Should an arbiter intervene?

[Roger Lancaster]

Pretty much as straightforward as you describe, David.

[Stewart Reuben]

I have just come on this discussion.
The following happened at Hastings in a minor standardplay section. 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 Bb4+ 3 Nc3 d5 and the game continued. A spectator observed this and told an arbiter. The arbiter intervened, stopped the clocks and reverted the game to Black's second move. Thus there was no problem. Would anybody really have it any other way?
I have sought to educate foreigners that good arbiters never interfere. They only ever intervene.
I would never asked a spectator for his opinion on what happened in a game. That would put him in an invidious position. If he volunteered information that is different. Sometimes one invokes 12.4. Such assistants effectively become the additional eyes of the arbiter. With increments it is very unlikely to be necessary.
But an arbiter almost never intervenes is a chess game. The Laws are written so that it is seldom necessary in a well run event. That is why, when there is a dispute, it often becomes ugly. The lack of involvement is quite unlike other sports such as tennis, football or bridge.

The intention in revising the Laws in the last 20+ years has been for the good of the game, the players, administrators, arbiters. spectators, etc. It is incorrect to suggest the objective has been mainly for the benefit of the arbiters.

[E Michael White]

Michael you might like to read and consider FIDE Law 12.7

If someone observes an irregularity, he may inform only the arbiter.....

An arbiter who excludes a spectator for legitimately informing of an irregularity needs to reassess his suitability for the role.

Let's leave it to the Arbiter to decide what to do in a particular situation. Should a player (ejected or otherwise) have grounds to dispute an Arbiter's decision he is entitled, of course, to make use of the Appeal Procedure.

For the sake of clarity, I reproduce para 12.7 in full. You might, in turn, like to note those parts that you excised from your extract.

12.7 If someone observes an irregularity, he may inform only the arbiter. Players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game. Spectators are not allowed to interfere in a game. The arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue.

[1] FIDE Laws of Chess: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

Michael I know this is a few months back but I meant to ask you at the time just to see where arbiter training goes wrong. Why did you think someone who observes an irregularity should not inform the arbiter; presumably you now accept the view of others and me? Did you glean your view from a) an arbiter training course b) another snr arbiter outside a course c) your own reading of the laws d) other source ?

[Michael Flatt]

Michael I know this is a few months back but I meant to ask you at the time just to see where arbiter training goes wrong. Why did you think someone who observes an irregularity should not inform the arbiter; presumably you now accept the view of others and me? Did you glean your view from a) an arbiter training course b) another snr arbiter outside a course c) your own reading of the laws d) other source ?

In the scenario described by the OP both players were at the board and resolved the dispute of the illegal move to their mutual satisfaction. The observer (the OP) noticed that the touch piece move had not been enforced and speculated what an Arbiter might have done had he been present at the game.

In Junior tournaments it is normal for all parents to be excluded from the room during play as they sometimes become too involved and seek to involve the Arbiter too frequently or unnecessarily.

[Michael Farthing]

Is there not a distinction between speaking to an arbiter in private and in public?

Speaking privately to an arbiter is appropriate.
Speaking to an arbiter in a way that is evident to the players would constitute interference with the game.
The latter situation is the one that is unsatisfactory and is clearly covered by the laws. However, the offence is not too frequent call upon the arbiter, but interference in the game by unsettling the competitors. The arbiter should be big enough to cope with obnoxious parents. It is unreasonable that the parent's child's opponent should have to do so.

[Roger Lancaster]

Yes, the effect of 12.7 ("... he may inform only the arbiter ...") is that the arbiter must be informed privately.

[Roger Lancaster]

Michael Flatt wrote: "In junior tournaments it is normal for all parents to be excluded from the room during play as they sometimes become too involved and seek to involve the Arbiter too frequently or unnecessarily".

Whilst agreeing with Michael that over-assertive parents can definitely be a problem, there is a counter-argument against excluding them all. The counter-argument is that, if an arbiter makes a questionable decision, it is immensely difficult to lodge an appeal because the only other first-hand version of events will come from a (possibly confused) child rather than from a watching adult who may have comparable knowledge (less, probably, but very possibly comparable) to the arbiter of the Laws of Chess.

The reality may, of course, be that the arbiter's decision was entirely correct - but it will be very hard for anyone outside the playing area to decide one way or the other.

On the "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" principle, I can see an argument for allowing in a few observers - perhaps, for example, a limited number of parents who are ECF members in their own right.

[Michael Flatt]

Michael Flatt wrote: "In junior tournaments it is normal for all parents to be excluded from the room during play as they sometimes become too involved and seek to involve the Arbiter too frequently or unnecessarily".

Whilst agreeing with Michael that over-assertive parents can definitely be a problem, there is a counter-argument against excluding them all. The counter-argument is that, if an arbiter makes a questionable decision, it is immensely difficult to lodge an appeal because the only other first-hand version of events will come from a (possibly confused) child rather than from a watching adult who may have comparable knowledge (less, probably, but very possibly comparable) to the arbiter of the Laws of Chess.

The reality may, of course, be that the arbiter's decision was entirely correct - but it will be very hard for anyone outside the playing area to decide one way or the other.

On the "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" principle, I can see an argument for allowing in a few observers - perhaps, for example, a limited number of parents who are ECF members in their own right.

In EPSCA competitions the Arbiter is assisted by a number of board stewards nominated by each of the teams who initially respond to questions raised by the children during the game. Team Managers are also permitted to observe play. Anything they cannot resolve is referred to the Arbiter.

In the British Junior Championships play in the the younger age groups is supervised by a Senior Arbiter and a number of qualified Arbiters.

In junior tournaments I supervise I am pleased to accept the assistance of a small number of parents to act as board stewards. If a parent has a pressing reason to visit the tournament room I will generally let them enter for a short time to satisfy themselves regarding the playing conditions and comfort of their children.

A parent taking too keen an interest in a game may be intimidating to both the opponent and their own child since they can stand too long and too close to the board. One parent hovering over the board can be a cause of concern to the parent of the opponent who prefers not to scrutinise each move as it is played.

The difficulty in allowing too many adults in the playing hall is that it can inhibit the Arbiter's ability to adequately supervise play.

As an Arbiter I aim to provide comfortable playing conditions and to treat all players fairly and equally. I will clarify any ruling made during a game but those raising questions must be reasonable in the length of time they demand and allow the Arbiter to attend to his duties.

[Roger Lancaster]

Michael, without resurrecting old coals, I'm mindful of an incident at the Aberystwyth BCC where a member of the arbiting team made a wrong decision, as he finally admitted many months later when the matter reached FIDE. Meantime those who believed a wrong decision had been made were hindered by the fact that no adults, outside the arbiting team, had been present and it was hard to be 100% sure (particularly with the non-cooperation of the then ECF management) of the facts. I rather suspect that, if other knowledgeable adults had been present, no-one would have risked making that decision.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"A parent taking too keen an interest in a game may be intimidating to both the opponent and their own child since they can stand too long and too close to the board. One parent hovering over the board can be a cause of concern to the parent of the opponent who prefers not to scrutinise each move as it is played."

That's the problem of course. I've been arbiter at junior team tournaments where a couple of parents/coaches were allowed in as assistant arbiters and they just watched their own children's games all the time, rather than the ones they were supposed to watch. Witnesses can be useful of course - it's difficult to find a balance.

On the bright side, chess arbiters make fewer mistakes than top class football and rugby referees!

[Michael Flatt]

I rather suspect that, if other knowledgeable adults had been present, no-one would have risked making that decision.

I doubt whether a non arbiter would have had any influence in that particular dispute. It was an ECF event where there were more than sufficient experienced ECF arbiters present.

The problem seems to be that the practice of awarding 'bonus' points in resolving a dispute had become well established and acceptable to some Senior Arbiters in England. The matter was considered by FIDE who made a recommendation to the ECF regarding the acceptable total score of a single game. That particular issue is unlikely to happen again.

[Roger de Coverly]

That particular issue is unlikely to happen again.

I believe the trigger behind the one and a half points award was a dispute as to whether a move was legal or not and this mattered because they were playing to FIDE's then new rapidplay rules which penalise the first infraction with loss of the game. That is a dispute which could reoccur although how the legality of a move could be questionable remains unclear to me. Additional stewarding may have helped.

[Mike Gunn]

One U8 player claimed his opponent had made an illegal move and the opponent denied that he had. The players could not agree the relevant position (no scores as it was rapidplay). Neither player wished to continue with the game. In retrospect it was a mistake not to apply the normal laws of chess and insist the game be replayed (or continued).

[David Sedgwick]

On the bright side, chess arbiters make fewer mistakes than top class football and rugby referees!

Really? I rather suspect that it's more the case that a lot of mistakes made by chess arbiters go undetected.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Really? I rather suspect that it's more the case that a lot of mistakes made by chess arbiters go undetected."

That's entirely possible.