Arbitration question

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2723
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:09 pm

E Michael White wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:59 am
soheil_hooshdaran

You mention that this game was a Women's National Championship played under Blitz format. How many arbiters were running the section and how many players took part ? What was decided and how did the game proceed ?

The replies on this forum assume that Black's immediately preceding move was legal. Was this the case ?

If Black's preceding move was illegal did black press the clock before White played fxg4 ?
This was a question on our exam (the position is inexact but similar).
I can ask the details

E Michael White
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by E Michael White » Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:06 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:26 am

The practical effect, as noted by Jack, is that an illegal move can directly lose by virtue of the requirement to substitute a move involving the touched piece.
At the other extreme it is also possible under FIDE laws, for you to complete an illegal move, it is pointed out and the only other legal move in accordance with the touch move laws checkmates your opponent. As a result of which you win first prize and make your final Grand Master norm, immediately become a GM.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:55 am

W Kh5, Qh6, Ra7. B Kh8, Rh7.

White tries to win by playing Qf8 checkmate. I find it intolerable that this leads to an immediate win for White.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2723
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:58 pm

The manual says the arbiter has to intervene in case of violation of article 4, but it doesn't state what exactly is to be done

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2723
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:08 pm

Today, the opponent of a player left the venue for 15 minutes, and when he returned, the arbiter gave him 2-minutes penalty. Was she (the arbiter) correct?
The player whose opponent left was not satisfied.

The arbiter has many penalties at his/her disposal. Which one should be applied when?

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3810
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Arbitration question

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:16 pm

Leaving the venue without the arbiter's permission does not have a defined penalty associated with it, so it's up to the arbiter which of the penalties they apply.

I think I'd need to know why the player left the venue before I came to a conclusion as to whether the penalty was OK or too lenient.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2723
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:53 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:16 pm
Leaving the venue without the arbiter's permission does not have a defined penalty associated with it, so it's up to the arbiter which of the penalties they apply.

I think I'd need to know why the player left the venue before I came to a conclusion as to whether the penalty was OK or too lenient.
He said he went to the supermarket to buy things.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3822
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:02 am

The arbiter could have forfeited him. Or might hve decided to be more lenient, knowing he was very inexperienced.

A very early Islington Open, a player turned up 90 minutes late. he thought that was OK because he has two hours on his clock and thus could turn up late, having gone to see Arsenal play a fotball match. Of course his opponent had left long gone so he had to lose. Sometimes players are ignorant of the Competition Rules.

NickFaulks
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:30 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:02 am
A very early Islington Open, a player turned up 90 minutes late. he thought that was OK because he has two hours on his clock and thus could turn up late
I have always considered that an entirely reasonable thing to think. Of course it is better to read the Competition Rules.

Tim Harding
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Tim Harding » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:54 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:16 pm
Leaving the venue without the arbiter's permission does not have a defined penalty associated with it, so it's up to the arbiter which of the penalties they apply.

I think I'd need to know why the player left the venue before I came to a conclusion as to whether the penalty was OK or too lenient.
I agree with Jack here but would like to raise a point and then ask a question for more senior arbiters to consider. I am writing this on the assumption that we are dealing with a FIDE-rated tournament not a local league match or casual junior event.

To check what Jack wrote, I searched in my PDF of the September 2016 Arbiters Manual for every reference to "playing venue" and there seems to be unfortunate wording in the Anti-Cheating Guidelines on page 261.
4 . How to deal with suspicious behavior:
- In case of a suspicious behavior, the Arbiter must always follow the player on his or her
way out of the PLAYING VENUE (to the bar, toilets, smoking area etc), in order to avoid any
contact of the player
Emphasis added by me. I think this should be playing area not playing venue. In the Laws, Article 11.2.1, the playing venue as defined already includes the toilets and smoking area, and arguably "refreshment area" includes the bar.

The Arbiter should NOT follow the player out of the venue, surely, as he is needed in the playing venue (and as much as possible the playing area).
So in such cases he should note the time the player left and establish the player's identity. If he is unsure of the identity he will find it out when the player returns to his board.

Page 260 also says:
The arbiter also has the right to check a player who has left the playing venue during
a game, or upon request of a player who filed an In-Tournament Complaint, but only once
during the round
So that provides for the opponent to complain if no arbiter saw the first player leave.

Now for my question, which is whether my proposed course of action in this case is correct?
1. While the player is absent, I would draw the attention of the Chief Arbiter to the situation, chiefly to check whether he/she or any other arbiter had given the player permission to leave the venue. If no arbiter had given permission and the Chief Arbiter did not give me a different specific instruction, I might want to take the following course of action:
2. Immediately on the return of said player to his board, I would stop the clock if the opponent's clock is running; if the clock of the player who left is running, I would leave it running.
3. I would then take both players aside to where the conversation cannot distract other players and ask Player A why he left the playing venue. Either before or immediately after doing that, I would remind both players of the definition of playing venue and that article 11.2.3.1. forbids leaving the playing venue without an arbiter's permission. Therefore player A's behaviour is suspicious (even if the opponent has not complained) and the onus is on him/her to prove they were not cheating or receiving advice.

The penalty for this is unspecified as Jack says, but version 2 of the Arbiters Manual has considerably toughened up the stance against cheating or suspicions thereof.

The anti-cheating guidelines on page 261 provide for searches of players, Let's assume in this case that the Chief Arbiter is reluctant to search players except in cases of fairly blatant cheating, perhaps because the organisers have not made provision for it. (If there is to be a search, I think both clocks might be stopped at that point?)

If there is no search, my proposed course of action would be to tell the players:
a) I declare the game lost by Player A under 1.9.6 subject to his right to appeal to the Chief Arbiter and ultimately to the Playing Committee (if one has been established).
b) Under 11.10 I inform the Players that Player A must appeal by whatever deadline is specified in the rules of the particular competition (and which may involve lodging an appeal fee which will be returned in the event of a successful appeal.)
c) I tell the players that the game may now continue to establish the result in the event that Player A makes a successful appeal.
c1) Player A therefore has the option to concede the game without any admission of cheating, or
c2) to complete the game and appeal against the decision in the event he achieves a draw or win at the board.
d) Also warn Player A that if he repeats the offence the Chief Arbiter may expel him from the tournament altogether.

In a non-FIDE rated event, perhaps the above procedure is too harsh and too elaborate. In Soheil's case the arbiter chose penalty 12.9.2 (increase the opponent's time) by 2 minutes. He doesn't say whether this was a classical or rapid game; 2 minutes might be too lenient if this happened early in the session of a classical game?
Under 11.10 the opponent in that case could have appealed to the Chief Arbiter that the penalty was too lenient. I would imagine most players are unaware of that clause.

Any comments, please, from IAs/ FAs?
Tim Harding
Historian and Kibitzer

Author of 'British Chess Literature to 1914', Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3822
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:11 pm

Nick,
I think after this happened, we put the default time in the entry form. Of course, not everybody will read that or, having read it, remember it.

A bit earlier in the thread you wrote: White tries to win by playing Qf8 checkmate. I find it intolerable that this leads to an immediate win for White.

I think the only alternative would be for the first illegal move to lose. That would not meet with universal approval. You could have a Law that the first illegal move only lost if players rated at least 2200 were participaing in the tournament. That would be a complete break with tradition.

Tim. Why are you referring to the 2016 Arbiters' Manual? There is a 2018 one. The Arbiters' Manual is not Law. It is just suggestions. Naturally there are mistakes. I did check the 2018 edition prior to publication. Even so, I expect there are errors. I think I did not get to check the 2016 edition.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1970
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Ian Thompson » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:13 pm

Tim Harding wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:54 pm
2. Immediately on the return of said player to his board, I would stop the clock if the opponent's clock is running; if the clock of the player who left is running, I would leave it running.
I'll leave qualified arbiters to comment on the rest of your comments, but I think this action would definitely be wrong - you shouldn't disturb a player who is at the board thinking about their move; you should wait until they have moved before doing anything.

Tim Harding
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Tim Harding » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:22 pm

Ah yes, I hadn't given that clause much thought, sorry. If the opponent is still thinking (though it's unlikely if Player A has been absent for a quarter of an hour) then you are right. The the thing would be to catch Player A on his return without disturbing B. Failing that, wait until B made his move.

The main thing is, I would like to get this situation fully discussed, because next month I will be on the arbiter team at Ireland's first international open for many years. There will be quite a few players from overseas whom we are unfamiliar with, and some home juniors and club players who won't have played in such an event before. I think a lot of clear policies (and announcements) on matters like this will be needed, though of course ultimately it's the responsibility of the chief organiser and chief arbiter.
Tim Harding
Historian and Kibitzer

Author of 'British Chess Literature to 1914', Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3256
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Arbitration question

Post by David Sedgwick » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:42 pm

Tim Harding wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:22 pm
The main thing is, I would like to get this situation fully discussed, because next month I will be on the arbiter team at Ireland's first international open for many years. There will be quite a few players from overseas whom we are unfamiliar with, and some home juniors and club players who won't have played in such an event before. I think a lot of clear policies (and announcements) on matters like this will be needed, though of course ultimately it's the responsibility of the chief organiser and chief arbiter.
There is more than one correct or acceptable way of dealing with the situation which you describe and the highlighted part of your post is key to the matter.

I presume that your Chief Arbiter will be briefing the rest of the team at the start of the event. If you have particular concerns, I would suggest that you raise them with him in advance.

Arbiters who contribute to this Forum may wish to expain their approaches, but, as Stewart said about the Manual, these are just suggestions.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2697
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:21 pm

"He said he went to the supermarket to buy things."

An amusing answer... I'd be inclined to default the player, especially now, when software is quite useful.

I recall a Guernsey tournament, when the time-limit was still 50 moves in 2.5 hours. The affable Gibraltarian Alan Gravett was playing someone whose name partially relates to Justin's, but was absent for some time. About 50 minutes into the session, a flashy car entered the car park, the opponent jumped out, made his first move, then left the room, got back in the car and drove off. I asked the arbiter (who was watching all this) what he intended to do and got no reply. Apparently, the player returned about an hour later and attempted to blitz Alan, who kept his cool and won.

Post Reply