FIDE arbiters commission

[Brian Towers]

but I would agree that it should be a magazine reflecting the views of its editorial staff

Maybe, but when you read in bold type that it is not permitted for an arbiter also to be a player in any FIDE rated event, you could be forgiven for assuming this to be true. It is false.

The ICF's position (as far as it has been explained to me) is that it is forbidden for an arbiter to play in a FIDE rated event in which he is also an arbiter. Of course he may play in a FIDE rated event in which he is not an arbiter. This makes perfect sense to me in light of article 12. Specifically:

"12.3 The arbiter shall observe the games"

How can he observe the games if he is playing?

"12.6 The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess."

I can't think of a bigger intervention in a game than actually playing the game!

[Roger de Coverly]

If your local league were FIDE rated, would you really want to ship in a specialist arbiter for each individual match?

Local evening leagues in the UK are not FIDE rated.

It's been questioned whether weekend county matches could be, but the issue of whether an arbiter needs to be physically present has never been totally resolved. In my view it would not be satisfactory for someone playing in the match to also be arbiter. Unlike many sports an arbiter is not actually necessary to enable play to take place in team matches, particularly if incremental move rates are in use. It would be better if matches be played under explicit conditions of no arbiter present, than one present involved in their own game.

[Roger de Coverly]

The ICF's position (as far as it has been explained to me) is that it is forbidden for an arbiter to play in a FIDE rated event in which he is also an arbiter.

Assuming a Congress and a team of arbiters, the ECF position would be that an arbiter may play, as it were, on their morning or afternoon off. This supports the generally accepted practice that a member of the arbiting team is often the most convenient filler.

[Brian Towers]

It's been questioned whether weekend county matches could be, but the issue of whether an arbiter needs to be physically present has never been totally resolved.

My understanding is that pre-2014 this was perfectly acceptable.
Post-2014 is not clear to me. I would imagine not in view of "12.3 The arbiter shall observe the games". I don't see how an arbiter who is not physically present can "observe the games".

[NickFaulks]

Local evening leagues in the UK are not FIDE rated.

Obviously I know that, which is why I said "if it were". I am trying to understand why you find it quite acceptable for ten players to sit in a room playing an ECF graded match, but if the same match were FIDE rated you would insist on adding an eleventh to act as arbiter.

[NickFaulks]

The ICF's position

Sorry, but I don't know what the ICF is.

[Brian Towers]

The ICF's position

Sorry, but I don't know what the ICF is.

The federation I play under. Just as I can look you up and see that you are under BER you can, I'm sure, do the same.

[Roger de Coverly]

but if the same match were FIDE rated you would insist on adding an eleventh to act as arbiter.

not me that's FIDE requirement for rating.

My point being that you should run under a set of rules designed for "no arbiter deemed present" rather than give one or more of the players a special status. So even if an arbiter is playing, he's not deemed present. That's a rule of practical application if Appendix G is invoked.

[NickFaulks]

The ICF's position

Sorry, but I don't know what the ICF is.

The federation I play under. Just as I can look you up and see that you are under BER you can, I'm sure, do the same.

If I talked about the BCF would you assume I meant the Bermuda Chess Federation? Anyway, I've got it now.

[Brian Towers]

My point being that you should run under a set of rules designed for "no arbiter deemed present" rather than give one or more of the players a special status. So even if an arbiter is playing, he's not deemed present. That's a rule of practical application if Appendix G is invoked.

Tell me, Roger, what happens in a league match when there is a dispute? Obviously ultimately the issue is escalated to a league controller (who probably isn't an arbiter) for resolution several days or weeks later. But what happens on the night? Does play just stop?

On the Appendix G thing, surely the ECF should rule that where there are digital clocks but increments aren't being used G4 applies as the default.

[NickFaulks]

but if the same match were FIDE rated you would insist on adding an eleventh to act as arbiter.

not me that's FIDE requirement for rating.

I suppose I should defer to your greater knowledge, but I cannot find it and have assured you before that no such requirement is applied.

My point being that you should run under a set of rules designed for "no arbiter deemed present" rather than give one or more of the players a special status. So even if an arbiter is playing, he's not deemed present. That's a rule of practical application if Appendix G is invoked.

I agree with you here. England does have problems largely forgotten in most countries because of the continuing local attachment to Appendix G.

[Nick Grey]

An interesting read even for the non-arbiter.

Nick on leagues SCCA look at Chess Disputes Committee (the Chair has got a balance of arbiters & experienced players & captains).

Thames Valley it would fall to myself & my Executive Committee. If we needed to expand that for a particular reason it is nice to know that you are an experienced arbiter playing in our league (I'm also aware that 6 members of the SCCA Chess Disputes Committee play in the Thames Valley League).

In SCCU county matches if the captains cannot resolve it goes to the controller.

I must admit that the biggest issue seems to be starting on time. In London & the suburbs it is a huge issue that is not going to be solved quickly even with a Mayoral election in May. Same o/s London too.

[Roger de Coverly]

Tell me, Roger, what happens in a league match when there is a dispute? Obviously ultimately the issue is escalated to a league controller (who probably isn't an arbiter) for resolution several days or weeks later. But what happens on the night? Does play just stop?

Initially you expect the players to resolve it. If they cannot, maybe the captains or informed observers can.

Appendix G or 10.2 claims are rarely that difficult when they involve players unfamiliar with the fine print. So they reach a position with opposite colour bishops. Whilst there are exceptions, just a Bishop shuffle isn't a winning attempt and playing on is just an attempt to win on time.

The point is that if an arbiter is deemed not to be present, play then stops. A culture should be encouraged that if the only plausible win in a simplified position is on time, then players should agree a draw.

[NickFaulks]

On the Appendix G thing, surely the ECF should rule that where there are digital clocks but increments aren't being used G4 applies as the default.

But then you need to have somebody in the room who knows how to set the clocks.