Arbitration question

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:57 pm

"The alternative is that the arbiters sit at their desk with their eyes closed."

That has been known...

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2975
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:30 pm

Sorry, Should we be more lenient to young players?
Like declaring them lost on the 3rd illegal move?

Reg Clucas
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Reg Clucas » Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:35 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:30 pm
Sorry, Should we be more lenient to young players?
Like declaring them lost on the 3rd illegal move?
No. They have enough advantages already!

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2975
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Thu Sep 05, 2019 9:38 pm

Advantages?
I mean like 8-Years

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:31 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:30 pm
Sorry, Should we be more lenient to young players?
Like declaring them lost on the 3rd illegal move?
The FIDE Laws of Chess prohibit this, however it is common in England to vary the number of illegal moves in Rapidplay before a child loses the game. For example, we increase it to 3 in a number of our rapidplay competitions.

You cannot do this if it is FIDE-rated, but in England, very little U11 chess is FIDE rated.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2975
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:24 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:31 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:30 pm
Sorry, Should we be more lenient to young players?
Like declaring them lost on the 3rd illegal move?
The FIDE Laws of Chess prohibit this, however it is common in England to vary the number of illegal moves in Rapidplay before a child loses the game. For example, we increase it to 3 in a number of our rapidplay competitions.

You cannot do this if it is FIDE-rated, but in England, very little U11 chess is FIDE rated.
Only rapid play?
And is it part of ECF ruling?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:48 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:24 pm
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:31 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:30 pm
Sorry, Should we be more lenient to young players?
Like declaring them lost on the 3rd illegal move?
The FIDE Laws of Chess prohibit this, however it is common in England to vary the number of illegal moves in Rapidplay before a child loses the game. For example, we increase it to 3 in a number of our rapidplay competitions.

You cannot do this if it is FIDE-rated, but in England, very little U11 chess is FIDE rated.
Only rapid play?
And is it part of ECF ruling?
Yes, and yes.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2975
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:45 pm

Thanks.
What does it mean that
"Going to the toilet is not necessarily a valid reason for stopping the clocks"
Why "not necessarily"? When can it be a valid reason?

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2975
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:50 pm

Considering
" If the default time is 0, the arbiter has to declare the game lost for the players who are not present at their chessboards."
, isn't the "has to" in conflict with article 6.7.1 which leaves it to the arbiter's discretion?

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4002
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Arbitration question

Post by David Sedgwick » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:08 pm

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:50 pm
Considering
" If the default time is 0, the arbiter has to declare the game lost for the players who are not present at their chessboards."
, isn't the "has to" in conflict with article 6.7.1 which leaves it to the arbiter's discretion?
You have a general duty to enforce the default time, as the note makes clear.

Article 6.7.1 states "unless the arbiter decides otherwise". That is not quite the same as saying that it is left to the arbiter's discretion. You would need clear and compelling reasons to "decide otherwise".

An example where you should do so would be if an official bus broke down on the way to the venue. An example where you should not do so would be if a player had simply missed the bus.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18989
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:28 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:08 pm

You have a general duty to enforce the default time, as the note makes clear.
Default times of zero minutes were a now discarded and discredited initiative. It's now expected that a default time is announced as part of the entry conditions. UK tournaments usually use 30 minutes, whilst the 4NCL retains the traditional hour.

The 4NCL has been known to waive default times. An example was when it was being held in the Midlands and both motorways from the London area were closed and alternative routes heavily congested.

Clocks are stopped during play if there's a Fire Alarm and players have to leave the playing area. It would be highly unusual for clocks to be stopped for a toilet break although long, long ago, matches would sometimes be suspended for a refreshment break.

Tim Harding
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Tim Harding » Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:15 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:28 pm

Clocks are stopped during play if there's a Fire Alarm and players have to leave the playing area. It would be highly unusual for clocks to be stopped for a toilet break although long, long ago, matches would sometimes be suspended for a refreshment break.
Or at 6pm for prayers in the Dubai open.
Has this happened anywhere else?
Tim Harding
Historian and Kibitzer

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3369
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:15 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:28 pm
It would be highly unusual for clocks to be stopped for a toilet break although long, long ago, matches would sometimes be suspended for a refreshment break.
That still happened a bit when I started playing proper chess in the 1980s.

And there was one match of mine that got stopped for the Grand National that day.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4176
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:47 am

Soheil >What does it mean that
"Going to the toilet is not necessarily a valid reason for stopping the clocks"
Why "not necessarily"? When can it be a valid reason?<
This is a note in the Arbiters' Manual 2018 about Article 6.11.4.
But you have shortened it, suggesting you have an earlier edition of the Manual . The 2018 edition states
Going to the toilet is not necessarily a valid reason for stopping the clocks. A disabled player must be treated with due respect.

The Arbiters' Manual does NOT have the force of Law. The shaded notes are just the opinion of the editors of the work, primarily Takis, who is no longer chairman of the Arbiters Commission.

Most able-bodied adults can time their need to go to the toilet, after they have made a move, and hope to get back in time. Thus, with an increment, a standardplay game is usually long enough to allow adequate time. But what if the player has a pressing urgency? The arbiter should then stop the clocks if requested. It is likely a disabled player will take longer to make the journey.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2975
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Mon Sep 09, 2019 12:47 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:08 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:50 pm
Considering
" If the default time is 0, the arbiter has to declare the game lost for the players who are not present at their chessboards."
, isn't the "has to" in conflict with article 6.7.1 which leaves it to the arbiter's discretion?
You have a general duty to enforce the default time, as the note makes clear.

Article 6.7.1 states "unless the arbiter decides otherwise". That is not quite the same as saying that it is left to the arbiter's discretion. You would need clear and compelling reasons to "decide otherwise".

An example where you should do so would be if an official bus broke down on the way to the venue. An example where you should not do so would be if a player had simply missed the bus.
In a tournament, I left the hall for my home, and couldn't take a taxi back to the hall.
I phoned the hall and told the secretary that I can't be there. She said "are you telling this only now?!" and asked the arbiter who told her that I can get there in 20 minutes. I got there in 18 minutes, but I was sadly forfeited, and however I objected, it added only to my anger with no result

Post Reply