ECF arbiting at Aberystwyth - FIDE perspective

[Roger de Coverly]

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. As Chief Arbiter I was called in and decided that 0.5 should be given but that we couldn't take the point off the other player. Had the current rules been in force an appeal would have been made and the result changed to .5-.5.

There were two 1-0.5 decisions at Canterbury that I'm aware of, both in the Major Open. One was the bye, half point bye decision in round 10. I never did find out what the exact circumstances were of the other one, but I can be quite sure it wasn't a 10.2 as the Major Open was played with increments, so a valid claim can never arise.

[Michael Flatt]

Even though the Laws at the time had indicated that no Appeal was possible against the decision of the original Arbiter that was really intended to prevent frivolous claims. Where the tournament had a Chief Arbiter (who himself is a Senior Arbiter) he could have intervened and either made a ruling on the result himself (not even considering the possibility of a 1.5 game score) or convening an Appeals committee.

The Chief Arbiter must implicitly have the authority to do this, otherwise he serves no useful purpose.

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men

Senior Arbiters are allegedly wise men. Why else would they elevate themselves above the common herd?

[Rad Kadengal]

We just concluded [Brian Valentine » Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:27 pm] that only FIDE laws are applicable in England regardless of the grading/rating. Did we not?

No other rules are known publicly. It follows there are no ECF "rules of the specific event" that gave the Congress Manager the right to overrule an arbiter decision exist.

Arbiter's commission seems to have been made to believe that some thing else exists, where as it doesn't.

Who misrepresented English Chess law on the World stage?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Arbiter's commission seems to have been made to believe that some thing else exists, where as it doesn't.

Whether it does or not has no bearing on their decision, which essentially reads "we will not get involved with events that are not FIDE-rated".

[Brian Towers]

We just concluded [Brian Valentine » Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:27 pm] that only FIDE laws are applicable in England regardless of the grading/rating. Did we not?

Certainly not!

Where an event is both FIDE rated and nationally rated the national federation / organizing body may add more stringent rules than FIDE but they may not relax FIDE rules. Where the event is only nationally rated the national federation / organizing body may relax FIDE rules.

An example in England of more strict rules than FIDE is the Durham County Chess Association leagues which have an additional rule requiring players to write their opponent's last move before making their move. FIDE rules only require that the player has written his own last move before making another move.

I understood that an example of the federation relaxing a FIDE rule for non-FIDE rated events was allowing juniors below a certain age / level in rapid or blitz events one illegal move without forfeiting the game, only forfeiting the game on the second illegal move as in standard play.

[Rad Kadengal]

.. essentially reads "we will not get involved with events that are not FIDE-rated".

While I don't want to second guess a commission report, that is not my reading at all.
My reading is ECF "....could .. follow internal regulations....that cannot be commented.." upon.

We just established that there were no 'internal regulations' in the given tournament- only FIDE Laws of Chess applied in full.

[Michael Flatt]

We just established that there were no 'internal regulations' in the given tournament- only FIDE Laws of Chess applied in full.

Sorry, Rad, you have to read the FIDE conclusion very carefully.
It is slightly mangled English but it is understandable.
'internal regulations' is FIDE argot meaning it is nothing to do with FIDE and, therefore, ECF can do whatever they choose to do.

[Roger de Coverly]

'internal regulations' is FIDE argot meaning it is nothing to do with FIDE and, therefore, ECF can do whatever they choose to do.

That's actually a useful precedent. Periodically FIDE will make or attempt to make totally fruitcake modifications to the Laws of Chess. For domestic events, the ECF could safely ignore them.

[John McKenna]

With regard to the preceding half dozen posts - can we agree that FIDE explicitly and the ECF implicitly are making statements and acting on the basis that the declared rules, terms & conditions (including whose decisions are final and binding) of a non-FIDE-rated chess event can be altered at will by the organisers even after the event has started?

[NickFaulks]

With regard to the preceding half dozen posts - can we agree that FIDE explicitly and the ECF implicitly are making statements and acting on the basis that the declared rules, terms & conditions (including whose decisions are final and binding) of a non-FIDE-rated chess event can be altered at will by the organisers even after the event has started?

I thought it had always been accepted that FIDE would not try to intervene in the running of a non FIDE rated event. These are matters for the home federation and, perhaps, the local legal system.

I suppose FIDE could suspend the federation for bringing the game into gross disrepute, but that would seem excessive in this case.

[Ian Thompson]

.. essentially reads "we will not get involved with events that are not FIDE-rated".

While I don't want to second guess a commission report, that is not my reading at all.
My reading is ECF "....could .. follow internal regulations....that cannot be commented.." upon.

We just established that there were no 'internal regulations' in the given tournament- only FIDE Laws of Chess applied in full.

There certainly were 'internal regulations'. The entry form and tournament programme contained them.

[John McKenna]

.. essentially reads "we will not get involved with events that are not FIDE-rated".

While I don't want to second guess a commission report, that is not my reading at all.
My reading is ECF "....could .. follow internal regulations....that cannot be commented.." upon.

We just established that there were no 'internal regulations' in the given tournament- only FIDE Laws of Chess applied in full.

There certainly were 'internal regulations'. The entry form and tournament programme contained them.

Yes, and...

I thought it had always been accepted that FIDE would not try to intervene in the running of a non FIDE rated event. These are matters for the home federation and, perhaps, the local legal system.

I suppose FIDE could suspend the federation for bringing the game into gross disrepute, but that would seem excessive in this case.

Then in order to avoid confusion shouldn't such local events refrain from mentioning FIDE rules & regulations in their terms & conditions unless they make their scope and limitations crystal clear? If not, shouldn't FIDE direct them - the organisers and their home federation - to cease to use the FIDE name in vain?

[Michael Flatt]

There certainly were 'internal regulations'. The entry form and tournament programme contained them.

I think that you are being too literal in your interpretation.
There is a way to put it to the test, but that is a long and expensive route with no guarantee of success.
I refer you to Nick Faulks response above.

The alternative is to call on the Chief Arbiter to make a final statement in the light of the findings published in the three FIDE Commission reports.

To put things in perspective, this saga has its origins in the award of 1.5 points for a game in round 5 of the under 8 competition of the British Championships 2014.This whole episode has grown like Topsy and it could have been nipped in the bud by better decision making and clarity of the rules at the event itself.

Had it occurred in the FIDE-rated OPEN the ECF would have had no choice but to follow the FIDE regulations to the letter.

[Roger Lancaster]

No-one disagrees that, for a non-FIDE-rated event such as the one under discussion, the ECF had the power to relax or even change FIDE rules. The ECF set its own rules and the 2014 programme contained the following section, which presumably forms one of the "internal regulations" referred to:

"Appeals – Appeals may be made against a controller’s decision on matters of the Laws of Chess or of administration. Appeals should be made to one of the following: David Eustace, Peter Purland or Dave Thomas. If a player is dissatisfied with thedecision he may appeal to an Appeals’ Committee. An appeal to the Appeals’ Committee must be lodged with the Congress Manager in writing, stating the groundsfor the appeal, and accompanied by a £50 deposit which is returnable if the appealis successful. The intention to appeal must be declared within one hour of the end of the game. The Appeals’ Committee will be: - The Chairman of Appeals or a Principal Arbiter in the chair, not connected with the dispute, two other qualified Arbiters not connected with the dispute, two players’ representatives. The decision of the Appeals’ Committee will be final."

That seems to me a clear rule as to the appeals procedure. What is equally clear is that the ECF did not follow its own rule. Instead, the Congress Manager was allowed to overrule the arbiting team. To add insult to injury, the CM changed a (in the opinion of, I think, every arbiter who has expressed to me an opinion on the matter) correct decision to an incorrect one and did so retrospectively. If one accepts that a tournament organiser, the ECF or anyone else, can do this then the corollary is that any organiser of a non-FIDE-rated event can tear up its own rules, retrospectively, and do what it pleases. In extremis, it could presumably scrap the prize fund.

[Michael Flatt]

Throughout this thread there has been no statement regarding why the original decision by the Arbiter and that of the Appeal Committee were overturned by the intervention of an Organiser and what the basis was for making a different ruling.

It is those matters upon which the Chief Arbiter must comment including the findings of the three FIDE Commissions that reported on the matter.