Arbiter Question

[Nick Burrows]

Tonight in the opening round of the Oxfordshire Chess League 1st division the following happened. Both players had seconds left, black had a won position with no chance of losing - Bishop and pawns against single pawn. White ran out of time, black failed to claim the win and then ran out of time himself. Is the result a black win or a draw? Secondly, if an arbiter was present would he have stepped in and declared a black win once the flag fell?

In another game Heather Lang blitzed out about 20 moves to checkmate with 1 second remaining!

I won my game with the following lovely move:-

6k1/p1P1pp1p/3n2p1/3Q4/5P2/1P3B1P/P5PK/2q5 w - - 0 32

32.Qc4!

Delightful.

[David Sedgwick]

I presume that an official ruling will be sought from the League controller (or whoever). The issue isn't as simple as it might appear and I'd rather not comment until this has been obtained.

Of course, another arbiter might choose to stick his/her head above the parapet.

[Roger de Coverly]

White ran out of time, black failed to claim the win and then ran out of time himself. Is the result a black win or a draw? Secondly, if an arbiter was present would he have stepped in and declared a black win once the flag fell?

The traditional ruling with mechanical clocks is that when both flags are down, the game is drawn.

Arbiters have a quantum effect, by observing the game, they change what happens. So a watching arbiter would note the flag fall and declare the win. But league games, unlike Congresses, are almost always played under conditions of "no arbiter present". This applies even if one of that select breed was taking part in the match as a player, or even was passing by as a spectator.

I benefited from a watching arbiter at this year's Kidlington Congress. The game continued, but despite the issue that I was about to be mated, my opponent's flag was about to fall. When it did, the watching arbiter declared a draw as I only had a King remaining.

There's something on the Oxford county site about the powers of match captains for the purposes of the local league. I don't recall whether or not they are deemed observers for the purposes of watching flag falls.

[Nick Burrows]

There's something on the Oxford county site about the powers of match captains for the purposes of the local league. I don't recall whether or not they are deemed observers for the purposes of watching flag falls.

Yes, after a heated debate for 10 minutes the game was declared 'result pending' with our captain seeking to explore this league caveat re: the powers of match captains..

[Mike Truran]

If the matter is unclear, I expect the OCA committee will do what it has done before and consult one of the great and the good of the arbiting world. My quick trawl through my memory banks on the OCA's guidance to captains document (which I confess to having drafted) suggests that the captains would not be expected to intervene on a flag fall and that therefore FIDE rule 6.11 would kick in. I am, though, somewhat hampered at the moment by the fact that the OCA website seems to have crashed.

But let's see what (if any) submission we receive from the captains......

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, after a heated debate for 10 minutes the game was declared 'result pending' with our captain seeking to explore this league caveat re: the powers of match captains..

Having had a quick look, the league guidance might not help.

It's actually simpler to say that the match captains aren't arbiters and their role is only to remind players of the rules when asked. With this in place, there are no observers, and if both flags of a mechanical clock are down, it's a draw and the evidence of spectators is irrelevant.

The FIDE rules talk of "valid claim". Arguably this means stopping the clock with one flag still standing and saying something like "your flag is down".

If it's a digital clock, its behaviour will depend on the programming as to whether it locks on time expiry or continues to run.

[Sean Hewitt]

Tonight in the opening round of the Oxfordshire Chess League 1st division the following happened. Both players had seconds left, black had a won position with no chance of losing - Bishop and pawns against single pawn. White ran out of time, black failed to claim the win and then ran out of time himself. Is the result a black win or a draw? Secondly, if an arbiter was present would he have stepped in and declared a black win once the flag fell?

The relevant parts of the laws are

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.

If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then:
b. the game is drawn if it happens in the period of a game, in which all remaining moves must be completed.

Therefore, what the league rules say about the role of match captain (and whether they are de facto arbiters) is pertinent.

[Alex Holowczak]

This is nothing to do with the dispute in question, but I offer one comment that might help your understanding of the Laws.

black had a won position with no chance of losing - Bishop and pawns against single pawn. White ran out of time

The words "with no chance of losing" here are pertinent.

If we switch it around so that black's flag fell there (instead of white's), and white made a claim to that effect (or indeed, an appointed arbiter pointed it out), then the game would still be a win for white, despite white just having a pawn. The Laws say that a player wins when his opponent's flag falls if the player can win by any series of legal moves. In other words, despite just having a pawn, white is still deemed to have winning chances!

"black had a won position with no chance of losing by normal means" was a better way to say what you said.

I hope this doesn't come across as pedantry, but it's a distinction you might be able to benefit from knowing in the future!

[E Michael White]

Reverting back to the game in question, I think occurrences like these are better dealt with at national level by the ECF so that the decisions are published on the ECF website and available to every league.

The FIDE rules talk of "valid claim". Arguably this means stopping the clock with one flag still standing and saying something like "your flag is down".

I dont think its helpful for league rules to say a clock must be stopped, as the FIDE rules dont require that. Simply saying "your flag is down" without stopping the clock should be enough to be a valid claim although it would be wise to stop the clock as a secondary task, for the record.

League committees can have a ball trying to decide what constitutes a valid claim and this should also be set at ECF level. The FIDE rule states that the claim has to be that the "flag is fallen". Taken literally this would mean saying "you have run out of time" is probably not a valid claim.

[Roger de Coverly]

I dont think its helpful for league rules to say a clock must be stopped, as the FIDE rules dont require that. Simply saying "your flag is down" without stopping the clock should be enough to be a valid claim although it would be wise to stop the clock as a secondary task, for the record.

The problem is that with mechanical clocks and some programs used on digital clocks, there is no means of establishing which flag fell first if the clocks are allowed to continue to run. In the absence of an arbiter and assuming non interference from spectators, once both flags are down, there's no evidence. So what constitutes a valid claim?

From the description given, it appears that witnesses know which flag fell first. The question for the OCA will be whether that constitutes "observed by an arbiter" or "can be established which flag fell first".

[John Upham]

I was hoping to find FAQ type content at http://www.chessarbiters.co.uk/ but discovered

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 14-Aug-2008
Expiry date: 14-Aug-2012
Last updated: 01-Oct-2010

Registration status:
Renewal required.
*** This registration has been SUSPENDED. ***

Anyone know the story here?

[Alex Holowczak]

I was hoping to find FAQ type content at http://www.chessarbiters.co.uk/ but discovered

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 14-Aug-2008
Expiry date: 14-Aug-2012
Last updated: 01-Oct-2010

Registration status:
Renewal required.
*** This registration has been SUSPENDED. ***

Anyone know the story here?

I don't know the story, but the CAA website has been down since well before 14/08/2012, to the best of my memory. I'm sure it was down during the British.

[David Sedgwick]

I was hoping to find FAQ type content at http://www.chessarbiters.co.uk/ but discovered

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 14-Aug-2008
Expiry date: 14-Aug-2012
Last updated: 01-Oct-2010

Registration status:
Renewal required.
*** This registration has been SUSPENDED. ***

Anyone know the story here?

I know the basics of it. If you want more information, Alex McFarlane is the best person to ask.

Essentially the site had previously been free or very low cost, but the ISP then introduced significant charges, which the CAA was unwilling to pay.

The content has all been backed up and will reappear when a new site is launched. As to why that hasn't yet happened, it's the familiar story. It's down to volunteers who have little if any additional time to spare.

[John Upham]

OK, here is a snapshot of the CAA site: http://web.archive.org/web/201006240820 ... fault.aspx from June 24, 2010.

[Alex McFarlane]

David's answer about the CAA website is esentially correct. It was a Microsoft live site. We were told to apply for a 6 month extension or be cut off in a month. We did apply but, despite efforts, were still cut off in the month. We were quoted £150 to continue the site!!!

It is good to know that the site is missed. I have revised pages ready to go up. The address will be different in all probability. I hope that this will happen soon (but I have been saying that for quite some time).
David's point about volunteers having limited time is very true.