Arbitration question

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:50 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:00 am
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 7:10 am
Matthew Turner wrote:
Sat Aug 07, 2021 10:13 am
Checkmate ends the game, so Black didn't play Kxf7 because there wasn't a game in progress at that point.
How are you going to figure out that this was mate?
You seem to have been able to recreate the sequence of events, so surely the arbiter could also have done that.
How? We just see that the Black King was captured, when we are summoned to the board.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4815
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Sun Aug 08, 2021 2:41 pm

You ask the players.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Roger Lancaster » Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:44 pm

Joseph Conlon wrote:
Sat Aug 07, 2021 12:35 pm
One player makes a desperado queen sacrifice to force stalemate. The other player was carefully considering the position, but capturing the queen was forced leading to stalemate. Strictly, before the capture the position was dead and so (as I understand it) the game is already over. However it seemed churlish to step in rather than allowing the game to be played out to the natural conclusion. Do arbiters ever step in to declare the game over in such a position?
I seem to have a slightly different take to Adam on this one. If the other player takes the queen it's immediately stalemate - drawn. If however he sits there thinking until his flag falls, it's surely still drawn - there are no legal means by which the first player could have won the game. So I'd be tempted to intervene and declare the game drawn. Thoughts?

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 3148
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun Aug 08, 2021 5:06 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 2:41 pm
You ask the players.
What if the players disagree?

Joseph Conlon
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Joseph Conlon » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:26 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:44 pm
Joseph Conlon wrote:
Sat Aug 07, 2021 12:35 pm
One player makes a desperado queen sacrifice to force stalemate. The other player was carefully considering the position, but capturing the queen was forced leading to stalemate. Strictly, before the capture the position was dead and so (as I understand it) the game is already over. However it seemed churlish to step in rather than allowing the game to be played out to the natural conclusion. Do arbiters ever step in to declare the game over in such a position?
I seem to have a slightly different take to Adam on this one. If the other player takes the queen it's immediately stalemate - drawn. If however he sits there thinking until his flag falls, it's surely still drawn - there are no legal means by which the first player could have won the game. So I'd be tempted to intervene and declare the game drawn. Thoughts?
Apologies, I missed this when it was first posted. I agree about the game being over - I think at this point, even if a mobile goes off or a player declares they actually resign, the game is still a draw as it is already finished. However, all my senses of chess aesthetics are against stepping in to hurry the players here, as if such a desperado sacrifices 'deserves' to be played until stalemate.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Ian Thompson » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:53 pm

Joseph Conlon wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:26 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:44 pm
If the other player takes the queen it's immediately stalemate - drawn. If however he sits there thinking until his flag falls, it's surely still drawn - there are no legal means by which the first player could have won the game. So I'd be tempted to intervene and declare the game drawn. Thoughts?
I agree about the game being over - I think at this point, even if a mobile goes off or a player declares they actually resign, the game is still a draw as it is already finished.
I'm not convinced. Is it really too late to penalise a player whose phone rings a few seconds after the game finishes, or should the arbiter say that was evidence the player was breaking the rules during the game, so he loses because he broke the rules during the game, even though it wasn't discovered until after the game was over? (Also, for mobile phone infringements, the rules say the opponent wins. Intentionally or not, there's no requirement in the rules for the opponent to have mating material.)

Joseph Conlon
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:18 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Joseph Conlon » Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:11 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:53 pm
I'm not convinced. Is it really too late to penalise a player whose phone rings a few seconds after the game finishes, or should the arbiter say that was evidence the player was breaking the rules during the game, so he loses because he broke the rules during the game, even though it wasn't discovered until after the game was over? (Also, for mobile phone infringements, the rules say the opponent wins. Intentionally or not, there's no requirement in the rules for the opponent to have mating material.)
Is someone gives checkmate, and then their phone immediately rings, what happens? I think this is the nub of the matter. My sense was that, once checkmate is given, the game is over and they are now a spectator, so whatever punishment is assigned should not affect the result of the game.

But this probably has happened, and it would be interesting to hear how it is dealt with.

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Adam Raoof » Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:34 pm

The game has ended, and you can treat the players as spectators at that point.
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3543
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Ian Thompson » Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:07 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:34 pm
The game has ended, and you can treat the players as spectators at that point.
So if the player's phone rang just after the game ended, you wouldn't be concerned that it must also have been on during the game, contrary to the rules? You wouldn't want to examine it to check whether it might have been used to cheat during the game?

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Adam Raoof » Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:19 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:07 pm
Adam Raoof wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:34 pm
The game has ended, and you can treat the players as spectators at that point.
So if the player's phone rang just after the game ended, you wouldn't be concerned that it must also have been on during the game, contrary to the rules? You wouldn't want to examine it to check whether it might have been used to cheat during the game?
I think it would be hard to prove that it was on during the game, and probably beyond the scope of the FIDE laws. It might give an arbiter a reason for extra caution going forward.
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4539
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:23 pm

Have no doubt. If it becomes evident, beyond all doubt, that a player's phone was on during the game, he loses, even if the game on the board was completed without his losing.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:49 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:07 pm
So if the player's phone rang just after the game ended, you wouldn't be concerned that it must also have been on during the game, contrary to the rules? You wouldn't want to examine it to check whether it might have been used to cheat during the game?
It has always been my view that if a player's phone goes off, that is pretty strong evidence that they are not using it to cheat.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:57 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:49 pm
It has always been my view that if a player's phone goes off, that is pretty strong evidence that they are not using it to cheat.
It's evidence that it's switched on which is enough under FIDE and similarly strict interpretations to cause loss of the game as a minimum sanction.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:43 am

A few comments.
Joseph Conlon wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:11 pm
Is someone gives checkmate, and then their phone immediately rings, what happens?
The appropriate word here is 'immediately'. There is therefore no doubt that the phone was on during play and therefore the player should lose. I agree totally with Stewart. If an arbiter were to suggest that it was not appropriate as the game had finished as Adam suggests, I would be less than happy. If I were the Chief Arbiter in such a situation I would overrule the arbiter who said that it was too late.
However, if the player had time AND opportunity to switch on his phone after the game then my decision would need to be different and therefore only a warning and expulsion from the hall would follow.

I note that Nick says that if a player's phone rang that is 'pretty strong evidence' that he was not cheating. Firstly, the phone rule was originally introduced to combat the frequent disturbance that these devices were causing by ringing and had nothing to do with cheating. That reason is still valid. Unfortunately, you would think that a player would not be so stupid as to have his phone able to ring when they also had a chess engine running. However, I know of one case where an engine was discovered for that very reason!! Remember, you cannot over-estimate the stupidity of people.

With regard to the original question about the dead game. I would probably allow the players to play it out and only step in if there was another reason to do so - either a flag fall or a claim. I have had such a position and the smile on both players faces indicated strongly that they wanted to play it out. They did so so quickly that I would have struggled to reach their board to interrupt in any case.

Here is one to consider. It is a position between two inexperienced players.
White plays g4 and announces mate. The arbiter is standing there. What does the arbiter do if:
a) Black accepts that it is checkmate
b) White's flag falls before any agreement
c) White's flag falls at the same time as Black acknowledges 'checkmate'?

Wadih Khoury
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Wadih Khoury » Sat Aug 14, 2021 10:11 am

Alex McFarlane wrote:
Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:43 am
A

Here is one to consider. It is a position between two inexperienced players.
White plays g4 and announces mate. The arbiter is standing there. What does the arbiter do if:
a) Black accepts that it is checkmate
b) White's flag falls before any agreement
c) White's flag falls at the same time as Black acknowledges 'checkmate'?
I'll will give it a go and offer myself for public shaming :lol:

a) White wins: even if there is not a checkmate, an opponent agreeing that there is a checkmate is equivalent to resigning. In effect, both players agree the game has ended with White's victory
b) Black wins: there is a legal way for black to win
c) No idea: without any video recording, I would give priority to Black's resignation and give the win to white


I have a nasty feeling that I am going to get a 0/3 grade :cry:

Post Reply