Page 12 of 14

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:01 am
by Alex Holowczak
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:39 am
I don't see why an arbiter would use a chess engine while supervising games in play.
I've used the engine on Chess24 a couple of times as an arbiter. There were something like three games left in 4NCL Division 1, and not being a player of any particular quality, I was trying to work out what was going on in the remaining endgames. I was not especially interested in using them from a learning perspective, but I was more interested in how long it would take for the games to finish. When I saw all of the games were at least +/-4, it suggested I probably wouldn't have long to wait for the games to end. This was useful information, because it meant I could begin merging all the PGNs together for the round/start checking the rest of the results etc.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:31 am
by Stewart Reuben
Alex.
Long before the days of chess engines, in 1967, I was the chief organiser/arbiter at the Islington Open. Late in one game I looked at it and asked the players, 'Who is playing for a win?' TUT. They then agreed a draw and we could then go to the next stage. Doing the pairings?

I tried to get FIDE to agree to a minimum rating for international Arbiters of 1800. I expected to be haggled down to 1600. But they were not having anything to do with that. Yet, after all, somebody could be an FA.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:39 am
by David Sedgwick
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:39 am
I don't see why an arbiter would use a chess engine while supervising games in play.
At one London Chess Classic, Hikaru Nakamura asked me immediately after his game had finished whether he had been winning at a certain point during it.

I explained that I did not consult an engine while the games were in progress, as the players passed behind the desk where I had my laptop on their way to the refreshment table.

However, I was interested to learn that Nakamura had assumed that I would have been doing so.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:52 am
by Stewart Reuben
David >However, I was interested to learn that Nakamura had assumed that I would have been doing so.<

Are you sure he hadn't assumed that you were strong enough a player to have made an independent assessment of the position?

It occurs to me that Alex may not know that, at one period for the World Championship, there was a requirement that the Chief Arbiter be at least an IM. Lothar Schmidt GM did not become an IA until AFTER the 1972 World Championship match.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:54 pm
by David Sedgwick
David Sedgwick wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:39 am
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:39 am
I don't see why an arbiter would use a chess engine while supervising games in play.
At one London Chess Classic, Hikaru Nakamura asked me immediately after his game had finished whether he had been winning at a certain point during it.

I explained that I did not consult an engine while the games were in progress, as the players passed behind the desk where I had my laptop on their way to the refreshment table.

However, I was interested to learn that Nakamura had assumed that I would have been doing so.
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:52 am
Are you sure he hadn't assumed that you were strong enough a player to have made an independent assessment of the position?
That seems most improbable. He remembers defeating me, and drawing with you, in the Caribbean Open in Trinidad in 1999, when he was eleven years old.

Also, he asked me whether he had been winning, not whether I thought he had been winning.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:08 pm
by Ian Thompson
David Sedgwick wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:54 pm
He remembers defeating me, and drawing with you, in the Caribbean Open in Trinidad in 2009, when he was eleven years old.
1999 maybe? He'd have been 21 or 22 in 2009.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:14 pm
by David Sedgwick
Ian Thompson wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:08 pm
David Sedgwick wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:54 pm
He remembers defeating me, and drawing with you, in the Caribbean Open in Trinidad in 2009, when he was eleven years old.
1999 maybe? He'd have been 21 or 22 in 2009.
Thank you Ian. 1999 indeed,

I have amended my original post.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:39 pm
by Brian Towers
NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:17 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:28 pm
I am asking for the Fide ruling
Others may be better informed, but I do not believe this is specifically a breach of any FIDE regulation.

There are several reasons why you might not wish arbiters to use their phones while working. Which do you have in mind?
There is a FIDE regulation,
FIDE Laws of Chess wrote:12.8 Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue or any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.
Hence the Chief Arbiter can give himself permission but any subordinate arbiter would need to first get the chief arbiter's permission before doing so.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:19 pm
by Alex Holowczak
David Sedgwick wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:39 am
I explained that I did not consult an engine while the games were in progress, as the players passed behind the desk where I had my laptop on their way to the refreshment table.
Just to clarify the 4NCL point in light of this comment - this isn't a concern at the 4NCL, given all sorts of factors. (Location of our desk, lack of refreshment area near it etc.)

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:36 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
Does an arbiter have to check the board and clock at the beginning of every single round?

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:05 pm
by Alex Holowczak
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:36 pm
Does an arbiter have to check the board and clock at the beginning of every single round?
It's easy enough to check the clocks because can do that when you set them anyway.

In terms of checking the board, you normally do that when you're setting the clock or putting out the scoresheets.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:35 pm
by Stewart Reuben
Soheil >Does an arbiter have to check the board and clock at the beginning of every single round?,

Not just at the start. It is a good idea to check each clock every hour. There are several reasons.
It gives a purpose to your patrolling the area. Your mere presence will reduce tensions.
The clocks may not be working correctly.
Particularly when starting off, the clock' lever may have been pushed too many times. If you are relying on th push counter in a DGT, the number of pushes is not shown. You need to compare the time elapsed with the number of moves showing on the scoresheet. If you have a computer display of the moves, you can compare that with the board and clock. This is very important where, for example, after 40 pushes by black, an extra 30 minutes is added. If you are using that system, then ALL the clocks should be started every round by arbiters.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:56 pm
by Ian Thompson
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:35 pm
Particularly when starting off, the clock' lever may have been pushed too many times.
Or too few times. I think a fairly common mistake that is made is:

1. White is present at the starting time and Black is late.
2. White plays their first move and presses the clock lever without first starting the clock.
3. White realises their mistake and starts the clock.

End result - the clock thinks Black is playing with the white pieces and vice versa; White doesn't get their increment for the first move; the clock thinks one less half-move has been played than is actually the case.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:07 pm
by Roger de Coverly
Ian Thompson wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:56 pm

Or too few times. I think a fairly common mistake that is made is:

1. White is present at the starting time and Black is late.
2. White plays their first move and presses the clock lever without first starting the clock.
3. White realises their mistake and starts the clock.
That can happen at league games even with both players present. It's one of the implicit jobs for match captains to check that all clocks have been started when using digital clocks.

But with their increasing use in League matches, some players are getting more familiar with DGT 2010s in particular and know how to reboot them.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:49 am
by NickFaulks
Brian Towers wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:39 pm
FIDE Laws of Chess wrote:12.8 Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the playing venue or any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.
Hence the Chief Arbiter can give himself permission but any subordinate arbiter would need to first get the chief arbiter's permission before doing so.
You are taking "the arbiter" to mean just the Chief Arbiter, but I don't think that is right.
Glossary wrote:arbiter: Preface. The person(s) responsible for ensuring that the rules of a competition are followed