Arbitration question

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:01 pm

Alex McFarlane wrote:
Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:14 pm
Consider the DGT3000, its initial display is 2:00.00 so when it reaches 0:00.00 you clearly have had your full 2 hours.
Suppose you have a DGT 3000 with an incremental time control, 40 in 90 plus 20 with 30 seconds added. If with Black still to play the 40th move and White's clock showing 0:20:30 or less, is that a valid claim? Similarly if Black has played move 40 and their clock shows 0:20:30.

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 » Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:31 pm

With a DGT 3000 I dont think it is correct to declare a loss at 00.00.00 unless there is a blinking flag, which indicates a loss on time in the final period of the game.
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 » Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:56 pm

Soheil. When you first noticed the king and queen round the wrong way, you should have first checked whether they had made three or more moves each. If so, being rapid play, the situation cannot be rectified.
When you came back, presumably White had not commented. You should not have intervened,
It is different for a standardplay game.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:08 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:56 pm
Soheil. When you first noticed the king and queen round the wrong way, you should have first checked whether they had made three or more moves each. If so, being rapid play, the situation cannot be rectified.
Stewart, that is now 10 or more moves each.

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:27 pm

David, You are quite right. I was about to make the correction, but you got there first.
Of course, Soheil didn't say whether 10 moves by both players had occurred before he noticed the error. Indeed it might only be possible for the arbiter to make an estimate - unless the game was on a digital board and being recorded. Only if, he is certain less than 10 moves had been played, should he intervene.

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:14 pm

So I should not have intervened when I saw the position? I thought the arbiter had to intervene when he sees an illegal move

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:36 am

Appendix A Rapid play A,3 refers to where one arbiter supervises at most three games AND the moves are recorded. I don't think the way you wrote that this applied to your event.
Thus A.4 applies. If you saw the illegal castling, BEFORE White responded, but after Black had pressed his clock, then you should have declared the game lost by Black. After White responds, the arbiter should not intervene,
Do the king and queen look very similar on your sets?

Tim Harding
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Tim Harding » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:47 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:36 am
Appendix A Rapid play A,3 refers to where one arbiter supervises at most three games AND the moves are recorded. I don't think the way you wrote that this applied to your event.
Thus A.4 applies. If you saw the illegal castling, BEFORE White responded, but after Black had pressed his clock, then you should have declared the game lost by Black. After White responds, the arbiter should not intervene,
Do the king and queen look very similar on your sets?
Stewart, are you right about this? In Rapid, as in standard, players are allowed make one illegal move without losing the game.

See the current (2021) arbiter manual, page 40, A.4.2 and clarification, explicitly stating the penalty is the same as in standard play (even if competition rules are not applying).

Maybe we need Alex's opinion on this.
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Alex McFarlane » Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:17 pm

Tim's right.

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:14 pm

Apologies. Due to my move, I don't have ready access to the most recent Laws.
At least I got back home before the heavy rain started.
But as Soheil explained, every move Black played was illegal due to the misplaced king and queen.

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:24 pm

At least I got back home before the heavy rain started.
The rain storm was brief and was followed by a glorious rainbow.

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 » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:17 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:14 pm
Apologies. Due to my move, I don't have ready access to the most recent Laws.
At least I got back home before the heavy rain started.
But as Soheil explained, every move Black played was illegal due to the misplaced king and queen.
No, just the castling. A position's being illegal doesn't mean subsequent moves played from it necessarily are.

(And the position itself became legal as soon as black moved any pawn that wasn't a rook's pawn.)

E Michael White
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by E Michael White » Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:42 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:08 pm
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:56 pm
Soheil. When you first noticed the king and queen round the wrong way, you should have first checked whether they had made three or more moves each. If so, being rapid play, the situation cannot be rectified.
Stewart, that is now 10 or more moves each.
Neither David nor Stewart is completely on the ball here. The condition is that 10 or more moves must have been completed not made as stated above. There is a difference.

There are some tricky decisions to make in certain anomalous situations. For example if black has played his tenth move at the board and is about to press the clock but notices the Ks and Qs are the wrong way round, so he informs his opponent who still thinks the rule says 3 moves. Black then stops the clocks to call the arbiter. When the arbiter arrives White claims that Black completed the move when he pressed the clock.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by David Sedgwick » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:54 am

E Michael White wrote:
Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:42 am
There are some tricky decisions to make in certain anomalous situations. For example if black has played his tenth move at the board and is about to press the clock but notices the Ks and Qs are the wrong way round, so he informs his opponent who still thinks the rule says 3 moves. Black then stops the clocks to call the arbiter. When the arbiter arrives White claims that Black completed the move when he pressed the clock.
That might make a useful examination question. Would you like to give the answer?

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:28 pm

If the arbiter is reasonably convinced that Black tried to stop the clock, not start that of his opponent, then he did not complete the move.
White would then have the right to appeal. Of course, Appeals Committees are not always correct.

Post Reply