Do Arbiters Know The Rules Of Chess?

[Roger de Coverly]

I Yes, a player is supposed to know the time control, but to the point of ignoring an announcement by the Chief Arbiter that, along with many other details, it will be different from the one previously announced?

Chessbase has more on this
http://en.chessbase.com/post/2015-commo ... with-humpy

Apparently the first round announcement only said that there was thirty minutes "grace time", an expression understood by the arbiter to mean that players could be up to 30 minutes late before being defaulted. Some of the players, at least two anyway, interpreted this or misheard it to mean that an extra 30 minutes was added after the first 90 minutes had elapsed and move 40 had been reached.

As the scope for misunderstanding had been identified by the first round loss of Tania Sachdev, it should have been incumbent on the arbiters to make a special announcement at the start of the second round to clarify what they had meant.

[Ian Thompson]

Chessbase has more on this
http://en.chessbase.com/post/2015-commo ... with-humpy

Apparently the first round announcement only said that there was thirty minutes "grace time", an expression understood by the arbiter to mean that players could be up to 30 minutes late before being defaulted.

According to the arbiter "In chess events world over, grace time refers to cut off after which a player is entitled to receive a walkover. I was only following an international practice.", which is news to me. (Elsewhere in the article it says grace time is a commonly used term in India.)

The correct term, which the arbiter should have used for an international event, is "default time" because that is the term used in the FIDE Laws.

[David Shepherd]

The concept that it doesn't matter what the arbiter announces, it is what is written in the rules that counts seems nonsense to me. If the arbiter clearly announces before the first round that 30 minutes are to be added after 40 moves then any player that wrongly relies on this should have their appeal upheld in my opinion. However this was not the case here - it appears the announcement was just not clear to some of the players rather than incorrect.

If the announcement is unclear and different to the rules on the entry form then it should be down to the player to query it. However the problem in this event seems to have been the players did not query it as they though it was clear and they understood it (being so used to 30 minutes being added after 40 moves), in reality they had misunderstood it.

The first player to suffer accepted it was her fault and I suspect was right to do so. However as the arbiters were then aware that at least one player had misunderstood the time control they should have done all they could to avoid a repeat (for example posting notices in the hall), making a clear announcement at the start of the round (for example by just announcing the time control not the default time). Having it appears spectacularly failed to do this (to the extent that a number of players still seemed confused), the situation was then just a complete mess. One player had already been defaulted which must then have made it even harder to rule the second player shouldn't be defaulted. It will be interesting to find out what the final the ruling on the 1.5 point case was .....

Maybe one thing international tournament organisers could consider going forward is to have a 25 or 35 minute default time to avoid any confusion happening - although then if it was a change to previous years confusion would happen over the default time

[Roger de Coverly]

However the problem in this event seems to have been the players did not query it as they though it was clear and they understood it (being so used to 30 minutes being added after 40 moves), in reality they had misunderstood it.

What the players had become used to, is the practice of not adding the 30 minutes at move 40, rather that they had to wait for the additional time until ninety minutes plus increments had elapsed. It's a trap waiting to claim victims. Carlsen presumably was also caught out by this, as he didn't protest about a faulty clock, when he reached 60 moves and no additional time was added.

[Alex McFarlane]

There are a number of points raised here.
The arbiter announced a time control and then a grace period which confused some players.
No-one seems to be saying that the arbiter declared a number of moves to the first (only?)time control. Without giving a number of moves to the first time control then the addition of additional time simply does not make any sense. I can totally accept players being confused by the way the announcement was made but this confusion should not have made them assume a 40 move time control. The lack of a number of moves should have made those in doubt clarify the situation.

I accept that if the press counter accurately reflected the number of moves played then adding on the time when the appropriate move has been played makes some sense. However that is not the case and I know of two cases where a clock added on the time one move early. The player had assumed an error in his scoresheet. In both these occasions the opponent waited until sure that the player had exceeded the time and claimed a win. I'm sure it has happened on other occasions but neither player claimed a win or it was so early as to be of no consequence.

Carlsen has played in games where the time would have been added on at move 40 and 60. Any event where an increment only comes in after a certain number of moves requires the clock to be set to do that. The Candidates and Grand Prix both use increments of 0 in the first two sessions and 30 second increments from move 60.

[Roger de Coverly]

However that is not the case and I know of two cases where a clock added on the time one move early.

In my view it's poor clock design that there is no option to continuously display what the clock believes to be the move count. It's abetted by FIDE approving such designs for general use.

[Stewart Reuben]

Players do not listen to announcements made at the start of the round. Any good and experienced arbiter knows that. An experienced arbiter who likes the sound of his own voice may not realise this.
In Calcutta I invariably solely said, 'Welcome to the xth round of the Commonwealth Chess Championship. Please start the White clocks'. It was obvious people realised this.

This term 'grace period' instead of 'default time' is used only in India as far as I know.
There was no good reason to have 90 minutes + 30 seconds cumulatively as the rate of play when they changed to only one day with two games. It was barmy to do so. Why not 9 days all starting at the same time with one round per day? That means the biorhythms of the players are not disturbed.

The ACP succeeed for a bit in getting the different rates of play to be extremely limited so that players wouldn't be confused. British administrators fell into line. The only events which did not are/were in the FIDE Grand Prix and later stages of the World Championship. This Ivanchuk, Grischuk and now Carlsen found difficult. It is stupid. But it gives an advantage to those players experienced in playing in such events against newcomers.

There should be no difficulty using a push counter for a major event. The arbiter checks the number of moves displayed on the compputer with that displayed on the scoresheet. But I have never understood why Albert Vasse set himself against displaying the number of pushes on the DGT clocks.
As far as I know only Chronos displays this. But there would be no connector to an electronic board.

[Roger de Coverly]

The arbiter checks the number of moves displayed on the computer with that displayed on the scoresheet.

Now there's an interesting thought. The DGT boards are in communication with the DGT clocks. So why do they not compare notes and transmit "clock discrepancy" when they disagree over the number of moves made? That also detects an error in the other direction, when a move has been made and completed by a clock press, but the board has failed to register it correctly, perhaps because of the speed of play.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

However that is not the case and I know of two cases where a clock added on the time one move early.

In my view it's poor clock design that there is no option to continuously display what the clock believes to be the move count. It's abetted by FIDE approving such designs for general use.

Is it not usually (invariably?) the case that such incidents of time being added on early are in fact due to the players pressing the clock an additional set of times without realising that this would affect when time was added on? Common cases of this happening are: (A) when starting the clocks, when one player hits the lever instead of pressing the start button (though presumably this won't affect the move counter if the clocks have not been started?) and then starts the clock with Black's clock running first (forgetting to reset the lever before starting the clock); (B) players attempting to stop the clock for some reason and tilting the levers instead of using the stop/start button; (C) a player on an adjacent board pressing the wrong clock; and (D) one of the players simply forgetting to press the clock (though this would make the time add on a move later).

When you just get an extra 30 seconds, when playing with an increment, that is not a problem. Having to reset the move counter is a problem (if that is even possible). I'm guessing that may be why some opposed it in some proposed designs.

[Roger de Coverly]

When you just get an extra 30 seconds, when playing with an increment, that is not a problem.

Personally I would demand that the clock be reset with the correct increment time. Why should the player with less time be handed a small benefit?

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >Now there's an interesting thought. The DGT boards are in communication with the DGT clocks. So why do they not compare notes and transmit "clock discrepancy" when they disagree over the number of moves made?<

I don't know of any equipment that does this. Do you envisage that the DGT board make an announcement during the game, 'There is a clock discrepancy'.

Roger >Personally I would demand that the clock be reset with the correct increment time. Why should the player with less time be handed a small benefit?<
You should first decide whether you have confidence in the arbiter. Otherwise getting rid of that small benefit of 30 seconds might cause a 5 minute delay. I wouldn't bother.

The arbiter looks and if there is one, he discreetly looks at the scoresheets. If he decides a correction needs to be made, he waits fo an opportune time.
This is just an advance over the arbiter going around every 30 minutes and checking the clock times, against the number of moves recorded and the time elapsed including the 30 seconds increment. It is no problem. I have certainly done that for 40 people in the World Girls U20.

Sometimes it happens, particularly in team tournaments that a player presses the wrong clock. Israelis were paricularly prone to this in the European Senior Team Championship. It is a push counter, not a move counter. If you have the wrong number of pushes and are adding 30 minutes after 40 by Black, then it is essential to adjust the clock. That is why so many events add the 30 minutes AFTER the time for the initial period concludes for one player.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't know of any equipment that does this. Do you envisage that the DGT board make an announcement during the game, 'There is a clock discrepancy'.

Assuming there's a master terminal for displays, showing the move counter in red on that terminal would be at least one solution. The idea is to alert the arbiter or the person controlling the live displays of a potential fault well in advance of it becoming a practical issue at a time control.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I don't know of any equipment that does this. Do you envisage that the DGT board make an announcement during the game, 'There is a clock discrepancy'.

Assuming there's a master terminal for displays, showing the move counter in red on that terminal would be at least one solution. The idea is to alert the arbiter or the person controlling the live displays of a potential fault well in advance of it becoming a practical issue at a time control.

What if a potential fault arises a move or two before the time control? It becomes a bit difficult then to 'spot' the problem "well in advance" of the time control...

[Stewart Reuben]

Christopher >What if a potential fault arises a move or two before the time control? It becomes a bit difficult then to 'spot' the problem "well in advance" of the time control...<

The most common problem is a double pressing of the clock early in the game. This almost never happens after move 30.

A better system might be that the player makes the move on the board and then his 'clock' stops 'ticking' and the opponent's begins. Surely having a clock which must be pressed is neandertec? This was first proposed to me by a sports sponsorship company over 30 years ago. They were interested in the World Blitz Championship. BMW were willing to sponsor it. Unfortunately Channel 4 wanted a pilot, were not willing to pay towards the production costs and would not guarantee to show the programme. FIDE had agreed to its being official and were also very disappointed.

[Brian Towers]

A better system might be that the player makes the move on the board and then his 'clock' stops 'ticking' and the opponent's begins. Surely having a clock which must be pressed is neandertec?

So, what happens when a player picks up a piece puts it down on a square, doesn't let go, has second thoughts, puts it back on its original square and has a longer think? FWIW I've seen 2200's do this.

The board can't know when the player has made his move because it can't know when the player's hand leaves the piece.