Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

[Mike Truran]

I was saying that in a situation where Council decides something is strategic not organisational then Council's authority overrides the Board's.

I couldn't agree more. If Council feels that the Board has overstepped the mark, then the sensible place to deal with that is at Council meetings (or an EGM if the transgression is deemed so egregious that such action is considered necessary).

For the avoidance of doubt, your second statement is the meaning I intended to convey in my various posts.

[Michael Farthing]

Quite amazingly for a toxic forum, this topic appears to be iterating towards a stable equilibrium.

[Roger Lancaster]

Whether one agrees with this proposal or not, and I’m not sure I entirely do, one can see some logic behind it. I have one reservation – and I’ve trawled through 9 pages here without noticing anything relevant although I apologize if I’ve missed something – which is this.

The proposal, if adopted, would seem to mean local leagues having ‘retained arbiters’ whom they could consult as and when disputes arose. However, many disputes – the last to require my services, roughly a month ago, revolved around whether a player had lost on time when the two players’ scoresheets disagreed as to the number of moves completed – can only be satisfactorily settled in real time and these ‘retained arbiters’ would not (other than through sheer coincidence) be physically present.

The ‘retained arbiters’ would be useful for disputes which did not need to be settled in real time but this is arguably where they are least needed. Most such disputes (I’ll concede there’s the occasional exception) can be sorted out fairly easily through consultation between senior players with access to the FIDE Laws, arbiters manual, etc and a little time on their hands.

[Paul Dargan]

Really - surely the most likely cause of dispute these days is a 10.2 claim that cannot be agreed upon on the night?

[Roger de Coverly]

Really - surely the most likely cause of dispute these days is a 10.2 claim that cannot be agreed upon on the night?

If all leagues follow the ECF advice and switch to increments, 10.2, or Appendix G as it now is, becomes a thing of the past. But as being currently debated elsewhere on the forum, that opens up problems with making 50 move or repetition claims when neither player is scoring.

[Michael Flatt]

Really - surely the most likely cause of dispute these days is a 10.2 claim that cannot be agreed upon on the night?

If all leagues follow the ECF advice and switch to increments, 10.2, or Appendix G as it now is, becomes a thing of the past. But as being currently debated elsewhere on the forum, that opens up problems with making 50 move or repetition claims when neither player is scoring.

And, of course, not all evenings leagues have dispensed with adjournments and adjudications!
The fashion for quick play finishes never gained universal acceptance.

[Paul Dargan]

Really - surely the most likely cause of dispute these days is a 10.2 claim that cannot be agreed upon on the night?

If all leagues follow the ECF advice and switch to increments, 10.2, or Appendix G as it now is, becomes a thing of the past. But as being currently debated elsewhere on the forum, that opens up problems with making 50 move or repetition claims when neither player is scoring.

I would have thought the bigger issues would be availability of digital clocks at all clubs and throwing-out time

[Roger de Coverly]

I would have thought the bigger issues would be availability of digital clocks at all clubs and throwing-out time

The ECF official statement assumes these are not major obstacles.

5a) The ECF encourages organisers to use incremental time-controls wherever possible.

[Michael Farthing]

I would have thought the bigger issues would be availability of digital clocks at all clubs and throwing-out time

The ECF official statement assumes these are not major obstacles.

5a) The ECF encourages organisers to use incremental time-controls wherever possible.

I know that you do not allow accuracy and logic to intrude into areas where there may be a sniff of criticism to be made but how can you possibly get away with this piece of nonsense?

To my mind 'wherever possible' is a clear sign that the ECF recognises that there may be obstacles sufficiently large to make their proposals inoperable. Am I linguistically challenged? Do I speak a different language from you? Am I going senile? (Well, actually, there are worrying signs but not that bad I hope).

[Paul Dargan]

Michael - I was by the pool so you beat me to this ... but I also don't read any presumption that most (or even many) league games will follow this suggestion. It is the ECF's suggestion and preference - but the reason it is no stronger than that is that it is recognised that there will be many that cannot conform.

Paul

[NickFaulks]

Having said all of that, the suggestion is a very sensible one. The claim that a 5 second increment means that games will go on all night is rather silly, and you can play a lot of moves in the time taken up by an Appendix G argument.

[Roger de Coverly]

The claim that a 5 second increment means that games will go on all night is rather silly

I doubt Leagues would adopt 5 seconds. That's so fast, it reintroduces the possibility of losing on time with a decisive material advantage. 10 or 15 second increments seem more likely and are the ones used by Leagues and Congresses that use non FIDE increments.

[NickFaulks]

That's so fast, it reintroduces the possibility of losing on time with a decisive material advantage.

If you can't find a sensible move in five seconds, particularly when the increment is cumulative, then your position cannot be considered easily winning. The point of the increment is not to ensure a high quality of chess, it is to avoid the abomination of Appendix G.

Unfortunately, Appendix G disputes are considered in some areas of English chess to be a vital and exciting element of the game.

[Roger Lancaster]

I don't see anything which detracts from my earlier post. Paul may well be right as regards old law 10.2 (now incorporated in Appendix G, dealing with draw claims when less than 2 minutes remain on the clock) being the most frequent cause of disputes but, as that law includes the clause "He shall summon the arbiter", it is surely just another example where a distant arbiter - who will not personally have witnessed events - may not be able to contribute a great deal.

[Mick Norris]

Really - surely the most likely cause of dispute these days is a 10.2 claim that cannot be agreed upon on the night?

As far as I know, that's been the only 1 this season in the Manchester League