Should an arbiter intervene?

[Roger Lancaster]

I am happy to accept that the matter falls within an arbiter’s discretion whilst having a definite (and perhaps wrong – hence my raising the point) view as to how I should normally be minded to exercise that discretion. Whilst Nick is of course correct in pointing out that our legal system relies on witnesses, those witnesses may have their credibility tested and even ridiculed in Court in a manner which would be unacceptable in the context of a chess event.

[David Sedgwick]

I am happy to accept that the matter falls within an arbiter’s discretion whilst having a definite (and perhaps wrong – hence my raising the point) view as to how I should normally be minded to exercise that discretion. Whilst Nick is of course correct in pointing out that our legal system relies on witnesses, those witnesses may have their credibility tested and even ridiculed in Court in a manner which would be unacceptable in the context of a chess event.

.
The general advice is to be very cautious about accepting third party evidence, even if seemingly independent.

In determining the validity of a 50 move claim, it's probably safe to rely on a score kept by a third party, as Nick suggested. If there is a dispute about whether a player touched a piece, it would be much less safe to rely on what was said by a single observer.

[Roger Lancaster]

Very happy to accept David's view on the matter. Am I correct in assuming, as a corollary to this, that the arbiter should not actively seek ("Did anyone see what happened?") views from spectators, no matter how eminent they might be? I should perhaps stress that I ask this as a theoretical question and I have no specific event in mind.

[David Sedgwick]

Very happy to accept David's view on the matter. Am I correct in assuming, as a corollary to this, that the arbiter should not actively seek ("Did anyone see what happened?") views from spectators, no matter how eminent they might be? I should perhaps stress that I ask this as a theoretical question and I have no specific event in mind.

I wouldn't rule out asking that question to the crowd, but I can't recall ever having done so.

There was an incident at the Monarch Assurance Isle of Man International 2004 where the evidence of an "eminent" bystander was invaluable. However, on that occasion she approached an arbiter and told her what had happened.

[David Williams]

I hesitate to ask, because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like the answer, but what should happen if the arbiter comes to the board and tells the players a possible breach of the rules has been reported. And white says that he did indeed notice that the rook could have moved legally but he'd decided he didn't want to waste his entry fee by winning games that way.

[Michael Farthing]

This, I suspect, is the essence of Nick's concerns

[Michael Flatt]

I hesitate to ask, because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like the answer, but what should happen if the arbiter comes to the board and tells the players a possible breach of the rules has been reported. And white says that he did indeed notice that the rook could have moved legally but he'd decided he didn't want to waste his entry fee by winning games that way.

I don't believe that the Arbiter would have any justification to intervene and disturb the game if he hasn't observed the alleged infraction and neither player had noticed nor stopped the clock.
A spectator might be accused of giving outside assistance to one of the players in seeking to involve the Arbiter without a specific request from the players.

[David Sedgwick]

I hesitate to ask, because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like the answer, but what should happen if the arbiter comes to the board and tells the players a possible breach of the rules has been reported. And white says that he did indeed notice that the rook could have moved legally but he'd decided he didn't want to waste his entry fee by winning games that way.

I don't believe that the Arbiter would have any justification to intervene and disturb the game if he hasn't observed the alleged infraction and neither player had noticed nor stopped the clock.
A spectator might be accused of giving outside assistance to one of the players in seeking to involve the Arbiter without a specific request from the players.

Not necessarily, Michael.

Suppose a spectator comes up to you and says that:

a) he saw a player take a move back while his opponent was away from the board; or

b) he saw a player adjust the clocks to give himself extra time while his opponent was away from the board.

[Michael Flatt]

I hesitate to ask, because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like the answer, but what should happen if the arbiter comes to the board and tells the players a possible breach of the rules has been reported. And white says that he did indeed notice that the rook could have moved legally but he'd decided he didn't want to waste his entry fee by winning games that way.

Not necessarily, Michael.

Suppose a spectator comes up to you and says that:

a) he saw a player take a move back while his opponent was away from the board; or
b) he saw a player adjust the clocks to give himself extra time while his opponent was away from the board.

In the scenario presented by David Williams in which both players are present at the board it would be unnecessary for a spectator to interfere by seeking to involve the Arbiter.

In the two additional scenarios you present where a player is absent and a spectator claims to have observed something untoward it would alert the Arbiter to a potential dispute. In such situations one has to be remain sceptical since the spectator may have been mistaken in what he observed.

[Ian Thompson]

I hesitate to ask, because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like the answer, but what should happen if the arbiter comes to the board and tells the players a possible breach of the rules has been reported. And white says that he did indeed notice that the rook could have moved legally but he'd decided he didn't want to waste his entry fee by winning games that way.

In the scenario presented by David Williams in which both players are present at the board it would be unnecessary for a spectator to interfere by seeking to involve the Arbiter.

Suppose the spectator is another player in the tournament who has an interest in the outcome of the game. Are you saying that players shouldn't report breaches of the rules to the arbiter in games other than their own?

[Michael Flatt]

Suppose the spectator is another player in the tournament who has an interest in the outcome of the game. Are you saying that players shouldn't report breaches of the rules to the arbiter in games other than their own?

A player or spectator should avoid attempting to influence the outcome of another game or putting undue pressure on the Arbiter .
Ultimately, after one or more warnings such tactics might result in your exclusion from the playing hall.

[E Michael White]

Suppose the spectator is another player in the tournament who has an interest in the outcome of the game. Are you saying that players shouldn't report breaches of the rules to the arbiter in games other than their own?

A player or spectator should avoid attempting to influence the outcome of another game or putting undue pressure on the Arbiter .
Ultimately, after one or more warnings such tactics might result in your exclusion from the playing hall.

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.

[Michael Flatt]

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

[Roger Lancaster]

Have to say that the second and third sentences of FIDE 12.7 shouldn't be interpreted as overriding the first sentence because, if they did, the first sentence would become redundant. Or, put slightly differently, informing an arbiter does not automatically constitute interference in a game - although I suppose one could contrive circumstances where it might.

[David Williams]

If I've understood all this correctly, in the situation originally described, the spectator should definitely tell the arbiter, who will then either intervene or not intervene, and may or may not warn the spectator that if he does it again he will be excluded.

I'm glad we got that sorted.