws where a player should not suffer because of a pure accident. I have never pressed this
matter and the Law has not changed since 1997.
6.5 and 6.6 are unfair if followed in the normal way. If neither player is present on time,
why should White be penalised and Black not? I believe the USCF have a more equitable rule
where, if two players are both 40 minutes late, both lose 20 minutes on the clock. This would
however be harder to manage.
6.8a. I was recently asked about this by an experienced arbiter. Consider COH2. Black
touches the pawn on e5, but before he can complete the move, his flag falls. Perhaps the rate of
play is 40 moves in 2 hours and this was move 39. He loses, even though the rule will require
him to play 1Rxe5. He has not completed his move. If you have any doubt over this matter,
consider it to be a race between the clock and thinking time.
6.8d and 8.1 refer to a similar matter. Under the guidance of David Welch, in Britain
where a player is physically disabled, there is no time penalty. I dont know the practice
elsewhere. The issue of a player unable to move the pieces has never been considered, but this is
not unusual and the only decision to be considered is whether to award the disabled player extra
time.
6.9. I have long-believed the arbiter should not step in and a flag fall should only be
called by the player. This would be a substantial philosophical change and I would like to see it
reconsidered in 2008.
6.15 I am surprised I have never heard of this leading to arguments. The display clock
might show 40 moves have been made, but the truth of the matter is that only 39 have taken
place. The truth takes precedence.
8.2 Occasionally you still see an arbiter who believes this means the whole scoresheet
must be visible at all times and keeps darting in and moving a pen that obscures some of the
sheet. Even ignoring that the letter of the Law does not state this, the arbiter may well distract
the other player and this is an appalling thing to do.

75

9.1b. I still frequently forget to do this, yet it is important. I keep meaning to introduce a
display card to indicate that a player has offered a draw. It would not do for an event where two
or more games were played on a table; the possibility of confusion is too great. When Kasparov
played Kramnik in London in 2000, they had buttons on their table which, when one pressed it, a
light shone. Thus everybody could know what was going on. There is nothing in the Laws
against this.
9.2. I thought I had put this to bed in 1997, but again discussion has broken out on what
constitutes an identical position and the wording of the Law. Two positions can be optically
identical, but in fact differ. Consider position COH3 where Black could castle were it his move.
Play continues 1 Qa4ch Rd7 2 Qa8ch Rd8 3 Qe4ch Kf7 4 Qf4ch Ke8 5 Qa4ch. The
position is not identical to the starting position. Black will never now be able to castle, though he
cannot anyway in the actual position under consideration. Thus, in the first position, the right to
castle is temporarily not allowed because it is not permitted to castle out of check. In the second,
the right has been removed permanently once
The opinion has been expressed that had the game followed 1 Qe4ch Kf7 2 Qf4ch Ke8 3
Qe4ch Kd7 4 Qf5ch Ke8, White would not have been able to claim a draw with 5 Qe4ch
because Black did not lose his right to castle until he first moved the king. This cannot be
correct, the move 1 Qe4ch stops black ever castling.
10.2 continues to give arbiters problems. 10.2b is a substantial improvement on the 2001
version. When I was in South Africa and held a seminar, the local arbiters wanted to spend the
whole time discussing nothing else. For high level events which I organise I have solved the
problem for me by using the cumulative (Fischer) mode. There should be no problem, provided
you apply the following rules of thumb:
1. Only award a draw if you are absolute certain it is the correct decision.
2. Remember 12.1, if a loss would bring the game into disrepute, award a draw.
3. If in doubt, postpone your decision and dont award the opponent two extra minutes.
4. It is fine to consult other people before making your decision.
OK, so you will need four thumbs, but any good arbiter can solve that problem!
You may not have enough digital clocks for all boards, which is why you dont use a
cumulative time mode. In this case, why not introduce such a clock late in the game? The time
added on each move could be as little as 5 seconds. Players must be alerted to this before the
start of the tournament. If you are worried about scheduling when playing two or three rounds
per day, then use time delay rather than cumulative. This works well in the United States,
although I believe 2 seconds as used there to be too short a time.
At the end of the chapter there is a quiz on 10.2, mainly because people like quizzes.
12.2b Some British arbiters have waxed lyrical on this one. Of course the word strictly is
unnecessary. It is true that it is impossible to police what people bring into a playing venue,
especially if it is an event where no arbiter is present, which is commonplace in Britain. No harm

76

is done because you can regard bringing such equipment in to the playing venue as having been
authorised by the arbiter or organising committee.
13.7b Clearly this is an error, it should read: It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile
phone in the playing area and any other part of the venue designated by the arbiter. As written it
allows the arbiter to ban mobile phones anywhere in the world - mind you that is not a bad idea.
Appendix B5 David Welch is concerned that there is now no comment on when you are
no longer allowed to make a claim.

77

Quiz on 10.2
Herewith 7 positions to consider. In all of them White has less than 2 minutes remaining on his
clock and Black 10. It is White to move. Remember you have three choices: to accept the claim;
to reject the claim and award the opponent an extra 2 minutes; to postpone your decision and
possibly award the opponent an extra 2 minutes.
In position 6, White announces his strategy will be to remain on the diagonal f5-h7 and
capture the c pawn if it is advanced.
1. Postpone the decision and award the opponent an extra 2 minutes. Remain as an observer to
count off the moves silently.
Q What would you do if 50 moves are reached? Answer at end.
2. Reject the claim. If Black is a weak player, you might decide to postpone your decision,
otherwise you may alert him to the fact he is completely winning.
3. Postpone your decision. If White plays 1 Rc7ch and continues checking on the rank, award a
draw.
4. Postpone your decision.
5. Postpone your decision. If Black wants to risk losing, he is entitled to try to win.
6. Award a draw.
Q What would you do if Black appealed against your decision? Answer at end.
7. Postpone your decision.
Q Play continues 50 Be4 Kd8 51 Bf3 Ke7 52 Bg2 Be8 53 Bf3 Kd7 54 Bg4ch Ke7 55 Bf3 Bd7
56 Bg2 Kd8 57 Bf3 Kc7 58 Be4 Be6 59 Bf3 Kd7 60 Be4 Bf5 61 Bf3 Bh3 62 Be4 Bf1. Now
Whites flag fell. What is your decision? Answer at end.
1Q Award a draw.
6Q Tell black he has no right of appeal.
7Q Award a draw. Indeed, I would have stepped in a little earlier, while White still had time on
his clock.

78

CHAPTER 12
Withdrawals
1. If a player withdraws before the start of an event, he should be replaced.
2. If a player withdraws during a knock-out, he is not replaced and his opponent receives a bye
into the next round.
3. If a player withdraws during a Swiss, he is sometimes replaced by a filler. Personally I abhor
wins by default as do many contestants.
a) if the withdrawal takes place after the draw has been announced, the filler replaces the
defaulting player in the draw for that round.
b) for subsequent rounds, if any, he is placed in his correct position in the draw, justified
by his rating or score.
c) often subsequently there is another withdrawal. The filler may be taken out of the draw in
order to make the numbers even again, or a new filler may be introduced.
4. If a player withdraws during a round-robin, traditionally he isnt replaced. He could be,
particularly in events paying attention to title opportunities, but FIDE have never ruled on this
matter.
Tournament Chart
The players results stand for rating and historical purposes.
In a Round-robin
1. Where the player has played less than half the games, his score is deleted from the
tournament table for prize money purposes.
2. Where the player has played half or more of the games, his results stand and he is deemed to
have lost the remaining games by default.
3. In a double-round all-play-all tournament, where each player meets his opponents in two
separate cycles, each half of the tournament is treated by Rule 1 or 2 as if a separate
tournament. e.g. an 8 player double round all-play-all:
a) If a competitor plays fewer than 4 games, then his score is deleted from the tournament.
b) If he plays 4 to 7 games, then the results stand and those not played are lost by forfeit.
c) If he plays 8 to 10 games, then the results from the first half stand while he loses the
entire second half by forfeit.
d) If he plays more than 10 games, then his results stand and the remainder are lost by forfeit.

Geurt Gijssen, Chairman of the Rules Committee, disagrees with me about this. He believes a
double round tournament should be treated in the same manner as a single round. Of course

79

this is correct if the two game matches are played consecutively. For such an event, the
regulations should be announced in advance.
Prizes
Where a player withdraws through no fault of his own, unless stipulated otherwise, he
receives the full prize money due to him at the conclusion of the event. Also he is not required to
return any appearance money already received.
Where a player withdraws without any good reason during an event, the organiser must
decide about the disposition of his prize money, appearance money and expenses. This decision
may possibly be subject to review by an Appeal Committee.

80

CHAPTER 13
Tie-Break Systems
It is often necessary to break a break a tie between players in a tournament. Since there
can be no perfect of doing this, it should be avoided where possible. A play-off is best and this is
discussed on Page XX. Spectators enjoy such matches. It is best to offer extra prize money, if
possible. Whatever system used, it should be announced in advance of the start of the
tournament.
Team Knockout Matches
Ties are usually resolved by assuming it is better to win on a high board than on a low
one. The Board numbers on which each team has won are summed and the team with the Lower
Board Count wins. If the Board Counts are the same, then eliminate the bottom board, etc. until
the tie is resolved. Consider the following matches:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Reuben
Iljumzhinov
Campomanes
Gijssen
Krause
Abundo

Anand
Kramnik
Topalov
Shirov
Morozevich
Adams

1-0
0-1
0-1
1-0
1-0
0-1

-
0-1
1-0
1-0
0-1
-

Result 1: The Organisers win on 1, 4 and 5. Total 10. The Players win on 2, 3 and 6.
Total 11. The Organisers are declared the winners.
Result 2: The Organisers win on 3 and 4. Total 7. The Players win on 2 and 5. Total 7.
Now End Board Elimination is used. Board 6 is a draw. The Players win on Board 5. Thus the
Organisers again triumph.
At least this system has the merit of encouraging teams to play in order of strength. It
favours the team that wins the toss and thus has White on Board 1.
Official FIDE Tie-break Systems
Where a player does not play a game for whatever reason, irrespective of the result, the
game shall be counted as a draw against the player himself for systems using the results between
the players, Buchholz # or Sonneborn-Berger. For Koya and Sum of Progressive *, it is the
result itself which counts.
Individual Round-robin Tournaments
a) The results between all the players involved in the tie.
b) Koya System. This is the number of points scored against all players who have scored 50% or
more.
c) Koya System extended: step by step, the highest score groups with less than 50% are
included. It could be extended by deleting results 50% and then above.

81

d) Sonneborn-Berger (This is explained on Page XX and is, in my opinion, complicated

nonsense whenever used for tie-breaks.)
e) Number of won games.
If the extended Koya system does not work, then the players involved in the tie have drawn
with each other and had identical results. There is no way to break such a tie, except in favour of
the player who has played more games with Black.

At Linares in 2005, the system used was the player to win more games with black.
Team Round-robin Tournaments
a) Where game points have been used for the initial ranking, match points scored.
b) Where match points have been used for the initial ranking, game points scored.
c) The results between the teams involved in the tie.
d) Sonneborn-Berger.

I do not understand why the Koya System is not used in preference to (d).
Swisses
There is no good tie-break system for Swisses. The players have each met a field
assigned to them by the controller, so why break the tie artificially? Often there is no time for a
play-off. Thus tie-breaks become a necessary evil for qualifying places, titles or trophies.
Individual Swisses where all the Players have Reliable Ratings
a) Average rating of opponents, deleting where necessary the lowest rated opponent(s) in order
to find a difference.
b) Tournament Performance Rating, including the 350 point rule B.02.10.67.

This is unfair on a player who accidentally meets a much lower rated opponent. The
games of the players involved in the tie should be eliminated, otherwise the lowest rated player
has an advantage. (b) may favour a higher rated player.
Individual Swisses where only a majority of players have reliable ratings
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

The results between the players involved in the tie.

Sum of Progressive Score.*
Sum of Opponents Scores (Buchholz).#
Sonneborn-Berger.
Number of won games.

82

Individual Swisses where most or all players are not rated

a)
b)
c)
d)

The results between the players involved in the tie.

Buchholz.
Sonneborn-Berger.
Number of won games.

It would seem more sensible to use the system immediately above.

Team Swiss Tournaments
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Where game points have been used for the initial rankings, match points.
Where match points have been used for the initial rankings, game points.
The results between the teams involved in the tie.
Buchholz.
Sonneborn-Berger.

1) * Sum of Progressive Score. The highest score wins. If still tied, deduct the first round score
and, if necessary, the second, etc. This has the merit of great simplicity and players know
where they stand at the start of the last round. Usually players who start off well meet
stronger opposition. But consider the following: Player A Progressive Score 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5.
Total 20. Player B 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Total 15. A is declared the winner by a massive margin,
but probably lost to B in the last round.
2) # Buchholz. There are many variations to this system of summing the scores of the opponents
of the tied players. E.g. ignoring the score of the lowest scoring opponent. This system works
reasonably well but suffers from the massive defects that the players do not know where they
stand going into the last round and also may have to sit around waiting for two other players
to decide their fate.
3) Vlastimil Hort System This is used to divide up prize money in Swisses. It is well-regarded.
Where a group of players tie for a number of prizes, half the money is divided equally. The
other half is awarded in order of Buchholz Score.
a) Where a group of players tie for a number of prizes, some tournaments award all the prize
money on a given score in order of Buchholz. This is totally wrong. The prize distribution
depends on the whim of players who may have lost interest in the tournament. Players who
start well, can coast in towards the end with quick draws, knowing it probably does not matter
if others tie with them with a late sprint.
4) Resolve in favour of the player who has won more games. This rewards more positive chess,
but the winner becomes the player who has lost more games.
5) Resolve in favour of the player who has had to play more Blacks.

83

This chapter is outdated and included

only for historical purposes and
accuracy to the original printed version
of this book.

CHAPTER 14
B.01 International Title Regulations of FIDE

The full regulations are extremely daunting for

somebody who wishes just to run a title tournament or to found out whether a player has gained
a title result. What follows are those sections of the total regulations relevant to that task. The
paragraph numbering has been retained as you would find in the FIDE Handbook on
www.fide.com. Examples of the situations which may arise are given at the end of the chapter.
0.3

The International FIDE titles shall be under the umbrella of the Qualification
Commission, which is the final judging unit. The titles are:
0.31 Titles for over-the-board standard chess (as defined in 1.14), the judging unit
being the FIDE Titles and Ratings Committee:
Grandmaster (GM), International Master (IM), FIDE Master (FM), Candidate
Master (CM),Woman Grandmaster (WGM), Woman International Master
(WIM), Woman FIDE Master (WFM), Woman Candidate Master
(WCM),HonoraryGrandmaster (HGM),Honorary Master (HM).
0.32 Titles for chess composition, the judging unit being the Permanent Commission
of FIDE for Chess Compositions: Grandmaster of Solving (GS), International
Master of Solving (IMS), FIDE Master of Solving (FMS); Grandmaster of
Composing (GMC), International Master of Composing (IMC), FIDE Master of
Composing (FMC); International Judge of Chess Composition (IJCC).
0.33 Titles for correspondence chess, the judging unit being the International
Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF).
0.34 Chess Instructor Title, the judging unit being the FIDE Trainers Committee.
0.35 Titles awarded for meritorious activity other than practical play. Such titles have
the object of bestowing honours and shall be awarded by the General Assembly.

0.4

The titles are valid for life from the date awarded or registered.
0.41 Use of a FIDE title or rating to subvert the ethical principles of the title or rating
system may subject a person to revocation of his title upon recommendation by
the Qualification Commission and final action by the General Assembly.

0.5

The Award of Titles

0.51 Titles in 0.31 are awarded for specific results in specific Championship events;
or are awarded on achieving a rating as laid down in these regulations. Such
titles are registered by theChairman of the Qualification Commission on advice
by the FIDE Office;
or are awarded by the General Assembly on recommendation by the
Qualification Commission that the candidate meets the requirements.
0.52 The Presidential Board or Executive Board may award titles under 0.31, or
0.34in clear cases only, after consultation with the appropriate chairman.
0.53 For 0.33, the ICCF both judges and awards the titles; upon receiving the report
of the award, the General Assembly shallconfirm the title.
0.54 The date a title is achieved is the date of the last norm or the date of fulfilling the
necessary rating, whichever comes later.

84

1.0 Requirements for titles designated in 0.31

1.1

1.2

Administration
1.11 Play to be governedby the FIDE Laws of Chess and FIDE Tournament Rules.
1.12 That there be no more than twelve hours play in one day.
1.13 That no more than two rounds be played on any one day.
1.14 Without an increment of a minimum of 30 seconds for each move, the minimum
time is 2 hours and 30 minutes.
With an increment of a minimum of 30 seconds for each move, the minimum
time is 120 minutes in which to complete all the moves, based upon a game
lasting 60 moves.
1.14a Examplesof standard chess include:
All the moves in 90 minutes, but for each move a player receives an
extra 30 seconds added to his clock time.
40 moves in two hours, followed by all the moves in one hour.
40 moves in two hours, 20 moves in one hour, followed by all the
moves in 30 minutes.
40 moves in two hours, 20 moves in one hour, followed by 15 minutes
plus 30 seconds per move to finish the game.
1.15 The event must be played within a period of 90 days.
An exception may be made for leagues and national team championships, which
last for a period greater than 90 days. The Rating List in effect at the start of the
competition shall be used for title purposes.
1.16 The tournament shall be conducted by an International Arbiter. Failing that, by a
FIDE Arbiter. Failing that,supervised by an International Arbiter.
Titles achieved from International Championships:
1.21 As indicated below, a player may gain a title from such an event or, gain a single
title result (norm). The requirements in 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 have to
be applied.
The minimum score is 35% for all titles. The result shown is the minimum
required. The term norm is explained in 1.4.
Grandmaster
GM

International Master
IM

World Championship

reaching last 16

qualifying over the board

Womens World Champ.

winner
runner up = 9 game-norm

runner-up

World U-20-Championship

gold
1st =, 9 game norm

silver, bronze

World Senior Championship

gold

silver

Olympiad/Womens Olympiad

9 or more games 2600+

= 20 game norm

9 or more games 2450+

= 20 game norm

Continental Championship

9 or more games 2600+

9 or more games 2450+

85

= 20 game norm
gold = 9 game norm

= 20 game norm
1st =, up to 3

Continental U-20 Champ.

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

Continental Womens Champ.

9 or more games 2600+

= 20 game norm

9 or more games 2450+

= 20 game norm

Continental Senior Champ.

gold = 9 game norm

gold
silver/bronze = 9 game norm

Arab Championship

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

Arab U-20 Championship

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

Centroamerican-Caribbean U-20

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

Southern American-U-20

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

World U-18 Championship

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

World U-16 Championship

gold = 9 game norm

Continental U-18 Champ.

Continental U-16 Champ.

gold = 9 game norm

gold = 9 game norm

World Girls U-20 Champ.

gold = 9 game norm

Commonwealth Champ.

1st =, up to 3

Zonal or sub zonal

1st =, up to 3
9 or more games 2450+
= 20 game norm
9 or more games
2/3rds. (b)

IBCA-Championship
ICSC-Championship
IPCA-Championship

1st =, up to 3
1st =, up to 3
1st =, up to 3
Woman-Grandmaster
WGM

Woman International
Master
WIM

Womens World Champ.

winner GM title
(finalist IM title)
reaching last 8

qualifying over the board

World Girls U-20 Champ.

gold
gold 9 game IM norm

silver, bronze

86

1st =, 9 game norm

Womens World Senior Champ.

gold

silver

Olympiad/Womens Olympiad

9 or more games 2400+

= 20 game norm

9 or more games 2250+

= 20 game norm

Womens Continental Champ.

9 or more games 2400+ 9 or more games 2250+

= 20 game norm
= 20 game norm
gold
1st =, up to 3

Girls Continental U-20 Champ.

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

Womens Arab Championship

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

Girls U-20 Arab Champ.

gold = 9 game norm

1st, up to 3

Girls Centroamerican-Caribbean
U-20 Championship

gold = 9 game norm

1st, up to 3

Girls Southern American

U-20 Championship

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

World Girls U-18 Champ.

gold = 9 game norm

1st =, up to 3

Womens Commonwealth Champ.

1st =, up to 3

Girls World U-16 Champ.

gold = 9 game norm

Girls Continental U-18/16 Champ. gold = 9 game norm

Womens zonal or sub zonal

1st =, up to 3
9 or more games 2250+
20 game norm (a)
9 or more games
2/3rds. (b)

Womens IBCA-Champ.
Womens ICSC-Champ.
Womens IPCA-Champ.

1st =, up to 3
1st =, up to 3
1st =, up to 3

FIDE Master
FM

Candidate Master
CM

Olympiad

9 game 2/3rds.

7 game 50 %

World or Continental
Team Championship

7 game 2/3rds.

7 game 50 %

87

World U16/14/12/10 Champ.

1st =, up to 3

silver, bronze

IBCA, ICSC, IPCA World Champs.

silver bronze

IBCA, ICSC, IPCA U20

World Champs.

1st =, up to 3

silver, bronze

Continental, ASEAN or Arab

U-18/16/14/12/10 Champs.

1st =, up to 3

silver, bronze

Americas Regional Youth Festival

U-18/16/14/12/10

1st =, up to 3

Zonal or sub zonal

9 game 50 % (c)

9 game 40 % (c)

World Amateur Championship

gold

1st = or silver

Woman FIDE Master

Woman Candidate
Master
WCM

WFM
Womens Olympiad

9 game 2/3rds.

7 game 50 %

Womens World or
Continental Team Champ.

7 game 2/3rds.

7 game 50 %

World U16/14/12/10 Champ.

1st =, up to 3

silver, bronze

Womens IBCA, ICSC,

IPCA World Champs.

1st =, up to 3

silver, bronze

Girls Continental, ASEAN or Arab

U-18/16/14/12/10 Champs.
1st =, up to 3

silver, bronze

Americas Regional Youth Girls

Festival U-18/16/14/12/10 Champs.

1st, up to 3

Zonal or sub zonal

9 game 50 % (c)

9 game 40 % (c)

World Amateur Champ.

gold

1st =, or silver

Remarks:
(a) Wheresuch an event is played with preliminaries and finals, the results shall be pooled.
(b) Such an event must be approved by the Presidential Board. Results are pooled as in (a).
Where a zonal is an open Swiss, only the highest scoring or the highest placed on tie-break
shall be awarded the title.

88

(c) As in (b), but where a zonal is an open Swiss only the two highest scoring or the highest
placed on tie-break shall be awarded the title.
1st = means shared first place.
1.3

1.4

Those titles gained by achieving a published rating at some time or other:

1.31 FIDE Master
2300
1.32 Candidate Master
2200
1.33 Women FIDE Master
2100
1.34 Women Candidate Master
2000
The GM, IM, WGM, WIM titles can also be gained by achieving norms in
internationally rated tournaments played according to the following regulations.
1.41 The number of games
1.41a The player must play at least 9 games, however
1.41b Only 7 games are required for 7 round Continental and World Team
Championships.
Only 8 games are required for 8 or 9 round Continental and World
Team Championships.
Only 8 games are required for the World Knock-out Championship.
1.41c Where a player exceeds the norm requirements by one or more full
points, then the length of the tournament is considered to be extended
by that number of games when the computing the total number of
games.
1.42

Games as follows are not included.

1.42a against opponents who do not belong to FIDE-federations or who
belong to federations, which are temporarily excluded when the event
starts.
1.42b against computers
1.42c decided by forfeit, adjudication or any means other than over the board
play. Other games once started, which are forfeited for whatever
reason, shall however be included. However, a player may be
scheduled to meet an opponent in the last round. He needs to play, but
could afford to lose. Then, if the opponent forfeits, the norm shall still
count.
1.42d against unrated players who score zero or half against rated opponents
in round robin tournaments.
1.42e A player may ignore his game(s) against any opponents he has
defeated, provided this leaves him with at least 9 games, against the
required mix of opponents. Nonetheless, the full cross-table of the
event must be submitted.
1.42f A player who has achieved a title result before the last round may
ignore all games played subsequently, provided he has met the required
mix of opponents.
1.42g Tournaments that make changes to favour one or more players (for
example by altering the number of rounds, or providing particular
opponents, not otherwise participating in the event.)

1.43

Federations ofopponents

89

1.43a

1.45

The finals (but not preliminaries) of national mens championships and

also national womens championships. See 1.43b1.
1.43b National team championships.
1.43b1 Title applications must include at least one tournament based
on an event other than 1.43a and/or 1.43b.
1.43c Zonal tournaments.
1.43d Tournaments of other types may also be included with the prior
approval of the QC Chairman.
Titles ofopponents
1.45f Multi-round tournaments need a minimum of six players. A players
title shall only be counted once when computing the number of titled
players required.

1.46

Rating of opponents
1.46b The Rating List in effect at the start of the tournament shall be used.
1.46c For the purposes of norms, the minimum rating (adjusted rating floor)
for the opponents shall be as follows:
Grandmaster
2250
International Master
2100
Woman Grandmaster
2050
Woman International Master
1900
1.46c1 No more than two opponents shall have their rating raised to
this adjusted rating floor. Where more than two opponents
are below the floor, the rating of the lowest two opponents
shall be raised.
1.46d Unrated opponents not covered by 1.46c shall be considered to be rated
at the rating floor level, in 2005 it was 1600.

1.47

Rating Average of Opponents (Rt)

1.47a This is the total of the opponents ratings divided by the number of
opponents. 1.46 shall be taken into account.
1.47b Rounding of the Rating Average is made to the nearest whole number.
In this instance the fraction 0.5 is rounded upward.

1.48

Performance Rating (Rp)

In order to achieve a norm, a player must perform at a level at least of that
shown below:
Minimum level
prior to rounding
GM
IM
WGM
WIM

1.49

2600.5
2450.5
2400.5
2250.5

Minimum level
after rounding
2601
2451
2401
2251

Determining whether a result is adequate for a norm, dependent on the average

rating of the opponents.
Chart 1.49a shows the rating range for tournaments up to 19 rounds.

90

Tables 1.49a
These tables have been prepared such that the minimum average rating of the opponents is 2381
for a GM norm, 2231 for a IM norm, 2181 for a WGM norm and 2031 for a WIM norm, and that
the minimum score is 35% for all titles.
See 1.46c concerning the rating floor of low rated opponents. For a maximum of 2 opponents,
they are raised to a minimum of GM norm 2250, IM 2100, WGM 2050, WIM 1900.
Available only for 7 round Continental and World Team Championships
7 rounds
GM
IM
WGM
WIM
Different opponents from 3 gm
2gm or 3 im 3 of
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm
gm/im/wgm/fm gm/im/wgm/fm
Rating floor for 2 players 2250
2100
2050
1900
Different opponents of
4
4
4
4
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wm
Min. number rated
6
6
6
6
Max. From 1 fed.
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Max. From own fed.
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Min. Other feds.
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
5
2381-2442
2231-2292
2181-2242
2031-2092
5
2443-2498
2293-2348
2243-2298
2093-2148
4
2499-2550
2349-2400
2299-2350
2149-2200
4
2551-2600
2401-2450
2351-2400
2201-2250
3
2601-2650
2451-2500
2401-2450
2251-2300
3
2651-2702
2501-2552
2451-2502
2301-2352
2
2703
2553
2503
2353
Available only for 8 or 9 round Continental and World Team Championships
8 rounds
GM
IM
WGM
WIM
Different opponents from 3 gm
2gm or 3 im 3 of
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm
gm/im/wgm/fm gm/im/wgm/fm
Rating floor for 2 players 2250
2100
2050
1900
Different opponents of
4
4
4
4
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wfm
Min. number rated
7
7
7
7
Max. From 1 fed.
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Max. from own fed.
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Min. Other feds.
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
6
2381-2407
2231-2257
2181-2207
2031-2057
6
2408-2459
2258-2309
2208-2259
2058-2109
5
2460-2505
2310-2355
2260-2305
2110-2155
5
2506-2557
2356-2407
2306-2357
2156-2207
4
2558-2600
2408-2450
2358-2400
2208-2250
4
2601-2643
2451-2493
2401-2443
2251-2293
3
2644-2687
2494-2537
2444-2487
2294-2337
3
2688
2538
2488
2338

91

*The regulations regarding mix of federations as in the boxes marked * are waived if the event is
a Swiss System tournament in which the competitors include at least 20 FIDE Rated players, not
from the host federation, from at least 3 federations, at least 10 of whom hold GM, IM, WGM or
WIM titles.
See 1.46c concerning the rating floor of low rated opponents.
9 rounds
Different opponents from
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm
*Min. Other feds.
Rating floor for 2 players
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wm
Min. number rated
*Max. From 1 fed.
*Max. From own fed.
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im
2
2100
5

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
2050
5

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
1900
5

2
2250
5
7
6
5
2381-2434
2435-2475
2476-2520
2521-2557
2558-2600
2601-2643
2644-2680
2681

7
6
5
2231-2284
2285-2325
2326-2370
2371-2407
2408-2450
2451-2493
2494-2530
2531

7
6
5
2181-2234
2235-2275
2276-2320
2321-2357
2358-2400
2401-2443
2444-2480
2481

7
6
5
2031-2084
2085-2125
2126-2170
2171-2207
2208-2250
2251-2293
2294-2330
2331

For 10 rounds or more it is possible that deleting a game that has been won could be
advantageous.
SR refers to single round and DR to double round events.
10 rounds
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wfm
Min. Other feds.
Rating floor for 2 players
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wfm
*Min. number rated
*Max. From 1 fed.
*Max. From own fed.
8
7
7
6
6
5
5

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im

2
2250
SR
5

2
2100
SR
5

DR
3

8
4
6
3
6
3#
2381-2407
2408-2451
2452-2490
2491-2528
2529-2564
2565-2600
2601-2636

DR
3

8
4
6
3
6
3#
2231-2257
2258-2301
2302-2340
2341-2378
2379-2414
2415-2450
2451-2486

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
2050
SR
DR
5
3

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
1900
SR
DR
5
3

8
4
6
3
6
3#
2181-2207
2208-2251
2252-2290
2291-2328
2329-2364
2365-2400
2401-2436

8
4
6
3
6
3#
2031-2057
2058-2101
2102-2140
2141-2178
2179-2214
2215-2250
2251-2286

92

4
2637-2672
2487-2522
2437-2472
2287-2322
4
2673-2710
2523-2560
2473-2525
2323-2360
3
2711
2561
2511
2361
#If there were 4 players from 1 federation out of the 6 contestants, neither of the other 2 players
would be able to gain a title norm. This would be fine if, for example, both were GMs.
11 rounds
Different opponents from
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm
*Min. Other feds.
Rating floor for 2 players
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wfm
Min. number rated
*Max. From 1 fed.
*Max. From own fed.
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im
2
2100
6

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
2050
6

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
1900
6

2
2250
6
9
7
6
2381-2389
2390-2425
2426-2467
2468-2498
2499-2535
2536-2564
2565-2600
2601-2636
2637-2665
2666-2702
2703

9
7
6
2231-2239
2240-2275
2276-2317
2318-2348
2349-2385
2386-2414
2415-2450
2451-2486
2487-2515
2516-2552
2553

9
7
6
2181-2189
2226-2267
2226-2267
2268-2298
2299-2335
2336-2364
2365-2400
2401-2436
2437-2465
2466-2502
2503

9
7
6
2031-2039
2040-2075
2076-2117
2118-2148
2149-2185
2186-2214
2215-2250
2251-2286
2287-2315
2316-2352
2353

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm

2
2050
SR
6

2
1900
SR
6

SR refers to single round and DR to double round events.

12 rounds
GM
IM
Different opponents of
3 gm
2gm or 3 im
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wf
m
Min. Other feds.
2
2
Rating floor for 2 players 2250
2100
SR
DR SR
DR
Different opponents of
6
3
6
3
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wf
m
*Min. number rated
10
5
10
5
*Max. From 1 fed.
6
4
6
4
*Max. From own fed.
6
3#
6
3#
9
2381-2407
2231-2257
9
2408-2442
2258-2292
8
2443-2475
2293-2325
8
2476-2505
2326-2355
7
2506-2543
2356-2393
7
2544-2571
2394-2421
6
2572-2600
2422-2450

DR
3

10
5
6
4
6
3#
2181-2207
2208-2242
2243-2275
2276-2305
2306-2343
2344-2371
2372-2400

DR
3

10
5
6
4
6
3#
2031-2057
2058-2092
2093-2125
2126-2155
2156-2193
2194-2221
2222-2250

93

6
2601-2629
2451-2479
2401-2429
2251-2279
5
2630-2657
2480-2507
2430-2457
2280-2307
5
2658-2687
2508-2537
2458-2487
2308-2337
4
2688
2538
2488
2338
#If there were 4 players from 1 federation out of the 7 contestants, none of the other 3 players
would be able to gain a title norm. This would be fine if, for example, all were GMs.
13 rounds
Different opponents from
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm
*Min. Other feds.
Rating floor for 2 players
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wf
m
Min. number rated
*Max. From 1 fed.
*Max. From own fed.
*Min. Other feds.
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
14 rounds
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wf
m
Min. Other feds.
Rating floor for 2 players
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wf
m
*Min. number rated
*Max. From 1 fed.
*Max. From own fed.
11
10
10

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im
2
2100
7

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
2050
7

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
1900
7

2
2250
7

11
8
7
2
2381-2389
2390-2425
2426-2459
2460-2490
2491-2513
2514-2543
2544-2571
2572-2600
2601-2629
2630-2657
2658-2687
2688

11
8
7
2
2231-2239
2240-2275
2276-2309
2310-2340
2341-2363
2364-2393
2394-2421
2422-2450
2451-2479
2480-2507
2508-2537
2538

11
8
7
2
2181-2189
2190-2225
2226-2259
2260-2290
2291-2313
2314-2343
2344-2371
2372-2400
2401-2429
2430-2457
2458-2487
2488

11
8
7
2
2031-2039
2040-2075
2076-2109
2110-2140
2141-2163
2164-2193
2194-2221
2222-2250
2251-2279
2280-2307
2308-2337
2338

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm

2
2250
SR
7

2
2100
SR
7

2
2050
SR
7

2
1900
SR
7

DR
4

11
6
6
4
6
4#
2381-2407
2408-2442
2443-2467

DR
4

11
6
6
4
6
4#
2231-2257
2258-2292
2293-2317

DR
4

11
6
6
4
6
4#
2181-2207
2208-2242
2243-2267

DR
4

11
6
6
4
6
4#
2031-2057
2058-2092
2093-2117

94

9
2468-2498
2318-2348
2268-2298
2118-2148
9
2499-2520
2349-2370
2299-2320
2149-2170
8
2521-2550
2371-2400
2321-2350
2171-2200
8
2551-2571
2401-2421
2351-2371
2201-2221
7
2572-2600
2422-2450
2372-2400
2222-2250
7
2601-2629
2451-2479
2401-2429
2251-2279
6
2630-2650
2480-2500
2430-2450
2280-2300
6
2651-2680
2501-2530
2451-2480
2301-2330
5
2681-2702
2531-2552
2481-2502
2331-2352
5
2703
2553
2503
2353
#If there were 5 players from 1 federation out of the 8 contestants, none of the other 3 players
would be able to gain a title norm. This would be fine if, for example, all were GMs.
15 rounds
Different opponents from
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm
*Min. Other feds.
Rating floor for 2 players
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wf
m
Min. number rated
*Max. From 1 fed.
*Max. From own fed.
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
16 rounds
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wf
m
Min. Other feds.
Rating floor for 2 players
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wm
*Min. number rated

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im
2
2100
8

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
2050
8

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
1900
8

2
2250
8

12
10
9
2381-2389
2390-2425
2426-2451
2452-2475
2476-2505
2506-2528
2529-2550
2551-2579
2580-2600
2601-2621
2622-2650
2651-2672
2673-2695
2696

12
10
9
2231-2239
2240-2275
2276-2301
2302-2325
2326-2355
2356-2378
2379-2400
2401-2429
2430-2450
2451-2471
2472-2500
2501-2522
2523-2545
2546

12
10
9
2181-2189
2190-2225
2226-2251
2252-2275
2276-2305
2306-2328
2329-2350
2351-2379
2380-2400
2401-2421
2422-2450
2451-2472
2473-2495
2496

12
10
9
2031-2039
2040-2075
2076-2101
2102-2125
2126-2155
2156-2178
2179-2200
2201-2229
2230-2250
2251-2271
2272-2300
2301-2322
2323-2345
2346

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm

2
2250
SR
8

DR
4

2
2100
SR
8

DR
4

2
2050
SR
8

DR
4

2
1900
SR
8

DR
4

13

11

11

11

95

*Max. From 1 fed.

*Max. From own fed.
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5

10
5
6
4
2381-2407
2408-2442
2443-2467
2468-2498
2499-2520
2521-2550
2551-2571
2572-2600
2601-2629
2630-2650
2651-2680
2681-2702
2703

10
5
6
4
2231-2257
2258-2292
2293-2317
2318-2348
2349-2370
2371-2400
2401-2421
2422-2450
2451-2479
2480-2500
2501-2530
2531-2552
2553

10
5
6
4
2181-2207
2208-2242
2243-2267
2268-2298
2299-2320
2321-2350
2351-2371
2372-2400
2401-2429
2430-2450
2451-2480
2481-2502
2503

10
5
6
4
2031-2057
2058-2092
2093-2117
2118-2148
2149-2170
2171-2200
2201-2221
2222-2250
2251-2279
2280-2300
2301-2330
2331-2352
2353

17 rounds
Different opponents from
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm
*Min. Other feds.
Rating floor for 2 players
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wf
m
Min. number rated
*Max. From 1 fed.
*Max. From own fed.
13
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im

2
2250
9

2
2100
9

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
2050
9

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
1900
9

14
11
10
2381-2398
2399-2416
2417-2442
2443-2467
2468-2490
2491-2513
2514-2535
2536-2557
2558-2579
2580-2600
2601-2621
2622-2643
2644-2665
2666-2687
2688

14
11
10
2231-2248
2249-2266
2267-2292
2293-2317
2318-2340
2341-2363
2356-2385
2386-2407
2408-2429
2430-2450
2451-2471
2472-2493
2494-2515
2516-2537
2538

14
11
10
2181-2198
2199-2216
2217-2242
2243-2267
2268-2290
2291-2313
2306-2335
2336-2357
2358-2379
2380-2400
2401-2421
2422-2443
2444-2465
2466-2487
2488

14
11
10
2031-2048
2049-2066
2067-2092
2093-2117
2118-2140
2141-2163
2156-2185
2186-2207
2208-2229
2230-2250
2251-2271
2272-2293
2294-2315
2316-2337
2338

18 rounds
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wf
m
Min. Other feds.

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm

96

Rating floor for 2 players

Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wm
*Min. number rated
*Max. From 1 fed.
*Max. From own fed.
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
19 rounds
Different opponents from
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm
*Min. Other feds.
Rating floor for 2 players
Different opponents of
gm/im/wgm/wim/fm/wfm
Min. number rated
*Max. From 1 fed.
*Max. From own fed.
15
14
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8

2250
SR
9

DR
5

2100
SR
9

DR
5

2050
SR
9

DR
5

1900
SR
9

DR
5

15
7
12
6
10
5
2381-2407
2408-2434
2435-2459
2460-2475
2476-2498
2499-2520
2521-2543
2544-2557
2558-2579
2580-2600
2601-2621
2622-2643
2644-2657
2658-2680
2681-2702
2703

15
7
12
6
10
5
2231-2257
2258-2284
2285-2309
2310-2325
2326-2348
2349-2370
2371-2393
2394-2407
2408-2429
2430-2450
2451-2471
2472-2493
2494-2507
2508-2530
2531-2552
2553

15
7
12
6
10
5
2181-2207
2208-2234
2235-2259
2260-2275
2276-2298
2299-2320
2321-2343
2344-2357
2358-2379
2380-2400
2401-2421
2422-2443
2444-2457
2458-2480
2481-2502
2502

15
7
12
6
10
5
2031-2057
2058-2084
2085-2109
2110-2125
2126-2148
2149-2170
2171-2193
2194-2207
2208-2229
2230-2250
2251-2271
2272-2293
2294-2307
2308-2330
2331-2352
2353

GM
3 gm

IM
2gm or 3 im

2
2250
10

2
2100
10

WGM
3 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
2050
10

WIM
3 wim or 2 of
gm/im/wgm/fm
2
1900
10

15
12
11
2381-2398
2399-2416
2417-2442
2443-2467
2468-2483
2484-2505
2506-2520
2521-2543
2544-2564
2565-2579
2580-2600
2601-2621
2622-2636
2637-2657
2658-2680

15
12
11
2231-2248
2249-2266
2267-2292
2293-2317
2318-2333
2334-2355
2356-2370
2371-2393
2394-2414
2415-2429
2430-2450
2451-2471
2472-2486
2487-2507
2508-2530

15
12
11
2181-2198
2199-2216
2217-2242
2243-2267
2268-2283
2284-2305
2306-2320
2321-2343
2344-2364
2365-2379
2380-2400
2401-2421
2422-2436
2437-2457
2458-2480

15
12
11
2031-2048
2049-2166
2167-2192
2193-2217
2218-2133
2134-2155
2156-2170
2171-2193
2194-2214
2215-2229
2230-2250
2251-2271
2272-2286
2287-2307
2308-2330

97

7
7

2681-2695
2696

2531-2545
2546

2481-2495
2496

2331-2345
2346

*The regulations regarding mix of federations as in the boxes marked * are waived if the event is
a Swiss System tournament in which the competitors include at least 20 FIDE Rated players, not
from the host federation, from at least 3 federations, at least 10 of whom hold GM, IM, WGM or
WIM titles.
See 1.46c concerning the rating floor of low rated opponents.
Tables for events of more than 19 rounds cannot be prepared from this book. The full Handbook
on the FIDE website must be used together with B.2.10.1(a) and the regulations of B.01
1.5

Requirements for award of the title, having achieved norms

1.50a Two or more norms in events covering at least 27games.
1.50b If a norm is sufficient for more than one title, then it may be used as part of the
application for both.
1.50c To have achieved at some time or other a rating as follows:
2500
GM
IM
2400
WGM
2300
WIM
2200
1.50c1 Such a rating need not be published. It can be obtained in the middle
of a rating period, or even in the middle of a tournament. The player
may then disregard subsequent results for the purpose of their title
application. However the burden of proof then rests with the
federation of the title applicant. It is recommended that players
receive a certificate from the Chief Arbiter where it is believed they
achieve the rating level during an event. Title applications based on
unpublished ratings shall only be accepted by FIDE after agreement
with the Rating Administrator.
1.50d A title result shall be valid if it was obtained in accordance with the
International Title Regulations prevailing at the time of the tournament where
the norm was obtained.
1.50e Title results remain valid for life. Thus there is no time restriction imposed on
obtaining norms.

1.6

Summary of Title Tournament Requirements

Number of games per day
not more than two
Total thinking time
minimum 120/150 minutes
1.14
Period for the whole event
within 90 days
1.15
Administrators in charge
International Arbiter
1.16
Number of games
minimum 9
1.41b-c
Type of event
no individual single matches
Games not included
1.42
against computers
adjudicated games
forfeited before play starts
against players who do not belong to
a FIDE federation

98

against players from

Federations temporarily excluded
Minimum performance rating
GM 2601
IM
2451
WGM 2401
WIM 2251
Minimum average rating opponents GM 2381
IM
2231
WGM 2181
WIM 2031
Minimum score
35 %

1.48

1.49a

1.49a

1.8

Title Tournament Certificates

The Chief Arbiter must prepare in quadruplicate certificates of title results achieved.
These copies must be provided to theplayer, the players federation, the organizing
federation and the FIDE Office. The player is recommended to ask the Chief Arbiter for
the certificate before leaving the tournament. Blank certificates IT1 and IT2 are not
given here. They are available from the FIDE Handbook on the FIDE website.

1.9

Submission of Reports on Title Tournaments

1.91 Such tournaments must be registered as in B.03.
1.92 The Chief Arbiter of a FIDE registered tournament shall send a rating report of
the tournament by registered post or by e-mail to arrive at the FIDE Secretariat
not later than 30 days after the end of the event. This must be certified by him as
a correct report. All Title Certificates must be signed by the Chief Arbiter. The
report must comply with the reporting procedures described in Article 11 of
B.02. An additional compulsory requirement for all tournament reports is the
submission of data as required by the Qualification Commission detailed in
forms 5 and 6 to these Regulations (B 02).
1.93 For a tournament that was not registered in advance with FIDE only the
Federation of the country where the tournament was held shall send in the result.
1.94 The end of a tournament is the date of the last round and the posting date shall
be determined by the postmark on the cover.
1.95 If the Rating Administrator finds that the report is defective to the extent that it
has to be returned for correction, the corrected report must be mailed to the
Secretariat within four weeks of the date indicated by the Rating Administrator.
Failure to do this will mean that the event was not reported for rating.
1.96 Reports sent in more than six months late will not be accepted for rating or title
purposes.
1.97 Federations submitting rating reports must submit all the games played in the
tournament together with the report, if available. The games may be submitted
either on paper or, preferably, in a standard chess database electronic format.

2.0 Regulations for the title International Organizer and FIDE Instructor
2.1 Requirements for the title of International Organizer. All of the following:
2.11 Expertise in the organization of chess events
2.12 Sufficient knowledge of at least one official FIDE language.

99

2.13 Experience as organizer of at least five tournaments of a minimum of two different types,
which have been registered with FIDE in accordance with B.03; or experience as organizer
of at least two different types of FIDE events.
2.2

Requirements for the title of FIDE Instructor. All of the following:

Passing an examination at a seminar.
The Candidates application must be supported by a national federation.
Curriculum vitae with evidence of practical experience on the field.
Certification of present activity for not less than three years work (from national or
local federation).
Two of the following three:
International Rating of at least 2000
2nd level education
Certificates of attendance at not less than three FIDE (or national registered with FIDE)
suitableseminars, congresses or equivalent.

3.0 Requirements for Chess Composition Titles

as established by the regulations of FIDE PCCC.

4.0 Requirements for Correspondence Chess Titles

as established by the regulations of the ICCF.

5.0 Application Procedure

5.1

Application forms for the titles listed in 0.31 and 0.34 are annexed hereto. They are:
Title
Certificate of Title Result
International Organiser
Chess Instructor
Tournament Report Form

Norm Forms
IT1
IO1

Application Forms
IT2
IO2
CI2

IT3

5.2

Applications for these titles must be prepared on these forms and all the information
required supplied together with the application:
GM
IT2, IT1s, each with cross tables
IM
IT2, IT1s, each with cross tables
WGM
IT2, IT1s, each with cross tables
WIM
IT2, IT1s, each with cross tables
IO
IO2, IO1s
CI
CI2

5.3

Applications mustbe submitted to the appropriate judging unit by the federation of the
applicant. The national federation is responsible for the fee.

100

5.3a

5.3b

There is a 60-day deadline in order for applications to be considered properly.

There is a 50% surcharge for applications to be considered in a shorter timescale than this. Those arriving during the FIDE Congress shall be charged a
100% supplement.
All title applications together with full details must be posted on the FIDE
website for aminimum of 60 days prior to finalisation. This is in order for any
objections to be lodged.

SOME EXAMPLES OF TITLES NORMS

Player A has scored 8/10 against an average field of 2379. He has met 3 GMs and 2 FMs.
This is not a GM norm. The minimum field required is 2381. His lowest rated opponent is 2250
an FM. He cannot be deleted from the players field because that would leave the player with
only 4 titled opponents. The next lowest rated opponent is 2290 and he holds no FIDE title, but
Player A drew with him and thus he cannot be deleted. The next one on the list is 2350 and he
holds no FIDE title. Player A did beat him and his field is now 2382 from 9 games after
eliminating the 2350 opponent. Player A has achieved a 9 round GM norm.
Player B is taking part in a 12 player round robin in which three GMs are competing.
After 10 rounds he has 7/10 against a field of 2410. Normally this would be a GM norm, but
he is due to meet his third grandmaster in the last round. This grandmaster is rated 2500. The
average rating of Bs field becomes 2418. He needs to beat this GM in order to achieve a GM
norm.
Woman Player C has a score of 4/9 against a field of 2230. She has met 3 WIMs and 2
WFMs. Her 3 lowest rated opponent are: 1850, 1800 and the third is unrated and thus 1600.
Only two can be raised to the minimum rating floor of 1900. Thus they become for this purpose
1850, 1900 and 1900 respectively. The average rating of her field becomes 2274 for title
purposes and she has achieved the norm.
You will note, having more than 9 rounds provides a measure of flexibility. Also, a
player may have failed to meet the requirement after 9 rounds, but a win at the end propels him
to the norm. Another advantage of a higher rumber of rounds than 9 in a Swiss with unrated
players is that they are more likely to play 9 rated opponents and gain a full FIDE Rating. The
advantage of 9 rounds is economic. Many events take place Saturday to Sunday and this means a
player only has to take one week off work.
It is easy to overlook norms as the regulations have become more complex, but also, I
would like to think, fairer.

101

This chapter is outdated and included

only for historical purposes and
accuracy to the original printed version
of this book.

CHAPTER 15
FIDE Rating Regulations

Approved by the 1982 General Assembly, amended by the General Assemblies of 1984
through 2004.
0.0

Introduction

The basic data for measurement of chess performances must be broad and ample. Play will be
rated by FIDE when it takes place in a FIDE registered competition and meets all the following
requirements.
0.1

The following regulations shall be altered by the General Assembly upon

recommendation of the Qualification Commission.
0.11 Any such changes shall come into effect on 1st July of the year following the
decision by the General Assembly. For tournaments, such changes will apply to
those starting on or after that date.

0.2

In principle, all important events should be rated. All top level tournaments may be
rated by FIDE even if no rating report is submitted by the federation of the territory in
which the event is held.
Rate of Play:
0.2 For a game to be rated each player must have the following minimum
periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60
moves.
1.1..1. Where at least one of the players in the tournament has a rating 2200
or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes.
1.1..2. Where at least one of the players in the tournament has a rating 1600
or higher, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes.
1.1..3. Where all the players in the tournament are rated below 1600, each
player must have a minimum of 60 minutes.
1.1..4. Examples of ways in which 1.11 can be achieved include:
All the moves in two hours.
40 moves in 75 minutes, followed by all the moves in 15 minutes but each time a
player makes a move an extra 30 seconds is added to his clock time.
40 moves in 90 minutes, followed by all the moves in 30 minutes.

102

0.3 Games played with all the moves at a rate faster than the above are excluded
from the list.
0.4 Where a certain number of moves is specified in the first time control, it is
recommended to be 40 moves. Players benefit from uniformity here.
Laws to be followed:
0.5 Play must take place according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
0.6 Smoking is banned in FIDE-rated events. Smoking is not permitted in the
playing hall for the duration of the tournament. This applies to everyone
present - players, officials, media representatives and spectators.
A separate area outside the playing area must be provided where smoking is permitted.
This should be easily accessible from the playing hall. If local ordinances totally
prohibit smoking on the premises, the players and officials must be provided with easy
access outdoors.
Number of rounds per day:
0.7 No more than three rounds per day and a total playing time of no more than
12 hours.
Duration of the event:
0.8

A period not greater than 90 days.

4.11 leagues may be rated which last for a period greater than 90 days.
Unplayed games
0.9 Whether these occur because of forfeiture or any other reason, they are not
counted.
Composition of the tournament
0.10 If an unrated player scores zero or half in his first event, his score and that
of his opponents against him are disregarded.
0.11 The results in events involving preliminaries and finals or play-offs are
pooled.
0.12 In a round robin tournament at least one-third of the players must be rated.
6.31 If the event has less than 10 players, at least 4 must be rated.

103

1.1..5. 6.32 In a double round tournament with unrated participants, there

must be at least 6 players, 4 of whom must be rated.
6.33 National Championships played as round robins shall be rated if at least 3 men
(or 2 women in events exclusively for women) participants had official FIDE
Ratings before the beginning of the tournament.
0.13 In a Swiss or team event (except Scheveningen matches), only the games
against rated opponents are counted. Scheveningen tournaments/matches in
which more than one unrated player participates will not be rated.)
1.1..6. For rated players, all games against rated opponents are counted.
1.1..7. For unrated players, results are only counted if the player meets at least
three rated opponents in the event.
1.1..8. In the case of a round robin tournament where one or more games are
unplayed, the results of the tournament are to be reported for rating as
for a Swiss system tournament.
0.14 Where a match is over a specific number of games, those played after one
player has won shall not be rated.
Registration of events to be rated
0.15 As in B.03. Events not pre-registered will not be rated.
Submission of reports
0.16 As in B.01 article 7, except 7.2 is ignored where inapplicable.
Official FIDE Rating List:
0.17 The Qualification Commission shall prepare a list four times a year which
incorporates the rated play during the rating period into the previous list.
This shall be done using the rating system formula based on the percentage
expectancy curve and derived from the normal distribution function of
statistical and probability theory.
9.11 The list published 1.1 is used for events commencing 1.1-31.3.
The list published 1.4 is used for events commencing 1.4-30.6.
The list published 1.7 is used for events commencing 1.7-30.9
The list published 1.10 is used for events commencing 1.10-31.12.
9.12 The following data concerning each player whose rating exceeds 1600:
FIDE title, Federation, Current Rating,, ID Number, Number of games rated in
the rating period and date of birth.
The current value of k for the player and over how many games this has been
played when

104

k = 25 (see 10.51).
9.13 The closing dates for receipt of information for a particular list are usually one
month before the publication of that list.
9.13a Rated play received after the closing date will not normally be included in
computation for the rating list in question.
9.14 A rating for a player new to the list shall be published only if it meets the
following criteria:
9.14a If based on results obtained under 6.3., a minimum of 9 games.
9.14b If based on results obtained under 6.4., a minimum of 9 games played
against
rated opponents.
9.14c The condition of 9 games need not be met in one tournament: results from
other events, played within the same or next 7 rating periods, are pooled
to obtain the initial rating.
9.14d If based on results obtained in the Olympiad, a Continental Team
Championship or World Team Championship, a minimum of 7 games.
9.14e If a player is a member of the IBCA, ICSC or IPCA, a minimum of 7
games.
9.2 Players who are not to be included on the list:
9.21 Players whose ratings drop below 1601 are listed on the next list as
'delisted'. Thereafter they are treated in the same manner as any other unrated
player.
9.22 Unrated titled players are published in a separate list concurrently with the list of
rated titled players.
9.23 Inactive players are not included on the list but nonetheless are considered rated at
their most recent published rating for rating and title result purposes.
9.23a Players are considered to commence inactivity if they play fewer than 3
rated games in a one year period.
9.2.3b Inactive players are shown on the next 7 rating lists after starting being
considered inactive. Their names are then flagged as inactive in the
alphabetical section of the rating list and removed from the national
federations lists which would contain only the list of active players.
9.2.3c A player regains his activity if he plays at least 3 rated games in a one
year period and he is then listed on the next list.
9.2.3d For the purposes of the FIDE rating list ranking of top players, a player
who is inactive over a 12 month period of inactivity on the rating list will
no longer appear on the top list.
9.3 The Qualification Commission shall move to monthly rating lists on 1 July of the year
following a decision to do so by the Presidential Board. The above regulations shall be
amended as follows: The list published on the 1st of the month shall be effective between
the first and the last day of that month.
9.31 The name of each player whose rating exceeds 1600 shall be published.

105

9.32 The closing date for receipt for information will normally be the end of the
month, 30 days before the next list.
9.33 Players whose rating drops below 1601 will be listed in the next list as delisted.
Thereafter they will be treated in the same manner as any other unrated player.
10.0 The working of the FIDE Rating System
The FIDE Rating system is a numerical system in which percentage scores are converted
to rating differences and vice versa. Its function is to produce scientific measurement
information of the best statistical quality.
10.1The rating scale is an arbitrary one with a class interval set at
200 points. The tables that follow show the conversion of
percentage score 'p' into rating difference 'dp'. For a zero or
100% score dp is necessarily indeterminate. The second table
shows conversion of difference in rating 'D' into scoring
probability 'PD' for the higher 'H' and the lower 'L' rated player
respectively. Thus the two tables are effectively mirrorimages.
10.1The table of conversion from percentage score, p, into rating differences, dp
P
dp
p
dp
p
dp
p
dp
p
dp
1.0
.83
273 .66 117 .49 -7
.32 -133
.99 677 .82
262 .65 110 .48 -14
.31 -141
.98 589 .81
251 .64 102 .47 -21
.30 -149
.97 538 .80
240 .63 95
.46 -29
.29 -158
.96 501 .79
230 .62 87
.45 -36
.28 -166
.95 470 .78
220 .61 80
.44 -43
.27 -175
.94 444 .77
211 .60 72
.43 -50
.26 -184
.93 422 .76
202 .59 65
.42 -57
.25 -193
.92 401 .75
193 .58 57
.41 -65
.24 -202
.91 383 .74
184 .57 50
.40 -72
.23 -211
.90 366 .73
175 .56 43
.39 -80
.22 -220
.89 351 .72
166 .55 36
.38 -87
.21 -230
.88 336 .71
158 .54 29
.37 -95
.20 -240
.87 322 .70
149 .53 21
.36 -102 .19 -251
.86 309 .69
141 .52 14
.35 -110 .18 -262
.85 296 .68
133 .51 7
.34 -117 .17 -273
.84 284 .67
125 .50 0
.33 -125 .16 -284

p
.15
.14
.13
.12
.11
.10
.09
.08
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
.00

dp
-296
-309
-322
-336
-351
-366
-383
-401
-422
-444
-470
-501
-538
-589
-677

10.2Table of conversion of difference in rating, D, into scoring probability PD, for the higher,
H, and the lower, L, rated player respectively.
D
PD
D
PD
D
PD
D
PD
Rtg Dif H
L
Rtg Dif H
L
Rtg Dif
H
L Rtg Dif
H
L
0-3
.50
.50 92-98
.63 .37 198-206
.76 .24 345-357 .89
.11
4-10
.51
.49 99-106 .64 .36 207-215
.77 .23 358-374 .90
.10

106

11-17
18-25
26-320
33-39
40-46
47-53
54-61
62-68
69-76
77-83
84-91

.52
.53
.54
.55
.56
.57
.58
.59
.60
.61
.62

.48
.47
.46
.45
.44
.43
.42
.41
.40
.39
.38

107-113
114-121
122-129
130-137
138-145
146-153
154-162
163-170
171-179
180-188
189-197

.65
.66
.67
.68
.69
.70
.71
.72
.73
.74
.75

.35
.34
.33
.32
.31
.30
.29
.28
.27
.26
.25

216-225
226-235
236-245
246-256
257-267
268-278
279-290
291-302
303-315
316-328
329-344

.78
.79
.80
.81
.82
.83
.84
.85
.86
.87
.88

.22
.21
.20
.19
.18
.17
.16
.15
.14
.13
.12

375-391
392-411
412-432
433-456
457-484
485-517
518-559
560-619
620-735
over 735

.91
.92
.93
.94
.95
.96
.97
.98
.99
1.0

.09
.08
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
.00

10.2.1 Determining the Rating 'Ru' in a given event of a previously unrated

player.
1.1..9. 10.21 If an unrated player scores less than one point in his first rated
event, his score is disregarded.
1.1..10.First determine the average rating of his competition 'Rc'.
(a) In a Swiss or Team tournament: this is simply the average rating of his
opponents.
(b) The results of both rated and unrated players in a round robin tournament are
taken into account. For unrated players, the average rating of the competition 'Rc'
is also the tournament average 'Ra' determined as follows:
(i) Determine the average rating of the rated players 'Rar'.
(ii) Determine p for each of the rated players against all their opponents. Then
determine dp for each of these players. Then determine the average of these dp
= 'dpa'.
(iii) 'n' is the number of opponents.
Ra = Rar - dpa x n/(n+1
10.22 If he scores 50%, then Ru = Rc
1.1..11.10.23 If he scores more than 50%, then Ru = Rc + 12.5 for each half
point scored over 50%
1.1..12.10.24 If he scores less than 50% in a Swiss or team tournament: Ru =
Rc +d(p) x n/(n+1)
1.1..13.10.25 If he scores less than 50% in a round-robin: R(u) = R(c) + d(p)
x n/(n+1).

10.2.2 The Rating Rn which is to be published for a previously unrated player is

then determined by taking the weighted average of all his Ru results. e.g. A

107

player has Ru results of 2280 over 5 games, 2400 over 10 games and 2000
over 5 games:
Rn = [ 2280 x 5 + 2400 x 10 + 2000 x 5 ] / 20 = 2270.
1.1..14. 10.31Where a players first result(s) is less than 1601, or the FIDE
rating floor at the time of the event, the result(s) is ignored.
1.1..15. 10.32 Rn for the FIDE Rating list (FRL) is rounded off to the nearest
1 or zero.
1.1..16. 10.33 Only Rn 1601, or the FIDE rating floor at the time of the
event, are considered.
10.2.3 If an unrated player receives a published rating before a particular
tournament in which he has played is rated, then he is rated as a rated player
with his current rating, but in the rating of his opponents he is counted as an
unrated player.
10.2.4 Determining the rating change for a rated player: This is how I presume it
will be done.
10.51. For each game played against a rated player, determine the difference in rating
between the player and his opponent, D.
A difference in rating of more than 350 points shall be counted for rating purposes
as though it were a difference of 350 points (compare 10.54).
(a) Use table B.02.10.1 (b) to determine the players score probability PD.
(b) R = score PD. For each game, the score is 1, 0.5 or 0.
(c) R x K = the Rating Change for a given tournament, or Rating period.
K is the development coefficient.
K = 25 for a player new to the rating list until he has completed events with a total
of at least 30 games.
K = 15 as long as a player's rating remains under 2400.
K = 10 once a player's published rating has reached 2400, and he has also
completed events with a total of at least 30 games. Thereafter it remains
permanently at 10.
Varying K is currently under review.
10.52. Rn is rounded off to the nearest 1 or 0
10.53. Scheveningen tournaments/matches are not rated if more than one unrated player
participates.
1.1..17.

10.54. Determining the Ratings in a round-robin tournament.

10.54a Where this is the first event for an unrated player who scores 0 or , then
the results of this player are ignored.
The example has been created to demonstrate the methodology and also to show
how the invitees should be chosen carefully.
player

Rate

dp

Rc

Ru

Rc

Ru

PD

We

Kchg

108

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

2600
2500
U
2400
U
2150
2300
U
U
2300

8
7
7
6
6
4
3
2
1
1

.89
.78

351
220

.67

125

.44
.33

.11

-43
-125

-351

2320
2331
2348
2342
2348
2370
2353
2348
2348
2353

2411
2386

2150
2032

new
2336
2354
2351
2344
2348
2359
2353
2337
2305
2353

new
234
156

.79 7.11
.71 6.39

+8.9
+6.1

56

.58 5.22

+7.8

-209
-53

.23 2.07
.43 3.87

+28.95
-13.05

-53

.43 3.87

-43.05

2414
2386

2139
1989

Rar = 2600 + 2500 + 2400 + 2150 + 2300 + 2300 divided by 6

Rar = 2375
dpa = 351 + 220 +125 -43 -125 -351 divided by 6
dpa = 29.5
Ra = 2375 -29.5 x 9/10
Ra = 2348
For Player C
For Player E
For Player H
For Player I

Ru = 2348 + 5 x 12.5 = 2411

Ru = 2348 + 3 x 12.5 = 2386
Ru = 2348 220 x 0.9 = 2150
Ru = 2348 351x 0.9 = 2032

However, Player I is more than 350 points below players A, B, C, D, E.

Player H is more than 350 points below A.
Player A
Player B, I
counts as 2150
Player C, I
counts as 2061.2061-2032=29.29/9=3
Player D, I
counts as 2050
Player E, I
counts as 2036
Player F, A
counts as 2500
Player G,
all players are within 350 points
Player H, A
counts as 2500
Player I, A, B, C, D, E, counts as 2382
Player J,
all players are within 350 points

Rc(new)=
2366
Rc(new)=
2344
Rc(new)=
2351
Rc(new)=
2344
Rc(new)=
2348
Rc(new)=
2359
Rc(new)=Rc= 2353
Rc(new)=
2337
Rc(new)=
2305
Rc(new)=
2353

To determine the rating changes for the rated players: An example:

Player G. D=2300-2353=-53. P(D)=0.43. We=0.43 x 9=3.87.
R=(3-3.87) x 15=-13.05 for G
F was a poor choice of player for the tournament. He dragged down the average rating too
much. If a player rated 2380 or higher had replaced him, C would achieve a better rating even
with one point less. This is because, for unrated players with plus scores the average rating of

109

the field is extremely important. Had I's expected score been so poor, he should not have been
chosen, everybody suffered.
Reporting Procedures
11.1 Results should be submitted as in B.01.7. Articled 7.2 is ignored where irrelevant.
11.2 The principal information to be reported for a round robin tournament can be found on
the FIDE website. It consists of:
1.1..18. Identification of the event, including exact dates of beginning and
end.
1.1..19. Specification of the time limit.
The complete cross-table. This must list the players in final rank order, together with
full first names, titles, federation affiliation and rating. Any change from that
appearing on the current FRL, such as a change in name following marriage, must be
carefully annotated. For each player, his results against each opponent must be given
as 1, 1/2 (or 0.5) or 0. Any result arising from an unplayed game shall be marked with
"+", "-" or "=" where a full point, zero or half a point have been awarded respectively.
An explanation must be given where appropriate. Any unusual circumstances in the
event must also be described.
11.3 The principal information to be reported for a Swiss or team tournament is conveniently
grouped on forms 2 and 3, to be found in the FIDE Handbook or on the web site. It
consists of the material listed in 11.2. and also the colour played in a given game. A
full cross-table of the event must also be included.
1.1..20. 11.31 Alternatively a computer generated table can be submitted as a
rating report. This must show Rar, n and W. For unrated players
where n is less than 3, zero should be entered in the Rar column.
A column for W-We should also be included (i.e. the rating increment before
application of K). For an unrated player who meets at least 3 rated opponents,
his Ru should be given even if this is less than 1600.
A federation wishing to submit results in this form should consult the Rating
Administrator beforehand so that there can be test runs of the program.
11.32 Results of all international competitions must be submitted for rating unless the
original invitations have made it clear the event was not to be FIDE rated. The
chief arbiter must also announce this to the players before the tournament starts.
11.4 Each national federation shall designate an official to coordinate and expedite
qualification and rating matters. His name and details must be given to the FIDE
Secretariat.

110

Monitoring the Operation of the Rating System

10.2.5 One of the functions of Congress is to establish the policies under which
FIDE titles and ratings are awarded. The function of the rating system is to
produce scientific measurement information of the best statistical quality to
enable Congress to award equal titles for equal proficiencies of players.
Thus the rating system must be properly scientifically maintained and
adjusted on both a short and long term basis.
10.2.6 The rating scale is arbitrary and open ended. Thus only differences in
ratings have any statistical significance in terms of probability. Thus if the
composition of the FIDE Rating pool were to change, the rating scale could
drift with respect to the true proficiency of the players. It is a major
objective to ensure the integrity of the system so that ratings of the same
value from year to year represent the same proficiency of play.
10.2.7 Part of the responsibilities of the Rating System Administrator is to detect
any drift in the rating scale.
The requirements for the FIDE Rating System Administrator
10.2.8 A sufficient knowledge of statistical probability theory as it applies to
measurements in the physical and behavioural sciences.
10.2.9 To be able to advise and assist any FIDE member federation in the
establishment of a national rating system.
10.2.10
To display a level of objectivity comparable to that of an
International Arbiter.
Some comments on the Rating system
10.2.11
The following formula gives a close approximation to tables
10.1a/b.
P = 1/(1 + 10 - [D/400]). However the tables are used as shown.

111

10.2.12
Tables 10.1a/b are used precisely as shown, no extrapolations are
made to establish a third significant figure.
10.2.13
K is used as a stabilising influence in the system. When K = 10,
the rating turns over in approximately 75 games, K = 15, 50 games, K = 25
it is 30 games.
10.2.14
The system has been devised to enable players to verify their
ratings readily.
10.3Rapidplay Ratings
The regulations for this type of chess are under review currently.
10.4Inclusion in the Rating Lists.
10.4.1 To be included in the FRL or FIDE Rapidplay Rating list, a player must
be a member of national chess federation which is a member of FIDE. That
is, the federation must not be temporarily or permanently excluded from
membership.
10.4.2 It is the responsibility of national federations to inform FIDE if players
should not be included in the FRL or FRRL.
10.4.3 Any player excluded either from rating list because he is unable to obtain
membership of a national federation, may apply to FIDE for special
dispensation to be included.

112

This chapter is outdated and included

only for historical purposes and
accuracy to the original printed version
of this book.

CHAPTER 16
Comments on Rating and Title Regulations

Ratings
I have always used the term grade to refer to the English figures and rating
for others. During the lifetime of this edition, the name British will be changed to
English Chess Federation. As of 1 July 2005, I am jumping the gun a little to use ECF
for the future and BCF historically. You will probably find I have muddled my tenses!
BCF Grades
These were originally quoted in bands of eight. Thus 1A was equivalent to
241-248, 1B to 233-240 and so on. Clearly the graders didnt believe an English
player would ever be good enough to exceed 248. Currently there are four. They also
wanted to make it clear little accuracy could be attached to the figures. FIDE and the
US publish to four significant figures and this is patently absurd. It gives the
impression 2241 is stronger than 2240.The BCF practice of using three significant
figures is superior, if only because it saves space. However history has overtaken us
and I have long believed we should go over to a four figure system.
ECF x 8 + 600 = ELO Rating
This is only an approximation. The relationship isnt linear. The fit is quite
good at high ratings, but below 2200 a players ECF Grade is nearly always lower
than his published rating implies. Probably then ECF x 8 + 700 = ELO is a better fit.
(FIDE Rating 1250)/5 = ECF is used by the ECF for ratings under 2327 for ECF
Grading purposes only.
This may work well pragmatically, but it is inherently illogical. The multiplier of 8
was defined as that number when the systems were designed. I have no idea why 8
was chosen rather than 10. Thus it should work out that the conversion factor will
become less and less stable. An add-on of 700 or even higher numbers would be
perfectly understandable. One of the reasons for the problem is that the FIDE Rating
system has always had a floor. Originally it was 2205 and it is now 1601. When it
eventually reaches 1001 and a large number of players get FIDE Ratings, most of the
anomalies may disappear, though maybe not in my lifetime! There can never be a
total overlap as the information is based on different data and most of our players will
never play internationally.
Some see the introduction of such low ratings into the FIDE System as a threat
to the ECF or other national systems. There is no particular reason why this should be

113

so; FIDE is an organisation controlled by the federations. Many countries welcome

the lowering of the FIDE floor because they do not have an internal rating system.
They include China, India, Russia and a number of other Russian-speaking countries.
The ECF system is determined by a different method from FIDEs. The
average of a years play is determined, whereas FIDE calculate the change in rating
after each event. They then sum the changes every three months, but it could just as
well be monthly, provided they have the administrative capacity. More than half the
chess played in England takes place in leagues which may last 6 months. Taking the
results only at the end of the season would then be flawed. The reason it works for
FIDE is that most chess internationally is played in tournaments of short duration. The
ECF could go to a rolling grade system with lists published perhaps every three
months. I have long advocated this, but have got nowhere, even when BCF Grading
Director. This is because the work is done by volunteers who only want their peace
disturbed once a year and who can blame them. Also few agree with me that more
grading information, more frequently would lead to more chess activity. This flies in
the face of evidence elsewhere. In the 1970s Leonard Barden used to update English
juniors ratings on virtually a daily basis. It is one of the factors which contributed to
the remarkable English chess explosion of the 1970s and 1980.
FIDE Rating Regulations
Unlike the title regulations, these are seldom changed. This is not true for 2005
where the system of rating each game separately will be used. Even then, this will
have little affect on players.
It is now possible to gain a rating performance after playing against just three
rated opponents (it used to be four). Also, to achieve a rating performance in your first
event, you must score at least one point (it used to be half).
Anomalies
On the FIDE System a players rating change is determined after each event
played. Player A rated 2600. He plays five tournaments each of 10 games all against
average fields of 2600 and scores 50%. Effect on Rating = 0.
Now he plays a 10 round tournament against an average field of 2490 and
scores 50%. From B 02.10.1a, Page XX, his expected score was 6.5. He scored 5.
Thus he lost (6.5 - 5.0) x 10 = 15 rating points. Resultant Rating = 2585. The result
would have been identical had he never played any of the previous tournaments.
Despite his solidity, they have had no stabilising influence.

114

Averaging
When a player takes part in a tournament, his performance is determined by
taking the average rating of all his opponents. But the relationship between rating and
expected result is not linear. This results in the possibility that a player can win a
game and yet lose rating points. Also a player can lose a game and gain rating points.
This has partly been solved by B. 02.10.61., Page XX A difference in rating of more
than 350 points will be counted for rating purposes as though it were a difference of
350 points. This would be unnecessary if each game were rated separately and FIDE
is going over o this system. This distortion due to a very different rating can also
occur if one opponent has a much higher or lower rating than the other average. For
title results in tournaments of more than 9 rounds this is partly solved by B.01.8.32.,
Page XX. A player may ignore his result(s) against any opponents he defeated,
provided this leaves him with at least 9 games. The case where a player can gain a
title result by losing to somebody much higher rated is rare. It is also possible for an
unrated player to gain a lower rating than justified due to this problem.
Tables
Where an unrated player scores less than 50% an opponent approximately 350
points lower that his field will lose him rating points, even if he wins, irrespective of
his score.
Where an unrated player scores more than 50%, an opponent 130 points lower
than his field will lose him rating points, even if he wins, irrespective of his score.
The following table shows the rating at which an opponent drags down a
players performance rating, even when beaten. If an opponent is below this figure it
may be better to discard the game for a norm, even though the game has been won.

score number rating

4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0

9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9

360
290
300
240
270
200
230
150
260

number
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

rating

number

rating

360
290
320
330
255
285
200
240
145
185
10

11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11

435
400
350
250
360
275
300
215
230
130
320
215

115

10.5
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5

12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

365
390
195
210
220
235
275
300
10
10
10

13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13

405
295
320
210
320
240
250
265
155
180
210
295
10

11

370

14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

435
315
315
330
225
345
240
255
270
150
165
195
225
10
555

How to use this table

A player has scored 6/9 against a field of 2415. From the table, if he plays an
opponent lower than 2175, his Performance Rating will go down even if he wins. If
higher than 2655, his performance will go up even if he loses.
Until preparing these tables for the second edition of this book, I hadnt
realised the figures dont show a logical pattern. This is because a score is rounded to
two decimal places only. Thus 13/14 is 0.9286 and 14/15 is 0.9333. Both round to
0.93. Thus playing and winning a 15th game when you have 13/14 doesnt improve
the performance rating.
When a player is unrated and scores more than 50%, he does not receive his
performance rating for the event.
His rating = average rating of opponents + 12.5 for each half point above 50%.
This prevents a player coming into the system with an absurdly high initial rating. I
thought this was just a fiddle, but I was commissioned by The Sunday Express
Newspaper to create a rating system for the game snooker. I found this concept
translated extremely well to that game as well.
There is an oddity. An unrated player scores 6/9 against a field of 2300. This
gives him a rating over 9 games of 2338. If he is due to meet an opponent rated 2250
in the last round, this gives him a field of 2285. If he wins the game, his rating drops
by 3 points to 2335. Fortunately this is so rare, I dont know whether it has ever
happened.

116

FIDE Title Regulations

In January 2002 I had a heart attack while in Bermuda. While recuperating I
had time available and drafted a complete revision of the title regulations. Chapter 14
is substantially the result of this work.
Title norms are now for life, whereas hitherto they had a maximum life-span
of seven years. This applies retrospectively and has resulted in the interest of some
players being rekindled. It has given Mikko Markkula, Chairman of the Qualification
Commission, a great deal of work, but he clearly relishes eradicating past injustices.
0.21 I hope we can hold to this rule. Constantly changing the rules has caused
enormous confusion.
1.11 In the US most games are still not played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Thus they should not be rated and it should not be possible to obtain title norms in
such events. American players are disadvantaged by playing to different rules. If they
play internationally they have to be aware of two sets, which is most confusing. The
differences are mainly rather small and I believe the retention of the US Rules is
simply pigheadedness on the part of the USCF.
1.2 Various regulations have been introduced which make it easier to gain a title in an
Olympiad or Continental Team or Individual Championship. I intended this to be of
benefit to African chess, but it has also proven valuable in womens tournaments,
which also suffer from a lack of GMs.
B.02.1.42e This rule has caused some confusion. It is unfair to penalise a player for
winning! FIDE do not want the situation to arise where a player might wish to
withdraw in order to protect his rating or title norm.
However, I have frequently been asked whether it means a player may
consider, for example, only the last nine rounds of his tournament. Obviously you
cannot pick and choose the rounds most favouring you, unless you won the games to
be discarded. For example, the extra win may be against a co-national and that mean
you had not played enough foreigners. More common is the phenomenon where
winning provides an inadequate number of titled opponents. In addition, 1.42f makes
it clear you may exclude only the conclusion of the tournament.
1.42d It is dangerous to include an unrated player in a nine round tournament. If he
scores 0 or , then the event is reduced to eight rounds.
1.43 This stops Scheveningen tournaments between two federations being used for
title norms. I am not sure this was intended.

117

1.45f The rule requires a player to meet three different title-holders as specified. It is
not adequate for there to be only two gms in a double round tournament.
1.46c This removes any remaining reason for adjusting the pairings in a Swiss. It is
eminently fair, but may have to be amended if a large number of low rated players are
introduced into round robin events.
1.48 The whole concept of a category norm has been removed. Apparently Arpad Elo
once said these were only meant as a guide anyway. I wonder how long it will be
before people stop referring to categories and use only the average rating of the
tournament. After all, such a number is much easier to relate to than such as Category
7.
1.50a This points up to the most important change. There is now no distinction
between round robins and Swisses and 27 games are required to gain a title. I wanted
the number to be 30, but others wanted it to become even easier to obtain a title. One
reason for the change is that it was a great deal of work to check what type of event is
under consideration.
The Future
The Association of Chess Professionals has reopened an idea that has been around for
a long time, that there should be a title higher than that of Grandmaster. One problem
is, what would it be called? Supergrandmaster has always seemed tawdry to me and
Worldmaster translates in German into the word for World Champion. Nigel Short
has often gone on about the meaninglessness of all the titles. He fell silent when I
pointed out that the system provides much of the fuel on which open Swisses are run.
I discussed the matter with Alexei Shirov recently and he was taken with the idea that
it be based on 2800+ performance norms. There could be other parameters, such as an
increase in the number of grandmasters in the event and that the player finish first or
second in the tournament. The minimum average field would become 2581 in order to
coincide with the other title requirements.
People who are already grandmasters often want the standard for new
aspirants to be raised. There is no doubt there is a measure of inflation in the Rating
System which has made it easier to get a norm. It is impossible to tell how much that
inflation is; certainly I have never been of a strength adequate to compare the playing
ability of different generations. The performance rating required could be raised from
2600+ to 2625+ or even 2650+. Another possibility, and it surprises me this has never
been discussed, is to increase the number of GMs required in a tournament from 3 to 4
or even 5. But there would probably be howls of indignation outside Europe where
there are far fewer title holders available. There are now about 1000 GMs, thus it has
lost some of its air of exclusivity. Still, this is still a very small proportion of the
serious chess playing population. The real problem is that the GM title is no longer a
ticket to making a living. It has become more like a bachelors degree, which possibly
just teaches you how to starve in style.

118

CHAPTER 17
Specification for a complete information system for a chess tournament
Prepared with the help of Eddie Price
In Halkidiki, Greece in 2003 we were asked to produce such a document for the use of people
who would be interested in creating such a system or parts of it.
1. An electronic chessboard where, when a player moves, all the information is transmitted,
including the changing clock times.
2. The board to be powered by battery.
3. The information to go to an Electronic Scoresheet (ESC) situated in the middle on either
the left or right hand side of the board. Alternatively both players might each have their
own ESC. The ESC should display the last several moves played, with the ability for the
moves to be scrolled backwards. Possibly the position should also be displayed.
Definitely the time remaining for each player and the number of moves made should be
shown. If there is just one ESC, then it should be mounted at 45 and the display large
enough to be visible to both players and the arbiter.
Alternatively the time could be made available so that a separate chess clock is used as at
present. Then the new move should not be displayed on the ESC until the player has
pressed his clock.
4. There should be an option for the timing system to be started by the arbiter centrally for
all games in the round, including the parameters of the clock.
5. When one player has used all his time, this should be indicated on either the ESC or
clock. This might be: freezing the clock times, indicating which player has used up all
his time, or an optional flashing warning light not, of course, obtrusive enough to disturb
other boards.
When an illegal move is made, there should be an optional flashing warning light.
6. The ESC should have the option of displaying the information that the position has
occurred for the third time, or that 50 moves have occurred without a capture or pawn
move, or that checkmate has occurred, or that it is impossible to win by any series of
moves.
7. There should be a way of indicating on the ESC, the offer of a draw, or the acceptance of
a draw.

119

8. It should be very easy for the arbiter to change the time expired on the ESC or clock. But
not so easy, that it did not require a positive act to do so.
9. The information on the ESC should be saved automatically each time a move is made.
10. There should be a facility on the ESC for printing out the moves of the game. 4 paper
copies may be required; one for each of the players; one for administration and one for
the press.
11. If the game score is computerised, a paper protocol will be required for both players and
the arbiter to sign at the conclusion of the game.
12. The information from the ESC shall be transmitted passed on by an encrypted wireless
system to server. This should service: the bulletin; web; demonstration board;
commentary room; public tournament chart and leader board.
13. The results of the completed round, standings and game scores should be available on
the web after verification.
14. The computer should compile all results and then, where appropriate, prepare the
pairings for the next round for the controller to verify.
15. The information on the server should be saved at regular intervals and backed up as
appropriate. It must be protected from hackers.
There are problems with any such specification.
a) Advances in technology will provide additional opportunities not yet considered.
b) There is only a very small market for such a system and thus it is unlikely to be
commercially viable. Even if it were produced, it would be difficult for it to be flexible
enough to change with each advance in technology. However, people may well take on
parts of the project, as indeed they have in the past. If such work is modular, it should be
possible to bolt on other aspects.
c) Some of the suggestions would require changes in the Laws of Chess. There is little
reason for a player to keep score or press a clock if these actions can be carried out by a
machine.

120

Chapter 18
Inputting games
By John Saunders
These days we have the most marvellous tools at our disposal, state of the art computers and
fabulous software like ChessBase, yet many people still make a hash of keying in games. In the
old days of typewriters and hand-cranked duplicators, bulletin editors often coped superbly
despite technological handicaps. How come they were so good and we can be so bad? The
answer is that they were professional journalists and experienced chess players. These days
some organisers are tempted to use inexperienced people or weak chess players to key games, or
rely on automatically-generated game scores instead. This is a bad mistake. Technology is
useful but there is substitute for human expertise.
Deciphering illegible or inaccurately kept scores is a perennial problem, of course, but here are a
few tips to help you in the task.

Agree with the arbiter what happens when illegible score sheets are handed in; he may
have noted some time trouble moves on his own pad.

To key, you need both players top copies. Agree with the arbiter the procedure for you
to collect/return the game scores, and how you indicate that a game has been keyed in
(useful info for both parties).

Dont be afraid to approach players, however exalted, for help in deciphering their score.
They should be quite willing to dictate the moves of a game to you. (SR Ideally this
should be part of the regulations for the event.)

If there are only a couple of moves that you cannot decipher, it is worth spending a few
minutes trying to figure out what happened, by looking at subsequent moves. Remember
that the error may be earlier in the game (e.g. a different rook going to d1). This is where
your chess expertise kicks in, and where weak players will struggle.

Use a chess-playing program (e.g. Fritz) to help you determine the likeliest moves.

Dont spend too long trying to figure out errors yourself. After a few minutes, move on
and make a note to consult the players;

If the game is truly indecipherable, put a text note to that effect in the keyed game score,
e.g. rest of score indecipherable. Later, if a corrected score is uploaded, ask the
webmaster to flag that an amended score has been posted;

Record where draw offers are made put (=) as a textual note and record losses on
time put time as a textual note at the end of the score.

121

(SR Dont waste time analysing the games, however tempting this may be.)

A time-saving trick
Do some of the game keying in advance of the game being played, including game headers,
names, federations, ratings, round number beforehand, as soon as the pairings are known. If it is
a conventional all-play-all tournament, there is a neat function built into ChessBase. You can
create a tournament template: key in all the names and ratings of the players in draw order and
you will have all the game headers ready-made before the tournament starts. When the time
comes to key the actual moves of the game, open the game in ChessBase, open the skeleton
game, key in the moves, set the result and replace.
It is trickier with a Swiss, but you can do something similar with some computer
expertise and a little help from your friends. The pairings officer should provide an electronic
copy of the Swiss pairings for the round as soon as they are available. These can be edited to
create a database file. For example:
Round 1
Bd WHITE
Result
1 KOTRONIAS,Vasilios 2599 (0)

BLACK
HARPER,Ryan

2246 (0)

PIN
1 43

With global editing, you can make use of the name, rating and round data already input
to turn this into a valid PGN-format database file, thus:
[Event "Hastings Knock-Out"]
[Site "Horntye Park"]
[Date "2004.12.28"]
[Round "1.1"]
[White "Kotronias, Vasilios"]
[Black "Harper, Ryan"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "2599"]
[BlackElo "2246"]
[PlyCount "0"]
[EventDate "2004.12.28"]
The PGN file you create can be read directly into ChessBase, and then you can do some
simple editing, such as standardising names and tournament identifiers.
Another advantage of preparing game skeletons in advance is name standardisation.
ChessBase has superb facilities to standardise player and tournament names without laborious
retyping. Create a new, separate database to hold the games from the tournament (good
practice). After keying in all the games for the round and before uploading to the web, check the
player index for the database. If you find a very similar name more than once, it could mean that

122

a name has been misspelled or mis-keyed. This can be fixed in ChessBase if you know how.
Another good idea is to click on the crosstable function: it can flag up where the round
numbers are inaccurately keyed or more than one spelling of a name appears. Clearly you must
familiarise yourself with ChessBase well before the event.
Keying the games of a big Swiss tournament is time-consuming but can be broken up
into manageable batches. Games under 25 moves rarely involve time trouble problems; hence
there is no nerve-related bad handwriting. Collect these scores early on and get them keyed
because, as the session progresses, you are going to need to reserve your time and energy for the
big glut of games that finish around move 40. About 50% of all games last between 26 and 45
moves. By the time you have keyed all the medium-length games, you will return to the
tournament hall to find that there are just a few games left. These will be trickier to decipher, but
there will be less of them.
Assuming no more than 40-45 games need to be keyed altogether, one experienced
inputter can probably complete the work the same day, provided no game goes beyond 8pm.
(SR John is being optimistic, he is probably World Champion at this skill.) If you are working
with a team, the game skeletons must be shared with your partners. When you come together to
consolidate all the scores, it is often a good time for you to have another look at any difficult
scores that you have encountered.
Getting it right
Game inputters have an important function to fulfil. Because of the way games are disseminated
on the internet, you only get one chance to get a game score right. Key in a game wrong and it
will stay that way for ever as it traverses the world and find its way onto websites and
commercial chess databases. By checking and correcting scores, the game inputter can fulfil his
duty to posterity and ensure accurate game scores.
************************************************************************
Using Electro-Sensitive Boards by Stewart Reuben with help from John Saunders and David
Clayton.
This is a completely separate, time-consuming skill. If the Organiser of a Swiss wants to
achieve this, it must be made clear to him an absolute minimum of two skilled staff is required,
one for manual input and the other for the boards.
The equipment currently available requires cable connection. This will affect the whole
lay-out of the playing hall and must be discussed with the organiser and arbiter.
The equipment requirements are: computer; sensory sets and boards; wires; cables and
connections; software. If using DGT boards, TOMA is popular software; if you are using
multiple boards, you will require a license.

123

You may also wish to display the games on monitors, TVs or projectors. At the World
Championship in London as long ago as 1986, we had monitors all over the Park Lane Hotel,
including such areas as commentary room, clubroom, pressroom, players retirement rooms,
office, lobby, restaurants. For a big hall, there may be several monitors. In 1983 one enchanting
sight was deaf players discussing the games at the back of the playing hall, causing no
disturbance whatsoever. Sadly such a buzz is less likely today. People stay at home and watch
on the internet.
Where electro-sensitive boards are used it can be tempting to skip the manual inputting
procedure altogether. This is a big mistake: the games inputter should do an occasional visual
check during play and check the live games output against the scoresheets after the game. Many
automatically-generated scores have errors, particularly a handful of spurious moves at the end
of the game.
One problem when writing a book and mentioning modern equipment is that the
information can become out of date very rapidly. My recent experience with this type of
equipment is limited to DGT Electro-sensitive boards. For this equipment, the technology does
not change rapidly. The demand for it is limited; it is not expensive for what you get, but each
unit is costly. Also utilising the boards to put games on the Internet is labour- intensive.
Ordinary chess boards and sets are supplied by the organisers except in the United States.
Players are unlikely to lug their own equipment to a tournament.
Electronic Chess Assistant
This equipment is manufactured by Monroi of Canada, website www.monroi.com. It is endorsed
by FIDE and has been accepted as conforming to the Laws of Chess.
During play you can enter the moves with a stylus, first pointing to an alpha-numeric
display to input the information much as John described above. Then the moves can be input,
pointing to a pictogram of each of the king, queen, rook, bishop or knight as appropriate and
then where the pieces is going from letters a-h and 1-8. During play it is impossible to see a
chessboard. The moves can be transmitted to a computer through the Chess Tournament
Manager wirelessly. Each signal is encrypted and the signal can be recognised at a considerable
distance. After the game, it can be stored and viewed on a board which can only be accessed
after the game.
Each unit takes up less room than a scoresheet and clearly seeks to solve some of the
problems of inputting games. I have seen the equipment but never had the opportunity to use it
in a real tournament situation. Whether the organiser could supply each player of the white
pieces with one and the opponent not, is unclear to me. That, of course, would cut the cost in
half. When I last heard, the retail price was likely to be $120 (70). The ECA would have to
remain beside the chessboard at all times during play. As GM Ian Rogers said when shown a
prototype, People are paranoid about new equipment helping people cheat. Frankly there are
easier ways to go about this. As with any other equipment, the risk of theft must be considered.
There would be a password which would help reduce the attractiveness of the equipment to
thieves.

124

Using the games once they have been collected

It is clear one of the principal attractions of chess to many players is the preparation before a
game. GM Ray Keene once told me he regarded a game very much as a debate about a
particularly point in the opening. Once the truth had been established, for him the main interest
was over. Players enjoy preparing for their opponents. Thus people are thirsty for new games.
Find a game played by Rubinstein that IM John Donaldson doesnt have and he will be your
friend for life.
Britain is a major player in sites which provide games. The Week in Chess TWIC
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic carries about 1-2 thousand games of international
standard every week.
Britbase http://www.bcmchess.co.uk/britbase/index.html has many thousands of British
tournament games available for download. Games of high quality are one of the main ways in
which an event and thus the sponsor is publicised.
Sadly many games which are played even between strong players are lost forever. More
than half the serious chess in Britain is played in leagues at small clubs which meet only once a
week. Most of the rest is played in weekend tournaments. The players dutifully keep score and
the arbiters dutifully collect them at tournaments. Then just as dutifully in due course they are
thrown away. I have often wondered why the Laws are so strong about keeping score in such
games; it seems a fruitless exercise. Yet archiving such games is just a matter of inputting them.
For the London Chess League First Division it is only 792 games. This represents a months
work for one person, but it would be spread over 6 months and several people.
It is worrying that other event information is often only stored on a website.
Theoretically they can hang in the ether forever, but in practice sites often seem to wither away.
Presumably the FIDE Office has a large collection of crosstables. But what about the prize fund
and other important facts? Every important event should store everything on at least one paper
copy. But people dont buy bulletins anymore so that organisers see little purpose in producing
them.

125

CHAPTER 19
How to be a tournament webmaster
By John Saunders
Every major tournament should be covered on the internet, providing publicity for chess and the
sponsors and information to the world. The webmasters job is to provide advance information,
disseminate games, photos, pairings, results and news via the tournament website. If you have
reasonable computing skills; your own laptop computer; know how to edit and upload web
pages; then you have the basic skills and kit to be a tournament webmaster.
How do I start?
First agree your precise job description with the organiser and a budget for which you are
responsible. Is your job solely web editing; game inputting; or production of the material from
which bulletins can be printed? It is essential to get the website up and running well in advance
of the tournament. Then, when satisfied with it, get it publicised via chess news sites,
magazines, the brochure for the event and by e-mailing appropriate people.
What should the website look like?
Keep your website design simple. Flashy graphics may work on your up-to-date browser, but
you need to cater for people who have more basic computer set-ups. On a tournament website,
content is king, and website design is only a secondary consideration. People want to be able to
get in, find games, results, pairings, commentary, look at a few photos and then get out again
fast.
The home page should have: title, dates, venue, contact details for the organiser, secretary
and yourself. Dont forget the sponsor: feature their logo and a link to their website. The
organiser should provide you with the following items to be placed on linked pages: an entry
form, details of the events, venue, geography and tourism, plus a list of entrants (updated
regularly). The website is a marketing tool. Once the tournament has started, you should provide
links to reports for each round, game downloads, game viewers, pairings, results, crosstables,
webcam view of the playing area, interviews and press information. Here are a few simple tips:

Dont link to pages until they exist. Broken links and blank pages annoy readers.

Put in a date/time last edited message, so that your readers will be able to tell if it is
worth revisiting your page. Dont forget the year. Sure, everyone knows this year is 2005
now, but they wont when they visit your page in years to come.

Remember to use the title field in the home page something meaningful like
Manchester Chess Congress, 13-17 July 2005. It helps people using search engines to
find you.

126

When you have uploaded your site, use your browser to see what it looks like online.
However wonderful it may have looked offline, there is a chance that it may not work once it
has been uploaded to the web. Use more than one browser to check it, and ask somebody to
proof-read it on their own computer. (There are always errors. SR)
What will I need?
It is essential to inspect the layout in advance and to make contact with the person responsible
for telecommunications at the venue. Do not assume people share your vision of how the event
will work. They may think the games are simply going to be viewed by training a video camera
on the games in progress. Normally you wont be welcome to work in the playing area as it
disturbs players. A sound-proofed glass commentary box is ideal, which some venues have.
Failing that you need to be as close as possible to the playing room, in a room which can be
secured when unoccupied. It may be possible to work in your own hotel room, but make sure
arrangements have been made to minimise telephone bills. It ensures minimal bloodshed when
the time comes to check out.
Remember to ask the venue staff for at least a table, chairs and good lighting. Specify
how many power points you need, and that they need to be close to telephone or
telecommunications sockets. Practical tip: always carry an adaptor, a multi-way electrical
socket, extension telephone lead and double telephone socket in your laptop kitbag. Wireless
internet connectivity seems like bliss provided it works.
Telecommunications often prove to be a problem. How do you dial out? Are you sure
your internet connection will work away from home?
Avoiding First Round Syndrome
Does the following scenario seem familiar? You visit a chess website during the first round,
only to find a message saying Sorry, were having problems at the moment. We hope to have
them sorted out soon. That is, if youre lucky. The webmaster has turned up unprepared and
has had to waste time finding some space and furniture, or to track down someone who knows
how the phone system works. Always plan to arrive well in advance of the event. (For a major
event, having a test run tournament a day in advance would be good management. SR)
Youll need to bring your own computer. Ones provided by others may have an
unfamiliar or incompatible operating system and you will need extra time to get all your
specialist software loaded up on it.
Take with you: half a dozen floppy disks and a flash memory stick, for exchanging data
with arbiters and other work colleagues. You can probably live without a printer but this may
well not be true for your colleagues.

127

Youve arrived and set everything up what now?

Get to know your chess and venue administration colleagues. Make yourself known to the
players. British chess staff dont like badges, but they can be very useful.
Make certain the website is working before play. Put up photos and a final list of
participants and update the information. This gives your customers something to look at and will
encourage them to come back for regular updates.
Remember to monitor comments from the outside world. People may point out errors or
show their confusion. If they cannot navigate their way around your site, you may be able to
solve the problems not just for them, but others who have not commented.
Updating the website
The basic contents of a tournament website are: results, crosstable, downloadable games, games
viewers, round by round reports, photos, live video play and live games. The first two may be
obtainable from the arbiters. If games need to be transcribed, dont make off with the game
scores without consulting the arbiter. Game viewers (which enable readers to play through
games online) are now very easy to generate. Either via ChessBases own native facilities or
using a freebie such as Mychess (from www.mychess.com) which is quite easy to implement.
Prepare your solution before travelling and make sure it works on the test website before
implementing live.
Round by round reports can be left to the day after the round where it is one game per
day in the afternoon. It will give your readers a taste of the event which they cannot gain from
bare game scores. This may be somebody elses part-time job.
Photos: make certain you acknowledge the intellectual property rights of the
photographer. You will need image editing software, so that you can reduce height, width and
byte size of high resolution photos. Readers who use slow dial-up connections will get fed up
waiting for massive images to load. Keep the photo size down to no more than 30k and dont put
more than three or four photos on one page. Dont forget to provide captions identifying people
shown.
Live games
This is a whole area of its own. Ill admit Ive never done a live games transmission. This is a
completely separate technical function. The webmaster may also be in charge of this aspect, but
he cannot possibly have time also to input the games himself.
Note by SR. Much the same comments about advance planning apply equally to this
function. The layout of the playing area needs to be discussed in detail with the arbiter and
organiser.

128

Last Round Syndrome

This is as common a problem as at the start. You visit a website after the last round and find no
games and no last-round report. What happens is that the webmaster packs up his gear, gets
drunk at the prize-giving and goes home. For shame! The last round is the most important, not
finishing the job virtually leaves it only half done. The webmaster should be practically the last
person to leave the building. This happened to me once at a major London tournament. I was
still inputting games and updating the website as the organiser cheerily announced: See you,
John, were all off down the pub. Give the key to the janitor! Foolishly I forgot to ask which
pub. And he didnt even say thanks, I snarled to myself as I trudged off home. So... do you
still want to be a tournament webmaster?

129

CHAPTER 20
Peripheral activities
I was having dinner in 2005 with Sergio Mastropietro and Miguel Quinteros, they being
two of the organisers of the forthcoming World Championship in Argentina. It became clear
they were interested in much more than just the 8 player round robin. I sent them a note, but
realised it should be of general interest to other chess organisers. Herewith some ideas, that have
been used in the past.
1. Commentary on the games in progress. The comments can be transmitted on the web.
Possibly one room for stronger and one for weaker players.
2. Earphone commentary in the playing hall. This needs infra-red or wireless transmission.
3. Chess classes.
4. One on one chess tuition at various levels, including beginner.
5. Master classes by the players in the event. This was very successful in Gibraltar.
6. Persuading TV soaps to include chess in their story lines.
7. Persuading advertising agencies to use chess imagery.
8. Getting the chess celebrities on chat shows.
9. An opening parade through the town.
10. Drawing of lots ceremony. This has been done in various ways, Easter eggs, Christmas
crackers, chocolate chess pieces and a game taking place, bank notes.
11. A living chess game.
12. Provision of giant chess sets in the open air.
13. A prediction of the move competition. This should work extremely well on the Internet, but
can be done in the Playing Hall. It can be obtrusive in a Commentary Room.
14. Voting for the Best Game Prizes. This can be in the venue or online.
15. Predicting the results of the games. Nowadays it is commonplace for there to be betting on
chess online. A decision must be made whether to encourage this.
16. Provision of a TV programme simply teaching the chess rules.

130

17. Simultaneous displays.

18. Blindfold simultaneous display.
19. Families Championship. This has never been done except as part of an open Swiss. To play
there must be at least two members of any family. Husband wife, brother sister, mother son,
grandfather grandson are all possibilities. Cousins can be a bit tricky.
21. A tournament played on transport, for example bus, train, plane, boat.
22. A match between players in two different hot air balloons. This has never been done.
23. Blitz tournaments.
24. Rapidplay tournaments.
25. Rapidplay or blitz teams of two, no consultation. The total rating not to exceed 4600. This
has been very successful wherever I have held it.
26. Pro-celebrity teams of two, preferably for charity. I have never heard of this happening.
27. Weekend tournaments, one or two master Swisses.
28. Special childrens tournaments, possibly even international.
29. Kriegspiel chess. This variant is rarely played these days, but is excellent.
30. Bug-house or Exchange Chess. I hate this game because the pieces always get mixed up, but
children love it.
31. Crazy blitz chess. Every 10 moves, God announces a change in the rules, for example all
bishops move like knights, if you can make a capture you must. This gets very noisy and the
rules should be provided in advance on paper. A popular rule is that God can be bribed.
32. A special event for disabled players alongside able-bodied ones. Perhaps a tournament could
be run where nobody has sight of the board.
33. Provision of a club room and for chess in the open air.
34. Hospitality room particularly for sponsors.
35. Facilities for childrens visits, including particularly the possibility of getting autographs.
36. Badges for the staff, journalists and visitors. These are well-liked even if unnecessary.

131

37. Bulletins. Although the day of the paper bulletin with just the game scores is passed, one
with daily events and analysis would be welcome.
38. Book of the event.
39. Programme of the event. Have the players autograph a number of these in advance.
40. The website which requires careful advance planning.
41. A photo competition, not just of the event. These can be displayed on the website.
42. Any questions session where a team of experts answer questions from an audience.
43. Adoption of the players by schools. This can be used by the schools to educate the pupils
about the countries represented in the event.
44. Tourist trips during the event. The players may not co-operate even on their rest days, but it
provides excellent photo opportunities.
45. Social evenings.
46. A chess film festival. There are several suitable feature films.
47. Chess The Musical. Sometimes this musical, which ran for 2 years in London, can be
performed during the event, even if just in a concert version rather than the whole show.
48. The ballet Chess.
49. A fine art exhibition with a chess theme.
50. A disco with a chess theme.
51. Press office. This needs to be well-manned with staff looking out for media opportunities all
the time. Arranging for a small child to play against a leading player always works.
52. Radio programmes.
53. TV programmes.
54. Gala dinners opening, closing and in between days.

132

CHAPTER 21
EVENTS FOR CHILDREN
Most events I run are for people, irrespective of their age, sex, etc. Events for very young
children have their own very special problems. Chess education often goes hand in hand with
the actual play.

Sometimes children need cushions on their chair in order to be comfortable.

Usually there is no point in using clocks; we have all had events where the first game is
completed before all the games have started.

A round robin is to be preferred over a Swiss. Sometimes the people in charge do not
understand the system. That children may have to stand around waiting for the draw to
be made is highly undesirable. The noise level rises inexorably and the children get
bored.

It is very useful to discuss the games after play, but children usually keep score
extremely badly. It is better to wander around and make notes of interesting situations
during play.

Provision of some form of coaching adds greatly to any chess event.

In the UK Chess Challenge, 0 points are awarded for a defaulted game, 1 for a loss, 2 for
a draw and 3 for a draw. This is an identical scoring system to the more familiar 0, , 1.
It has the advantage that every child gets some points.

It is highly desirable that each child gets something to take away. This might be a
certificate, pen, button badge or magazine.

Children readily adapt to the idea that, if they need a controller, they put up their hand.

It is best if the result is handed in using either a scoresheet or result slip. Relying on
worth of mouth is fraught with problems; it is not unknown for 8 year olds to falsify the
result.

It is desirable to have a separate safe area where children can play and run around.

The whole matter of refreshments must be considered in depth.

The toilet facilities should be inspected at any event, but it is vital for a childrens event.

The events are often started in a separate area and then the children led into the room
playing room separated from their parents. Chess teaches children independence at a

133

very early age. One of its benefits is that they learn to be responsible for their own
decisions, which is unusual in modern society.

Parents need to be educated. The film Searching for Bobby Fischer (Innocent Moves
in the UK) should be required viewing. It explores the relationship between a young
chessplayer and his father.

In the UK people working with children other than privately are required to have police
clearance.

In the UK and USA there is a thriving industry teaching children the rudiments of chess.
Unfortunately they then often stop playing by the age of nine. Education is never wasted
and they may return to the game later. It is highly desirable they learn beyond simply
pushing the pieces around and, without a guiding adult, this is unlikely to happen.
Competitive events are required and a relationship established with competitive events
for more mature players.

134

Appendix 1: Blank Crosstables and Berger all-play-all tables

Player
1
2
3
4
Round 1: 1v4, 2v3. Round 2: 4v3, 1v2. Round 3: 2v4, 3v1.

1 2 3 4 Total Position
X
X
X
X

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Position
X
1
X
2
X
3
X
4
X
5
X
6
1: 1v6, 2v5, 3v4. 2: 6v4, 5v3, 1v2. 3: 2v6, 3v1, 4v5. 4: 6v5 1v4 2v3. 5: 3v6, 4v2, 5v1.
Player

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Position
X
1
X
2
X
3
X
4
X
5
X
6
X
7
X
8
1: 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5. 2: 8v5, 6v4, 7v3, 1v2. 3: 2v8, 3v1, 4v7, 5v6. 4: 8v6, 7v5, 1v4, 2v3.
5: 3v8, 4v2, 5v1, 6v7. 6: 8v7, 1v6, 2v5, 3v4. 7: 4v8, 5v3, 6v2, 7v1.
Player

Player
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Position
X
1
X
2
X
3
X
4
X
5
X
6
X
7
X
8
X
9
X
10
1: 1v10, 2v9, 3v8, 4v7, 5v6. 2: 10v6, 7v5, 8v4, 9v3, 1v2. 3: 2v10, 3v1, 4v9, 5v8, 6v7.
4: 10v7, 8v6, 9v5, 1v4, 2v3. 5: 3v10, 4v2, 5v1, 6v9, 7v8. 6: 10v8, 9v7, 1v6, 2v5, 3v4.
7: 4v10, 5v3, 6v2, 7v1, 8v9. 8: 10v9, 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5. 9: 5v10, 6v4, 7v3, 8v2, 9v1.

135

11 or 12 players
1-12
1
12- 7
2
2-12
3
128
4
3-12
5
12- 9
6
4-12
7
12-10
8
5-12
9
12-11
10
6-12
11

2-11
8- 6
3- 1
9- 7
4- 2
10-8
5- 3
11-9
6- 4
1-10
7- 5

3-10
9- 5
4-11
10- 6
5- 1
11- 7
6- 2
1- 8
7- 3
2- 9
8- 4

4- 9 5- 8
10-4 11-3
5-10 6- 9
11-5 1- 4
6-11 7-10
1- 6 2- 5
7- 1 8-11
2- 7 3- 6
8- 2 9- 1
3- 8 4- 7
9- 3 10- 2

6- 7
1- 2
7- 8
2- 3
8- 9
3- 4
9-10
4-5
10-11
5- 6
11- 1

13 or 14 players
1-14
1
14 -8
2
2-14
3
14- 9
4
3-14
5
14-10
6
4-14
7
14-11
8
5-14
9
14-12
10
6-14
11
14-13
12
7-14
13

2-13
9- 7
3- 1
10-8
4- 2
11-9
5- 3
12-10
6- 4
13-11
7- 5
1-12
8- 6

3-12
10- 6
4-13
11- 7
5- 1
12- 8
6- 2
13- 9
7- 3
1-10
8- 4
2-11
9- 5

4-11
11- 5
5-12
12- 6
6-13
13- 7
7- 1
1- 8
8- 2
2- 9
9- 3
3-10
10- 4

5- 10
12- 4
6-11
13- 5
7-12
1- 6
8-13
2- 7
9- 1
3- 8
10- 2
4-9
11- 3

6- 9
13-3
7-10
1- 4
8-11
2- 5
9-12
2- 6
10-13
5- 7
11- 1
5- 8
12- 2

7- 8
1- 2
8- 9
2- 3
9-10
3- 4
10-11
4- 5
11-12
5- 6
12-13
6- 7
13- 1

15 or 16 players
1-16
1
16- 9
2
2-16
3
16- 10
4
3-16
5
16-11
6
4-16
7
16-12
8
5-16
9
16- 3
10
6-16
11
16-14
12
7-16
13
16-15
14
8-16
15

2-15
10- 8
3- 1
11- 9
4- 2
12-10
5- 3
13-11
6- 4
145-13
7- 5
15-13
8- 6
1-14
9- 7

3-14
11- 7
4-15
12- 8
5- 1
13- 9
6- 2
14-10
7- 3
1-12
8- 4
1-12
9- 5
2-13
10- 6

4-13
12- 6
5-14
13- 7
6-15
14- 8
7- 1
15- 9
8- 2
2-11
9- 3
2-11
10- 4
3-12
11- 5

5-12
13- 5
6-13
14- 6
7-14
15- 7
8-15
1- 8
9- 1
3-10
10- 2
3-10
11- 3
4-11
12- 4

6-11
14- 4
7-12
15- 5
8-13
1- 6
9-14
2- 7
10-15
4- 9
11- 1
4- 9
12- 2
5-10
13- 3

7-10
15- 3
8-11
1- 4
9-12
2- 5
10-13
3- 6
11-14
5- 8
12-15
5- 8
13- 1
6- 9
14- 2

8- 9
1- 2
9-10
2- 3
10-11
3- 4
11-12
4- 5
12-13
6- 7
13-14
6- 7
14-15
7- 8
15- 1

136

Where there is an odd number of players, the highest number counts as the bye.
Double Round. In this case, it is recommended, the order of the last two rounds of each cycle
should be reversed. This is to avoid 3 consecutive games with the same colour and does not
work for a 4 player event.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

1-8
8-5
2-8
8-6
3-8
4-8
8-7

2-7
6-4
3-1
7-5
4-2
5-3
1-6

Example: 8 Player Double Round

3-6
4-5
8-1
7-2
8
7-3
1-2
5-8
4-6
9
4-7
5-6
8-2
1-3
10
1-4
2-3
6-8
5-7
11
5-1
6-7
8-3
2-4
12
6-2
7-1
8-4
3-5
13
2-5
3-4
7-8
6-1
14

6-3
3-7
7-4
4-1
1-5
2-6
5-2

5-4
2-1
6-5
3-2
7-6
1-7
4-3

137

APPENDIX 2: Tables for the Scheveningen System

Match on Four Boards
Rd. 1 Rd. 2 Rd. 3
A1-B1 B2-A1 A1-B3
A2-B2 B1-A2 A2-B4
B3-A3 A3-B4 B1-A3
B4-A4 A4-B3 B2-A4

Rd. 1
A1-B1
A2-B2
A3-B3
A4-B4
B5-A5
B6-A6
B7-A7
B8-A8

Rd. 1
A1-B1
A2-B2
A3-B3
A4-B4
A5-B5
A6-B6
A7-B7
A8-B8
A9-B9

Rd. 4
B4-A1
B3-A2
A3-B2
A4-B1

Match on Six Boards

Rd. 1 Rd. 2 Rd. 3
B1-A1 B2-A1 A1-B3
B5-A2 A2-B1 A2-B2
A3-B4 B3-A3 B1-A3
A4-B2 B4-A4 B6-A4
A5-B3 A5-B6 B5-A5
B6-A6 A6-B5 A6-B4

Rd. 4
A1-B4
B6-A2
A3-B5
A4-B1
B2-A5
B3-A6

Rd. 2
B2-A1
B3-A2
B4-A3
B1-A4
A5-B6
A6-B7
A7-B8
A8-B5

Match on Eight Boards

Rd. 3
Rd. 4 Rd. 5 Rd. 6
A1-B3 B4-A1 A1-B5 B6-A1
A2-B4 B1-A2 A2-B6 B7-A2
A3-B1 B2-A3 A3-B7 B8-A3
A4-B2 B3-A4 A4-B8 B5-A4
B7-A5 A5-B8 B1-A5 A5-B2
B8-A6 A6-B5 B2-A6 A6-B3
B5-A7 A7-B6 B3-A7 A7-B4
B6-A8 A8-B7 B4-A8 A8-B1

Rd. 7
A1-B7
A2-B8
A3-B5
A4-B6
B3-A5
B4-A6
B1-A7
B2-A8

Rd. 8
B8-A1
B5-A2
B6-A3
B7-A4
A5-B4
A6-B1
A7-B2
A8-B3

Rd. 2
B1-A9
B2-A1
B3-A2
B4-A3
B5-A4
B6-A5
B7-A6
B8-A7
B9-A8

Match on Nine Boards

Rd. 3 Rd. 4
Rd. 5 Rd. 6
A1-B3 B1-A7 A1-B5 B1-A5
A2-B4 B2-A8 A2-B6 B2-A6
A3-B5 B3-A9 A3-B7 B3-A7
A4-B6 B4-A1 A4-B8 B4-A8
A5-B7 B5-A2 A5-B9 B5-A9
A6-B8 B6-A3 A6-B1 B6-A1
A7-B9 B7-A4 A7-B2 B7-A2
A8-B1 B8-A5 A8-B3 B8-A3
A9-B2 B9-A6 A9-B4 B9-A4

Rd. 7
A1-B7
A2-B8
A3-B9
A4-B1
A5-B2
A6-B3
A7-B4
A8-B5
A9-B6

Rd. 8
B1-A3
B2-A4
B3-A5
B4-A6
B5-A7
B6-A8
B7-A9
B8-A1
B9-A2

Rd. 5
B5-A1
B4-A2
A3-B6
B3-A4
A5-B1
A6-B2

Rd. 6
A1-B6
A2-B3
B2-A3
A4-B5
B4-A5
B1-A6

Rd. 9
B9-A1
A2-B1
A3-B2
B3-A4
A5-B4
B5-A6
A7-B6
B7-A8
A9-B8

This system, developed by Richard Furness, has the advantage that all the players in
rounds 1-8 alternate colour. Alternation fails only in round 9 and then only for four players from
the B team.

138

APPENDIX 3: Hilton Pairings

This adaptation of the Hutton Pairing System was devised by the late Clifford Hilton. It is
for Jamboree team tournaments with few rounds and many players. It is superior to Hutton in
that nobody ever receives three pairings of the same colour in three rounds. Alternation is
followed as much as possible.
The examples shown are for an even number of teams. Also the number of players in each
team is optimum, one less than the number of teams competing. In real life, the pairings usually
have either to be truncated or extended. If reduced, the appropriate number of boards are
removed from the top of the table. If there are more players than teams less one, then repeat the
top board pairings as necessary, reversing the colours.
Board
1
2
3

Round 1
CB DA
AC BD
BA DC

Round 2
BA DC
CB DA
AC BD

Round 3
AC BD
BA DC
CB DA

1
2
3
4
5

EB CD FA
AC DE BF
BD EA FC
CE AB DF
DA BC FE

DB AE CF
EC BA FD
AD CB EF
BE DC FA
CA ED BF

EC BA DF
AD CB FE
BE DC AF
CA ED FB
DB AE CF

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

GB CF ED HA
AC DG FE BH
BD EA GF HC
CE FB AG DH
DF GC BA HE
EG AD CB FH
FA BE DC HG

DB AE FG CH
EC BF GA HD
FD CG AB EH
GE DA BC HF
AF EB CD GH
BG FC DE HA
CA GD EF BH

EC BF GA DH
FD CG AB HE
GE DA BC FH
AF EB CD HG
BG FC DE AH
CA GD EF HB
DB AE FG CH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IB CH GD EF JA
AC DI HE FG BJ
BD EA IF GH JC
CE FB AG HI DJ
DF GC BH IA JE
EG HD CI AB FJ
FH IE DA BC JG
GI AF EB CD HJ
HA BG FC DE JI

DB AE FI HG CJ
EC BF GA IH JD
FD CG HB AI EJ
GE DH IC BA JF
HF EI AD CB GJ
IG FA BE DC JH
AH GB CF ED IJ
BI HC DG FE JA
CA ID EH GF BJ

EC BF GA IH DJ
FD CG HB AI JE
GE DH IC BA FJ
HF EI AD CB JG
IG FA BE DC HJ
AH GB CF ED JI
BI HC DG FE AJ
CA ID EH GF JB
DB AE FI HG CJ

139

Board
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Round 1
KB CJ ID EH GF LA
AC DK JE FI HG BL
BD EA KF GJ IH LC
CE FB AG HK JI DL
DF GC BH IA KJ LE
EG HD CI JB AK FL
FH IE DJ KC BA LG
GI JF EK AD CB HL
HJ KG FA BE DC LI
IK AH GB CF ED JL
JA BI HC DG FE LK

Round 2
DB AE FK JG HI CL
EC BF GA KH IJ LD
FD CG HB AI JK EL
GE DH IC BJ KA LF
HF EI JD CK AB GL
IF GJ KE DA BC LH
JH GK AF EB CD IL
KI HA BG FC DE LJ
AJ IB CH GD EF KL
BK JC DI HE FG LA
CA KD EJ IF GH BL

Round 3
EC BF GA KH IJ DL
AI HB CG FD LE JK
GE DH IC BJ KA FL
HF EI JD CK AB LG
IG FJ KE DA BC HL
JH GK AF EB CD LI
HI KA BG FC DE JL
AJ IB CH GD EF LK
BK JC DI HE FG AL
CA KD EJ IF GH LB
DB AE FK JG HI CL

140

APPENDIX 4: Calculation of Ratings of new players

(1-4 refer to Swisses)
1. Only games in which at least one player is rated count for rating purposes.
2. For rated players, only their games against rated opponents count.
3. In order for an unrated player to gain a rating based solely on the one event, it is essential to
play against 9 opponents all of whom are rated.
4. Where an unrated player meets less than 9 rated opponents, then his rating performance is
averaged with rating performances in other events.
5. Where an unrated player meets less than 3 rated opponents his result is not counted.
6. Where an unrated player scores 0 or in his first performance, his result is ignored.
7.
a)
b)
c)

To determine the rating performance of a previously unrated player Ru:

Determine the average rating of the opponents Ra.
Where a player scores 50%
Rating Performance = Ra
Rating Performance = Ra + 12.5 for each point over
Where a player scores >50%
50%
d) Where a player scores <50%
Rating Performance = Ra - number shown below
number of games
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7

score subtract
0

1
0

1
1
0

2
0

2
2
0

750
193
125
750
322
193
87
750
366
240
149
72
750
401
273
193
125
57
750

number of games
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

score subtract
0

1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
0

1
1
2
2
3
3

750
470
366
383
262
211
175
133
102
65
36
750
501
401
322
273
230
193
158

141

7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0
1
1
2
2
3
0

1
1
2
2
3
3
0

1
1
2
2
3
3
4

1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4

422
309
230
158
102
50
750
444
322
251
193
141
87
43
750
444
351
273
220
166
125
80
43
470
366
296
240
193
149
110
72
36

12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

4
4
5
5
0

1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
0

1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6

125
87
57
29
750
501
401
336
296
251
211
175
141
110
87
57
29
750
501
351
309
262
230
193
158
133
102
80
50
29

8. Where an event commences in one rating period, but concludes in another, a player may
be unrated in the first list, but rated in the second. Then he counts as unrated throughout for
his opponents. His own rating change is determined as if he were rated from the beginning of
the tournament.

142