So who should get a Point?

[Ian Rout]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
* 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Those were exactly the people I had in mind!

But not the people you want if they really aren’t competent to be an arbiter.

[MichaelBaron]

But not the people you want if they really aren’t 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]

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]

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]

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.