PDA

View Full Version : So who should get a Point?



MichaelBaron
10-04-2021, 09:26 PM
In today's MCC allegro, we encountered an interesting situation:

in the [Player B-Player A] game played in round 6. [Player A] lost on time (apparently in a very good position). Upon loud expressions of the great sorrow by [Player A] - [Player B] (who was apparently not happy with the way his tournament was going anyway) pointed out to [Player A] that its ok with him if [Player A] gets the point. After rd, 6 [Player B] withdraws from the tournament without reporting the result and leaves the buildings.

[Player A] proceeds to enter the result as a win for him. However, there is a witness to this lovely ''event'' who was playing on the board next to them...the witness reports what happened to me....I change result as a win for [Player B]. [Player A] is not overly happy...At that point I went away..and after I got back...the organizers already changed result to a win for [Player A].

So the question is: if a player loses on time, but other player tells him that he can have the point....what shall the organizers do? Who gets the point? My understanding is: loss on time is a loss. And on completion of the game, result can not be changed...
Who should get the point?

Kevin Bonham
10-04-2021, 09:51 PM
Under FIDE laws once a player has lost on time that's generally game over, and their opponent cannot reverse the result by, in effect, resigning. In some competitions where the winner fails to report the result of the game it is recorded as a loss for them, but that's as 0-0, not a win for the opponent.

However, assuming the incident is as described, the usual issue arises that the MCC may not be following the FIDE laws.

Bill Gletsos
10-04-2021, 09:57 PM
I agree with Kevin.

BTW who was the tournament arbiter and who were the organisers who changed the result?

MichaelBaron
10-04-2021, 10:16 PM
I agree with Kevin.

BTW who was the tournament arbiter and who were the organisers who changed the result?

We have 3 arbiters (including me) - never mind who changed the result. I will let him know so next time we won't have such discrepancies happening.

Patrick Byrom
10-04-2021, 10:19 PM
Under FIDE laws once a player has lost on time that's generally game over, and their opponent cannot reverse the result by, in effect, resigning. In some competitions where the winner fails to report the result of the game it is recorded as a loss for them, but that's as 0-0, not a win for the opponent.

However, assuming the incident is as described, the usual issue arises that the MCC may not be following the FIDE laws.Doesn't a win on time have to be claimed by the opponent, or at least observed by an arbiter: "6.8 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect."? If a player resigns without making a claim when he's entitled to, then presumably he loses.

Although "0-0" doesn't seem an unreasonable result in the circumstances, especially as the law does seem to allow a player to claim his own flag fall :)

There was a previous discussion of a similar incident here (http://www.chesschat.org/archive/index.php/t-16156.html).

MichaelBaron
10-04-2021, 10:26 PM
Doesn't a win on time have to be claimed by the opponent, or at least observed by an arbiter: "6.8 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect."? If a player resigns without making a claim when he's entitled to, then presumably he loses.

Although "0-0" doesn't seem an unreasonable result in the circumstances, especially as the law does seem to allow a player to claim his own flag fall :)

There was a previous discussion of a similar incident here (http://www.chesschat.org/archive/index.php/t-16156.html).
There was no arbiter present next to the game at the time. Furthermore, other player already left the tournament hall by then. It only came to our attention because of the player who was playing next to them.

Bill Gletsos
10-04-2021, 10:41 PM
Doesn't a win on time have to be claimed by the opponent, or at least observed by an arbiter: "6.8 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect."? If a player resigns without making a claim when he's entitled to, then presumably he loses.

Although "0-0" doesn't seem an unreasonable result in the circumstances, especially as the law does seem to allow a player to claim his own flag fall :)

There was a previous discussion of a similar incident here (http://www.chesschat.org/archive/index.php/t-16156.html).It is clear from the above that [Player A] acknowledged he lost: “ Upon loud expressions of the great sorrow by [Player A]”
As such he should not be reporting the result as a win for him.

Even now the correct result should be recorded in Tornelo.

Bill Gletsos
10-04-2021, 10:43 PM
We have 3 arbiters (including me) - never mind who changed the result. I will let him know so next time we won't have such discrepancies happening.Let us all hope that whoever it was who changed the result is not a titled arbiter (NA, FA or IA).

MichaelBaron
10-04-2021, 11:13 PM
It is clear from the above that [Player A] acknowledged he lost: “ Upon loud expressions of the great sorrow by [Player A]”
As such he should not be reporting the result as a win for him.

Even now the correct result should be recorded in Tornelo.

He did acknowledge it...but when he saw an ''opportunity'' did not want to let it go I guess :).

Kevin Bonham
10-04-2021, 11:27 PM
Doesn't a win on time have to be claimed by the opponent, or at least observed by an arbiter: "6.8 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect."? If a player resigns without making a claim when he's entitled to, then presumably he loses.

Although "0-0" doesn't seem an unreasonable result in the circumstances, especially as the law does seem to allow a player to claim his own flag fall :)

Yes I'm not sure if cursing a loss on time counts as claiming it. If no arbiter saw it it's a bit weird; the player might reasonably interpret 'you can have the point anyway' (or words to that effect) as a resignation but I don't think it is. The opponent seems to be agreeing that they won the game on time but trying to give the point away.

Patrick Byrom
10-04-2021, 11:37 PM
It is clear from the above that [Player A] acknowledged he lost: “ Upon loud expressions of the great sorrow by [Player A]”As reported by a third party, not witnessed by any arbiter:

There was no arbiter present next to the game at the time. Furthermore, other player already left the tournament hall by then. It only came to our attention because of the player who was playing next to them.
If [Player A] denies that he lost on time, is there any evidence apart from the single witness?


As such he should not be reporting the result as a win for him.If the report of his behaviour is correct, then I agree that he should have, at the very least, explained the situation to an arbiter and asked for a ruling.

MichaelBaron
11-04-2021, 12:49 AM
As reported by a third party, not witnessed by any arbiter:

If [Player A] denies that he lost on time, is there any evidence apart from the single witness?

If the report of his behaviour is correct, then I agree that he should have, at the very least, explained the situation to an arbiter and asked for a ruling.

[Player A] did not deny that he ran out of time, he just claimed that his opponent agreed to a loss.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2021, 06:30 AM
Names removed

Out of an abundance of legal caution I have removed player names from this thread. Please do not use real names on this thread for players again. Anyone wishing to discuss this decision may do so in the Help and Feedback section only, and again must not use real names.

Patrick Byrom
11-04-2021, 10:59 AM
[Player A] did not deny that he ran out of time, he just claimed that his opponent agreed to a loss.Did he clarify whether his opponent had claimed a win on time at any point?

MichaelBaron
11-04-2021, 11:06 AM
Did he clarify whether his opponent had claimed a win on time at any point?

No. He was eager to get that point. According to the witness, the opponent did claim time.

MichaelBaron
11-04-2021, 11:08 AM
Part of the problem was that the ''winner'' has withdrawn after rd 6 and left (I am yet to collect details why - will chat to him about it when I see him next as it is unlike his character to withdraw like that without notifying organizers) so we could not hear his account of the events.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2021, 12:04 PM
This is an allegro, so it is rapid, and I assume the games were not recorded (etc) so the following applies concerning claiming a win on time:


A.4.3

To claim a win on time, the claimant may stop the chessclock and notify the arbiter. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the claimant cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

(my emphasis)

6.8 does not apply because it is in the Competition Rules which are overridden for rapid.

The claimant doesn't have to stop the clock or notify the arbiter - it says "may". If the arbiter is satisfied that a claim was made (such as by saying "Time!" or "Flag!") then that's enough basis to record it as a win.

FIDE could have worded this "may" as a "must". However they didn't. I think the reason they didn't is that they didn't want a claim to be invalidated if the player made the claim without stopping the clock.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2021, 01:37 PM
FIDE could have worded this "may" as a "must". However they didn't. I think the reason they didn't is that they didn't want a claim to be invalidated if the player made the claim without stopping the clock.

Indeed it used to be "must" and was changed to "may", from memory for this reason.

Patrick Byrom
11-04-2021, 05:59 PM
No. He was eager to get that point. According to the witness, the opponent did claim time.I assume that you spoke to him before you changed his result? So if he denied that his opponent claimed time, I'm not sure that the statement of a single witness is enough to disprove his denial. If his opponent didn't claim, but resigned after seeing the flag fall, I'm not sure that his opponent should get a win.

Patrick Byrom
11-04-2021, 06:05 PM
Part of the problem was that the ''winner'' has withdrawn after rd 6 and left (I am yet to collect details why - will chat to him about it when I see him next as it is unlike his character to withdraw like that without notifying organizers) so we could not hear his account of the events.Exactly. That's why I am leaning towards a double forfeit result. If he didn't report the result to an arbiter, and made an unannounced withdrawal instead, then he arguably doesn't deserve to be awarded a win unless he has a good reason for withdrawing.

Although I'm not sure why an arbiter didn't immediately attend the game, given that one player was apparently making quite a lot of noise {"loud expressions of the great sorrow"} at the finish.

Garvinator
11-04-2021, 07:02 PM
Exactly. That's why I am leaning towards a double forfeit result. If he didn't report the result to an arbiter, and made an unannounced withdrawal instead, then he arguably doesn't deserve to be awarded a win unless he has a good reason for withdrawing.
Small technical point for those watching along at home.

The result would be recorded as a double loss: 0 - 0, not double forfeit - - -.

The difference being that with a forfeit, no colour is allocated. With a loss being recorded, for the player that is still continuing in the event, their white game counts towards their colour balance for the next round. If the result was recorded as a forfeit, then the 'white result' would not count.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2021, 07:31 PM
The result would be recorded as a double loss: 0 - 0, not double forfeit - - -.

Correct. Misuse of "forfeit" for these losses is a common issue, most often seen with "mobile phone forfeit" (most cases of which are defaults that count as played games and are rateable).

As for whether the result should be recorded 0-0, if the arbiter is satisfied that B won the game on time but the tournament has a condition that states that the player must report their result or score zero, then 0-0 is correct.

But it depends on the condition. For instance the one I most commonly announce for local events is that I will make the result 0-0 if the players didn't report it and I cannot find out what it was in time to pair the next round.

Patrick Byrom
11-04-2021, 10:50 PM
Small technical point for those watching along at home. The result would be recorded as a double loss: 0 - 0, not double forfeit - - -. The difference being that with a forfeit, no colour is allocated. With a loss being recorded, for the player that is still continuing in the event, their white game counts towards their colour balance for the next round. If the result was recorded as a forfeit, then the 'white result' would not count.Good point!

Interestingly, one of the players involved in the dispute played at the Brisbane Club when we were both there - it's a small world!

MichaelBaron
12-04-2021, 12:03 AM
Actually I like the idea of both getting 0! Makes sense since the other guy left without notifying the arbiter.

Eamonn O'Molloy
12-04-2021, 08:21 AM
I heard the discussion at the end of this game and spoke to the witness and there is no doubt that Player B claimed the win on time. Immediately after the game finished, I heard Player A insist several times to player B "you should have resigned". After that Player B decided to leave and said "it's your game". I interpreted this as more "I can't be bothered arguing, I'm going home, put it down as a win for you if you must, I don't care" rather than "you should have the point because you won the game".
Michael entered the result as a win for Player B but after Michael left Player A continued to plead with the other arbiters and they decided to give Player A the point. I questioned that decision and their reasoning was that the point should go to Player A because Player B didn't report the result.
This was clearly the wrong decision - everyone is in agreement that Player A ran out of time and Player B pointed out he had ran out of time - therefore the result was known.

Patrick Byrom
12-04-2021, 02:43 PM
I heard the discussion at the end of this game and spoke to the witness and there is no doubt that Player B claimed the win on time. Immediately after the game finished, I heard Player A insist several times to player B "you should have resigned". After that Player B decided to leave and said "it's your game". I interpreted this as more "I can't be bothered arguing, I'm going home, put it down as a win for you if you must, I don't care" rather than "you should have the point because you won the game".That raises the disturbing possibility that Player B was browbeaten into submission by player A, and possibly left the tournament as a result. And where
were the arbiters while this was going on?

Michael entered the result as a win for Player B but after Michael left Player A continued to plead with the other arbiters and they decided to give Player A the point. I questioned that decision and their reasoning was that the point should go to Player A because Player B didn't report the result. This was clearly the wrong decision - everyone is in agreement that Player A ran out of time and Player B pointed out he had ran out of time - therefore the result was known.Is this a MCC rule? Because it's not a FIDE one. At worst, as it seems clear now that Player B did claim a win on time, the result should be a double loss - you shouldn't win a game just because the other player fails to report their win.

MichaelBaron
12-04-2021, 03:03 PM
That raises the disturbing possibility that Player B was browbeaten into submission by player A, and possibly left the tournament as a result. And where
were the arbiters while this was going on?
Is this a MCC rule? Because it's not a FIDE one. At worst, as it seems clear now that Player B did claim a win on time, the result should be a double loss - you shouldn't win a game just because the other player fails to report their win.

I agree that the player who left the club was just plain annoyed by his opponent's rethorics and left club not to listen to it any more. However, he should have spoken to the arbiters and certainly not withdraw from the event without notifying anyone. I will definitely have a chat to him when I see him next.
Re double loss - makes sense!

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2021, 03:08 PM
A player should never berate an opponent for not resigning after the player has lost, by whatever means. The fact that the player has lost itself proves the opponent was entitled to play on.

Garvinator
12-04-2021, 03:41 PM
As this discussion evolves and more details are released, or more information is added, I am reminded of the recent discussion on the topic of whether it is a good idea or not to have a non playing arbiter in charge of an event.

These are exactly the type of situations where you need a decent, non playing arbiter in control of the event. They are then watching games that are short of time and when anything like this occurs, they are able to sort the matter out as it occurs.

Players also feel more inclined to bring any issues they have to the attention of a non playing arbiter, than they do to an arbiter who is in the middle of a game that potentially is in time trouble or similar.

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2021, 03:46 PM
It appears the event has multiple arbiters.
One of those should actually be the Chief Arbiter, preferably the one with best understanding of the FIDE Laws of Chess.

Ian Rout
12-04-2021, 04:06 PM
I'd be inclined to call it 0-1 (win to Player B) unless the club is habitually strict on not reporting results - although as he left the tournament it doesn't make any difference if it's 0-0.

* If the game has already been lost by Player A in regulation fashion then post-game shenanigans shouldn't change that, as it affects other players. It's not clear that Player B was resigning anyway, it may have just been an annoyed reaction to A's ungracious attitude. Had B instead said something like "Get stuffed" then I imagine A would have been less keen to take him up on it.

* The manner of reporting results is not a FIDE law but a local admin procedure. In general arbiters in not especially serious events aren't too pedantic about how they find out results.

* FIDE laws state that a player whose time expires loses. If expiry can't be established then the status quo (game continues) is the sensible interpretation. But while the laws identify circumstances where expiry is unarguable, they don't state the converse.

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2021, 04:26 PM
I'd be inclined to call it 0-1 (win to Player B) unless the club is habitually strict on not reporting results - although as he left the tournament it doesn't make any difference if it's 0-0.Player B was White so it would be 1-0 not 0-1.

MichaelBaron
12-04-2021, 04:37 PM
As this discussion evolves and more details are released, or more information is added, I am reminded of the recent discussion on the topic of whether it is a good idea or not to have a non playing arbiter in charge of an event.

These are exactly the type of situations where you need a decent, non playing arbiter in control of the event. They are then watching games that are short of time and when anything like this occurs, they are able to sort the matter out as it occurs.

Players also feel more inclined to bring any issues they have to the attention of a non playing arbiter, than they do to an arbiter who is in the middle of a game that potentially is in time trouble or similar.

It is a good idea, if such an arbiter can be found. Furthermore, we usually have an excellent playing CA (Alexei) but last Sat - he was away.

MichaelBaron
12-04-2021, 04:38 PM
I'd be inclined to call it 0-1 (win to Player B) unless the club is habitually strict on not reporting results - although as he left the tournament it doesn't make any difference if it's 0-0.

* If the game has already been lost by Player A in regulation fashion then post-game shenanigans shouldn't change that, as it affects other players. It's not clear that Player B was resigning anyway, it may have just been an annoyed reaction to A's ungracious attitude. Had B instead said something like "Get stuffed" then I imagine A would have been less keen to take him up on it.

* The manner of reporting results is not a FIDE law but a local admin procedure. In general arbiters in not especially serious events aren't too pedantic about how they find out results.

* FIDE laws state that a player whose time expires loses. If expiry can't be established then the status quo (game continues) is the sensible interpretation. But while the laws identify circumstances where expiry is unarguable, they don't state the converse.

given that the player just left the club rather than withdrew...probably he too deserves a 0 for the game he did not report result for.

Patrick Byrom
12-04-2021, 04:42 PM
...
* FIDE laws state that a player whose time expires loses. If expiry can't be established then the status quo (game continues) is the sensible interpretation. But while the laws identify circumstances where expiry is unarguable, they don't state the converse.DGT chess clocks (and I suspect most other modern ones) indicate which player's time expired first. DGTs can also be set to 'freeze' when a player runs out of time.

Patrick Byrom
12-04-2021, 04:56 PM
It is a good idea, if such an arbiter can be found. Furthermore, we usually have an excellent playing CA (Alexei) but last Sat - he was away.If there are four people willing to act as arbiter, then it just requires one of them to sit out each week. Or, with sixty players each week, another solution would be to increase weekly fees by one dollar, and then you have fifty dollars extra to pay someone to sit out. Surely there must be at least one suitable person in Melbourne who would find that tempting?

Although one of the playing arbiters should have stopped their clock and dealt with the situation.

Ian Rout
12-04-2021, 05:05 PM
given that the player just left the club rather than withdrew...probably he too deserves a 0 for the game he did not report result for.That's fine if any unreported result will be 0-0 even if you know what it is. It sounds like they didn't want to create that precedent, as well as giving A the point to shut him up.

MichaelBaron
12-04-2021, 05:14 PM
If there are four people willing to act as arbiter, then it just requires one of them to sit out each week. Or, with sixty players each week, another solution would be to increase weekly fees by one dollar, and then you have fifty dollars extra to pay someone to sit out. Surely there must be at least one suitable person in Melbourne who would find that tempting?

Although one of the playing arbiters should have stopped their clock and dealt with the situation.

re stopping the clock to deal with the situation: for this - the situation has to be reported by the players first. It came to my attention only after the game was completed and the result already entered.
RE paying arbiter. As I mentioned on the non-playing arbiting/playing arbiting thread - good arbiters are few and far between and I do not think many people are tempted to spend 5 hours of their time for $50 - Its more like people who love to be part of the chess scene rather than people who make living or even pocket money out of it.

Also, our usual (just not available in that particular week) playing IA is much more competent than any other arbiter that we can realistically find.

Patrick Byrom
12-04-2021, 05:39 PM
re stopping the clock to deal with the situation: for this - the situation has to be reported by the players first. It came to my attention only after the game was completed and the result already entered.Wasn't the loss accompanied by "loud expressions of the great sorrow"? None of the playing arbiters heard these?


RE paying arbiter. As I mentioned on the non-playing arbiting/playing arbiting thread - good arbiters are few and far between and I do not think many people are tempted to spend 5 hours of their time for $50 - Its more like people who love to be part of the chess scene rather than people who make living or even pocket money out of it.Those were exactly the people I had in mind!


Also, our usual (just not available in that particular week) playing IA is much more competent than any other arbiter that we can realistically find.I'm sure he's more competent than I would be as a playing arbiter. I'm not sure he's would be a better arbiter than me if he's playing and I'm not.

ER
12-04-2021, 07:20 PM
In MCC Allegro and blitz tournaments results are not reported as in telling the arbiter. We usually enter the results (the winner does) in the computer.
Some times people forget to do so and are chased by the person responsible for collecting results in order to proceed with next round's draw all in good and humorous approach!
I have never witnessed a controversy such as the one you guys are talking about at the club but shit happens. BTW as Michael says playing or not playing Aleksei is very efficient arbiter.

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2021, 08:21 PM
Those were exactly the people I had in mind!But not the people you want if they really arenít competent to be an arbiter.

MichaelBaron
12-04-2021, 10:29 PM
But not the people you want if they really arenít competent to be an arbiter.

At MCC we are privileged to have Alexei. Then there are also 2 other highly reputable arbiters currently residing in Victoria and ''active'' or at least ''semi-active'' with chess arbiting. As for the majority of the club arbiters...I have some stories to tell about events happening in the clubs including some events from the year 2021...but let's leave it up to those clubs.

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2021, 10:54 PM
At MCC we are privileged to have Alexei. Then there are also 2 other highly reputable arbiters currently residing in Victoria and ''active'' or at least ''semi-active'' with chess arbiting. As for the majority of the club arbiters...I have some stories to tell about events happening in the clubs including some events from the year 2021...but let's leave it up to those clubs.Just to be clear, my comment wasn’t directed towards Alexei.
Maybe I misinterpreted Patrick’s statement and I should have been clearer.
I was trying to suggest you need people who actually know how to arbit and not just someone who is willing to give it a go.

Bill Gletsos
12-04-2021, 11:02 PM
I have some stories to tell about events happening in the clubs including some events from the year 2021...but let's leave it up to those clubs.You had no problem last year of identifying a player and accusing them of cheating, so why are you so reticent now and choose to stay silent.

MichaelBaron
13-04-2021, 11:54 AM
You had no problem last year of identifying a player and accusing them of cheating, so why are you so reticent now and choose to stay silent.

That player was cheating a) against me b) in the tournament where i was a participant and i did have access to all of his games. Needless to say - he was (eventually!) disqualified!

Re events that I did not witness, I would rather not bring names to light. But here we go, one particular event that happened in a tournament where a chess student of mine was playing (and It was NOT Melbourne Chess Club, it was ANOTHER club - it would never happen at MCC):
A player's phone starts ringing during the game. He answers the phone in front of the arbiter and goes outside to take the phone call. Then he comes back to continue with the game. I checked - it was an ACF rated event.
P.S. his opponents did complain to the arbiter and organiser and the club president as well.

MichaelBaron
13-04-2021, 11:56 AM
I was trying to suggest you need people who actually know how to arbit and not just someone who is willing to give it a go.

Bill, in your view, how many people in Australia know how to arbit professionally right now? And how many of the clubs (particularly smaller clubs) have such people available and if not - realistically attract such professional arbiters?

Bill Gletsos
13-04-2021, 03:53 PM
That player was cheating a) against me b) in the tournament where i was a participant and i did have access to all of his games. Needless to say - he was (eventually!) disqualified!

Re events that I did not witness, I would rather not bring names to light. But here we go, one particular event that happened in a tournament where a chess student of mine was playing (and It was NOT Melbourne Chess Club, it was ANOTHER club - it would never happen at MCC):
A player's phone starts ringing during the game. He answers the phone in front of the arbiter and goes outside to take the phone call. Then he comes back to continue with the game. I checked - it was an ACF rated event.
P.S. his opponents did complain to the arbiter and organiser and the club president as well.If arbiters are not following the FIDE Laws of Chess for rated tournaments then for ACF rated events players should complain to their State Rating Officer (as they submit the results for ACF rating) or to directly to me. For FIDE rated tournaments they should complain to me.

Andrew Hardegen
13-04-2021, 03:55 PM
I heard the discussion at the end of this game and spoke to the witness and there is no doubt that Player B claimed the win on time.

That makes it clear. Since B has made a valid claim of a win on time, the result is a win to Player B (1-0). Michael's original decision was correct.

Whatever happens after the game has no bearing on the result of the game. Even if Player B were to specifically say "I resign" during the post-game discussion, this wouldn't be accepted, as the game has already finished.

If Player B leaves the tournament without notice, he scores no points for the remaining rounds but does not lose the points that he has already earned. So the score of 0-0 makes no sense unless it is stated in the tournament rules that players must inform the arbiter of their results. Of course the rateable games that Player B has played in rounds 1-6 should be rated.


Immediately after the game finished, I heard Player A insist several times to player B "you should have resigned". After that Player B decided to leave and said "it's your game". I interpreted this as more "I can't be bothered arguing, I'm going home, put it down as a win for you if you must, I don't care" rather than "you should have the point because you won the game".


From your account, Player B did not even specifically say "I resign". Language can be misconstrued. While anything said after the completion of the game is less relevant to the result, the remark "it's your game" should not have been accepted by anyone as an expression of a wish to resign. In addition to your eyewitness interpretation, "it's your game" could possibly be intended as (i) an expression of sympathy, or (ii) straightforward advice to Player A that he needs to first win by valid means to score points and that Player A is responsible for his own results, or (iii) a derisive remark, etc.

Andrew Hardegen
13-04-2021, 04:00 PM
* The manner of reporting results is not a FIDE law but a local admin procedure. In general arbiters in not especially serious events aren't too pedantic about how they find out results.

There is 8.7 which seems close to covering the reporting of results, but it applies only when players are keeping score, hence not to most club allegros.


8.7
At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

Patrick Byrom
13-04-2021, 04:05 PM
Bill, in your view, how many people in Australia know how to arbit professionally right now? And how many of the clubs (particularly smaller clubs) have such people available and if not - realistically attract such professional arbiters?The allegro events at the MCC are about the same size as the current events at the Brisbane Club, and we now have two paid arbiters, neither of whom play. Your allegros would require much more supervision, because there is more than one game per session. Although they are not being ACF-rated.

I know relatively little about how the MCC works, and I'm not trying to tell you how to run your club. But I was very surprised that all of your arbiters were playing when the dispute occurred, as I'd assumed that at least one was a non-playing arbiter. In the past, I've tried playing and arbitering in the same event, and I find that both suffer as a result.

Andrew Hardegen
13-04-2021, 04:16 PM
re stopping the clock to deal with the situation: for this - the situation has to be reported by the players first.

It is not true in general that the irregularity has to be reported by a player first. FIDE Laws permit the arbiter to intervene in a game in any case described by the Laws of Chess. He doesn't need to wait for a report from a player.

Some other players and arbiters that I have met at non-ACF-rated junior tournaments have told me something similarly at odds with the FIDE stance: that the arbiter is not allowed to intervene unless requested by a player. Is this a club rule or has it been brought in from some other source?

According to FIDE, the arbiter needs to observe the games, see that the Laws of Chess are followed and applied, and also:


12.2

The arbiter shall:

12.2.1 ensure fair play,

12.2.2 act in the best interest of the competition,

12.2.3 ensure that a good playing environment is maintained,

12.2.4 ensure that the players are not disturbed,

12.2.5 supervise the progress of the competition,

12.2.6 take special measures in the interests of disabled players and those who need medical attention,

12.2.7 follow the Anti-Cheating Rules or Guidelines

Intervening to mediate a dispute between two players, over a game just played, would be justified and expected under any of 12.2.1-12.2.5. I don't think anyone should mind if a playing arbiter stops his clock to deal with something like this.

MichaelBaron
13-04-2021, 11:07 PM
If arbiters are not following the FIDE Laws of Chess for rated tournaments then for ACF rated events players should complain to their State Rating Officer (as they submit the results for ACF rating) or to directly to me. For FIDE rated tournaments they should complain to me.

thank you, I will pass the message on.

MichaelBaron
13-04-2021, 11:09 PM
The allegro events at the MCC are about the same size as the current events at the Brisbane Club, and we now have two paid arbiters, neither of whom play. Your allegros would require much more supervision, because there is more than one game per session. Although they are not being ACF-rated.

I know relatively little about how the MCC works, and I'm not trying to tell you how to run your club. But I was very surprised that all of your arbiters were playing when the dispute occurred, as I'd assumed that at least one was a non-playing arbiter. In the past, I've tried playing and arbitering in the same event, and I find that both suffer as a result.

Should also be noted that disputes are very rare. Certainly do not happen weekly. Most weeks, not even a single dispute and most weeks we have a very competent chief arbiter who also plays...but it does not seem to be a problem. I am pretty sure, should we get some other (not playing) arbiter of a lower calibre -things will only get worse.

Andrew Hardegen
15-04-2021, 01:13 PM
Should also be noted that disputes are very rare. Certainly do not happen weekly.

But when disputes do happen, they galvanise some useful discussion in Arbiters' Corner, so thanks for sharing! :)