Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
NickFaulks
Posts: 4904
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:39 am

Roger Lancaster wrote: as that law includes the clause "He shall summon the arbiter", it is surely just another example where a distant arbiter - who will not personally have witnessed events - may not be able to contribute a great deal.
In that case you have

"G.6 The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter: "

which ends

"b. The claim shall be referred to the designated arbiter."

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7227
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:40 am

Has anyone had something like the following happen with increment league chess?

Two players new to league chess and relatively new to chess, end up in a position where neither realises that a draw is the logical result, but they go round and round in circles, neither offering a draw and neither making progress (the position could range from dead level such as K+R vs K+R to more complex positions such as K+B+B vs K+N - the point being that what would be trivial to stronger players is not trivial to these players). But the increment means that there is no end in sight to the game. What can the team captains do in this sort of case?

(Both captains had failed to explain certain things to their players beforehand, as they had been so delighted to get new players when they were struggling to get a full team out, that they just put them straight into the team. But what sort of advice should you give beforehand to relatively inexperienced players on the small chance that some dispute or tricky situation might arise?)

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Roger Lancaster » Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:55 am

Sorry, Nick, you're absolutely right and I should have mentioned G.6. However, I don't think that alters the point that a remote arbiter will be far less capable than an on-the-spot arbiter of determining whether "the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means" which is a key decision required of the on-the-spot arbiter under G.5.a

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17925
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:02 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: What can the team captains do in this sort of case?
There is actually a helpful rule that FIDE drafted for just such a situation, namely the 75 move rule. Provided League rules give match captains limited rights as temporary arbiters, they could step in and impose a draw. Some leagues have a proposition that applies an adjudication at venue closing time, by the nature of the move rates, players are always well past 100 moves when this happens. Declaring a draw after aimless play wouldn't be controversial if a third party stepped in, a possible cause of disputes is where one player can win but doesn't know how to, or where a draw can be forced but again the defender doesn't know how.

You've also got the fivefold repetition of moves as another game terminator.

It suggests rules for Leagues with increments may need a provision to give Match Captains the game stopping powers granted to arbiters.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3861
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:01 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: more complex positions such as K+B+B vs K+N
This one is, in general, winning for the bishops - although not always within 50 moves.

Reg Clucas
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Reg Clucas » Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:27 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: There is actually a helpful rule that FIDE drafted for just such a situation, namely the 75 move rule.
We had a blitz competiton at our club recently, G3' + 2". Two players reached an ending of K+B+N vs K. It was obvious that the player with the material had no idea how to win. So I started counting moves. I was spared having to intervene when he managed to put one of the pieces en prise after 58 moves!

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7227
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:33 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote: more complex positions such as K+B+B vs K+N
This one is, in general, winning for the bishops - although not always within 50 moves.
Yes, sorry. I should have made clear that this one is winning for the two bishops. I gave it as an example of the hardest position I could think of where the result might not generally be known even by stronger players. Well, there are more complex tablebase positions still, but they are far less likely to occur.

I would be very reluctant to intervene (or see others intervene) in any such games until the players themselves had had a chance to play lots of moves and either agree a result or realise themselves that they don't know how to make progress. Even then, it would be best to suggest gently "(not much time left, play on for a bit longer) if you feel you can't make progress, you can offer your opponent a draw". Best to stop the clocks first before saying anything like that.

How common are the positions with bare king and queen against rook and minor pieces, and how many minor pieces do you need before the side with the queen is forced to lose? e.g. K+Q vs K+R+B+B or vs K+R+R+B or vs K+R+R+B+N. The latter must be a win surely?

Win vs K+Q: K+R+R+B and K+R+R+N
Draw vs K+Q: K+R+B+B and K+R+B+N and K+R+N+N

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2772
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Arbiters (jobs for) proposal.

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:03 pm

K+Q v K+B+B+N+N is supposed to be a win for the latter as well.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Post Reply