A couple of Fide rules questions

[NickFaulks]

1. A DGT liveboard can't handle it.

But don't they come with two queens, for that reason?

2. Apparently, it's not a "traditional practice" all over the world.

I have never met a player from anywhere in the world who was troubled by this practice. Distinguishing between kings and queens is a much bigger cultural issue.

[NickFaulks]

David Buckley - if you are Captain, then usually you are the arbiter, together with the opposing captain.

This can lead to trouble, and I do not believe that the captains should be considered Arbiters, as per the Laws. I have become cross when an opposing captain has insisted that we have the combined powers of an Arbiter and has then said something like "we claim the game".

[Roger Lancaster]

This can lead to trouble, and I do not believe that the captains should be considered Arbiters, as per the Laws. I have become cross when an opposing captain has insisted that we have the combined powers of an Arbiter and has then said something like "we claim the game".

Although I think the practice is better than the alternatives, it can indeed lead to trouble. A few years ago I was involved in a match where I was playing the opposing team captain. At one point, he attempted to make a ruling which directly affected our game. I objected on the basis that (a) he was only "half an arbiter" and decisions should be taken jointly with our captain and (b) it was in any case inequitable that he made decisions which directly affected his own game. A frank discussion followed - and you will find the word "euphemism" in any good dictionary.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger d >when the aggrieved party insists on touch and move. <

The arbiter should NEVER place a player in an invidious position where he has to insist on his opponent playing to the rules. This leads to friction between the players and that should be avoided. Of course, the arbiter will not necessarily be present at the start of the 'incident. But, when he has then be called in, he should not leave until he is satisfied both players can continue the game without the incident restarting.

Roger L>some FIDE-recognised events where one can have just a couple of arbiters managing 100 or so games <
You are describing an event which is not being organised properly. Even if it is not FIDE Rated, there should be a minimum of one arbiter for 50 players. Remember also, the arbiter has the right to appoint temporary assistants if he deems it necessary.

[NickFaulks]

Remember also, the arbiter has the right to appoint temporary assistants if he deems it necessary.

But, if the event is FIDE rated, only if they have paid their tax. I do not know whether the new regime will wish to review that.

[Roger Lancaster]

Roger L>some FIDE-recognised events where one can have just a couple of arbiters managing 100 or so games <
You are describing an event which is not being organised properly. Even if it is not FIDE Rated, there should be a minimum of one arbiter for 50 players. Remember also, the arbiter has the right to appoint temporary assistants if he deems it necessary.

On reflection, I rather think I really meant - apologies - 100 people rather than 100 games. Now, picking up Stewart's point, it's perfectly true that there should be a minimum of one arbiter for 50 players and I don't doubt that, in well-funded events, the theory actually translates into reality.

But I think there's widespread agreement that there should be more FIDE-rated games in England and, where there isn't an outside source of funding such as a sponsor, the organisers have to balance costs. No-one wants to be left well out-of-pocket as a result of organising a chess tournament. Arbiters tend - and I'm happy to acknowledge there are exceptions who offer their services gratis or for expenses only - to cost money with the result that many organisers are faced with the financial near-necessity of keeping the number of arbiters to a minimum or near-minimum.

So a tournament organiser, expecting an entry of 300, is quite likely to have just 6 arbiters. At any point of time, one or perhaps two will be behind a computer processing results while another will probably be taking a well-earned break. As a result, there are likely to be just 3 or 4 arbiters actually working the floor. That's arguably fine if all 300 players are in one large area (although even here, in practice, situations are likely to arise where half-a-dozen games simultaneously require arbiters' attention) but, in practice, one often has the situation where the main playing area holds (for example) just 260 players and the 20 lower boards are siphoned off into two much smaller rooms, 10 boards in each.

Where are the arbiters likely to be? Obviously, in the main hall where statistically speaking they are most likely to be needed. From time to time, they will dutifully check the other two areas but not necessarily at a time when they are actually needed there - nor, crucially, can they easily be summoned. In practical terms, most of the time for most of these 20 games, the arbiters are non-existent.

As to the separate point about appointing assistance, I'll briefly recount one experience but without wishing to identify the event I have in mind. I was spectating at a FIDE-recognised event when approached by an arbiter. Due to an urgent call of nature, the arbiter would be absent for a short while, perhaps 5-10 minutes. Would I keep things in good order in the meantime? I should clarify here that I hold no formal arbiting qualification whatever. My interpretation was that I was being asked to act as an assistant only, without decision-making powers but under the obligation to report any relevant matters (as it happened, there were none) to the arbiter when the arbiter reappeared. The event was, in my opinion, generally well-organised but - if an arbiter has to turn to a spectator in order to take an unexpected break - one has to wonder whether there were sufficient arbiters in the first place.

[Ian Thompson]

You are describing an event which is not being organised properly. Even if it is not FIDE Rated, there should be a minimum of one arbiter for 50 players. Remember also, the arbiter has the right to appoint temporary assistants if he deems it necessary.

Now, picking up Stewart's point, it's perfectly true that there should be a minimum of one arbiter for 50 players and I don't doubt that, in well-funded events, the theory actually translates into reality.

So a tournament organiser, expecting an entry of 300, is quite likely to have just 6 arbiters. At any point of time, one or perhaps two will be behind a computer processing results while another will probably be taking a well-earned break. As a result, there are likely to be just 3 or 4 arbiters actually working the floor.

I don't think the 4NCL, for example, gets anywhere near these numbers.

At the last Division 3/4 weekend there must have been 12 - 16 matches in a large room (144 - 192 players). I think there was only one arbiter working the floor most off the time, with a second arbiter some of the time. There was a third arbiter in the room most of the time, but he didn't appear to be doing any aribiting, other than making a few announcements before the games began; he was just sitting at a table looking at a computer screen, starting shortly after the games began.

[NickFaulks]

I think there was only one arbiter working the floor most of the time

Give them credit, that's one more than there has been in previous seasons.

[Roger Lancaster]

At the last Division 3/4 weekend there must have been 12 - 16 matches in a large room (144 - 192 players). I think there was only one arbiter working the floor most off the time, with a second arbiter some of the time. There was a third arbiter in the room most of the time, but he didn't appear to be doing any aribiting, other than making a few announcements before the games began; he was just sitting at a table looking at a computer screen, starting shortly after the games began.

In the interests of accuracy, there were 16 teams in Division 3S and 34 teams in Division 4S so (16 + 34) x 6 = 300 minus a few defaults, say 280-290 players. Can't vouch for the number of arbiters although I think Ian might be under-counting there too.

[Alex Holowczak]

At the last Division 3/4 weekend there must have been 12 - 16 matches in a large room (144 - 192 players). I think there was only one arbiter working the floor most off the time, with a second arbiter some of the time. There was a third arbiter in the room most of the time, but he didn't appear to be doing any aribiting, other than making a few announcements before the games began; he was just sitting at a table looking at a computer screen, starting shortly after the games began.

In the interests of accuracy, there were 16 teams in Division 3S and 34 teams in Division 4S so (16 + 34) x 6 = 300 minus a few defaults, say 280-290 players. Can't vouch for the number of arbiters although I think Ian might be under-counting there too.

We had 6 at Daventry Court, which had 256 players. We felt we had 1 more than we needed, but we were all in one room. In contrast, we had 6 at Staverton in 4 rooms, and we felt that was probably 1 too few. The number of rooms is perhaps as important than the number of people.

[Ian Thompson]

At the last Division 3/4 weekend there must have been 12 - 16 matches in a large room (144 - 192 players). I think there was only one arbiter working the floor most off the time, with a second arbiter some of the time. There was a third arbiter in the room most of the time, but he didn't appear to be doing any aribiting, other than making a few announcements before the games began; he was just sitting at a table looking at a computer screen, starting shortly after the games began.

In the interests of accuracy, there were 16 teams in Division 3S and 34 teams in Division 4S so (16 + 34) x 6 = 300 minus a few defaults, say 280-290 players. Can't vouch for the number of arbiters although I think Ian might be under-counting there too.

There were at least 2 rooms in use, but, on reflection, I revise my estimate to 16 - 20 matches (192 - 240 players) in the large room. I'm sure, though, that only one arbiter working the floor was mentioned before play started, and I saw one other arbiter in the room a couple of times (plus the non-arbiter doing who knows what on a computer).

[Adam Raoof]

At the last Division 3/4 weekend there must have been 12 - 16 matches in a large room (144 - 192 players). I think there was only one arbiter working the floor most off the time, with a second arbiter some of the time. There was a third arbiter in the room most of the time, but he didn't appear to be doing any arbiting, other than making a few announcements before the games began; he was just sitting at a table looking at a computer screen, starting shortly after the games began.

I'm sorry, that is one of the most important roles of the third umpire.