Arbitration question

[Ian Thompson]

So I think an infringement is considered more deliberate, but an irregularity could be accidental. There is not much difference in the definitions...

Irregularities would also include things that are not right and need attention by the arbiter but which are not caused by either player, e.g. a clock that is not working properly, game starting with the king and queen on the wrong squares, board the wrong way round, etc..

[Stewart Reuben]

Soheil >Thanks. I notice that the Laws of chess is different from the Arbiters' manual. Why is the difference?<

The Laws of Chess are compiled by the Rules Commission and then voted on by the General Assembly. However, sometimes this has broken down and the Presidential Board interfered, against the statutes.
The Arbiters' Manual was prepared hitherto by Takis, then Chairman of the Arbiters Commission. Sometimes he was wrong, although never intentionally.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

I mean one who benefits from the verdict, when making a claim, cannot be favoured in the absence of evidence

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Why is the annotation:
f the default time is for example 30 minutes and the round was scheduled to start at
15.00, but actually started at 15.15, then any player who hasn’t arrived by 15.45
loses.

under 6.7,2?I thought you lose by 30 minutes after the scheduled start time....

[soheil_hooshdaran]

What's the difference between 'shall' and 'is' in:

for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

and what is meant by using them?
I have arbitration exam tomorrow

[Roger de Coverly]

under 6.7,2?I thought you lose by 30 minutes after the scheduled start time....

6.7.1 The regulations of an event shall specify a default time in advance. If the default time is not specified, then it is zero. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the default time shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise.
6.7.2

If the regulations of an event specify that the default time is not zero and if neither player is present initially, White shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, unless the regulations of an event specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.

So the default time is whatever the organisers and arbiters say it is.

30 minutes after the clocks are started is usually recommended. Some organisations, leagues in particular would use an hour or have a fixed time.

[IM Jack Rudd]

"Shall" in this sort of context indicates a strong requirement on the part of the person involved to do something.

There's a note in the laws of contract bridge that can probably be ported over to chess: as you go down this list, the requirement gets stronger and stronger.

X may do Y
X does Y
X should do Y
X shall do Y
X must do Y

[Stewart Reuben]

Soheil >I mean one who benefits from the verdict, when making a claim, cannot be favoured in the absence of evidence<

But nor should the player claimed againt gain anything.
e.g. White claims Black touched a piece. Black denies this.White gains no benefit. But nor does Black. Indeed I usually say, 'In the absence of any evidence, I cannot make a ruling other than continue the game. However if there is a further complaint against Black in a later round, I may think again.'
I have never had a follow-up incident.
************************************************************
6.6At the time determined for the start of the game White’s clock is started
.6.7.1The regulations of an event shall specify a default time in advance. If the default time is not specified, then it is zero. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the default time shall lose the game unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

The Laws should be read sequentially for full understanding.
When is the game started. At the determined time. In many events, other than Britain, it can be an hour after the scheduled time, especially for the first round.
Why might the arbiter specify oherwise? e.g. A physically disabled player is on his way to the venue in good time, but trips and falls. Treatment takes some time and he arrives more than 30 minutes late. A good arbiter, on learning the circumstances, would never fofrfeit him.

[Ian Thompson]

"Shall" in this sort of context indicates a strong requirement on the part of the person involved to do something.

More than that, I think - they are required to do it. They do not have any discretion to do anything else.

This source, for example, says of shall - "when used in the second or third person, 'will' conveys a future obligation, whilst 'shall' imports compulsion and obligation."

[David Sedgwick]

Soheil >After he drew the game, the arbiters forfeited him as he had sat on the wrong table.<
That is so clearly wrong that the arbiter should be forfeited. He should have known about the player not sitting at the right board, long before the end of the game.

That's rather harsh. In a large Swiss the arbiter may not know or recognise the majority of the players.

Surely you remember the case at Islington where it was only discovered during Round 3 that a player had been absent from the start. Or is that tale apocryphal?

[Stewart Reuben]

David >Surely you remember the case at Islington where it was only discovered during Round 3 that a player had been absent from the start. Or is that tale apocryphal?<
That is interesting. I have no memory of that. Was I still in charge at the time of the alleged occurrence?

Good practice is to have an adequate number of arbiters, even in a large event. 1 for every 50? One of their jobs is to check on everybody playing.

[Roger de Coverly]

Surely you remember the case at Islington where it was only discovered during Round 3 that a player had been absent from the start. Or is that tale apocryphal?

There was a similar story, or perhaps the same one, about a junior tournament at the British. Someone who had withdrawn or who hadn't been there in the first place was kept in the tournament. Most of the players appeared to be in on the joke and allegedly those passing the board would play a move or two.

(edit)
This is what I was recalling
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4230&p=86984#p86984
(/edit)

[NickFaulks]

Why might the arbiter specify oherwise? e.g. A physically disabled player is on his way to the venue in good time, but trips and falls. Treatment takes some time and he arrives more than 30 minutes late. A good arbiter, on learning the circumstances, would never fofrfeit him.

I have never understood why it makes a difference that the player in such examples is physically disabled.

[David Sedgwick]

David >Surely you remember the case at Islington where it was only discovered during Round 3 that a player had been absent from the start. Or is that tale apocryphal?<
That is interesting. I have no memory of that. Was I still in charge at the time of the alleged occurrence?

No, it was at a George Goodwin event (if it happened). I was using the term "Islington" rather loosely.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Surely you remember the case at Islington where it was only discovered during Round 3 that a player had been absent from the start. Or is that tale apocryphal?

There was a similar story, or perhaps the same one, about a junior tournament at the British. Someone who had withdrawn or who hadn't been there in the first place was kept in the tournament. Most of the players appeared to be in on the joke and allegedly those passing the board would play a move or two.

(edit)
This is what I was recalling
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4230&p=86984#p86984
(/edit)