Chess Arbiters' Association Website

[Andy Howie]

Chairman: Lara Barnes

HUH??? What can I say. Tisk tisk Alex!

[Brendan O'Gorman]

Chairman: Lara Barnes

HUH??? What can I say. Tisk tisk Alex!

Why the upset? is it because Lara is a huperson?

[Alex McFarlane]

Website fairly close to completion.

It includes the final proposals for the new Laws so that may be of interest to everyone.

There are a few 'awkward' proposals. For instance the congress default for phones is that they are banned from the tournament hall (but events will be allowed to make exceptions). There is also the possibility of fining people as an additional punishment.

http://chessarbitersassociation.co.uk

Comments/corrections or additional material welcome.

[John Upham]

Alex Holowczak provided details of ‘Proposed New Arbiters Regulations’ from the ECF. The meeting thanked Alex for his hard work (no it didn’t!).

Did the Minutes Secretary attend the meeting in question?

[Roger de Coverly]

For instance the congress default for phones is that they are banned from the tournament hall (but events will be allowed to make exceptions).

I don't think it actually says that, unless you interpret lesser penalty as no penalty.

12.3b. A player is forbidden from having a mobile phone and/or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. The rules of a competition may specify a less severe penalty.

As an anti-cheating device, if that is what is intended, it appears to allow electronic devices which are not in themselves means of communication.

As mentioned many times in previous years, an absolute ban on the possession of mobile phones is unlikely to see many participants in average events feeling able to comply.

Arbiters still seem to think that it's possible for both flags to fall.

1. A flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag-fall, but he shall do so if both flags have fallen, in which case he shall declare the game drawn.

DGT's were programmed that way(rather pointlessly in my view) for the faster time controls, but where there are increments, their standard practice is and always has been to stop incrementing and indicate a flag fall. So you don't need an arbiter, the clock will do it for you. Or is that the problem? The controversy at that Moscow blitz was because an arbiter tried unsuccessfully to circumvent this.

What's happened to the rewrite of 10.2 to allow clock substitution?

[Alex McFarlane]

The CAA website now contains the latest proposed version of the Laws of Chess. It contains some controversial proposals which have come from the Presidential Board.

http://chessarbitersassociation.co.uk/index.html

In my opinion these new proposals have not been well thought out. They certainly contain some worrying amendments.
They appear on the Laws page.

[Roger de Coverly]

In my opinion these new proposals have not been well thought out. They certainly contain some worrying amendments.
They appear on the Laws page.

Assuming it isn't April 1st, they want to make threefold repetition into tenfold repetition and upset practical endgame theory by making the 50 move rule into a 75 move rule.

They also want to make it such that you incur a penalty if you have a mobile phone in your possession. At amateur events then, the entire tournament could be defaulted leaving the arbiters without any players.

[Alex Holowczak]

Assuming it isn't April 1st, they want to make threefold repetition into tenfold repetition and upset practical endgame theory by making the 50 move rule into a 75 move rule.

No, they don't.

The proposal is that there is a 3-fold repetition and 50-move rule that you can claim as you do now. However, there's also a 10-fold repetition and 75-move rule where the arbiters are the ones responsible for initiating the claim, rather than the player.

I think the idea is dreadful, but at least represent the idea correctly!

[harrylamb]

The CAA website now contains the latest proposed version of the Laws of Chess. It contains some controversial proposals which have come from the Presidential Board.

http://chessarbitersassociation.co.uk/index.html

Alex,
When I click onto this link my antivirus software is coming up with a malware warning

Infection Blocked
URL: http://www.watchmytraffic.com/6791952-BC40100D27BC62...
Infection: URL:Mal

[David Sedgwick]

They also want to make it such that you incur a penalty if you have a mobile phone in your possession. At amateur events then, the entire tournament could be defaulted leaving the arbiters without any players.

Brilliant!

Running a chess tournament should be a simple matter, but the presence of players invariably seems to cause complications.

This solves the problem.

[Alex McFarlane]

Thanks Harry,

I'm having this checked out by the site owner.

Roger/Alex H

My reading is that it is an automatic draw after 75 moves without a piece capture or pawn move. How you check this is not clear. Even looking at the scoresheet doesn't always show captures.
The 10 fold rule is even more puzzling
The game is a draw if an identical position has appeared on the chessboard ten consecutive times
Surely this is impossible? You have a position and you make a move. The position no longer exists and cannot exist until you make your next move. So it cannot occur on two consecutive times never mind 10!!

The blitz rules without one arbiter per game are interesting. As reference to A2 is removed, players will have to record their games until they have less than 5 minutes!!!!

Perhaps the most awkward change is that phones will not be allowed in without a penalty. Players must allow themselves to be searched for such devices.

Article 10 has also been removed. Unpopular as Quickplay Finishes are, their total removal from the Laws seems a bit extreme.

Countries are advised to follow the new Laws and will no longer be allowed to make amendments.

There is no doubt that the drafting of these revisions has been very badly done.

If these changes do go through I can see a new set of Laws being drawn up for games played in Britain that are not FIDE rated. FIDE have tried to get the USA to come in line. These proposals would mean other countries following the USA!!

[Roger de Coverly]

My reading is that it is an automatic draw after 75 moves without a piece capture or pawn move. How you check this is not clear. Even looking at the scoresheet doesn't always show captures.
The 10 fold rule is even more puzzling

I can see an intent, which is to give the arbiter powers to declare a game over, something potentially needed on games played with an increment.

Article 10 has also been removed. Unpopular as Quickplay Finishes are, their total removal from the Laws seems a bit extreme.

It's still there as an Appendix though, with the player rather than the arbiter being able to require the clock to be substituted or reset with a delay or increment.

If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. The clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.

It's something that clocks permitting could make sense as a rule at a local league level with no arbiter present.

[Alex Holowczak]

Lots of mini-quotes here, alas.

My reading is that it is an automatic draw after 75 moves without a piece capture or pawn move. How you check this is not clear. Even looking at the scoresheet doesn't always show captures.

Indeed, Appendix C13 says: "It is not mandatory to record the check, the checkmate and capturing on the scoresheet."

I think it's something you could reasonably enforce at Category 20+ events where all of the games are being played on liveboards. That said, I've never seen a reason for this to be enforced in such tournaments.

The 10 fold rule is even more puzzling
The game is a draw if an identical position has appeared on the chessboard ten consecutive times
Surely this is impossible? You have a position and you make a move. The position no longer exists and cannot exist until you make your next move. So it cannot occur on two consecutive times never mind 10!!

I understand that the one of the reasons is to stop games going on endlessly, messing up tournament schedules. Presumably two rounds per day stuff. I don't see how this helps in that regard, because players will still claim the draw at 50 moves/3-fold as now when they get chance. This doesn't make the games any shorter.

It does stop awkward people who go on forever for no good reason, who deliberately don't make a claim.

It may also be of use in Rapidplay or Blitz, where there is no recording of the games. We've all seen kids play chess who move Kings hither and thither over again, with no attempt to do anything else. I suppose you could use the intended wording of the Law to stop them before one of them loses on time by accident.

Article 10 has also been removed. Unpopular as Quickplay Finishes are, their total removal from the Laws seems a bit extreme.

Who uses these Laws, other than the UK? Quickplay finishes are clearly popular here in local leagues, but have increments taken over the rest of the world?

Countries are advised to follow the new Laws and will no longer be allowed to make amendments.

In my opinion, Section A should be sacrosanct in this way, but Section B should allow amendments. If you abide by section A, you can still publish the game afterwards and everyone will know what was happening.

There is no doubt that the drafting of these revisions has been very badly done.

When I saw these, I was far more concerned with the changes in principle, rather than the drafting.

If these changes do go through I can see a new set of Laws being drawn up for games played in Britain that are not FIDE rated. FIDE have tried to get the USA to come in line. These proposals would mean other countries following the USA!!

I think FIDE have a fundamental problem with the Laws in two ways:
(1) The lines between arbiter and organiser are blurred. Arbiters shouldn't be fining people or strip-searching people. Arbiters should refer the incident to the organiser, who deals with things like that. A Premier League referee doesn't fine a manager who slags him off, the FA (i.e. the organisers) do.
(2) They're writing the Laws for the 2700+s, but not for the 99% of people who use them. Cricket does it the other way around. The MCC write the Laws for the 99%, and the ICC amends them where necessary. The ICC adds in things like use of technology. I can't call a DRS review on an lbw at a local park game! They also have other amendments for things like TV, over rates, and other things. That seems to serve cricket well. Chess could do the same. Some examples spring to mind:
(A) 1 hour default v 0 minute default
(B) Default for phone going off v hanged, drawn, quartered
(C) Play through the game for repetition claim v look on live boards
(D) 50-move/3-fold v this 75-move/10-fold stuff

[Alex McFarlane]

When I saw these, I was far more concerned with the changes in principle, rather than the drafting.

Agreed - but in this case the poor drafting shows the lack of thought which went into the ideas, in my opinion. On reading it my thoughts were that the PB had said "Let's get rid of ..." rather than "How can we improve ..."

[David Sedgwick]

I would certainly hope that the drafting and some of the substance can be improved. As is pointed out at the head of the draft Laws, the FIDE Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee have still to consider some aspects of them.