FIDE Arbiters' Manual

[Ian Thompson]

I see from the ECF website that FIDE has recently published an arbiters' manual.

On a brief perusal it seems to be a very poorly written document. What do other people think?

[Alex Holowczak]

On a brief perusal it seems to be a very poorly written document. What do other people think?

It strikes me as a laudable attempt to put everything the arbiter might need to know into one document and one place. I think that's perfectly reasonable, because it saves the time I might otherwise spend flailing around the FIDE Handbook wondering which regulations I'm supposed to be looking at.

The standard of written English is poor. OK - it's better than my Dutch, Greek, Armenian etc., but I'm not purporting to write an official document in those languages. Why not get Stewart Reuben, who is on the RTR Commission, to check the English?

For example, a comment for 6.10b, about potentially incorrect clock settings:

"It is advisable to write down all the known details of the two clocks."

They're made of plastic? They were manufactured in the Netherlands?

Less pedantically, a bit further on, "To go to toilette is not a valid reason to stop the clocks."

I found the comment to 8.7, about signing for the correct result, particularly funny:

"At the moment the arbiter sees that a game has been finished, he should rush to that board and request the players to write the result of the game and to sign the score sheets. The arbiter should immediately check that both score sheets show the identical results."

10.2 is a controversial Law of Chess, but we're presented with more detailed explanation for 2.4, covering a range of topics including which way Knights must face, and the size of a chessboard.

In short, I think the principle of the manual is good, but the execution is poor. The FIDE page invites comments, so I'll give them.

[E Michael White]

I see from the ECF website that FIDE has recently published an arbiters' manual.
On a brief perusal it seems to be a very poorly written document. What do other people think?

I noticed that document a few days ago. It is factually incorrect in places in that it conflicts with current rules and is difficult to read in parts. It covers some important points but misses out many others. Stewart Reuben produced an explanatory note recently, which used to be on the FIDE website and suffered from the same disadvantages.

I am inclined to agree with you and the writings of Jon Cox previously on FIDE rules, except that I wouldn't blame GG and the others for whom English is not a first language. Jon may have been unaware that usually the final wordings for FIDE draft rules are reviewed by a group of senior English arbiters. I would like to see that group replaced by experienced players such as you ( ed. Ian Thompson not AH), Jon Cox and Paul Cooksey who seem to write more sensibly.

Whether this arbiters manual was word sculptured by the above group of arbiters I do not know.

[Alex Holowczak]

Whether this arbiters manual was word sculptured by the above group of arbiters I do not know.

Am I now considered "one of the above group of arbiters"? Anyway, for what it's worth, I was oblivious that this was going to appear until it did.

[Ian Thompson]

In short, I think the principle of the manual is good, but the execution is poor.

I agree.

I found the comment to 8.7, about signing for the correct result, particularly funny:

"At the moment the arbiter sees that a game has been finished, he should rush to that board and request the players to write the result of the game and to sign the score sheets. The arbiter should immediately check that both score sheets show the identical results."

I look forward to reading details of the "FIDE Arbiter Fitness Tests" to ensure that all arbiters are capable of doing this repeatedly during a tournament.

... we're presented with more detailed explanation for 2.4, covering a range of topics including which way Knights must face, ...

Unfortunately, this conflicts with the explanation of 4.2. That says you can only adjust a piece if it is displaced. A knight on the centre of its square is not displaced, so cannot be adjusted just because it's not pointing the way you'd like it to be.

[Stewart Reuben]

There are two members of the Arbiters' Commission for whom English is or was their first language. Neither was consulted about the Arbiters' Manual. Nor was I, nor any other person for whom English is their first language. It shows.
There are also errors. That is understandable in a substantial document.
As a first draft it is OK. I like their shaded boxes of comments.
Geurt Gijssen thinks we should have a similar manual for the Laws of Chess. I disagree, it would be a great deal of work and it would be better to make the Laws as accessible as possible in the first place.
If people have constructive comments on the FAQ on the 1 July 2014 Laws that I wrote, these would be very welcome.
http://rules.fide.com/faq/13-faq/96-rtrc-faq.html. I only just noticed that it isn't made clear that they relate to the 2014 Laws.

[John Foley]

4.3 Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on
the chessboard
..
c. one piece of each colour, he must capture the opponent’s piece with his piece or, if
this is illegal, move or capture the first piece touched which can be moved or
captured. If it is unclear, whether the player’s own piece or his opponent’s was
touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have been touched
before his opponent’s.

This seems to be an unnecessary addition since it gives carte blanche to touch the opponent's pieces.

[Stewart Reuben]

John Foley >This seems to be an unnecessary addition since it gives carte blanche to touch the opponent's pieces.<

It has been in the Laws for many years and I don't see the problem. The player must move or capture the first piece he touhes. They may be adjacent and it is unclear to the arbiter, who happens to be watching, which of two pieces was touched first. So he works on the presumption that it was the player's piece touched first.
e.g Bb2, Bb3, pa2. The Bb2 and pa2 are both touched. But the arbiter doesn't know which first. So it is the Bb2 that must be moved.

[John Foley]

The player must move or capture the first piece he touhes. They may be adjacent and it is unclear to the arbiter, who happens to be watching, which of two pieces was touched first. So he works on the presumption that it was the player's piece touched first.

Does this rule also apply when the arbiter is not watching? For instance, if player A notices that his opponent touched A's piece before touching his own piece then must A ignore this? This may sound technical, but it requires clarifying the purpose of the Arbiter's Manual. If it is only for the guidance of arbiters then how should players interpret the same circumstances? We can't have one rule for arbiters and another for players.

[Stewart Reuben]

John Foley >Does this rule also apply when the arbiter is not watching? For instance, if player A notices that his opponent touched A's piece before touching his own piece then must A ignore this? This may sound technical, but it requires clarifying the purpose of the Arbiter's Manual. If it is only for the guidance of arbiters then how should players interpret the same circumstances? We can't have one rule for arbiters and another for players.<

The problem when the arbiters is not watching is proving what actually happened when the players disagree. The player to move B, touches one of A's pieces intending to take it. If he can take it, he must do so. This is true even if A did not see it.

I have only just realised this evening that there are arbiters who think the Laws are written for them. They are written for the players to play to and the arbiters to administer. If the Laws require explanation, then they should be amended.

The Arbiters Manual presumably has the objective of guiding them.
The FAQ I wrote for the RTRC website seeks to explain the reasons behind some of the Laws.
The Guidelines for Events for Inexperienced players seeks to give pointers for such players, arbiters and organisers.

[Greg Breed]

I have only just realised this evening that there are arbiters who think the Laws are written for them. They are written for the players to play to and the arbiters to administer.

A single line of text stating this at the very top of the Arbiters manual might help! or maybe make it a header or footer for every single page

[Sean Hewitt]

I have only just realised this evening that there are arbiters who think the Laws are written for them. They are written for the players to play to and the arbiters to administer. If the Laws require explanation, then they should be amended.

The laws of football try to be short and to the point. They then give advice and examples of application where necessary. The format seems to work well and is a model that would improve the laws of chess significantly. In particular, when changes to the laws are made, the changes are clearly and specifically articulated together with the practical effect.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The laws of football try to be short and to the point. They then give advice and examples of application where necessary. The format seems to work well and is a model that would improve the laws of chess significantly. In particular, when changes to the laws are made, the changes are clearly and specifically articulated together with the practical effect."

Hockey tries to do the same - and they actually listen if someone points out an ambiguity. But they do fall into the trap of writing the Laws for the top players, and forgetting that most people are not that good. (You can hit the ball in the air if it's safe e.g. )

[Brian Towers]

Note that the 2014 version reflecting the July 1st 2014 rules has been published and is available here http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories ... l_2014.pdf.