Arbitration question

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Brian Towers » Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:41 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:43 pm
So when does that rule apply?
Never.

Spite is never a good basis for a decision. Although "spite" is not quite the word I'm looking for. The Hebrew word "dafka" is more appropriate but an exact translation is difficult.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

John McKenna

Re: Arbitration question

Post by John McKenna » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:09 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:39 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:29 pm
Means that the one whose claim would be in his favour should be decided against
That makes no sense in this situation, or in most other dispute situations. Usually both sides are making a claim that is in their favour.
I saw a situation a few years ago in which a junior (playing an adult) tried to claim a draw from an arbiter (rated 2000+) in an endgame.

At the time I got the strong impression that juniors were being advised to make a claim when they were in a difficult position and entered their last 2 mins.

The adult was not making any claim just sitting and thinking at the board.

The arbiter followed the junior back to the board took one look at the position smiled at the kid and walked off without a word.

You can guess the result of the game that was soon arrived at without further ado.

John McKenna

Re: Arbitration question

Post by John McKenna » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:24 pm

Brian Towers wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:41 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:43 pm
So when does that rule apply?
Never.

Spite is never a good basis for a decision. Although "spite" is not quite the word I'm looking for. The Hebrew word "dafka" is more appropriate but an exact translation is difficult.
Here's a link about it -

https://www.haaretz.com/word-of-the-day-davka-1.5294530

From which -
Doing something “davka” can mean willfully, spitefully or deliberately taking an action calculated to antagonize, in which case “on purpose” may fit the translation bill: “He says he didn’t mean to lock me out, but I think he did it davka.”

It can also imply a paradox, something unexpected, whether for the good or the bad...

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:53 pm

What penalty should be given if someone moves with two hands?
What if he does move and clock with one hand only?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:02 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:53 pm
What penalty should be given if someone moves with two hands?
I believe the relevant FIDE Commission spent a long time on this at their most recent rewrite of the Laws of Chess. In part response to Nakamura's two handed castling in front of four arbiters, they came up with.
4.1
Each move must be played with one hand only.
7.5.4 If a player uses two hands to make a single move (for example in case of castling, capturing or promotion) and pressed the clock, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.
7.5.5

After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; 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.
As regards the clock
6.2.3 A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the clock or to ‘hover’ over it.
6.2.4 The players must handle the chessclock properly. It is forbidden to press it forcibly, to pick it up, to press the clock before moving or to knock it over. Improper clock handling shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9.

Reg Clucas
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Reg Clucas » Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:55 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:02 pm


As regards the clock
6.2.3 A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move.
Breach of this rule of course does not constitute an illegal move as defined by 7.5.4 (I think?) so again I believe the penalty is at the arbiter's discretion, i.e. 12.9.

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:21 am

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

In what order do the penalties of 112.9 have to be applied?

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Tim Harding » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:17 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:21 am
Thanks. I notice that the Laws of chess is different from the Arbiters' manual. Why is the difference?

In what order do the penalties of 12.9 have to be applied?
a) The current Arbiters Manual is version 2 of September 2018. The difference from the Laws, so far as I can see, is only the paragraphs printed in grey boxes to provide clarification for arbiters. This is advisory material presumably not thought required for players to read, but if necessary the arbiter can show the players the extra text.
Do you think there is a substantive difference between the documents?

b) The penalties at the discretion of arbiters are listed in increasing order of severity.
At the arbiter seminar I attended last year (conducted by ireland's two IAs) my notes say the following point was made:
Clause 12.9 lists penalties available to arbiter (discretionary). Warning or increasing opponent’s time should be enough; c) reduce time of player is rarely done. Declare game lost: use for phones. Adjusting points very unusual. g) Expulsion from event: only if very bad behaviour.
I note however the comment to 11.7 in the Arbiters Manual as a case where the arbiter may have to declare a game lost by a player but he must warn the player that this penalty will be applied at the next infringement.

In the case if pressing the clock with a different hand (I agree it's not an illegal move but is an infringement of the Laws), probably warn once or twice, and if offender persists then give the opponent more time. If he continues to do it, apply 11,7, i.e. warn him that next time he does it he loses the game.
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

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by E Michael White » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:37 pm

Reg Clucas wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:55 pm
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:02 pm

As regards the clock
6.2.3 A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move.
Breach of this rule of course does not constitute an illegal move as defined by 7.5.4 (I think?) so again I believe the penalty is at the arbiter's discretion, i.e. 12.9.
Your statement is not always correct. In practice a player who moves with one hand and presses the clock with the other is likely eventually to get out of sync and press the clock before releasing/removing all pieces moved/captured. He/she will then fall foul of:-

7.5.3 If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered and penalized as if an illegal move.

The arbiter needs to be alert and on the lookout for this, as the penalty is prescribed leaving no choice for the arbiter.

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Tim Harding » Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:06 pm

I think this is an issue that arbiters in blitz tournaments need to be aware of; it shouldn't arise at classical time limits with increment.
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

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:15 pm

Tim Harding wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:17 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:21 am
Thanks. I notice that the Laws of chess is different from the Arbiters' manual. Why is the difference?

In what order do the penalties of 12.9 have to be applied?
a) The current Arbiters Manual is version 2 of September 2018. The difference from the Laws, so far as I can see, is only the paragraphs printed in grey boxes to provide clarification for arbiters. This is advisory material presumably not thought required for players to read, but if necessary the arbiter can show the players the extra text.
Do you think there is a substantive difference between the documents?

b) The penalties at the discretion of arbiters are listed in increasing order of severity.
At the arbiter seminar I attended last year (conducted by ireland's two IAs) my notes say the following point was made:
Clause 12.9 lists penalties available to arbiter (discretionary). Warning or increasing opponent’s time should be enough; c) reduce time of player is rarely done. Declare game lost: use for phones. Adjusting points very unusual. g) Expulsion from event: only if very bad behaviour.
I note however the comment to 11.7 in the Arbiters Manual as a case where the arbiter may have to declare a game lost by a player but he must warn the player that this penalty will be applied at the next infringement.

In the case if pressing the clock with a different hand (I agree it's not an illegal move but is an infringement of the Laws), probably warn once or twice, and if offender persists then give the opponent more time. If he continues to do it, apply 11,7, i.e. warn him that next time he does it he loses the game.
Yes sir, I think they are different, particularly regarding 6.2

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:26 pm

Sorry, how does "irregularity" differ from infringement?

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

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Tim Harding » Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:11 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:26 pm
Sorry, how does "irregularity" differ from infringement?
Irregularities are dealt with in Article 7. They include things that a player may do wrong (not necessarily deliberately) but also things like setting the board up wrong or playing with the wrong colour that can arise through carelessness. Irregularities need to be corrected but do not always give rise to warnings or penalties.

The word infringement is not used in the actual laws but in several places in the grey comments of the Arbiters Manual (Articles 11 and 12). It refers to cases where a player has done something against the laws and should be warned or receive a more serious penalty.

With regard to your previous posting, I have checked the wording of all clauses of 6.2 in both last year's arbiters manuals and the laws online at
http://rules.fide.com/images/stories/La ... ersion.pdf
and I see no difference in wording.

So you will have to be much more specific if you really think there is a difference; there certainly does not seem to be one in English.

You have a lot of licensed arbiters in Iran so really I don't understand why you are asking this here; you should be discussing it with them.
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

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:31 pm

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/irregular (etc.)

Infringement - The action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.

Irregularity - The state or quality of being irregular. [Note - not a great definition!]

Irregular - Contrary to the rules or to that which is normal or established.

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

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:56 pm

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.

>I have heard that the interested player should not be favoured, almost 13 years ago, so it was wrong?<

There is no such rule. All decisions shuld be made objectively, based on the evidence available, which may include testimony by eiher or both players. Spectators should not be asked to give their views. If they volunteer them, then the arbiter needs to decide whether to allow them into the discussion.

But is the English a problem? The interested player should neither be favoued, nor disfavoured.