ECF arbiting at Aberystwyth - FIDE perspective

[Angus French]

It's a third party, not family of one of the two directly involved players, who has been keeping the dispute alive at FIDE, the Watford club website etc, is it not?

It's a parent according to the FIDE Arbiter's Commission:

As you have quoted the minutes of relevant item of the Rules Commission Councillors Meeting in full, I'd like to quote the minutes of the relevant item of the Arbiters' Commission Councillors Meeting in full:

"An incident that happened during the British U-8 Championship 2014 was discussed by the Commission. The whole case was already dismissed by FIDE Ethics Commission, as the father of the boy who was involved had sent a complaint to the FIDE Ethics Commission ....

It's a parent of a third child who has complained; not a parent of a child involved in the game which was scored 0.5-1.

Part of the complaint was that the third child was disadvantaged by the award of 1.5 points for the game between the other two children. It seems to me though, that by kicking up a fuss, the third child has been advantaged and awarded third place when that wouldn't otherwise have happened (had the score in the disputed game been 0-1 or 0.5-0.5).

Anyway.

[Michael Flatt]

Part of the complaint was that the third child was disadvantaged by the award of 1.5 points for the game between the other two children. It seems to me though, that by kicking up a fuss, the third child has been advantaged and awarded third place when that wouldn't otherwise have happened (had the score in the disputed game been 0-1 or 0.5-0.5).

I don't believe that the parent was demanding third prize. It was a way of plastering over the cracks of the Organiser's failings without actually understanding the nature of the true complaint: Lack of clarity of the rules under which the competition was being conducted.

Going into the last round none of the leaders knew who was in the running for first place since the result of one round 5 game was not known. How can it be right to manipulate the results of a competition after all games had been played?

The whole episode has undermined the authority and credibility of the floor Arbiter since it is not at all clear why his original decision about the game was overruled. Why should anyone volunteer to officiate in one of the ECF's events if there is a danger of being humiliated by the unwarranted and unexplained intervention of the Organiser/ECF in overturning the result of a game?

It should not be overlooked that the result of the disputed game was key in determining the winner(s) of the event.

[E Michael White]

After reading the posts on this, my view is that taking all quoted facts as true, but not necessarily posters' opinions or conclusions, the arbiters acted as the Event Rules, FIDE Rules and FIDE Laws required them to. That includes those acting in a non arbiter capacity, for example the congress manager, as well as arbiters pure and simple. I realise arbiters may not be interested in what I think.

I think part of the problem was that official documentation leading up to the event - some combination of the entry form and the website - had stated that FIDE rules were to be used, and then the actual changes in the July 2014 FIDE rules had caught people by surprise.

Jack probably meant FIDE Laws in this post as FIDE Rules are different sets.

At the BCC14 U8 tournament (Aberyswyth) hall it was displayed on a notice board that FIDE tournament rules as modified on 1st July 2014 would apply.

Did the notices say FIDE Tournament Rules or FIDE Laws ? It makes a difference.

[Brian Towers]

Malcolm Pein's report as FIDE delegate has now been received and published on the ECF website. See http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... report.pdf.

Which includes these interesting comments from Alex Holowczak from the Arbiters' Commission:

The Rad Kadengal case was considered, and I was not able to defend Kevin Staveley on behalf of the Organisers due to my ECF suspension. This notwithstanding, there was much opposition from everywhere about awarding 1-1/2 in a game. As the condemnation ground to a close, I noted that Kevin accepted this was wrong, had “learnt his lesson”, and that the silver lining was that the player won the British Under 8s this year. The meeting ended on that cheery note.

[Michael Flatt]

So, finally the matter is closed!

[Roger de Coverly]

So, finally the matter is closed!

Apart from a nagging doubt on how the illegal move dispute arose in the first place and why it couldn't happen again. The FIDE rules appear to allow an arbiter to rule that an illegal move took place, but that it doesn't lead to loss of the game because the claim for a win wasn't made correctly.

[E Michael White]

Apart from a nagging doubt on how the illegal move dispute arose in the first place and why it couldn't happen again. The FIDE rules appear to allow an arbiter to rule that an illegal move took place, but that it doesn't lead to loss of the game because the claim for a win wasn't made correctly.

The findings of the FIDE RTRC were extremely muddled. I've been meaning to post why but haven't yet had time. The ½-1 result can be questioned if all the facts were known but the actions of the arbiters were as required by the rules ( not Laws ! ).

[Roger Lancaster]

I'm grateful to Brian Towers for reproducing Alex Holowczak's comments from the Arbiters Commission because, by the time I looked for myself on the ECF website later today, someone had edited out those particular comments. Presumably, even though just about everyone accepts the ECF got this wrong, this is something the ECF cannot bear to admit publicly. Never mind, I'm sure other federations will publish uncensored versions of what took place.

[Roger de Coverly]

Presumably, even though just about everyone accepts the ECF got this wrong, this is something the ECF cannot bear to admit publicly.

If you want constitutional wrangling, it would seem a valid question to ask whether Malcolm was the author of the changes to his report. If he wasn't, to what extent do ECF directors have the power to censor the reports of those directly elected by the ECF AGM?

[Carl Hibbard]

Presumably, even though just about everyone accepts the ECF got this wrong, this is something the ECF cannot bear to admit publicly.

If you want constitutional wrangling, it would seem a valid question to ask whether Malcolm was the author of the changes to his report. If he wasn't, to what extent do ECF directors have the power to censor the reports of those directly elected by the ECF AGM?

What did I miss?

[Michael Flatt]

Presumably, even though just about everyone accepts the ECF got this wrong, this is something the ECF cannot bear to admit publicly.

If you want constitutional wrangling, it would seem a valid question to ask whether Malcolm was the author of the changes to his report. If he wasn't, to what extent do ECF directors have the power to censor the reports of those directly elected by the ECF AGM?

The Annex carries Alex's name as author so it is unlikely that anyone else would have edited it without indicating that certain parts had been excised.

I think that we have to assume that Alex edited his report after having received comments from third parties about the Aberystwyth complaint and reporting of proceedings of the FIDE Arbiter commission. Alex provided more detail in the first version of his report than the officially published FIDE one which stated that it had no jurisdiction over the matter.

[Roger de Coverly]

What did I miss?

There were two versions of Malcolm's report to the ECF AGM about FIDE matters. Both included as an Appendix, a report by Alex H on the various commission meetings he had attended. A paragraph about a discussion on Aberystwyth is present in the first version, but not the second. It was quoted by Brian Towers above. Whether that is the only change is as yet unchecked.

[Carl Hibbard]

What did I miss?

There were two versions of Malcolm's report to the ECF AGM about FIDE matters. Both included as an Appendix, a report by Alex H on the various commission meetings he had attended. A paragraph about a discussion on Aberystwyth is present in the first version, but not the second. It was quoted by Brian Towers above. Whether that is the only change is as yet unchecked.

Anyone got the first version I can include here?

[Rad Kadengal]

http://arbiters.fide.com/minutes/fide-c ... -2015.html states:
"In the view of the Commission the main problem is that for the game where the incident happen, half a point was given to one player and a full point to the other player. Bharat Singh pointed out that a result of ½ - 1 cannot be accepted by FIDE.

Chairman Takis Nikolopoulos proposed to write a letter to the English Chess Federation pointing out that such results should be avoided in the future.

Ruben Stewart pointed out that the event was not FIDE rated and in fact such results do not exist in FIDE rated tournaments of the English Chess Federation.

The Arbiters’ Commission after discussion agreed that according to the FIDE Laws of Chess the decision of the arbiters and the Chief Arbiter had been correct, but the applied by the Tournament manager result ½-1 does not exist in the FIDE Laws of Chess.

However, as there was no intention by the English Chess Federation to send the event to FIDE for rating, they could follow only internal regulations and therefore there is no reason to penalize anybody."

Reading this with the report from Alex H quoted above makes it interesting.

[Roger de Coverly]

Chairman Takis Nikolopoulos proposed to write a letter to the English Chess Federation pointing out that such results should be avoided in the future.

FIDE's message to British arbiters seems clear enough, that whatever the problem, awarding one and half points isn't the solution.