According to International Arbiter Geurt Gijssen (The Chief Arbiter of the 1987 and 1990 world championship matches), Dead Reckoning works for normal games exactly as described in this website.

In "An Arbiter's Notebook" Feb 2002 at, Alex Shternshain from Israel asks about the following two diagrams.

In each case, the question is whether a player could lose on time, even though the game is a certain draw. In the first case, this is after 1. Qg7+, in the second case after 1. a8=Q+ Rxa8+. Mr Gijssen responds that there is a difference between “normal” games on the one hand and rapid and blitz games on the other. In normal games, Article 1.3 (expanded in Article 9.6) would apply. In rapid and blitz games 'a little bit strange, illegal moves are “legalised”'. No further explanation of how the legalization happens is given.

Now how does this leave Dead Reckoning? Can we assume that a position is taken from a "normal" game? I believe so, since following the Codex Footnote 12, only Articles 1 to 5 of the FIDE Laws apply to orthodox chess compositions. These do not include rapid or blitz (and actually don't include Article 9.6 either). So DR is the default, and if the rapid or blitz rules were to apply in any way to some composition, the stipulation should state this.


Back to home page