Laws of Chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:45 pm

"So I'll throw the question out there: does wanting to go to the toilet make it harder to think about a chess move? "

Wasn't it Mark Hebden who introduced the concept of the "toilet move"? You need to go to the toilet so you just play what looks like a good idea and dash off. At Hastings many years ago, I was agonising over whether to sacrifice a piece and agonising over the need to get to the toilet. I then decided to give up the piece and rushed off. My opponent seemed to be surprised by the move and probably my rapid departure from the board intimidated him as well. (I won.)

I played another Surrey player who started leaving the board and the room after every move (but when it was my move). It did look suspicious... Since computer cheating has come in, I have really restricted the number of times I go for a walk during a game, or I stay clearly visible.

Actually a club colleague in Surrey played someone who was chatting to a team-mate. Our player then played a move, the opponent returned to the board, looked at the move, walked back to his team-mate, had a brief chat, then returned. Our player was annoyed!

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Brian Towers » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:32 pm

John Upham wrote:Nick,

To put your mind at ease, arbiters in action from 2012 :
The FIDE Arbiters' Manual (http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories ... l-2016.pdf) is very explicit on these matters and makes clear that this is not acceptable behaviour by arbiters. Specifically this section towards the end of the manual in the section "The Role of the Arbiters and their duties" it says this:
FIDE Arbiters' Manual 2016 wrote:Additionally we can consider the following requirements as very important for the Arbiters in a competition:
...
2. To observe of as many games as possible during every round of the competition.
They have to take care of the games that they are responsible, to observe and to check the games’ progress (especially when there is time trouble). It is not acceptable for the Arbiters to leave the playing area every 10 or 15 minutes for smoking or for any discussions with friends, spectators, officials, or other persons, or to leave their sector unattended in order to go and watch other games in another part of the playing hall. It is not acceptable for the Arbiters to stay seated in their chairs reading newspapers or books (even chess books!), or to sit in front of a computer, surfing on Internet, etc., leaving their games without observation. It is also not acceptable for the Arbiters to speak on their mobiles in the playing hall during the games. The Law of Chess regarding the mobile phones is valid not only for the players, captains and spectators, but for the Arbiters as well.
It is sure that the biggest problems during the games are caused because of the absence or the lack of attention of the Arbiters and thus the ignorance of what actually happened in case of an incident. How an absent Arbiter will take a fair decision in a dispute between two players caused because of a touched piece (i.e. the opponents do not agree that the player said “j’adoube” in advance)? Without knowing what actually happened, the Arbiter has 50% possibilities to take a correct decision and 50% to take a wrong one, losing by this way his credibility and the trust of the players.
Of course the Arbiters are human beings and they may make mistakes, but they have to try as much as they can to avoid such problems.
Let's just be charitable and suggest that the manual is a long document (237 pages) and perhaps the arbiters in John's picture didn't manage to reach page 218 above. Perhaps their federations should have a word with them.
Last edited by Brian Towers on Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:31 pm

Brian Towers wrote:
John Upham wrote:Nick,

To put your mind at ease, arbiters in action from 2012 :
The FIDE Arbiters' Manual (http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories ... l-2016.pdf) is very explicit on these matters and makes clear that this is not acceptable behaviour by arbiters. Specifically this section towards the end of the manual in the section "The Role of the Arbiters and their duties" it says this:
FIDE Arbiters' Manual 2016 wrote:Additionally we can consider the following requirements as very important for the Arbiters in a competition:
...
2. To observe of as many games as possible during every round of the competition.
They have to take care of the games that they are responsible, to observe and to check the games’ progress (especially when there is time trouble). It is not acceptable for the Arbiters to leave the playing area every 10 or 15 minutes for smoking or for any discussions with friends, spectators, officials, or other persons, or to leave their sector unattended in order to go and watch other games in another part of the playing hall. It is not acceptable for the Arbiters to stay seated in their chairs reading newspapers or books (even chess books!), or to sit in front of a computer, surfing on Internet, etc., leaving their games without observation. It is also not acceptable for the Arbiters to speak on their mobiles in the playing hall during the games. The Law of Chess regarding the mobile phones is valid not only for the players, captains and spectators, but for the Arbiters as well.
It is sure that the biggest problems during the games are caused because of the absence or the lack of attention of the Arbiters and thus the ignorance of what actually happened in case of an incident. How an absent Arbiter will take a fair decision in a dispute between two players caused because of a touched piece (i.e. the opponents do not agree that the player said “j’adoube” in advance)? Without knowing what actually happened, the Arbiter has 50% possibilities to take a correct decision and 50% to take a wrong one, losing by this way his credibility and the trust of the players.
Of course the Arbiters are human beings and they may make mistakes, but they have to try as much as they can to avoid such problems.
Let's just be charitable and suggest that the manual is a long document (237 pages) and perhaps the arbiters in Nick's picture didn't manage to reach page 218 above. Perhaps their federations should have a word with them.
That section of the Handbook is nonsense for pretty much any Open tournament in the world. Organisers' budgets won't stretch to the levels that require that many arbiters.

I disagree with various points raised in that paragraph:
  • The assertion that not being able to rule on a touch move incident loses the trust of the players because you haven't seen it. Whenever there has been such an incident involving adults, the adults realise that they can't expect you to see it, and they don't blame the arbiter, they blame their opponent. I do accept that young children will get a bit more upset.
  • The assertion that you can take a 50% correct decision and 50% incorrect decision. If you ask the right question, you can usually skew the odds one way or the other in the arbiter's favour. I remember watching Sean Hewitt handling a touch move dispute at one tournament, where he basically got the opponent to confess that he touched it without him realising it.
  • The implication that an arbiter who does not see the definitive evidence in a touch move case has made a mistake. At the vast majority of tournaments, it's simply not possible to see this sort of thing.
But in fact, I don't agree with quite a few of the comments in that manual in general. The comments there don't have the force of Law that the Laws themselves do, so it is something that arbiters are able to agree or disagree with, rather than something that should be taken as gospel.

However, I do think that seeing arbiters sitting reading a book looks unprofessional, and I think that's a problem. It's less of a problem to use a computer because you might be using it for various reasons - liveboards, putting games in, putting results in. These are all potentially jobs within the arbiter's remit. But it looks unprofessional to sit there reading a book.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Ian Thompson » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:37 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:That section of the Handbook is nonsense for pretty much any Open tournament in the world. Organisers' budgets won't stretch to the levels that require that many arbiters.

I disagree with various points raised in that paragraph:
  • The assertion that not being able to rule on a touch move incident loses the trust of the players because you haven't seen it. Whenever there has been such an incident involving adults, the adults realise that they can't expect you to see it, and they don't blame the arbiter, they blame their opponent. I do accept that young children will get a bit more upset.
  • The assertion that you can take a 50% correct decision and 50% incorrect decision. If you ask the right question, you can usually skew the odds one way or the other in the arbiter's favour. I remember watching Sean Hewitt handling a touch move dispute at one tournament, where he basically got the opponent to confess that he touched it without him realising it.
  • The implication that an arbiter who does not see the definitive evidence in a touch move case has made a mistake. At the vast majority of tournaments, it's simply not possible to see this sort of thing.
I think using 'touch move' as an example in the handbook is a bad choice. Even an arbiter properly fulfilling his duties to observe games is unlikely to be able to say with certainty that a touch move infringement occurred. He may be able to say that he definitely saw the touch happen, but it's unlikely he'll be sure that there was no accompanying "J'adoube" that he didn't hear.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:37 pm

Ian Thompson wrote: He may be able to say that he definitely saw the touch happen, but it's unlikely he'll be sure that there was no accompanying "J'adoube" that he didn't hear.
Thinking back to the incident between Aronian and Nakamura in the Candidates, the arbiter was quick to come to the table, but there was also the live video feed. It was a lot more of a deliberate move retracted than a piece adjustment.

In at least some British tournaments, arbiters have their own little office where they can potentially read books, eat pies etc. with no-one the wiser.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:38 pm

Ian Thompson wrote: I think using 'touch move' as an example in the handbook is a bad choice. Even an arbiter properly fulfilling his duties to observe games is unlikely to be able to say with certainty that a touch move infringement occurred. He may be able to say that he definitely saw the touch happen, but it's unlikely he'll be sure that there was no accompanying "J'adoube" that he didn't hear.
And even that's before considering whether the touch occurred with the intention of moving or capturing, seven words which sometimes get overlooked. I've come across (and I should stress I'm without arbiting qualifications) occasions where a player has clearly touched, say, the white queen on e4 but claimed that he was actually reaching for the white pawn on e5 in order to play the legal move e5-e6. Arbiter presumably then should have to decide, did the player intend to move the queen or was he simply clumsy?

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Brian Towers » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:06 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:In at least some British tournaments, arbiters have their own little office where they can potentially read books, eat pies etc. with no-one the wiser.
Indeed.
And regardless of what they are doing in there they are clearly doing nothing whatsoever to help them fulfill their primary duty under Article 12: "The Role of the Arbiter" of the FIDE Laws of Chess.
FIDE Laws of Chess wrote:12.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.
On the other hand, Alex mentions "unprofessional behaviour". Despite the rigourous training and assessment that modern arbiters are required to pass they are still unpaid and so not strictly speaking professionals. While that remains the case holding them to account when they are hiding away reading the paper or eating pies is problematic.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Brendan O'Gorman
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Brendan O'Gorman » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:24 pm

This is a chess forum and thus prone to obsessional pedants arguing over the minutiae of rules, but I'd like to reassure any arbiters reading that most of us players are very grateful for their efforts in affording us the opportunity to play the game. We are far from wanting to hold them to account for reading a book or scoffing a pie. Oh, and I apologise for some of my past misuses of arbiter photos which failed to show them at their dynamic best!

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:49 am

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Ian Thompson wrote: I think using 'touch move' as an example in the handbook is a bad choice. Even an arbiter properly fulfilling his duties to observe games is unlikely to be able to say with certainty that a touch move infringement occurred. He may be able to say that he definitely saw the touch happen, but it's unlikely he'll be sure that there was no accompanying "J'adoube" that he didn't hear.
And even that's before considering whether the touch occurred with the intention of moving or capturing, seven words which sometimes get overlooked. I've come across (and I should stress I'm without arbiting qualifications) occasions where a player has clearly touched, say, the white queen on e4 but claimed that he was actually reaching for the white pawn on e5 in order to play the legal move e5-e6. Arbiter presumably then should have to decide, did the player intend to move the queen or was he simply clumsy?
I think Ian is right.

With Roger's point, it would depend how the Queen on e4 was touched. If he went to grab it, with his hand in a claw-like position, then I think I'd rule that he touched it with the intention of moving it. If he just knocked the Queen over on his way to the pawn and knocked it down, then stood it back up, I'd rule not.

I argued for the current wording, which used to say "touch deliberately", because it was thought simpler and synonymous with "touch with the intention of moving it". In the case of the Queen being knocked down above, standing the Queen back up is undoubtedly touching it deliberately, but it certainly isn't touching with the intention of moving it.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:57 am

Brian Towers wrote:
FIDE Laws of Chess wrote:12.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.
On the other hand, Alex mentions "unprofessional behaviour". Despite the rigourous training and assessment that modern arbiters are required to pass they are still unpaid and so not strictly speaking professionals. While that remains the case holding them to account when they are hiding away reading the paper or eating pies is problematic.
I accept this point, but with the caveat that just because you're an amateur doesn't mean there aren't little things you can do that convey an air of professionalism with relatively little effort. For example, things like dressing smartly, or not playing on your phone in the playing area.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by John Upham » Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:25 am

Brendan O'Gorman wrote:This is a chess forum and thus prone to obsessional pedants arguing over the minutiae of rules, but I'd like to reassure any arbiters reading that most of us players are very grateful for their efforts in affording us the opportunity to play the game. We are far from wanting to hold them to account for reading a book or scoffing a pie. Oh, and I apologise for some of my past misuses of arbiter photos which failed to show them at their dynamic best!

Brendan,

We would very much like to see photographs of arbiters at their dynamic best.

Please provide a link to such images.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Stewart Reuben » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:46 am

Brin Towers (I think) > Despite the rigourous training and assessment that modern arbiters are required to pass they are still unpaid and so not strictly speaking professionals.<

That is a very British=centric statement. Arbiters in other countries are quite often paid. i have heard it said, 'Why do the job if you are not paid?'
In this country chess arbiters, organisers, match captains, club secretaries, etc. are usually part of thE WHITE ECONOMY. That is, as distinct from the Black economy where people are paid, usually cash in hand and don't declare the income for tax purposes. The White economy is a term I coined, but have not been successful in getting into general useage. It makes a huge contribution to our society and yet is seldom mentioned.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Brian Towers » Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:51 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:With Roger's point, it would depend how the Queen on e4 was touched. If he went to grab it, with his hand in a claw-like position, then I think I'd rule that he touched it with the intention of moving it. If he just knocked the Queen over on his way to the pawn and knocked it down, then stood it back up, I'd rule not.

I argued for the current wording, which used to say "touch deliberately", because it was thought simpler and synonymous with "touch with the intention of moving it". In the case of the Queen being knocked down above, standing the Queen back up is undoubtedly touching it deliberately, but it certainly isn't touching with the intention of moving it.
This is an area which could definitely do with more clarity.

Back in the day when Geurt Gijssen was chairman of the Rules Commission he muddied the waters somewhat with an article in his column "An Arbiter's Notebook" on the late ChessCafe.com website in which he delivered the following judgement.

White has rooks on d1 and e1. Black has a queen on e4. White picks up the rook on d1 and takes the queen on e4. Geurt Gijssen's controversial judgement was that since the intention was clearly Re1 x Qe4 that is the move that should be played with no requirement to move the rook on d1 and no penalty for an illegal move. I have to admit that of the 3 obvious and not so obvious possible decisions his is the last one I would choose.

Edit: Just checked the wayback machine and found the link - https://web.archive.org/web/20140627025 ... urt160.pdf.

I got it slightly wrong. The rooks were on c1 and d1 and it was a black rook on d5 not a queen on e4 but the substance remains the same. Interested readers can check Mr Gijssen's exact reasoning in the link.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Stewart Reuben » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:14 pm

Nonetheless, Geurt was correct.
Take the simpler situation. 1 e4 e5 2 Kh5. He has not pressed the clock and returns the king to e1. Then plays 2 Qh5. The intent was clear and there should be no penalty.
But what if the clock was pressed? It is clearly a completed illegal move. Black has lost time. In a standard play game the clock is stopped. Now comes the tricky bit. the arbiter must decide whether the player has to play 2 Ke2 or allow 2 Qh5. In either case, Black gets an extra 2 minutes.
In a rapidplay or blitz he loses. I think we made a mistake that the first illegal move in a rapidplay loses. There was no appetite for change in the 2017 Laws.

What if the opponent says, 'Oh, it is clear he intended Qh5. Let' get on with our game.' I would simply walk away and let them do precisely that.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Laws of Chess

Post by Brian Towers » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:26 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:Brin Towers (I think) > Despite the rigourous training and assessment that modern arbiters are required to pass they are still unpaid and so not strictly speaking professionals.<

That is a very British=centric statement. Arbiters in other countries are quite often paid.
Well, in Israel they're not. Although I was once given a couple of nice pens that, according to the writing on the side, looked as if they'd been nicked from the local authority ;-). Tea and coffee are usually provided free.

That said, you definitely have a point about the British mentality. On one occasion tea and coffee were being provided at 50p a cup on a pour-your-own plus honesty box basis. That included the arbiter (me). At one stage the organiser even came up and asked if I could lend him £1 so that he could "buy" a cup of coffee without it looking as if he was taking it for free.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Post Reply