2016 Olympiad - Baku

[Alex Holowczak]

Thanks. Were there any language problems, or was it necessary to ensure the teams had someone able to speak English? Or was it a case of players whose first language is not English knowing key English phrases?

No, there weren't any language problems. Everyone I needed to speak to had an adequate understanding of English.

[Brian Towers]

I think the rule is that the captain shouldn't proactively provide information

I'm seeing a lot of "presumably" and "I think", but does anyone actually know? I don't, and this issue affects the results of club matches in the UK every week.

Perhaps it's worth quoting section 12 in full from the FIDE Competition Rules

12 Team Captain’s Role in Team competitions
A team competition is one where the results of individual games contribute equally to the final score of a defined group of players.
12.1 Depending on the rules of the specific competition, the captain shall be required to deliver at a specific time a written list naming the players in his team participating in each round, to communicate to his players the pairings, to sign the protocol indicating the results in the match at the end of play.
12.2 A team captain is allowed to leave or re-enter the playing venue only with the permission of the arbiter.
12,3 The team captain must not stand behind the opposing team during play.
12.4 If the team captain wishes to speak to one of his players, he shall first approach the arbiter.
The team captain shall then speak to the player in the presence of an arbiter, using a language the arbiter can understand. The same procedure shall be followed if a player needs to speak to the captain.
12.5 A team captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He shall not intervene in a game in any other way. He must not discuss any position on any board during play.
12.6 The team captain may delegate his functions to another person, provided he informs the CA of this in writing in advance.

This would suggest to me that the only chess related information the captain can pass on would be advice on whether or not to offer or accept a draw. He would be free to pass on non-chess related information, for example "Dinner plans this evening have changed. We're meeting at Nando's at 7"

[NickFaulks]

Crucially, it seems that he can do so uninvited, even if it means interrupting the game ( but only on his player's move, you would like to think ). Is this the way the rule is generally applied in UK leagues, generally without an arbiter in charge?

[Mick Norris]

This would suggest to me that the only chess related information the captain can pass on would be advice on whether or not to offer or accept a draw. He would be free to pass on non-chess related information, for example "Dinner plans this evening have changed. We're meeting at Nando's at 7"

Are you sure?

We're still going for an Indian = play on
We're now going for a Chinese = draw
We're going to Nando's = resign

[JustinHorton]

This would suggest to me that the only chess related information the captain can pass on would be advice on whether or not to offer or accept a draw. He would be free to pass on non-chess related information, for example "Dinner plans this evening have changed. We're meeting at Nando's at 7"

However, as I recall this could be code for "he's bluffing, take the piece he's offering".

[Alex Holowczak]

The Junior 4NCL has this rule:

7.4 A player may ask his team manager or an arbiter for any score in any match at any time. No other information may be provided by a team manager to any player. Players must not ask their team managers about whether or not they should offer, or accept the offer of, a draw.

Team manager and captain are equivalent roles. Given the potential for cheating by the captain - far more likely than electronic cheating if the captain is a much stronger than his charges, as in the Junior 4NCL - I think this is the correct way to do it.

[Matt Mackenzie]

This is an interesting discussion - my team lost a NCCU match a few years ago because I lost on time in a winning position; it was a Q+P ending and I could easily have forced a perpetual had I just known a draw would have been enough. I was just a bit annoyed at our captain for not confirming that to me afterwards

[LawrenceCooper]

Thanks. Were there any language problems, or was it necessary to ensure the teams had someone able to speak English? Or was it a case of players whose first language is not English knowing key English phrases?

No, there weren't any language problems. Everyone I needed to speak to had an adequate understanding of English.

The Russian arbiter in charge of Wales-Guyana wasn't able to manage any English other than "Speak Russian?"

[NickFaulks]

This is an interesting discussion - my team lost a NCCU match a few years ago because I lost on time in a winning position; it was a Q+P ending and I could easily have forced a perpetual had I just known a draw would have been enough. I was just a bit annoyed at our captain for not confirming that to me afterwards

This is a common problem. Did you ask? Did you/he believe he was allowed to tell you if you didn't ask? Nobody is really sure.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

This is an interesting discussion - my team lost a NCCU match a few years ago because I lost on time in a winning position; it was a Q+P ending and I could easily have forced a perpetual had I just known a draw would have been enough. I was just a bit annoyed at our captain for not confirming that to me afterwards

This is a common problem. Did you ask? Did you/he believe he was allowed to tell you if you didn't ask? Nobody is really sure.

You are allowed to ask what the latest match score is. I think you have to work out for yourself what is then needed.

[MartinCarpenter]

Players stuck in serious time trouble tend not to proactively go searching for the match score! Ideally they'll have got a good idea of what is going on earlier on, but sometimes that isn't possible.

You have to get their attention with a clearly filled in score sheet or something.

[NickFaulks]

You have to get their attention with a clearly filled in score sheet or something.

If you're allowed to "get their attention", then why aren't you just allowed to tell them? The whole business of casually waving a scoresheet in their line of sight seems rather a farce.

[NickFaulks]

You are allowed to ask what the latest match score is. I think you have to work out for yourself what is then needed.

That seems a very tightly defined variant. I think most captains believe they may reply to the question "is a draw a satisfactory result?". If only players would ask it.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

You are allowed to ask what the latest match score is. I think you have to work out for yourself what is then needed.

That seems a very tightly defined variant. I think most captains believe they may reply to the question "is a draw a satisfactory result?". If only players would ask it.

That's probably OK when only one game is still going. But if more than one game is still going (players A and B for the team captained by captain C), and the result depends on the outcome in both games, then player A is effectively asking captain C what he or she thinks of the position on the board in player B's game. That's the problem, I think. Multiple this several times for something like a 16-board county match. It may have been acceptable in the past for captains and those who have finished playing to have a conflab over whether it would be best to accept a draw on boards 3 and 4, and leave board 5 to win the match, but I don't think this extends to including the players involved in the games in those discussions. It tends to be distracting for them, anyway.

[NickFaulks]

But if more than one game is still going (players A and B for the team captained by captain C), and the result depends on the outcome in both games, then player A is effectively asking captain C what he or she thinks of the position on the board in player B's game.

Precisely. I thought most people believed this was acceptable, but I wish we actually knew.