What Should the Arbiter Do?

[Ian Thompson]

Black plays a move, momentarily lets go of the piece and then tries to retract the move, presumably having realised that it's a blunder. White objects and says the move has been played and cannot be taken back.

The arbiter is called. Black confirms he moved the piece but claims he did not release the piece before putting it back on its original square. White claims he did release it. With no proof of what actually happened the arbiter cannot uphold White's claim.

Now change the situation. White also claims that Black stopped his own clock and started White's. The arbiter can see that White's clock was running, before being paused, and checks the move counter. The number of clock presses corresponds to White's claim (i.e. the incident occurred on move N and the move counter showed that both White and Black had pressed the clock N times). What should the arbiter do?

[Alex McFarlane]

Sorry, but I do not understand what has occurred.

The piece that was touched is now where? If it is on the disputed square then that move looks to have been completed. If it is on its original square then an illegal move has occurred as the player pressed his clock without moving.

If it is on a different square from either of those then we have a totally different situation akin to the initial situation at the start of the post but delayed!!

[Ian Thompson]

The piece that was touched is now where?

On its original square, not moved.

[Alex McFarlane]

Then the arbiter asks why the clock was pressed.

The action taken will depend on that answer.

Without any great thought i can think of at least 4 different answers to that one, all of which would have a different consequence.

[Ian Thompson]

Then the arbiter asks why the clock was pressed.

The action taken will depend on that answer.

Without any great thought i can think of at least 4 different answers to that one, all of which would have a different consequence.

It would be interesting to know what the possible answers and consequences are because the arbiter made his ruling without asking that question.

[Alex McFarlane]

If this is not hypothetical then I am reluctant to get involved without hearing more and from all sides.

Hypothetically, the player could have restarted the opponent's clock meaning to pause it to summon the arbiter. For that to be acceptable the player would need to be used to doing it in that way.
Other answers would lead to more questions.

This is more a question for discussion at an arbiters' seminar than in a forum where one post leads to another.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"If this is not hypothetical then I am reluctant to get involved without hearing more and from all sides."

And presumably to know who was involved?

[Alex McFarlane]

It has been known for the ECF Chief Arbiter to get in touch with arbiters concerning situations given in this forum. (But not often.) In this case it is not a British arbiter.

[Joey Stewart]

I'm pretty sure this is not that unlikely a scenario, I've been to multiple school competitions where I have seen claims that somebody has touched the piece and the opponent claims otherwise so I'm guessing there must be a pretty standard response when both players are claiming to be right.

[Ian Thompson]

I'm pretty sure this is not that unlikely a scenario, I've been to multiple school competitions where I have seen claims that somebody has touched the piece and the opponent claims otherwise so I'm guessing there must be a pretty standard response when both players are claiming to be right.

I think there is a standard response, which I mentioned in my original post - the arbiter can't uphold the claim without evidence.

The more interesting aspect of the incident is what difference the pressing the clock claim makes. Is it to be treated completely separately from the touch move claim or are the two incidents one claim? What if the player claims he didn't press the clock despite the evidence of the move counter?