Another one for the arbiters

[Andrew Zigmond]

Firstly and just so there is no misunderstand, I'm asking this so I can answer a query that's been raised by a chess colleague. It does arise from an incident in an actual game so I will be a bit vague as to the exact details; however it is not a live dispute and I was never personally asked to make a ruling.

During the game an irregularity occurred; specifically that a piece was knocked off the board by a player who didn't realise he'd done so. The laws of chess say that if an irregularity occurs then it can only be brought to the attention of the arbiter and other players cannot intervene. What the rules don't say is what the arbiter does then. Should he intervene or is it down to the players to spot the irregularity? I should add that there was no arbiter present in this particular instance so that specific part of the question is hypothetical.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The arbiter should intervene. It's similar to the situation where he observes an illegal move's being made.

[Brian Towers]

Of course the arbiter should intervene!

7.4.1 If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position in his own time.
7.4.2 If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the chessclock and ask for the arbiter’s assistance.
7.4.3 The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.
...
12.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are observed.
12.2 The arbiter shall:
12.2.1 ensure fair play,

[Andrew Zigmond]

The arbiter should intervene. It's similar to the situation where he observes an illegal move's being made.

Thanks Jack. Which takes me on to my next question. This happened in a team match and the captains had seen what happened but weren't sure whether they should intervene in the absence of an arbiter.

Regarding Brian's post I did see that clause in the laws of chess but it seems to imply that the player is aware that he had displaced the piece, which was the case here.

[LawrenceCooper]

The arbiter should intervene. It's similar to the situation where he observes an illegal move's being made.

A noticeable lack of arbiter intervention from 0:50-1:05 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYu0RQIofmA

[Brian Towers]

Regarding Brian's post I did see that clause in the laws of chess but it seems to imply that the player is aware that he had displaced the piece, which was the case here.

It implies no such thing.

The law says that if a player displaces a piece then he restores the correct position. That is the law. It also says that the arbiter's job is to ensure that the laws of chess are obeyed. "Quod", "erat" and "demonstrandum", as they say.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Sorry, sloppy typing. I meant to say that this was NOT the case. Obviously had the error been realised the original position should have been restored.

If the arbiter should have intervened then it sounds like the captains could also have done so which is all I need to know.

[Brian Towers]

A noticeable lack of arbiter intervention from 0:50-1:05 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYu0RQIofmA

I'm pretty sure the 2017 version of the FIDE Laws of Chess did not apply in 1995. Perhaps these ones, which don't appear to cover blitz.

[Roger de Coverly]

This happened in a team match and the captains had seen what happened but weren't sure whether they should intervene in the absence of an arbiter.

You need local rules or conventions as to what extent, if at all, the match captains assume the powers given to arbiters.

Oxfordshire approved a set of captains' guidelines some years back, which seem to have been kept reasonably up to date.
http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/documen ... 201510.pdf

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi,

Pity no more details, did the missing piece affect the actual result.

Right away I thought of Steiner - Colle 1926 (could not recall where)
Steiner knocked his King on h1 off the board and replaced it on g1.

Steiner went onto to play a Queen winning combo that would have been unsound
if the White King had been correctly replaced on h1. The bones of the position I recalled as here.

[fen]6k1/5r2/8/8/8/8/6PP/7K w - - 0 1[/fen]

After checking, here is the actual game. (I was close).

Steiner - Collle, Budapest 1926

[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp1q1ppp/2p5/2Pp4/3P4/1QN5/PP4PP/R1B2R1K w kq - 0 17"] 17. Bg5 {It was here I speculate that the King was knocked to the floor and put back on g1.} 17... f6 18. Rae1+ Be7 19. Rxf6 gxf6 20. Bxf6 O-O 21. Rxe7 Rxf6 22. Rxd7 {And because here the King was on g1 instead of h1 Black could not play Rf1 checkmate.} 22... Bxd7 23. Ne4 Rf7 24. Qg3+ Rg7 25. Nf6+ Kh8 26. Qe5 Bh3 {That looks silly but remember on the actual board the King was on g1.} 27. Nh5 {Black resigned. It was soon discovered that the King had been misplace. Colle protested but the result stood.}

[John Clarke]

Presumably Colle only discovered the error after signing off on the result? (In which case he was too late with his protest.)

As for the incident that prompted this thread: of course the captains should intervene! What ever happened to common sense? There seem to be far too many nit-pickers in the game who ought to get out more.