English Chess Forum

Last weekend I was playing in the minor section of the Sheffield congress. On the Saturday afternoon my game finished fairly quickly so I went to watch others. On one of the lowest boards a player with white gave check with the queen along a diagonal. Black obviously didn't realise it was check because he moved his only remaining rook to attack the queen (protected by a bishop) and left his king in check. White pointed out the check, so black put the rook back to its original position and moved the king out of check. Now the important point is that the black rook could have blocked the check. (By the way, such a move would almost certainly have lost the game.)

I turned to the only other spectator and we both raised our eyebrows. Of course white could have made black move the rook because it had been touched and could make a legal move by blocking the check. Insisting on this would have been very sensible given the position. However, the young man playing white possibly didn't realise this, because he allowed the king move to stand. Now I realise that as spectators we had to remain silent, but had there been an arbiter present could he or should he have intervened?

Robert

Robert Stokes wrote: Now I realise that as spectators we had to remain silent, but had there been an arbiter present could he or should he have intervened?

Yes to both questions.

That answer surprises me. I thought someone would say that the arbiter is only there to referee a dispute between the players. For instance if they had disagreed whether the rook had to be moved. That he would not act unilaterally.

Therefore a supplementary question. Should I have mentioned it to the section controller who was sitting nearby working on previous results?

Robert

Robert Stokes wrote:That answer surprises me. I thought someone would say that the arbiter is only there to referee a dispute between the players. For instance if they had disagreed whether the rook had to be moved. That he would not act unilaterally.

The obligations of the arbiter under Law 12.1 - "The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed." - seem very clear to me.

Robert Stokes wrote:Therefore a supplementary question. Should I have mentioned it to the section controller who was sitting nearby working on previous results?

Yes.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: Yes to both questions.

Sadly Jack is correct. Never forget that the rules are written by and for arbiters.

Robert Stokes wrote:That answer surprises me. I thought someone would say that the arbiter is only there to referee a dispute between the players. For instance if they had disagreed whether the rook had to be moved. That he would not act unilaterally.

Robert

This cropped up on the FIDE arbiter course I was on in January. Someone raised this point and my response was what if the opponent wasn't at the board? Would we really expect the arbiter turn a blind eye rather than enforcing the rule?

Never forget that the rules are written by and for arbiters.

Not true. In the ECF rules may be drafted by arbiters, but they are approved by the Board. No doubt FIDE operates on a similar basis.

Why do you (and others) make assertions like this?

Robert Stokes wrote:Last weekend I was playing in the minor section of the Sheffield congress. On the Saturday afternoon my game finished fairly quickly so I went to watch others. On one of the lowest boards a player with white gave check with the queen along a diagonal. Black obviously didn't realise it was check because he moved his only remaining rook to attack the queen (protected by a bishop) and left his king in check. White pointed out the check, so black put the rook back to its original position and moved the king out of check. Now the important point is that the black rook could have blocked the check. (By the way, such a move would almost certainly have lost the game.)

I turned to the only other spectator and we both raised our eyebrows. Of course white could have made black move the rook because it had been touched and could make a legal move by blocking the check. Insisting on this would have been very sensible given the position. However, the young man playing white possibly didn't realise this, because he allowed the king move to stand. Now I realise that as spectators we had to remain silent, but had there been an arbiter present could he or should he have intervened?

Robert

It is peculiar that the opponent did see the incident but didn't report the breach of the touch-move rule to the arbiter or perhaps the controller. If no arbiter was present, I presume the task of the controller is to report incidents like this to an arbiter (possibly at a delayed point of time). Why White did not report this is a question, perhaps he didn't realize or perhaps he didn't like to win an instant win only based on the touch-move rule. If an arbiter had seen this, he is obliged to act on the breach of the Laws of Chess, I agree with Ian Thompson that this is very clear from Article 12.1

If an arbiter had not watched the incident, and Black does not admit he moved the rook first, it becomes a case of one player's word against the other player, and it is not easy to determine who is telling the truth. Without witnesses White would not have a strong case. Most likely the arbiter would have to let the incident pass without penalty, even if the arbiter would believe more in White's testimony than in Black's testimony.

Robert Stokes wrote:That answer surprises me. I thought someone would say that the arbiter is only there to referee a dispute between the players.

No the arbiter should uphold the Laws of Chess, but will often be included in a dispute only after one player claims something, for instance here White could have claimed that Black moved the rook first, and should therefore interpose it to the check, instead of allowing the king move.

Robert Stokes wrote: For instance if they had disagreed whether the rook had to be moved. That he would not act unilaterally.

He would most likely not, at least not if there were no witnesses but the two players.

Robert Stokes wrote: Therefore a supplementary question. Should I have mentioned it to the section controller who was sitting nearby working on previous results?

Yes I believe so. It would be wrong for a witness to disturb the game and claim what he had seen to the players, but it would be correct to report it discreetly to the arbiter (or the controller) and let these carry on the case if they deemed it necessary.

With two witnesses and the opponent reporting that Black had first made a move with the rook, this should represent a "damned good case" that Black had to interpose the rook instead of moving the king, but it is still the arbiters decision, and no matter what ruling was made, the arbiter's decision could be appealed to the Appeal's Committee.

Mike Truran wrote: No doubt FIDE operates on a similar basis.

I hope you will come to Baku for a first hand experience.

Why do you (and others) make assertions like this?

Nothing more than experience.

I hope you will come to Baku for a first hand experience.

Surprised to read something like that from such a die-hard FIDE apologist.

Mike Truran wrote: Surprised to read something like that from such a die-hard FIDE apologist.

Then you haven't paid attention for the past eight years.

edit : Like most people in English chess, you categorise anyone who doesn't think the sun shines out of Kasparov's bottom as a die-hard FIDE apologist.

Mike Truran wrote:

Never forget that the rules are written by and for arbiters.

Not true. In the ECF rules may be drafted by arbiters, but they are approved by the Board. No doubt FIDE operates on a similar basis.

Why do you (and others) make assertions like this?

FIDE Rules Commission's Letter to all Federations[1] wrote:At the 87th Congress to be held in Baku in 2016, the FIDE Rules Commission, along with arbiters, organizers, players, trainers and national federations globally will have the opportunity to amend the FIDE Laws of Chess.

This process is a vital one to ensure the Laws are written as clearly and accurately as possible to ensure uniform understanding by the chess world.

To ensure the review is performed in an orderly fashion, the final reviewing of proposals will take place on the next Rules Commission Councillors' Meeting in Warsaw, Poland from 19 to 22 July 2016. The final decision will be made at the 87th Congress in Baku in 2016.

[1] https://www.fide.com/component/content/ ... tions.html

What's your point?

NickFaulks wrote:What's your point?

Just flagging up the relevant page on the FiDE website.

At the 87th Congress to be held in Baku in 2016, the FIDE Rules Commission, along with arbiters, organizers, players, trainers and national federations globally will have the opportunity to amend the FIDE Laws of Chess.

I can't speak for Michael, but I would have thought his point challenging your assertion that rules are written by and for arbiters was an obvious one.

Italicized and emboldened above just in case it's not obvious enough.