ECF arbiting at Aberystwyth - FIDE perspective

[Roger de Coverly]

This suggests an illegal position had arisen which may have been a result of a piece displacement, which are handled in a different way from illegal moves.

Given the narrow circumstances in which a "win by illegal move" can be claimed that should have been the end of it. So no valid claim = game should continue.

[E Michael White]

This suggests an illegal position had arisen which may have been a result of a piece displacement, which are handled in a different way from illegal moves.

Given the narrow circumstances in which a "win by illegal move" can be claimed that should have been the end of it. So no valid claim = game should continue.

,,,, which in turn would mean returning to the position after correction of an earlier piece displacement if one had occurred.

I did not know there had been an Appeal Committee called on this.

Alex the BC has a split level appeal in junior sections where the players may consult a more senior arbiter. This informal appeal may have been misunderstood as an appeal committee. Of course any arbiter who gets involved in the informal appeal cannot become involved later in an Appeal Committee.

[Michael Flatt]

So, the actual incident and the fact that it occurred in an under 8 competition are not actually relevant to the dispute.

I have to disagree with that statement. In general, and not referenced to this particular incident, it is relatively easy to say to adults that a game should continue (perhaps after a short break to allow one player to recompose themselves). This is usually much harder to do with juniors. Often you have to try to calm a child and then re-calm it once a parent has got involved!! (I'm not commenting on parents here but in general.) Children are generally much more emotional than adults, and the younger the child the more emotional. Calming a child can often involve getting the parents involved but sometimes getting them out of the way. If a situation had occurred in an adult game it might well have been sorted in a matter of minutes but take considerably longer with young children.

With both Juniors and Adults it is most important that the Arbiter hears both players perspectives of what they both believed happened, the Arbiter then has to be unambiguous, concise and timely in his ruling. If one player takes the decision badly, he may allowed time to compose himself.

There is absolutely no reason for any parent to become involved until after completion of the game. The child should, of course, be allowed to seek comfort from the parent, but that is all.

I have experience in dealing with these disputes and the key is for the Arbiter to be dispassionate, unbiased, decisive and provide a short justification and explanation of his ruling. Appeals, if any, should only be held after the game and a ruling made before the next round. The Arbiter must impose his Authority over the situation.

The parents were excluded from the room for a reason and this is normal in the lower age categories of Junior events. No parent can claim to have seen what happened.

[Michael Flatt]

3. No explanation was forthcoming as to why the decision of the Appeal committee was overturned by the Organisers/ECF.

I did not know there had been an Appeal Committee called on this. Are you sure this is the case? My belief is that there was no appeal made within the time allowed. If there was no Appeal decision then it cannot be explained why it was overturned because it would not have been!!

This is significant new information. My understanding is that the FIDE Rules commission made reference to an Appeal and that its decision had been overturned. It is the circumstances under which that Appeal was overturned that is the key to understanding this matter.

If the Appeal committee did not take place why did the FIDE commission make reference to it?

I still suggest that it would be appropriate and helpful for the ECF Chief Arbiter to summarise and comment on the issues raised in the case and bring it to a close.

[Mike Truran]

Well, as the ECF Chief Arbiter neither reads nor posts on this forum (or any others), you may want to contact him directly.

[Michael Flatt]

Well, as the ECF Chief Arbiter neither reads nor posts on this forum (or any others), you may want to contact him directly.

As the ultimate authority with regards Arbiting matters in England I would be surprised that this particular dispute and continuing discussion were unknown to the Chief Arbiter.

Given that the ECF are becoming more reliant on the website and forum to communicate with the membership is it right that the Chief Arbiter can close his eyes to new technology?

As other ECF Officers in prominent roles make an annual report to Council at the AGM, shouldn't the Chief Arbiter be expected to do so too?

The number of questions that might be raised at the AGM under AOB is stacking up.

[Mike Truran]

As the AGM traditionally never gets to AOB, and as the Chief Arbiter doesn't always attend the AGM anyway, you may be f*****g in the wind.

Anyway, with all due respect, I think the AGM has somewhat more important matters to concern itself with.

I repeat - what's the objection in contacting the Chief Arbiter directly? There is more of a chance of a reply that way (even if it is a poke in the eye) than through a series of interminable data-free exchanges on this forum.

[Roger de Coverly]

As other ECF Officers in prominent roles make an annual report to Council at the AGM, shouldn't the Chief Arbiter be expected to do so too?

Isn't just the relevant director who reports on behalf of appointed officers? FIDE Delegate being an exception as an elected position, but not a Board member.

Both Chief Arbiter and Manager of Arbiters (Home) report through the Home Director.

This is last year's report.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... report.pdf

[Michael Flatt]

As the AGM traditionally never gets to AOB, and as the Chief Arbiter doesn't always attend the AGM anyway, you may be f*****g in the wind.

Anyway, with all due respect, I think the AGM has somewhat more important matters to concern itself with.

I repeat - what's the objection in contacting the Chief Arbiter directly? There is more of a chance of a reply that way (even if it is a poke in the eye) than through a series of interminable data-free exchanges on this forum.

Mike, the particular phrase you invoke normally begins with a "P". Carl uses it quite regularly and can advise on how best it might be used.

Secondly, this is a discussion forum. Any poster can raise suggestions in response to queries raised by others as means of helping the discussion progress. Mulling over different options assists one's thinking.

I don't really understand how I might have incurred your wrath unless it is that I choose to tackle these issues differently than you might. Are you willing to contribute something positive to the topic under discussion?

Addendum
I've just seen Roger's post and he makes a good point that it might be covered by the Home Director's report. My particular interest is what Arbiting disputes arise and get referred to the Chief Arbiter and how they are resolved.

Perhaps that might be conveniently covered by the Chief Arbiter posting on his own page on the website, which would give him total control over what appears and provide an interesting commentary on Arbiting matters. An alternative might just be to accept that Alex McFarlane is de facto Chief Arbiter since he is the one of the few Senior Arbiters to post with any real Authority on such matters.

[Ian Thompson]

Those of us unfamiliar with the detail of the dispute, possibly most readers of this forum ask this:-

What was the mistake?
What would be the correction?
What was the unproven claim?

From much earlier in this thread:

Justin, the ECF response can be found at http://englishchess.org.uk/Juniors/page/7/

from which:

In the penultimate round, a dispute arose in the game between the joint leaders; both claiming different positions, one including an illegal move claim, one denying the claim. The control team investigated and asked the children about the position. Neither child varied their accounts. One claimed a win because of an illegal move; one claimed no illegal move was made. Both disagreed about the board position.

The British Chess Championships Chief Arbiter and Senior Members of his team were consulted about how to handle the matter. They concluded this was essentially a dispute about the facts rather than the application of the Laws of Chess. The Senior Arbiter indicated that the Laws provided that in a disputed/illegal position, the game should return to the last known legal position so that they could continue. One player was visibly upset and insisted that the illegal move was made and the game should be forfeited. He did not feel he could continue. Both players agreed that they did not wish to play on. It was suggested the game be postponed until after round 6 and that the pairings for round 6 be based on a hypothetical 0.5-0.5 score line. The arbiter team checked all the possible permutations of the round 6 pairings based on different score profiles. They concluded that the pairings would be identical however the scores had been allocated. Round 6 proceeded with the pairings.

After round 6, the arbiter team considered the equity of the outcome, and consulted with parents of the disputed round 5 game. All parties agreed that the fairest outcome would be to allow each child their claim. That is, one player was awarded a draw as his material was at least better than equal; the second player was awarded a win as he had a claim for an illegal move. This outcome was discussed and agreed by all the involved arbiters and by the parents who agreed that no solution was perfect but that this was the most equitable.

Whatever you think of the way the arbiters handled the situation, does not "This outcome was ... agreed by ... the parents .. [as] the most equitable." mean that the matter was closed at that point by the parents of the two players involved?

[Michael Flatt]

The account given in Ian Thompson's post above indicates that the correct procedure was not followed. The Arbiter, and Senior Arbiter who had been consulted, should have made a decision about the outcome of the game before commencing the next round.

The arbitrary award of 1.5 points for the game after the competition had finished disadvantaged other competitors. There were more than two children in the competition and the unsatisfactory outcome of the disputed game in the penultimate round caused others to finish in a lower position than had only the normal 1 point been awarded for the game.

[Brian Towers]

Justin, the ECF response can be found at http://englishchess.org.uk/Juniors/page/7/

from which:

After round 6, the arbiter team considered the equity of the outcome, and consulted with parents of the disputed round 5 game. All parties agreed that the fairest outcome would be to allow each child their claim. That is, one player was awarded a draw as his material was at least better than equal; the second player was awarded a win as he had a claim for an illegal move. This outcome was discussed and agreed by all the involved arbiters and by the parents who agreed that no solution was perfect but that this was the most equitable.

Whatever you think of the way the arbiters handled the situation, does not "This outcome was ... agreed by ... the parents .. [as] the most equitable." mean that the matter was closed at that point by the parents of the two players involved?

Am I alone in finding that deeply disturbing? Arbiting via parent consensus rather than the rules?

[Roger de Coverly]

Arbiting via parent consensus rather than the rules?

The problem I have with the original decisions is that if you read the small print of the new FIDE laws, the award of a win for an illegal move is hedged with conditions as to how a valid claim is made. The arbiters could then have ruled that whilst an illegal move might have been played or might not, the claim wasn't valid and therefore no loss would be declared.

It's a third party, not family of one of the two directly involved players, who has been keeping the dispute alive at FIDE, the Watford club website etc, is it not? I thought the ECF had compensated the affected third parties both by increasing the prize fund and by monitoring the effect on Grand Prix qualifications.

[Ian Thompson]

It's a third party, not family of one of the two directly involved players, who has been keeping the dispute alive at FIDE, the Watford club website etc, is it not?

It's a parent according to the FIDE Arbiter's Commission:

As you have quoted the minutes of relevant item of the Rules Commission Councillors Meeting in full, I'd like to quote the minutes of the relevant item of the Arbiters' Commission Councillors Meeting in full:

"An incident that happened during the British U-8 Championship 2014 was discussed by the Commission. The whole case was already dismissed by FIDE Ethics Commission, as the father of the boy who was involved had sent a complaint to the FIDE Ethics Commission ....

[Mike Truran]

I don't really understand how I might have incurred your wrath

No wrath at all - just a suggestion that you and others can bang away all you like on this forum, but unless you approach the Chief Arbiter or his boss directly you're not going to get very far. Still, if you find that "mulling over various options assists one's thinking", that is, as you so rightly say, entirely your prerogative.