Arbitration question

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Hello. This morning I was playing a girl and was a piece up. I had in mind b5, to free my c8-bishop from the defense of b7, Qa5-c7 with the same purpose, and Bg4 to develop an attack on her King. I played b5, and my opponent stopped the clock and called the arbiter, claimin the I touched my queen. I told the arbiter "possible, but if she says so, I must have had". The girl (my opponent) then claimed I released the Queen on b5 and pressed the clock button, then saying I reached the clock! I objected her claim. the chief arbiter came, and asking me several times if I accept my opponent's claim. I told her "I don't remember, but if the opponent says so, it must have had, and I accept the claim". The CA then moved on to the other claim, asking me if I did this, and I denied that. My opponent insisted that if I don't remember, it's possible that I don't remember releasing it either. When the CA asked me for the last time if I accept that I touched the Queen, I said I didn't accept, finding that the opponent was lying all along. The CA asked the people on the next table if the possibly witnessed the scene, to get a negative reply. She then gave the verdict that I move the Queen, but not necessarily to b5. Was the judgement right?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Touch-move claims are difficult to judge. In practice, arbiters usually don't rule in favour of the claim unless either both players agree on something, or an outside witness can say something.

[Roger Lancaster]

Touch-move claims are difficult to judge. In practice, arbiters usually don't rule in favour of the claim unless either both players agree on something, or an outside witness can say something.

I'd be a bit cautious about this "outside witness" business as the most likely spectators watching the game are those with connections to one or other player and whose testimony may therefore not be unbiased. But, of course, it's the arbiter's call whether to consult "witnesses" - and spectators are permitted to comment if asked to do so by the arbiter. [Jack knows this but it's not obvious from his post];

[Reg Clucas]

I played b5, and my opponent stopped the clock and called the arbiter, claimin the I touched my queen. I told the arbiter "possible, but if she says so, I must have had".

The important thing is not whether you touched the queen, but whether you touched it with the intention of moving it.

[E Michael White]

The important thing is not whether you touched the queen, but whether you touched it with the intention of moving it.

Since 1 Jan 2018 you need to consider amendments to the FIDE Laws:-

4.2.1
Only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares, provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”).
4.2.2
Any other physical contact with a piece, except for clearly accidental contact, shall be considered to be intent.

You wont be the only arbiter or player who has missed the changes !

[Paul McKeown]

Soheil, I wouldn't worry about it. I still remember a cup match in London, many years ago now, in which I was the sole player from my team left in the playing room (we were 9 - 0 up by that stage and the rest of the team had moved on to more salubrious haunts to celebrate) and my opponent touched a rook, moved another piece and all of his team chimed in unison that nothing had happened. Naturally I lost the game. Serves me right for going south of the river, I suppose.

To make things worse, I remember that a couple of years later, the offender played a team mate of mine in a different competition and was getting thrashed. He then played some desperate check and shouted a non-existant mate. My daft mate grabbed his coat and ran out of the room, not checking and not seeing that a simple capture by his king would have blown apart the ridiculous farce. The offender, shamelessness being his escutcheon, threatened to report me for interfering if I left the room to find my mate.

Happily, memory fades, and I can no longer remember the offender's name, and definitely not his face. I suppose I could look up my records, but sometimes it's best just to let time heal, for the sake of one's own sanity.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

I won the game, but I want to see if the arbiter had a correct judgement, myself being a lower level arbiter.

[Stewart Reuben]

<Soheil >The CA asked the people on the next table if the possibly witnessed the scene<

That was a serious error on the part of the CA. He should NEVER place a spectator in an invidious situation. If the spectator offers an opinion, that is different. Then CA cn decide whether to take this volunteered information into account.

The CA should have ruled i n our favour. He had no further information in addition to the placement of the pieces.
BUT he can add a codicil. 'If it happens to Soheil again, I may rule against him.' It is a type of warning nd the opponent is often then mollified.

[Ian Thompson]

The CA should have ruled i n our favour. He had no further information in addition to the placement of the pieces.

I don't think that's so clear cut. Soheil initially said he would not dispute the claim that he touched his queen, but then decided he would dispute it when the opponent's claim changed from having touched the queen to having picked it, moved it and then retracted the move.

That's quite understandable when the opponent's claim changes from something that Soheil thinks might have happened, and he's prepared to take his opponent's word for it, to something he knows definitely did not happen. What should the arbiter do? I don't think her decision was clearly wrong.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

The CA should have ruled i n our favour. He had no further information in addition to the placement of the pieces.

My opponent once said I pressed the clock then said I reached the clock, and also claimed I touched the Queen and also claiming I released the queen on b5. It turned out that the initial claim was also false.

[Stewart Reuben]

It should have read
The CA should have ruled in your favour. It was a typo leaving out the y.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Thanks.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Hello. Can online chess be rated? We currently have no way to organize chess events

[NickFaulks]

Your federation is free to rate it if they desire that. Some are making such experiments.

[Ian Thompson]

Your federation is free to rate it if they desire that. Some are making such experiments.

Are they? Has FIDE made any statement on this?

One of the requirements for rating games is that they are played according to the FIDE Laws and they're written for OTB chess. I think there are various aspects of the FIDE Laws that are incompatible with online play.

A simple example would be around claims of draws by repetition. I haven't seen any online servers that allow a player to submit a claim for a draw by repetition, only to be told they're wrong and have incurred a time penalty. I haven't seen any way the arbiter could receive such a claim directly from the player and then adjust the clocks if it was wrong. I have seen servers that award draws automatically without the player claiming and I've seen servers that tell a player they can claim a draw if they want to, neither of which are permitted by the FIDE Laws.