question for you all

[Andy Kelly]

It was said that an arbiter can always intervene. But what if....
It is a league match and the arbiter who is present is playing for the opposing team?
I ask this because something similar happened to me a couple of years ago. My player, in a time scramble, made an illegal move, the arbiter pointed it out. I didnt think this was right at the time and i said so (as he was not there as an arbiter). It did not go down well!

[Mike Gunn]

You're right: an arbiter is not an arbiter unless he has been appointed for the competition/ match/ game in question. (An unappointed arbiter is a bit like an off-duty policeman) Of course he/she may find themselves being consulted if an incident takes place for advice on the rules etc.

[Paul McKeown]

I find this unnecessarily negative and almost defensive. I state on our 10.2 page that it is "not an authoritative work to be referenced during games", so why you bother to disregard it in such a manner is beyond me. Are you trying to "rubbish" my question? Not very nice, there's no harm in clarifying things.

Edward,

What worries me, is that I recall you saying something about you putting your recasting of FIDE's 10.2 rule on the wall somewhere at West London CC. The problem with that, is that it could start to be viewed locally as "official". Perhaps I recall incorrectly, in which case, I apologize. In any case, nothing is meant personally.

My advice – and I think I am echoing Simon Spivack here – is to purchase the most up to date version of Stewart Reuben's little book. He provides not only the laws of chess, but excellent advice on how to apply them correctly, for instance with very clear, well chosen examples of how 10.2 should be interpreted. I cannot recommend this little book highly enough; I only wish everyone who plays competitive chess had read it thoroughly, understood it and remembered the advice - it would certainly reduce the number of disputes in league matches enormously.

Best Regards,
Paul McKeown.

[Stewart Reuben]

Michel White has again proposed the argument that 'over the board' does not mean over the board. The FIDE Laws of Chess cover only such games. They do not claim to cover games played on the internet, by correspondence, blindfold, partly finalised by adjudication, or problems, studies, etc. This was stated from 1996 partly to solve the problem of compositions the solution to which require more than 50 moves without moving a pawn or capturing a piece. John Roycroft wanted an exception to be placed in the Laws so that the history of such compositions not be lost. The Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee preferred to solve the problem by stipulating what they did cover.
Exceptionally some games started as OTB might end up being adjudicated. It is possible (just) to visualise a situation where the players fell ill or died during a game, or all the games had to be discontinued due to fire breaking out and the arbiter decided that adjudication was the best solution. Such games could not count for FIDE Rating. Just as they cannot count if one of the contestants is a computer or not registered for a FIDE federation or FIDE.
Have no doubt whatsoever that each new set of Laws, the next set taking effect 1 July 2009, completely supersede the old Laws and certainly their pre 1984 interpretations. That was the purpose of the complete revamping of the Laws in 1984 and the substantial revision we undertook in 1996.


When you have games which must finish by certain time and thus adding on time is dangerous, I suggest you adopt what is done in the US. That is use delay rather than cumulative mode. All the moves in 110 minutes, add on 5 seconds per move in delay (Bronstein) mode solves all problems relating to 10.2. If a player cannot defend a position with an extra 5 seconds, then he does not deserve to draw it. Such a game will not last two hours. In a typical match you would only need about 1 in 5 clocks to be digital in order to be able to introduce this mode at the end of the game when it becomes necessary.

I am sometimes present at London League matches as a player. Sometimes I am called in as an expert on the Laws. I never act as an arbiter unless both parties agree that they are happy I should do so. I also make it perfectly clear that any decision I make will be subject to the right to Appeal. Nobody present initially as a player should ever act in a different manner.
The Right of Appeal is not currently expressly stated in the Laws. It will be from 1 July, except for 10.2 and Appendix D.
Stewart Reuben