double forfeit given from arbiter in china event .

[Ian Lamb]

Translated from Chinese lanaguage which was published in Sina Sports http://sports.sina.com.cn at 21:21 hr on 21 September 2009.

In the 6th round of the Zhejiang Lishui Xingqiu Cup International Open Chess Tournament held in Lishui, Zhejiang Province, an extraordinary incident happened when two young star players Wang Chen and Lu Shanglei agreed to a draw. After the end of the round, the Chief Arbiter declared both players to have lost their game. This is the first time that a double default has ever been meted out in chess competition in China.

What actually happened? This brings us back to 16:00 hour when the Chief Arbiter announced the start of the round and the two players wrote their result as drawn, signed on their scoresheets without making a single move and left the playing hall. The Chief Arbiter from Singapore, Mr Ignatius Leong, General Secretary of the World Chess Federation, saw what happened and after checking that no move was recorded on the scoresheets, declared the game lost for both players.

After the incident, Mr Leong was interviewed by the sports reporter from Sina Sports. Mr Leong said that while this was the first time that such a ruling had been made in China, it was also the first time he had ever made a double default in his 30-year carrer of arbitratiion in major international competitions all over the world. In his opinion, such conduct does not show respect for the competition, the organisers and the chief arbiter.

There may be different reasons where short draws are made during a game. However, as in today's case, agreeing to a draw without making a single move are rare. When the reporter asked Mr Leong if there are regulations which support his decision, Mr Leong replied smilingly asked if there are regulations which do not support his ruling. "I have arbitrated in numerous major world and international competitions for 30 years and have not made a mistake. From my perspective, a sportive result cannot be achieved without making a single move.

The players had come to the tournament hall, signed on the scoresheets without makiing a single move and left the tournament hall immediately. This is as good as fixing the result prior to start of play. Such behaviour is bad for the image for the development of Chess. This was why he made such a tough ruling.

The reporter contacted a Chinese International Master Xu Yang who supported Mr Leong's decision. Xu said that such conduct of the players could lose the support of sponsors. Moreover, from the professional view point, this is unfair to chess fans who want to see interesting games.

Before the start of the 7th round, Mr Leong will announce his ruling in the presence of all the competitors. This will be a good lesson not only for the two players but to all competitors to respect their profession as chessplayers, to respect the efforts of organisers and to respect the development of Chess activities. what your views?

[Alex Holowczak]

When the reporter asked Mr Leong if there are regulations which support his decision, Mr Leong replied smilingly asked if there are regulations which do not support his ruling. "I have arbitrated in numerous major world and international competitions for 30 years and have not made a mistake. From my perspective, a sportive result cannot be achieved without making a single move.

This guy sounds like he was arbitrating with a point to prove, rather than upholding the laws of the game.

[John Upham]

These players could have easily agreed to play a "game" leading to a perpetual check if they had so desired : many people choose this course of action to authenticate a previously agreed draw. In a way, what they did was more honest that that but somewhat more obvious...

The question is : which is better?

[Roger de Coverly]

When the reporter asked Mr Leong if there are regulations which support his decision, Mr Leong replied smilingly asked if there are regulations which do not support his ruling. "I have arbitrated in numerous major world and international competitions for 30 years and have not made a mistake. From my perspective, a sportive result cannot be achieved without making a single move.

This guy sounds like he was arbitrating with a point to prove, rather than upholding the laws of the game.

The arbiter in question is one of the main advocates of having a game of musical chairs before the game of chess, by which I mean that he would default anyone not seated at the board when play is deemed to commence. So I don't quite follow what he means by "a sportive result cannot be achieved without making a single move".

Those of us with long memories may recall the game Miles-Reuben at Luton as long as ago as the 1970s. This was a last round zero move draw which would have resulted in prize money being shared. The organiser tried to default both players but I think was eventually persuaded to pay the original prizes. Nevertheless zero move draws have been regarded as "not accepted" ever since.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I think the decision is right, however I have great difficulty in believing the statement...

"I have arbitrated in numerous major world and international competitions for 30 years and have not made a mistake."

Surely, everybody makes mistakes? And if he thinks that defaulting somebody for not being seated at the start of the round is sensible, then perhaps he should retire.

[Gavin Strachan]

I've being playing chess for 20 yrs and never made mistake should have seen the whopper I played last night in the drawn position!

[Simon Brown]

Quite right. Any thoughts, Stewart?

[John Saunders]

Kevin's views coincide with mine exactly. Zero-move draws should be scored zero-zero, as should silly-move draws. I believe Hubner-Rogoff was the precedent in the latter case. I saw another instance of a silly-move draw being given zero-zero by arbiter Kevin Staveley at the Welsh Championship some years ago and it seemed a correct decision (there was an appeal but it was rejected). I presume article 12.1 (about bringing the game into disrepute) can be invoked in both cases. However, it is not just players who can be guilty of bringing the game of chess into disrepute. I wasn't there but some of the arbiting at the last Olympiad and elsewhere in respect of the new and ridiculous zero default time rule seems to have been scandalous.

[Matt Mackenzie]

But how do you define "silly" draws exactly? A real can of worms there

The bottom line is - players who are, for whatever reason, determined to share the point (or indeed, not to put any effort to speak of into their "game") will *always* find a way to do so. That is just something we have to live with

[Sean Hewitt]

I think the bottom line is that, whilst players can of course agree in advance to a draw, its an issue when its blatantly apparent that they have done so, both to sponsorship opportunities and to the image of the game. Most people can't understand there being a draw where there has been no effort to actually play the game.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I agree, just saying that dealing with it isn't that simple in practice!

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger did not express completely correctly what happened in the game Miles Reuben in Luton. Tony had 5 points and I had 4.5. Nobody else had more than 4. I also had the black pieces and laryngitis.
I told people if they saw Tony I was offering him a draw. I told the organisers/arbiters there was little point in setting up a demo board for the game as I expected Tony to take a draw.
We returned to the playing hall and Tony came up and said, 'I hear you are offering me a draw?' I confirmed this and Tony said, 'Well, OK your are just about good enough and the only point of winning is to improve my Grand Prix Score - which I'm going to win anyway, although its only February.' Note his immense interest in his grade!
We chatted for a bit, the round started at Tony said that we should go to the board. We arrived and told the arbiter David Blackman (who should have already known) that we had agreed a draw. He said, 'Well, I don't think there is anything that can be done about such situations.' We then signed the scoresheet 1 draw agreed in his presence and with his agreement, although both of us expressed som surprise. We then waited for the prizegiving, obviously a long time. Tony probably changed in to a suit.
We received our prizes and nothing more was said that day. When the organiser learnt the facts (he was not at the congress that day) he became quite incensed. He might have suggested we return our prizes, but that would have been highly unlikely about one month later. He later apologised, though that was never published until today.

As Bob Wade said, 'You were criticised for being honest.'

As an organiser/arbiter I have always asked the players to play a few moves since then. I don't think I have ever been unaware of the possible situation arising on the top board. Thus Lloyds Bank Masters Shirov led by half a point and Shabalov also from Latvia had half a point less. I asked them whether they were agreeing a draw and they said yes. So the game never appeared on the demo board. Nobody ever asked my why that was so. I had told both players my Luton story and it was very difficult to get them to play even a few moves for the photographers.

Would I have forfeited the two players in China? Probably no, but Ignatius was entitled so to do. I remember him making a mistake in a minor open at the Olympiad in 1992. He wrongly declared a draw by repetition was invalid. I happened to be in the room and was approached by the claimant. I looked at the scoresheet and it was obviously a valid claim. I told Ignatius and he reversed his decision. That is the hallmark of a good arbiter, not a bad one. The only way to avoid making mistakes is to do nothing - and that is the biggest mistake of them all.

Andrew Martin v Ian Watson British Under 21 in 1977. They were two of the favourites and asked not to be paired in the early rounds. A lottery Swiss was used at that time and they were paired in round 2. First they moved their pawns up one rank and the pieces behind them. Then they moved the pawns to the 4th rank and their pieces to the 3rd. They then agreed a draw and were forfeited. I hope I would have been in advance of that and forfeited them sooner.

A girl player against Alex Tucker in the Lloyds Bank Masters. 1 d4 d6 2 c4 Kd7 3 Nc3. Alex was away from the board for 10 minutes. 'Where have you been,' I asked. 'In the toilet.' 'Well, I'm forfeiting you for insulting your opponent and bringing the game into disrepute.' He accepted it although he might well have won on appeal and came back and played the next round. We found the girl a different opponent.

Gibraltar has a rule, NO DRAWS IN UNDER 30 MOVES. iN 2008 Bu Xiangzhi was playing another Chinese player (with whom he was sharing a room) who was half a point behind with several other people. They played 30 moves in 10 minutes and then agreed a draw. This enabled Hikaru Nakamura to catch up and win the playoff against Bu. It was worrying that Bu would have the game thrown to him. The quick draw cost him a lot of money.

Was it better that they played 30 moves instantaneously. Would 1 draw agreed have been better? It is only a matter of opinion.

It has only once been solved and that was in Romania where I was the Chief Arbiter. It was my idea the previous year. If a players won a game, he scored 3 points and his opponent 0. If they drew another, Armageddon, game was played. The winner, or black in the case of a draw, scored 2 points and the other player 1.

Stewart Reuben

[David Sedgwick]

I have great difficulty in believing the statement...

"I have arbitrated in numerous major world and international competitions for 30 years and have not made a mistake."

Surely, everybody makes mistakes?

When I run arbiter training courses, I say to the attendees that all arbiters make mistakes, but some are more willing than others to admit them.

[Peter Rhodes]

It has only once been solved and that was in Romania where I was the Chief Arbiter. It was my idea the previous year. If a players won a game, he scored 3 points and his opponent 0. If they drew another, Armageddon, game was played. The winner, or black in the case of a draw, scored 2 points and the other player 1.

Stewart Reuben

At my local club, I am used to playing in a "3-1-0" point system which the vast majority of players seem to approve of. I had never considered the idea of giving Black 2 points for a draw. I think that's a quite novel and appealing idea.

Another benefit is that it also keeps the total points available per game consistent, and that could make a difference in some more exotic setups.

[Matt Mackenzie]

My local club back in the 80s ran their internal swiss on a win 3 pts draw 2 points loss 1 point default 0 points scheme