Naughty Spectators

[E Michael White]

Dont try to make out arbiters exclusively own the common sense commodity. The rules are inadequately phrased by arbiters to express their intentions.

The arbiter should try to establish first what has happened. The flag fell when he first observed it. If the 10.2 claim happened first his sight of the fallen flag is irrelevant (according to the rules). Also dont forget 13.1

13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

Arbiters allow players to claim a game if their oppo's flag falls when they forget to press their clock on the last move before a time control; is it any less fair to allow a 10.2 when player B forgets to claim the flag has fallen ?

[Alex Holowczak]

is it any less fair to allow a 10.2 when player B forgets to claim the flag has fallen.

Any competent arbiter would look at the clock while considering his decision. If he sees that a flag has fallen, he will point it out, as he should in the Laws of Chess. At this point, he'll decline the 10.2 claim.

The arbiter doesn't need to see that the flag has gone from not fallen to fallen. If it is fallen, it is enough to decline the 10.2 after the flag fall, I'd have thought.

[E Michael White]

In the examples I gave, the arbiter was elsewhere and not watching the game. Arbiters cannot watch the games all the time.

The arbiter should try to establish what has happened not think he knows when the flag fell.

If neither side claimed the flag had fallen the 10.2 occurs before the flag has fallen with the arbiter absent. That is what the rules say even though it may be inconvenient.

[Alex Holowczak]

In the examples I gave, the arbiter was elsewhere and not watching the game. Arbiters cannot watch the games all the time.

The arbiter should try to establish what has happened not think he knows when the flag fell.

If neither side claimed the flag had fallen the 10.2 occurs before the flag has fallen with the arbiter absent. That is what the rules say even though it may be inconvenient.

OK

But if we drag this into the real world, an arbiter will see a flag has fallen, and that will be the end of the matter. No 10.2.

I don't see how this decision can be unfair, or in any way against the spirit of the rules. So it's good enough for me, despite what you claim here.

If a player wanted a 10.2, he should have stopped the clocks while he still had time, and made the claim. He didn't do that.

[E Michael White]

Your role as an arbiter is primarily defined under 13.1

13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

OK
............... an arbiter will see a flag has fallen, and that will be the end of the matter. No 10.2.

I don't see how this decision can be unfair, or in any way against the spirit of the rules.

I suggest in that case time is of the essence. It could be said to be equally unfair to a player and against the spirit of the rules to award the game to a player when his opponent has made the required moves on the board in the allotted time and then forgets to press the clock - except that that is what the rules say. Or equally unfairly if a player who knows his flag has dropped, plays three or four moves and then mates on the fifth. If the arbiter is not watching and the opponent doesnt notice, the game is awarded to the side which mated even though their flag (has been)/is down.

My real point is that the readability of the rules could and should be improved.

When arbiters write unclear rules and dont update them it brings the game into disrepute. If you read the rules literally and carefully in a League where no arbiters are present it is not possible to lose on time ! I am not suggesting this would be proper and fair but the rules should be modified to say what is intended.

So it's good enough for me, despite what you claim here....... If a player wanted a 10.2, he should have stopped the clocks while he still had time, and made the claim. He didn't do that.

I dont think anyone would disagree about what should be the decision but unclear rules should be alltered otherwise the game's administration looks very sloppy. If you and other arbiters continue to override any rule that you disagree with then you may spend many hours awaiting the outcome of appeal committees and do your own and the games reputation no good in a rerun of the recent Canterbury Tales.

[Alex Holowczak]

When arbiters write unclear rules and dont update them it brings the game into disrepute. If you read the rules literally and carefully in a League where no arbiters are present it is not possible to lose on time ! I am not suggesting this would be proper and fair but the rules should be modified to say what is intended.

I think it's perfectly clear what the rule is, without the need for superfluous English to block loop-holes.

[E Michael White]

Perhaps you are forgetting many arbiters, including those for whom English is not a first language, need to read the rules so they should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. The frequent use of transitory idiom in the current rules does not help.

Most disputes seem to me to be caused by inconsistent arbiter action or interpretation, leading players to believe at future events they know what the rules are, mushrooming further disputes. About 4 years ago many arbiters caused havoc in connection with the mobile phone rules and now it happens with the arrival (default) time rule. If you and others cannot see that most young players of today at least will not tolerate those situations when it affects them, chess is heading for further decline. When rules are unclear, players often become unhappy and may not turn up at future events.

Your views expressed on other threads seem to be more in tune with older arbiters who believe that the arbiter's word is always correct and reviews of arbiter decisions which take place, as in other sports, should not happen. Unclear rules need to be clarified and ratified in the next ruleset; simply denying the shortfall is detrimental for everyone.

[Alex Holowczak]

Something to point out: I am not (yet!) a qualified arbiter.

The only disputes I've seen occur tend to fall into these categories:
1) Player doesn't know the rule and arbiter does
2) Arbiter incorrectly interprets the rule
3) Arbiter tries to act with the spirit of the game, not to the letter of the law

French-Rayner at the Major Open would count as 3). 2) rarely happens - I disagree that this is where most of the disputes come from. 1) is the most frequent on a congress/league level. 2) sometimes happens in accordance with 1).

Dave Thomas is of the opinion that the correct way to conclude a dispute is to find the logical conclusion to a scenario, and interpret the rules accordingly to get to it. This seems eminently sensible, and is why there is no problem with the rules that you claim are unclear.

As a young player of today, I don't know anyone who will "not tolerate those situations when it affects them". Indeed, the only time I've ever heard a younger player complain about a dodgy ruling, they've been right.

Also suggesting that chess will decline because of unclear rules is wide of the mark. "The way we stop chess becoming less popular is to clarify all of the rules!" Very few people know them vaguely anyway...

[Roger de Coverly]

Arbiters allow players to claim a game if their oppo's flag falls when they forget to press their clock on the last move before a time control; is it any less fair to allow a 10.2 when player B forgets to claim the flag has fallen ?

Surely both are examples of player incompetence. The first obviously so. In the second, you are normally allowed (or supposed) to stop the clocks as part of the rite of arbiter summoning. Stopping clocks requires you to look at them and you should be able to notice that one of the flags is down.A mechanical clock I'd presume, the latest DGTs wave an enormous flag graphic at you - it looks a bit like one of the old Windows logos.

If you use exclusively digital clocks, the "both flags down = draw" rule should become redundant, since the clock can signal whose time expired first. From that viewpoint the clock is acting as an assistant arbiter and "observing" the flag fall.

[E Michael White]

Dave Thomas is of the opinion that the correct way to conclude a dispute is to find the logical conclusion to a scenario, and interpret the rules accordingly to get to it. This seems eminently sensible, and is why there is no problem with the rules that you claim are unclear

This is a slippery slope. From the (arbiters ) CAA website:-

There's been a dispute - could you sort it?" A boy of about ten was playing a man in his late seventies and the boy was winning easily. He got a pawn to the eighth rank and announced a queen, but not finding a queen to hand he left the pawn in situ. When on his next move he attempted to move his pawn as a queen the man claimed a win for an illegal move (they were playing the blitz rule that illegal moves lose). Steve knew the final round was being delayed and the man was adamant that he must have the win; the small boy was looking very confused. Having checked that the result would not make any difference to any prize money, Steve came up with a quick and unique solution. He took the man off to one side and informed him that he had won the game. He then did exactly the same thing with the young lad. One point each: truly a modern judgment of Solomon!

Do you really think arbiting in this way is appropriate ? Surely rather than lying to a player explaining the rules is a better approach. At least one of those players went away with an incorrect knowledge of the rules, to propagate further disputes.

The first obviously so. In the second, you are normally allowed (or supposed) to stop the clocks as part of the rite of arbiter summoning. Stopping clocks requires you to look at them and you should be able to notice that one of the flags is down.

It is stated in the rules that stopping the clocks for a 10.2 is not mandatory. If a player is concentrating on claiming a 10.2 he may not look at the clocks, if he knew he had already passed the 2 min mark.

....the clock is acting as an assistant arbiter and "observing" the flag fall.

but if the player has not claimed as required in the rules the flag is stated as not fallen whatever the clock says.

I am not advocating taking advantage of loop holes; I usually point out if my own flag falls. I dont however see any reason for not making the rules as clear as possible.

Unfortunately many English arbiters cause havoc with new rules and often decide they wont apply them; why ? If a little more thought had gone into installing a UK wide 30 minute default time to uplegislate FIDE, it would be realised that in some instances eg FIDE rated large Swisses a better rule would be to have a 0 default with specified exceptions.

[Alex Holowczak]

....the clock is acting as an assistant arbiter and "observing" the flag fall.

but if the player has not claimed as required in the rules the flag is stated as not fallen whatever the clock says.

You missed Roger's point here. He said that if possible, the clock should be allowed in the rules to act as an assistant arbiter, i.e. by counting the moves - not that at the moment is does.

Are you an arbiter? I can't find your name anywhere on the CAA or ECF websites as being one.

You're missing the point of the Laws, to. They're clear as they are, but you are pointing out loop-holes. Unless you're the Wolverhampton League, you're never going to block all the loop-holes. So, you have to rely on the arbiter to interpret rules in a common sense way. That task is made easier in England with the Chief Arbiter (David Welch), who is like The Pope. The Pope interprets the Bible for his followers. David Welch interprets the rules and publishes them in his Laws + Comments booklet. Arbiters are supposed to follow these interpretations. Failing that, they're supposed to resolve disputes without disadvantaging anyone. This includes using common sense. It's the only practical way for it to work.

[Roger de Coverly]

but if the player has not claimed as required in the rules the flag is stated as not fallen whatever the clock says.

The rules could, perhaps should be marginally rewritten when digital clocks are in use.

it would be realised that in some instances eg FIDE rated large Swisses a better rule would be to have a 0 default with specified exceptions.

Why?

I don't think you could have a "large" Swiss with a 0 default in the UK. Personally I would boycott such an event and suggest to others that they do the same.

The problem with the way the 30 minute rule was interpreted at Canterbury is that no indication had been given to players as to the circumstances under which you wouldn't win by default if your opponent wasn't there 30 minutes after the scheduled start.

[Sean Hewitt]

In England with the Chief Arbiter (David Welch), who is like The Pope.

There's a sentence I never expected to read in my lifetime!!

[John Philpott]

Alex Holowczak wrote

In England with the Chief Arbiter (David Welch), who is like The Pope.

I suppose that means that the ECF Board will have to revise the Arbiters and Coaches Regulations as the paragraph dealing with the appointment of the Chief Arbiter does not currently make any reference to white smoke.

[Alex Holowczak]

Hmm. Should probably consider my metaphors more in future.