Questions on conduct during a game

[Michael Farthing]

Ah well - changing the rule question somewhat: In a match last night the opposing Board 4 asked his captain how much time was left on the clocks on the basis that his eyesight was not good enough to see the clock. As the other captain I really had no problem with this, but his own captain refused on the grounds this would be giving advice. Now I can see that if someone passes by and shouts out the times, but given that the player had initiated the request is there any reason why he couldn't be answered?

[JustinHorton]

Odd that the question wasn't raised in advance though.

[Stewart Reuben]

12.2f the arbiter should take special measures in the interests of disabled players and those who need medical attention.
In the absence of an arbiter, the two captains do the best they can. It is very strange the player with poor eyesight didn't raise the matter earlier.
Why couldn't his opponent have told him?

[Brian Towers]

In the absence of an arbiter, the two captains do the best they can.

The problem is that isn't very much. Very few players who aren't qualified arbiters actually know the rules (and if Nigel Short is correct it's even worse than that ).

A German friend told me that the German federation is thinking of laying on courses for club captains on the rules and requiring every club to have at least one player who has passed the course. Whether the plan will see the light of day is another matter, of course.

At the very least each club should at least take the trouble to have a printed copy of the FIDE laws of chess (perhaps with the local league rules as well) in the club for consultation in case of a dispute. That, I suspect, is very much the exception rather than the rule.

[Stewart Reuben]

The late Harry Golombek once said he thought the leading players took pride in not knowing the minutiae of the Laws.

To me, it is simple. Use your commonsense. But I would think that, wouldn't I?

[Ian Thompson]

You look at the game score and go through it. Then you form your judgement.

If the players have signed for different results and can't agree what the result really was, I'd have thought "resume the game" would be the right thing to do unless there was evidence that a particular result did occur.

[Michael Farthing]

The late Harry Golombek once said he thought the leading players took pride in not knowing the minutiae of the Laws.

To me, it is simple. Use your commonsense. But I would think that, wouldn't I?

Well Stewart this is a very powerful argument for the removal of the vast majority of the tournament rules. The presence of these rules encourages pernickty rulesmen who have encountered awkward gamesmanship players into demanding ever more rigourous wording instead of simply allowing an arbiter to quote the fundamental principle of 'de minimus not curat lex'.

[Edit: Excepting, of course, your promised attention to the matter of writing down the score with the same hand that moves the piece].

[E Michael White]

You look at the game score and go through it. Then you form your judgement.

If the players have signed for different results and can't agree what the result really was, I'd have thought "resume the game" would be the right thing to do unless there was evidence that a particular result did occur.

Ian is quite right here. Games can only be concluded in certain ways such as checkmate, stalemate draw agreement, the 76 move rule etc. The arbiter cannot impose a different result on the players where there has been no transgression of the laws. This general principle was decided by FIDE many years ago and is what necessitated the introduction of the 76 move rule as some arbiters were incorrectly assuming they could declare a game drawn under the 50 move rule.

[MartinCarpenter]

Can you really resume a game though? The assumption for this scenario to arise would normally be that the game, and likely the round it was played in, is long since finished.

If it managed to occur in a match then there's even more people to blame for not clearing it

[Stewart Reuben]

I find it hard to envisage a game, where the players agree to the final position, but not the final result, where I wouldn not be able to decide that result. The one exception is where one player thinks he has won on time and the evidence whether this is true or false no longer exists.
Once the game is long abandoned, it would be very difficult to resume it.

The LL game where my opponent genuinely thought it wa a potential draw by repetition and I knew it was forced mate in 2, could have been such a catastrophe. He offered me a draw, but I couldn't understand him. Had I shaken his hand, what a mess that would have been. As it was, I got him to make his next move and then I mated him.
Had I shakn his hand, signed as 1-0 and then found he had signed draw, logically what would happen is you look at the final position. Would I really have accepted a draw with a very obvious mate in 2? But what abot a graded 40 player?

[Ian Thompson]

I find it hard to envisage a game, where the players agree to the final position, but not the final result, where I wouldn not be able to decide that result.

Your example below is one of many where you couldn't reliably determine what had really happened. It's not that unusual for players to resign in drawn positions, agree draws in winning positions and even resign in winning positions at the end of long games when they're tired. (I had the latter only a few months ago where my opponent was clearly winning and immediately resigned when he thought he'd either lost his queen to a knight fork, or a rook for nothing, not realising that there were more tactics after that which meant he had lost some material, but would have ended up a pawn up in a queen ending, still winning.)

The LL game where my opponent genuinely thought it wa a potential draw by repetition and I knew it was forced mate in 2, could have been such a catastrophe. He offered me a draw, but I couldn't understand him. Had I shaken his hand, what a mess that would have been.

[Niall Doran]

A German friend told me that the German federation is thinking of laying on courses for club captains on the rules and requiring every club to have at least one player who has passed the course. Whether the plan will see the light of day is another matter, of course.

This is already a requirement in all French clubs, which must have a minimum of one arbiter, who must then follow a refresher course every five years.

[JustinHorton]

It's not that unusual for players to resign in drawn positions, agree draws in winning positions and even resign in winning positions at the end of long games when they're tired.

Somebody really should translateTrautmann.

[Adam Raoof]

It's not that unusual for players to resign in drawn positions, agree draws in winning positions and even resign in winning positions at the end of long games when they're tired.

Somebody really should translateTrautmann.

If anyone sends me a copy in German, I will ask a friend to translate it!

[Stewart Reuben]

Niall >This is already a requirement in all French clubs, which must have a minimum of one arbiter, who must then follow a refresher course every five years.<
That is truly barmy. The Laws are modified once every four years. The changes to take effect should be agreed at the FIDE Congress in September to take effect 1 July 2017.
In Roumania they have a test every four years for all arbiters.