ECF arbiting at Aberystwyth - FIDE perspective

[NickFaulks]

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?

An interesting point, but I don't think that I agree.

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.

[Michael Farthing]

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?

What's the fuss about here? The FIDE rules make it clear in a number of places that there are aspects that can be overwritten by local circumstances and the rules provide an excellent starting point for a set of congress rules. Where local modification occurs it is stated as a variant from the FIDE standard and I have never found anything confusing about that. It is accepted practice and is apparently accepted as such by FIDE itself.

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Member federations may ask FIDE to give a ruling on matters relating to the Laws of Chess.

9.1 a The rules of a competition may specify that...
10.1 Unless the rules of a competition specify otherwise...
11.10 Unless the rules of the competition specify otherwise...
12.8 Unless authorised by the arbiter...
A.5 The Rules for a competition shall specify whether...
B.5 The Rules for a competition shall specify whether...
D.1 The organiser, after consulting the arbiter, shall have the power to adapt the following rules according to local circumstances.

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

As far as I understand it, one child was convinced an illegal move had been played and the other denied it. The players and the arbiters don't seem to have been able to settle this by reconstructing the game to the position in which the alleged illegal move took place. The FIDE opinions earlier in the thread seem to believe that no such illegal move was made, thus the claim of a win wasn't valid.

I struggle to understand how the existence of an illegal move can be a matter of dispute rather than fact. I did once have a game where my opponent went O-O and that was a complete shock. It was only after the game that I realised that he had met a g4 thrust with h5, which I had taken. He retook with the Rook, and I threatened the Rook causing it to withdraw to h8. So if such a position had arisen in a game without scoring?

Except in the possible case where full point bye meets half point bye, I think arbiters should stick to their guns and refuse to award one and a half points if a game has actually been played.

[J T Melsom]

Roger, you should volunteer to help at a junior tournament. its all too easy for illegal moves to take place, and if players make moves that are illegal, there is limited prospect of the moves being legally recorded on a score-sheet, if one is being used. Bishops are prone to switching colours as they venture beyond the comfortable stretching distance of a juniors arm, and other pieces similarly fail to be placed mid square.

[Roger de Coverly]

its all too easy for illegal moves to take place

It may have been the Under 8 tournament, but played on top board between players who were rapid play graded 96 and 117 at the time and whose rapid play grades are now in the 120s and 130s. I believe there's been grade inflation, pushing up the median by 20 to 25 points, but even so, I would expect players of that level to know how Bishops move and to be able to make a reasonable attempt at reconstructing a game even without a record of moves.

[J T Melsom]

Apologies - I thought your post had moved into discussion of illegal moves in more general terms.

[Roger Lancaster]

Roger, you're right in saying that the original dispute centred around whether an illegal move had been played. But my understanding is that the floor arbiter's finding was not, strictly speaking, that "no such illegal move was made" but rather that it was impossible to determine (these were rapidplay games without moves being recorded) whether an illegal move was made or not. That being so, the floor arbiter made the conventional decision to order the players to play on. I believe it's fair to say that that much is beyond dispute and no-one is questioning the correctness of the floor arbiter - only what happened later.

[John McKenna]

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?

An interesting point, but I don't think that I agree.

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!

What's the fuss about here? The FIDE rules make it clear in a number of places that there are aspects that can be overwritten by local circumstances and the rules provide an excellent starting point for a set of congress rules. Where local modification occurs it is stated as a variant from the FIDE standard and I have never found anything confusing about that. It is accepted practice and is apparently accepted as such by FIDE itself.

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Member federations may ask FIDE to give a ruling on matters relating to the Laws of Chess.

9.1 a The rules of a competition may specify that...
10.1 Unless the rules of a competition specify otherwise...
11.10 Unless the rules of the competition specify otherwise...
12.8 Unless authorised by the arbiter...
A.5 The Rules for a competition shall specify whether...
B.5 The Rules for a competition shall specify whether...
D.1 The organiser, after consulting the arbiter, shall have the power to adapt the following rules according to local circumstances.

[Edit: my underlining]

What's the fuss... ? A Nelson touch!

Above, you quote what is - to the majority of hapless players - covert FIDE chapter and verse on an arcane chess forum.

Fuss arises because there is confusion during events (particularly at the lower levels) not only about what the overt and covert rules & regulations are, but also about exactly what modified version it is that they are being subject to at the time.

Even at the highest levels there are recent examples of confusion and the fuss it leads to - Carlsen and Koneru losing on time due to misunderstanding the rules of specific events that both the organisers of the separate prestigious events admitted could and should have been better presented and explained to the exalted pros.

Look at the fuss on this forum about the pairing system that was being used in the main event at the British Championships in this and preceding years. Some claim that it is superior in certain respects to the standard FIDE one, but the problem is that it is still not reproducible with computer software and therefore its full validity comes into question.

In this particular case I find it rather ironic that your reference to the FIDE laws ends thus -

D.1 The organiser, after consulting the arbiter, shall have the power to adapt the following rules according to local circumstances.

The specific point is that the word 'consulting' was usurped by the word 'overruling' during the event in question.

(When push to comes shove even arbiters have to suffer the arbitrary decisions of officialdom.)

And, shouldn't that really be only before the competition, not also during and even after it?

Roger, you're right in saying that the original dispute centred around whether an illegal move had been played. But my understanding is that the floor arbiter's finding was not, strictly speaking, that "no such illegal move was made" but rather that it was impossible to determine (these were rapidplay games without moves being recorded) whether an illegal move was made or not. That being so, the floor arbiter made the conventional decision to order the players to play on. I believe it's fair to say that that much is beyond dispute and no-one is questioning the correctness of the floor arbiter - only what happened later.

[Roger de Coverly]

but rather that it was impossible to determine (these were rapidplay games without moves being recorded) whether an illegal move was made or not.

That's what I find difficult. How can it arise that a player can make a backdated claim of an illegal move? The only circumstance I can see is that it is disputed whether castling was legal because the king or rook had already moved. Or was it that the floor arbiter had forgotten about the illegal move loses rule? If so, then greater diligence was needed about asking for play to continue as the game had already finished.

[Ian Thompson]

but rather that it was impossible to determine (these were rapidplay games without moves being recorded) whether an illegal move was made or not.

That's what I find difficult. How can it arise that a player can make a backdated claim of an illegal move? The only circumstance I can see is that it is disputed whether castling was legal because the king or rook had already moved.

The players may have disagreed about the square a piece was on before it was moved, particularly if it was 3/4 on one square and 1/4 on another.

[NickFaulks]

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?

An interesting point, but I don't think that I agree.

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?

[JustinHorton]

but rather that it was impossible to determine (these were rapidplay games without moves being recorded) whether an illegal move was made or not.

That's what I find difficult. How can it arise that a player can make a backdated claim of an illegal move?

Ah, I see your point now, I think. So it's as if White, say, were to clam that Black's knight on h6 had come there from f4, and Black said no, it was previously on g4....but instead of this happening before White's next move, it happened a few moves later?

[NickFaulks]

Since this thread looks like going on forever, could the spelling of Aberystwyth be corrected?

[Carl Hibbard]

Since this thread looks like going on forever, could the spelling of Aberystwyth be corrected?

I am not home yet but will look later, it copies all down the thread I think?

[Brian Towers]

I struggle to understand how the existence of an illegal move can be a matter of dispute rather than fact.

You clearly have little or no arbiting experience and perhaps are light on knowledge of the rules.

Particularly at junior level in rapid/blitz things happen very quickly. Player A makes an illegal move. Player B immediately shouts "Illegal move" while player A's hand is still on its way to the clock. Player A pauses, corrects the move and presses the clock. An illegal move was made but not completed. If the arbiter is called immediately in this situation with no further moves being played then he can only judge that a penalty is called for if he can establish that the illegal move was made and completed. Otherwise play continues and he must use his judgement whether or not to punish the player who stopped the clocks and called him over by awarding his opponent an additional minute.

Now suppose an illegal move is made and completed, optionally pointed out by player B and corrected by player A, at least one move made by player B before the arbiter is called. In rapid chess, which I believe this was, an illegal move cannot be corrected or punished if the opponent has made a subsequent move. EDIT: The move may be corrected if both players agree.

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.