Childish ECF Arbiter

[Paul Cooksey]

"The arbiter shall answer any question of fact asked of him relating to these Laws of Chess by a player in the competition."

Have I played 40 moves?

[Alex Holowczak]

"The arbiter shall answer any question of fact asked of him relating to these Laws of Chess by a player in the competition."

Have I played 40 moves?

That's not "relating to these Laws", is it?

You have to put across in the correct wording that:
(1) You can only ask questions about what the rules say, as opposed to their practical implementation.
(2) You cannot ask things like "Have I made 40 moves?" - Or at least, you can ask but it will not get answered!

For example, if I ask, "Can I claim a draw if the same moves are played three times in a row?", the answer would be "No", and the arbiter could explain the repetition rules. As opposed to "Can I claim a draw by repetition here?"

[Sean Hewitt]

For example, if I ask, "Can I claim a draw if the same moves are played three times in a row?", the answer would be "No""

Appreciating that you like accuracy Alex, that's wrong. The player can claim a draw if the same moves are played three times in a row. However, the draw won't necessarily be awarded.

[Alex Holowczak]

For example, if I ask, "Can I claim a draw if the same moves are played three times in a row?", the answer would be "No""

Appreciating that you like accuracy Alex, that's wrong. The player can claim a draw if the same moves are played three times in a row. However, the draw won't necessarily be awarded.

Well, yes...

[Roger de Coverly]

Appreciating that you like accuracy Alex, that's wrong. The player can claim a draw if the same moves are played three times in a row. However, the draw won't necessarily be awarded.

There's a relatively well known example where the draw was awarded. I think this was without arbiter intervention.

[Event "Ch Great Britain"] [Site "Douglas (England)"] [Date "2005.08.06"] [Round "6"] [White "Greet Andrew (ENG)"] [Black "Rowson Jonathan (SCO)"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A43"] [WhiteElo "2428"] [BlackElo "2599"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 d6 6.Bb5+ Nfd7 7.a4 O-O 8.O-O Na6 9.Re1 Nc7 10.Bf1 Ne5 11.Nxe5 Bxe5 12.Bh6 Re8 13.Qd2 e6 14.Bg5 f6 15.Be3 Bxc3 16.Qxc3 e5 17.f4 b6 18.fxe5 Rxe5 19.Bf4 a5 20.Rad1 Kg7 21.Bxe5 dxe5 22.d6 Ne6 23.Qc4 Nd4 24.d7 Ba6 25.Qd5 Bxf1 26.Rxf1 Ra7 27.Rxf6 Kxf6 28.Rf1+ Nf5 29.exf5 Rxd7 30.fxg6+ Kxg6 31.Qe6+ Kg7 32.Qxe5+ Kg8 33.Qe6+ Kg7 34.Qe5+ Kg8 35.Qe6+ 1/2-1/2

The moves are repeated, but the position isn't.

[Alex McFarlane]

I think this was without arbiter intervention.

It was certainly without arbiter intervention!!

The player concerned was horrified when playing over the game later to discover he had made a wrong claim and reported early the following morning to see if anything could be done.

This counts as a draw by agreement but what would have happened if there was a 40 move rule before draws could be agreed?

[Ian Kingston]

The moves are repeated, but the position isn't.

I often have to correct this misinterpretation with juniors. 'But sir, I've just made the same move three times in a row. Is that a draw?'. Usually the opponent has not repeated any moves, which makes it even funnier/more exasperating.

[David Sedgwick]

I think this was without arbiter intervention.

It was certainly without arbiter intervention!!

The player concerned was horrified when playing over the game later to discover he had made a wrong claim and reported early the following morning to see if anything could be done.

This counts as a draw by agreement but what would have happened if there was a 40 move rule before drawscould be agreed?

I think I can answer that one.

Dealing first with the facts of the actual case, Rowson said (in good faith, but mistakenly) that he intended to play 35...Kg7 and that the position would then have occurred three times. A rather stunned Greet accepted this and so there was no arbiter involvement.

Where there is a Sofia type rule, the arbiter must be called where one player wishes to accept a draw offer from the other, including verifying that a draw by repetition has actually occurred.

So Rowson makes the claim, Greet accepts it, but in those circumstances they have to call the arbiter to allow Greet to accept the draw and/or verify the repetition (as you wish).

What should then happen: the arbiter investigates, finds that there has not been a threefold repetition, and the game continues.

What might well happen instead: the arbiter is told that Greet accepts that a threefold repetition has occurred, takes a quick look at the scoresheet(s), makes the same mistake that Rowson made originally, and allows the draw.

[George Szaszvari]

I believe very few players of any strength deliberately practice gamesmanship....
...I realise a dispute is different from an appeal. But, I reiterate that I have had very few of either.

Although there is identifiable gamesmanship that could be brought to arbitration, and off putting behavior that might
not be obvious to bystanders or arbiters, it is true that, as an amateur player, I experienced either case only very
occasionally, with mixed feelings, but of disgust more than anything else. We are fortunate compared to many other
competitive activities. Dare I ask how poker compares in this respect?

[Stewart Reuben]

George Szaszvari >Dare I ask how poker compares in this respect?<

Of course you can. But do I dare respond?
Poker players are like Gaul, dvided into three groups:
Those who have the utmost high level of ethics
Those who think it is just part of the game to try any type of tricks and 'underhand actions', but would not consider mugging you for your money.
Those who are as the second type, but also who would be perfectly prepared to mug you for your money as well.

In my book 'Need to know poker' I list 10 different ways of cheating at poker. It is in the section on Poker Skills.

At Richmond Junior Chess Club yesterday a 10 year old beat an 8 year old. I didn't see it, but he reacted over-enthusiastically, punching the air and shouting 'I won' for some time. This reduced the younger boy to tears. The older boy was cautioned and his mother spoken to when she came to collect him. He has previous. The younger boy was given a half point.

[Tim Spanton]

A half-point for crying? Very character-building.

[George Szaszvari]

...
Poker players are like Gaul, dvided into three groups:
Those who have the utmost high level of ethics
Those who think it is just part of the game to try any type of tricks and 'underhand actions', but would not consider mugging you for your money.
Those who are as the second type, but also who would be perfectly prepared to mug you for your money as well.
In my book 'Need to know poker' I list 10 different ways of cheating at poker. It is in the section on Poker Skills.

I'd better make sure of practising fast draw with my Derringer then...

At Richmond Junior Chess Club yesterday a 10 year old beat an 8 year old. I didn't see it, but he reacted over-enthusiastically, punching the air and shouting 'I won' for some time. This reduced the younger boy to tears. The older boy was cautioned and his mother spoken to when she came to collect him. He has previous. The younger boy was given a half point.

A half-point for crying? Very character-building.

Welcome to the Brave New Socialist Virtual Reality World...
Another possible manipulation of the scoring system could have been to punish the vociferous gloater with a point deduction
for 'over enthusiasm', rather than rewarding non-achievement? Or is punishment for bad behavior now a politically incorrect concept, too?