Arbiter Interference

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18344
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbiter Interference

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:22 pm

Matthew Turner wrote:Roger,
Many thanks for that link, but the answer to number 9 seesm to me to be bizarre.
Arbiter Quiz wrote:At the first time control both flags are down and it cannot be established which fell first. Neither player has made the required number of moves. What do you do?
(The answer is that play continues)

In over forty years of playing, I cannot recall this rule ever being established or changed so it's probably always been there. Actually it's almost an obsolete question since digital clocks record which side first reached the initial time period. For example 4NCL clocks are usually programmed to measure two hours, then one hour, then 30 minutes. They don't care how many times they are started and stopped.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Arbiter Interference

Post by Paul McKeown » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:32 pm

FIDE Handbook, Laws of Chess wrote:6.11 If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first, the game shall continue.
As far as I'm aware it's been this way for a veeeery long time. Naturally, if it was the final time control, in a quick play finish, then 10.4 applies:
FIDE Handbook, Laws of Chess wrote:10.4 If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first the game is drawn.
Naturally, 6.11 has been around for much longer than 10.4, as quick play finishes are a relatively recent innovation.

Strange that there is a comma in 6.11, but not in 10.4!

Even stranger, perhaps that a grandmaster, professionally involved in chess, should not know the laws! Perhaps, never had to play with adjournments or with increments or delay mode from a second or third time control?

Regards,
Paul McKeown
"Liberty without equality is of noble sound but squalid meaning" - LT Hobhouse

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: Arbiter Interference

Post by Paul McKeown » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:43 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Actually it's almost an obsolete question since digital clocks record which side first reached the initial time period. For example 4NCL clocks are usually programmed to measure two hours, then one hour, then 30 minutes. They don't care how many times they are started and stopped.
Roger,

Is there some clarity, then, on this "in the absence of an external indication" malarkey?

Regards,
Paul McKeown.
"Liberty without equality is of noble sound but squalid meaning" - LT Hobhouse

Matthew Turner
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Arbiter Interference

Post by Matthew Turner » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:48 pm

I think in general that I am very well up on the rules, but I don't understand this one. Lets say we are playing 40 moves in two hours and one hour to the finish. We notice that both flags are down and it transpires that we have played just 35 moves. I assumed this was a draw. What now seems to be suggested is that both sides would get their additional hour and the game would continue from move 36. This sounds counter-intuitive to me because it seems that the rules have changed mid game.

IanDavis
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: Arbiter Interference

Post by IanDavis » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:42 am

Matthew Turner wrote:I think in general that I am very well up on the rules, but I don't understand this one. Lets say we are playing 40 moves in two hours and one hour to the finish. We notice that both flags are down and it transpires that we have played just 35 moves. I assumed this was a draw. What now seems to be suggested is that both sides would get their additional hour and the game would continue from move 36. This sounds counter-intuitive to me because it seems that the rules have changed mid game.
The rules do not need to make sense, particularly FIDE rules.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3009
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Arbiter Interference

Post by Richard Bates » Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:25 pm

I find Q5 quite unsatisfactory and Q10, prompted presumably by the Tkachiev incident, similarly. Firstly, it doesn't allow for the traditional cause of sleep ie. tiredness. Secondly, how is one supposed to establish if somebody is "ill" or "drunk" if they don't wake them? Thirdly why is it "unfair" to make the opponent wait until flag-fall. And fourthly i don't see that waking someone up is necessarily going to cause much more disturbance that waiting for them to wake up several minutes later only to find they've been defaulted.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18344
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbiter Interference

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:23 pm

Arbiter quiz http://chessarbiters.co.uk/Documents/you2.htm

Perhaps they need to ask what happens if the arbiter (or a player) hears a mobile phone like sound, but attempts to locate the offending device are unsuccessful.

John Upham
Posts: 4422
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Arbiter Interference

Post by John Upham » Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:28 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Arbiter quiz http://chessarbiters.co.uk/Documents/you2.htm

Perhaps they need to ask what happens if the arbiter (or a player) hears a mobile phone like sound, but attempts to locate the offending device are unsuccessful.
What about when the arbiter knows exactly whose (4NCL) mobile 'phone has sounded but then chooses not to penalise the offender? Is that question in the quiz?
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Ola Winfridsson
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:26 pm

Re: Arbiter Interference

Post by Ola Winfridsson » Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:02 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Matthew Turner wrote:2. I did something that I don't believe I have ever done before, I put two pawns on a square because I promoted and I still had my queen and both rooks on the board. Somebody later questioned whether this was technically speaking an illegal move and that my opponent could claim extra time - Is this true?
Upturned rooks are traditional but not approved of by arbiters. You're supposed to stop the clocks and drag the arbiter away from a 10.2 or watching someone's flag to find you a spare queen (or any other piece)

It's the second question in their quiz here

http://chessarbiters.co.uk/Documents/you2.htm
Surely not. I've always been under the impression that the player is allowed to stop the clock in order to go and fetch a queen (without involving the arbiter).

Post Reply