ECF arbiting at Aberystwyth - FIDE perspective

[Roger de Coverly]

I may have misunderstood previous postings but my understanding from what I thought I read was that the alleged illegal move happened earlier in the game in question, i.e. the opponent made at least one additional reply, in which case there is no case to consider.

A4 (b) would appear to cover it.

An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If the arbiter observes this he shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim a win, provided the opponent has not made his next move. 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. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.

Thus under those rules you can only make a valid winning claim of an illegal move when it's your turn to move and the effect of the illegal move is visible on the board. So if the illegal move is disputed, the dispute is really about what the position was immediately previously, or whether in castling, the king or rook had previously moved. I suppose as with all these issues, one of the more vital pieces of evidence, namely the actual board position where the claim was made was not recorded and neither was the alleged illegal move. The FIDE drafting seems clear enough, there's a narrow window of opportunity to make the claim of a win. I still think it binary. The illegal move claim is either correct because it's the most recent move and the clock has been pressed, or it's out of time or a legal move anyway. Nothing that would justify awarding a point and a half.

[John McKenna]

Duplicate post.

[John McKenna]

To me "following FIDE rules & regulations" is just shorthand for a certain set of words which ( hopefully ) are understood by all. I don't believe that this implies any promise that FIDE will intervene in the event of a dispute.

It has been mentioned recently that Durham has an unusual rule regarding the recording of moves. If an event in Somerset announced that it would be following Durham rules and then proceeded to enforce something different, I think that Durham would be well advised to stay clear of the ensuing fight.

I've the strong impression that you have returned in hope, but to a land of lost causes. That's the FIDE spirit!

Sorry, I don't understand what point is being made. Are you disagreeing with what I wrote?

I agree completely, and was not really making a point about what you wrote - except to say "abandon hope all ye who enter here". I would go further and say that local organisers and the ECF should stick as closely as possible to the FIDE rules and regulations in all their competitions. Where they do not the changes, and the reasons for them, should be made abundantly clear to all the competitors.

Further to what Brian and Roger posted above - does anyone have any idea if the position on the board, etc. was recorded at the point when the arbiter became involved and the clocks were, presumably, stopped? Subsequently were the details of the two players explanations about the situation also recorded in some way. And, finally, were any such details sent to FIDE as supporting evidence?

[NickFaulks]

I agree completely, and was not really making a point about what you wrote - except to say "abandon hope all ye who enter here".

Thanks, I get it. I try to stay away from ECF matters, but do take an interest in the extent to which FIDE should or should not get involved.

[John McKenna]

By "abandon hope... " I mean when it comes to a situation like this there will be no successful resolution and no winners. Remember how this particular fuss came about - FIDE rule changes were enacted just prior to a British Championship and used without due consideration. People soon realised that the new "illegal move loses immediately" rule was totally unsuited to the junior rapidplay event in question. It's a prime example of where the ECF should not have followed the FIDE laws.

That's the unfortunate thing that plagues English chess - the mismatch between the ECF and FIDE is always present.
A few people seem to be happy in either camp - like between the two forums - significant minorities choose one side or the other and the majority choose to avoid the issue altogether by having little or no truck with either, but watch on in horror and disgust as various monstrosities raise their ugly heads.

[Nick Thomas]

If you attempt to apply rules designed for serious chess playing adults to U8s these situations are inevitable. If nothing else it gives hope to pedantic parents that they can use the letter of the law to further their child's chess "career".

My opinion for what it's worth - make it clear that the set of rules you are following are guidelines only. Put a good quality arbiter in place with bags of common sense and experience in situ and give him/her the "final" say on these types of disputes. Enable one avenue of appeal to the senior arbiter (for instance) who is again empowered to use guideline rules and common sense. The end.

As an aside - years of experience with juniors tells me that the child denying the claim of illegal move/touch move etc. is far more likely statistically to be bending the truth somewhat than the claimer. However, in the instance in question, with no way to ascertain the truth, the game should have continued (as I believe it did) and that should have been the end of it.

[Alex McFarlane]

I am not in a position to answer many of the questions asked on this forum.

One thing I can say with certainty is that none of the main people involved were consulted by FIDE for their version of events before any commission made a decision. They seem to have relied only on what was stated in the complaint.

Until the decision of the Arbiters' Commissioners was published I was preparing to be here in Abu Dhabi criticising the method that had been used to reach a decision that could have led to the suspension of a British Arbiter. It was decided that since suspension was no longer an option that I didn't have to follow it up in any way.
I think the Arbiters Commission may have had more info than the Rules Commission but that is just speculation on my part.

I did follow up on another case which had nothing to do with British arbiters and was happy with the answers given.

[Michael Flatt]

Until the decision of the Arbiters' Commissioners was published I was preparing to be here in Abu Dhabi criticising the method that had been used to reach a decision that could have led to the suspension of a British Arbiter. It was decided that since suspension was no longer an option that I didn't have to follow it up in any way.
I think the Arbiters Commission may have had more info than the Rules Commission but that is just speculation on my part.

Alex,
Your comments are intriguing. It is fortunate that events took a different turn than you had feared.

I doubt that FIDE would have taken information solely from the complainant, they would have heard the counter argument from the ECF. All three FIDE commissions obviously treated this incident with the same seriousness as all other cases put to them.

FIDE appear to have acted faultlessly, but the ECF, whom I suspect must have been represented by the ECF Chief Arbiter, seek to avoid making any meaningful comment. Thus far, there has been no explanation regarding the reversal of the decision of the floor Arbiter which was ratified by the Appeal committee.

Awarding 1.5 points for a game in any future event should ring alarm bells.

[E Michael White]

Thus far, there has been no explanation regarding the reversal of the decision of the floor Arbiter which was ratified by the Appeal committee.

Contrary to the opinions of many posters and what it says in the event rules an appeal committee's ruling is not always final. The committee may have convened at the wrong time in the process and thus rendered their own findings invalid. The whole discussion reminds me of the Morecambe and Previn sketch playing the right notes in the wrong order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHBN45fbo8

[Michael Flatt]

Thus far, there has been no explanation regarding the reversal of the decision of the floor Arbiter which was ratified by the Appeal committee.

Contrary to the opinions of many posters and what it says in the event rules an appeal committee's ruling is not always final. The committee may have convened at the wrong time in the process and thus rendered their own findings invalid.

I think it worth reproducing my response to another poster in a far off land:

It needn't have been the subject of 3 separate FIDE Commissions if the ECF had explained why shadowy figures in the background can intervene and overturn the ruling of an Arbiter supervising a game and whose ruling was subject to appeal and ratified.

The ECF claims to have rules yet make bizarre interventions and undermine the authority of the Arbiter who is in the front line ensuring that games are played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. If some Higher Authority believes that the Arbiter was inexperienced or incorrectly trained then that situation should be remedied by extra training and statement by the Chief Arbiter to explain the circumstances and offer advice to other Arbiters so as to avoid the same problem in future.

So I call on the Chief Arbiter to explain who intervened, the reason for their intervention and what the floor Arbiter did wrong in following the FIDE Laws of Chess.

There has been a report that an individual was expecting to be disciplined by the Arbiters Commission but that by ruling that it was not a FIDE event that was not an option.

Awarding 1.5 points for a game, particularly at the British Championships, should ring alarm bells.

It reinforces my point elsewhere that there are insufficient Senior ECF Arbiters and that regulation of competitions are subject to the whims of individuals who are unaccountable.

[Alex McFarlane]

I can assure you that Kevin Staveley has told me he was not asked for his version of events. I do not believe that Alex H made a submission either, though I haven't asked him. I would have expected him to say so if he had.

It would not be appropriate for me to say what would have been in Kevin's submission had he been asked for it.

[E Michael White]

Hello Michael Flatt,

I read your posting in another place and most of your other postings; I did not find them particularly helpful as they do not burrow beneath the surface enough. In particular you have not considered that Wales and England are separate Territories as far as FIDE is concerned and if it was made clear at the start whether ECF or Welsh rules ( and I say Rules not Laws) should apply where not specifically covered by the Event Brochure.

I disagree with some of the RTRC findings but before posting I have decided to check some details, unlike others who post in hot response.

Until the decision of the Arbiters' Commissioners was published I was preparing to be here in Abu Dhabi criticising the method that had been used to reach a decision that could have led to the suspension of a British Arbiter. It was decided that since suspension was no longer an option that I didn't have to follow it up in any way. I think the Arbiters Commission may have had more info than the Rules Commission but that is just speculation on my part.

Why should an arbiter be suspended who was acting as a championship manager not an arbiter. That would be like suspending a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Statistics for working on the unrelated field of the ECF grading system.

[Roger de Coverly]

In particular you have not considered that Wales and England are separate Territories as far as FIDE is concerned and if it was made clear at the start whether ECF or Welsh rules ( and I say Rules not Laws) should apply where not specifically covered by the Event Brochure.

It's long been established that the British Championships are an English event even when outside England. For English players, English rules applied to grading and membership.

[John Moore]

If you attempt to apply rules designed for serious chess playing adults to U8s these situations are inevitable. If nothing else it gives hope to pedantic parents that they can use the letter of the law to further their child's chess "career".

My opinion for what it's worth - make it clear that the set of rules you are following are guidelines only. Put a good quality arbiter in place with bags of common sense and experience in situ and give him/her the "final" say on these types of disputes. Enable one avenue of appeal to the senior arbiter (for instance) who is again empowered to use guideline rules and common sense. The end.

As an aside - years of experience with juniors tells me that the child denying the claim of illegal move/touch move etc. is far more likely statistically to be bending the truth somewhat than the claimer. However, in the instance in question, with no way to ascertain the truth, the game should have continued (as I believe it did) and that should have been the end of it.

I agree with all of this and particularly the first two sentences.

[E Michael White]

It's long been established that the British Championships are an English event even when outside England. For English players, English rules applied to grading and membership.

The ECF run the championships event and settle bills or keep profits. That is not the same as saying the rules behind the scene are the same. unless there is a statement to that effect. I don't see grading practice as relevant.