ECF arbiting at Aberystwyth - FIDE perspective

[E Michael White]

Just a couple of points from me. I'm not familiar with all the circumstances but I am more aware of the rules than most arbiters.

a) if the U8's at Aberystwyth was not FIDE rated then the Welsh rules should apply and not ECF rules or process, unless otherwise stated on the tournament program.

b)

In the other case an arbiter made a wrong 10.2 decision (draw in the last two minutes) by rejecting a valid claim. At that time the Laws of Chess prevented an appeal being made for such a decision.

Depending on what the arbiter said this may have been correct at Canterbury but it's always been possible to appeal against a decision by an arbiter not to allow a 10.2 claim to be put, for example if a player leaves the claim until the last few seconds.

[Richard Bates]

I think the situation at Canterbury is a red herring. Realistically one has to distinguish between the result of a pairing being 1-0.5 and the result of a game being 1-0.5, however detrimental either outcome is to other players in the tournament. The former will often occur, the most common scenario probably being as a result of cock-ups over byes. It happened at Southend last year. Player requests a bye and arbiter makes the error of including them in the draw. 1-0.5 is then the only reasonable outcome. Unfortunate but not much else that can be done.

[Rad Kadengal]

At the BCC14 U8 tournament (Aberyswyth) hall it was displayed on a notice board that FIDE tournament rules as modified on 1st July 2014 would apply.
Alex Holowczak announced at the start of the U8 tournament it will be played under the updated FIDE rules that is available at FIDE website and copy available at ECF website.
Several parents questioned Alex when he bought attention to the changes to the FIDE Rapid Play rule on illegal move because the update had just come out and most parents/players were not aware of it. But Alex stood firm and said the rules are the FIDE rules and arbiting will be based on that.
More over, the incident itself was based on the updated FIDE Rapid Play rule on illegal move.

Can we now agree on the rules under which the tournament was played/arbited/controlled/managed?

(The U8 tournament was ECF graded and not FIDE rated, however the issue is not about rating)

[Brian Valentine]

So if it was not to be the (then current) FIDE rules then what alternatives were there. Did Alex have a reasonable alternative?

While I accept Rad's comment about this not being about rating, ECF games (at that time) were expected to follow the FIDE laws to be graded.

[Roger de Coverly]

So if it was not to be the (then current) FIDE rules then what alternatives were there.

With a rapid play division restricted to lower graded and arguably less experienced players, a local county AGM in August 2014 discussed the new FIDE rules and agreed to set aside the "illegal move loses at first strike" rule. This also followed what the Chess Arbiters Association appeared to be saying about the issue.

Had such a rule also been imposed in Aberystwyth, I doubt anyone would have complained. Particularly this should have prevented the dispute that arose and the multiple award of result points, since even if an illegal move had occurred, it wouldn't immediately affect the game result. I'm still puzzled how you could get a dispute about whether an illegal move had been played or not, since surely you stop the game and summon the arbiter as soon as you notice? Under rapid-play rules without scoring, it would become increasingly difficult to validate the claim if a few more moves had been made. This year's solution, of playing all the games on sensory boards, I thought ingenious, but overkill and not something other Under 8 tournaments could emulate.

Aberystwyth also featured a creative interpretation of the mobile phones rule, namely that you could only have one in your possession if you paid a £ 1 "fine".

[Michael Flatt]

So if it was not to be the (then current) FIDE rules then what alternatives were there. Did Alex have a reasonable alternative?

While I accept Rad's comment about this not being about rating, ECF games (at that time) were expected to follow the FIDE laws to be graded.

With the benefit of hindsight (or even a little foresight at the time), Alex should have consulted with the Chief Arbiter or a number of the Senior Arbiters at the event who one would have expected to be more aware of the potential difficulties in adopting the FIDE July 2014 Rapidplay Rules in an under 8 competition.

In this instance, Alex's inexperience in running Junior events caught him out and contributed to the dispute at a critical point in the event when the two leaders met in the penultimate round.

In fact, the Seniors Arbiters should have brought this particular rule to Alex's attention and suggested an alternative.

As Roger has pointed out the Chess Arbiters Association had highlighted the problem and proposed a workable solution.

The Arbiters Commission identified that the Arbiter overseeing the event, and the subsequent appeals committee made the correct ruling. The mystery is as to why that decision was overturned?

[IM Jack Rudd]

I think part of the problem was that official documentation leading up to the event - some combination of the entry form and the website - had stated that FIDE rules were to be used, and then the actual changes in the July 2014 FIDE rules had caught people by surprise.

[Michael Flatt]

This sorry saga has dragged on for too long.

The Chief Arbiter has been singularly silent on the this issue. Now that the three FIDE Commissions that investigated these matters have reported their conclusions, can the Chief Arbiter make a statement on behalf of the ECF and close the matter once and for all?

It is evident that too much is invested in too few Senior Arbiters and that the wrangling over what should have been a simple matter in an under 8 tournament should now serve as notice that they have served their time.

What efforts are being made in terms of succession planning?

[Mike Truran]

As the Chief Arbiter neither reads nor posts on this forum, I don't quite know how you think you are going to get the statement you wish for.

Why don't you contact him directly?

[Michael Flatt]

As the Chief Arbiter neither reads nor posts on this forum, I don't quite know how you think you are going to get the statement you wish for.

Why don't you contact him directly?

I rest my case, m'lord.

[Rad Kadengal]

There were no "rules of the specific event" that gave the Congress Manager the right to overrule an arbiter decision. Yes/No?

[Mike Truran]

I rest my case, m'lord.

Your case being what exactly?

[Michael Flatt]

There were no "rules of the specific event" that gave the Congress Manager the right to overrule an arbiter decision. Yes/No?

Rad, the FIDE commission have effectively said that because the U8 tournament wasn't FIDE rated they wash their hands of it and the ECF can do whatever they want.

As Mike Truran suggested your question should be directed to the Chief Arbiter. But you should know that you may not get an answer.

[Michael Flatt]

I rest my case, m'lord.

Your case being what exactly?

As the Chief Arbiter neither reads nor posts on this forum, I don't quite know how you think you are going to get the statement you wish for.

It was my attempt at humour, but obviously it fell flat.

[Mike Truran]

Oops. Sorry!