Team Captains in Local Leagues

[Kevin Thurlow]

Some leagues do say that where no arbiter is present the captains can act as arbiters. In the recent Somerset vs Lincolnshire match the Lincs captain announced at the start, "There is no independent arbiter present but Kevin is playing for Somerset and we trust him to make the right decision in a dispute." I both appreciated the compliment and prayed for no disputes... In this case my prayers were answered.

In a South Norwood vs Redhill match some years ago, a SN player was not recording the game when he had plenty of time left, our player protested, the captain was not in the room so I explained the Laws. SN captain (a notorious cheat) complained that I was not allowed to comment as I wasn't the captain! So if you have people like that, you never get anywhere...

[NickFaulks]

It is always far simpler if no spectator, especially a captain, interferes.

If the captain really is just a spectator, then you are right. However, you are then dealing with a poorly organised league, with no mechanism for ensuring that any playing rules are followed. It is not clear to me how the ECF can even allow such games to be rated.

If the captains are defined as in some way joint arbiters, while it may not be clear exactly what that means, it must mean something.

[NickFaulks]

(I confess to being too idle to check whether the question is answered in the arbiters' manual).

If you reconsider, you should bear in mind that the version of the Laws in the manual is out of date.

[Roger de Coverly]

If the captains are defined as in some way joint arbiters, while it may not be clear exactly what that means, it must mean something.

As leagues adopt increment based move rates, the importance of "unable to win" rules diminishes. Provided any residual such claims are dealt with by cessation of play upon a draw claim, captains could act if not as arbiters, but as rule experts able to step in if there was a dispute, or even an observed illegality.

[NickFaulks]

captains could act if not as arbiters, but as rule experts able to step in if there was a dispute, or even an observed illegality.

I'm actually rather wary of that last part. For years I have argued within FIDE against rules which say in effect "if there is an infraction and an arbiter notices it then X happens, otherwise /X happens". In the quasi-arbiter position I would certainly not intervene if I saw a king walking through check without either player noticing.

What you do occasionally see is something illegal on the board and two players looking confused. I think this can be interpreted as a request for the captains to say what should happen next.

[Joey Stewart]

captains could act if not as arbiters, but as rule experts able to step in if there was a dispute, or even an observed illegality.

I'm actually rather wary of that last part. For years I have argued within FIDE against rules which say in effect "if there is an infraction and an arbiter notices it then X happens, otherwise /X happens". In the quasi-arbiter position I would certainly not intervene if I saw a king walking through check without either player noticing.

What you do occasionally see is something illegal on the board and two players looking confused. I think this can be interpreted as a request for the captains to say what should happen next.

The problem is that, even though it doesn't seem appropriate , at least as a qualified arbiter (and an 'ok' player) you will at least be providing some useful feedback - Ive seen enough chess disputes won by the player who could scream the loudest over the years that i decided it's better for captains to step in lest somebody much less qualified jumps ahead of you and turns the match into a farce with bad advice.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

I've seen enough chess disputes created in my league by captains who don't know the Laws any better than the two players.