PDA

View Full Version : Arbiter's qualifications



Vlad
28-11-2009, 06:30 PM
I would be grateful if somebody could tell me what are the requirements for qualifications for arbiters at a) FIDE rated events, b) IM-norm events.

My understanding is that for IM-norm tournament the arbiter has to be IA. Any requirements for FIDE-rated events? Thanks.

lost
29-11-2009, 06:31 AM
I would be grateful if somebody could tell me what are the requirements for qualifications for arbiters at a) FIDE rated events, b) IM-norm events.

My understanding is that for IM-norm tournament the arbiter has to be IA. Any requirements for FIDE-rated events? Thanks.

Hi Vlad,

The requirements for FIDE rated events only is to have four FIDE rated events with an understanding of the laws of chess.

However for norm events, preferably a IA should do it however an FA or untitled arbiter can do this but needs to be signed off by an active IA.

lost

Oepty
29-11-2009, 08:26 PM
Hi Vlad,

The requirements for FIDE rated events only is to have four FIDE rated events with an understanding of the laws of chess.

However for norm events, preferably a IA should do it however an FA or untitled arbiter can do this but needs to be signed off by an active IA.

lost

I had vague memories of it being something like this but could not find it in the FIDE handbook. Do you know where it is in the FIDE handbook?
Scott

lost
29-11-2009, 11:27 PM
I had vague memories of it being something like this but could not find it in the FIDE handbook. Do you know where it is in the FIDE handbook?
Scott

Hi Scott,

Here is the link to arbiter regulations on the FIDE website: http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=14&view=category

lost

Bill Gletsos
29-11-2009, 11:50 PM
Hi Scott,

Here is the link to arbiter regulations on the FIDE website: http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=14&view=category

lostThose are the requirements for someone to get the FA and IA titles.

They are not the requirements for someone to be able to be the arbiter of a FIDE rated event or a FIDE norm event, which is what Vlad was asking.

Garvinator
30-11-2009, 02:30 PM
I would be grateful if somebody could tell me what are the requirements for qualifications for arbiters at a) FIDE rated events, b) IM-norm events.

My understanding is that for IM-norm tournament the arbiter has to be IA. Any requirements for FIDE-rated events? Thanks.
From the fide handbook.

1.0. Requirements for the titles designated in 0.31, which covers the IM norm tournament you are asking about.


1.1 Administration

1.11 Play shall be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess and FIDE Tournament Rules. Minor deviations may be permitted by the Technical Commission Chairman.

The tournament system must be a fair one. Tournaments where the composition is changed (without FIDE approval) during the tournament or those where players have different conditions in terms of rounds and pairing are not valid. The tournament must be registered at least 30 days in advance on the FIDE server, and all details of the tournament must be published in the FIDE calendar.

1.12 There must be no more than twelve hours play in one day. This is calculated based on games that last 60 moves, although games played using increments may last longer.
1.13 That no more than two rounds be played on any one day.

1.14 The tournament must be played by using one of the following rates of play:

90 minutes with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from first move. (This time control is valid only until 30.6.2010.)
90 minutes for 40 moves + 30 minutes with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from the first move.
100 minutes for 40 moves followed by 50 minutes for 20 moves, then 15 minutes for the remaining moves with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from first move.
40 moves in 2 hours followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game.
40 moves in 2 hours followed by 60 minutes for the rest of the game.
40 moves in 2 hours followed by 20 moves in 1 hour followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game.

1.15 Normally only events played in a period of at most 90 days are permitted. Leagues and national team championships of a longer duration are permitted. The QC Chairman may give prior approval to tournaments lasting longer than 90 days.

1.16 Calculating the norm requirements for an event which lasts longer than 90 days can be done in two ways. Which system is used must be stipulated prior to the event and mentioned in all publicity and indicated on all norm certificates IT1.
The same system as in B.02.4.12 must be used for calculating rating changes.
(a) The Rating List at the start of the competition shall be used, or
(b) The opponents’ ratings at the date the game is played shall be used.

1.17 The tournament shall be conducted by an International Arbiter, failing that, by a FIDE Arbiter.

Vlad
30-11-2009, 04:21 PM
Thanks everybody for his/her input. My understanding that the correction to my original statement is that for an IM-norm event FA is enough. The statement that FIDE-rated event has no restriction on arbiter's qualifications is valid according to everybody who posted here.

antichrist
17-06-2011, 03:13 PM
I never study chess.

AC
And you are an arbiter? I can't believe it. That is what I was on about earlier somewhere that arbiters should at least a decent rating, esp when arbiter fees are involved, or in an important comp or when deciding a position is necessary.

Garrett
17-06-2011, 03:20 PM
That is what I was on about earlier somewhere that arbiters should at least a decent rating, esp when arbiter fees are involved, or in an important comp or when deciding a position is necessary.

That is probably a reasonable point.

Oepty
17-06-2011, 03:38 PM
That is probably a reasonable point.

What is a high enough rating then? Where would you put the cutoff point?

antichrist
17-06-2011, 03:42 PM
What is a high enough rating then? Where would you put the cutoff point?


According to Bill when I was commenting on Lane Vs Rogers it should be at least 2200. My guess is at least 2000 if lone arbiter like it is usually assumed. Or 2100 in past years of play, doesn't really matter if dropped down to below that currently.

Bill Gletsos
17-06-2011, 04:35 PM
According to Bill when I was commenting on Lane Vs Rogers it should be at least 2200. My guess is at least 2000 if lone arbiter like it is usually assumed. Or 2100 in past years of play, doesn't really matter if dropped down to below that currently.As is the usual case you have it all wrong.
I suggested you needed to be 2200 to fully understand aspects of games played by GM's and IM's.
I never suggested that an arbiter needs to be 2200.

Oepty
17-06-2011, 05:30 PM
AC you have no idea what you are ****ing talking about. Go and spread your shit somewhere else.

antichrist
17-06-2011, 05:45 PM
AC you have no idea what you are ****ing talking about. Go and spread your shit somewhere else.

Well any decent comp would have at least one IM trying to get the prize money or someone similarly rated as an IM.

Also my answer was partially qualified by my earlier post : "esp when arbiter fees are involved, or in an important comp or when deciding a position is necessary."

So if you are arbitering down Billy Goat Lane for school children is it okay if you are below 2000, but if FIDE-rated I strongly recommend 2100.

You should have consideration for the players rated 2100 that they would want an arbiter as least the same standard or higher than themselves, because they may have paid good money to enter the comp and good prize money, ratings and norms could depend on crucial decisions by arbiters.

I will forgive you for being rude to me because I am happy and in love.

When you consider that KB objected to Fritz 6 and it's rating deciding a position in arbiting he also sets the standard high.

antichrist
17-06-2011, 06:01 PM
As is the usual case you have it all wrong.
I suggested you needed to be 2200 to fully understand aspects of games played by GM's and IM's.
I never suggested that an arbiter needs to be 2200.

But the implication is certainly there, you did not have to say it.

Bill Gletsos
17-06-2011, 07:28 PM
But the implication is certainly there, you did not have to say it.Your cluelessness is not my problem.
There is no implication there at all.

Kevin Bonham
17-06-2011, 09:34 PM
When you consider that KB objected to Fritz 6 and it's rating deciding a position in arbiting he also sets the standard high.

You keep banging on with this line but you keep ignoring the fact that an arbiter does not have to adjudicate a position. If increments are used then all an arbiter (who knows all the rules) needs to think about is whether checkmate is mathematically possible (and he only has to think about that if in some situations).

If it's a guillotine finish then the arbiter may have to rule on whether or not a player can win by "normal means" (10.2 draw claim rule) but if you understand that rule then you don't need to be a very strong player to assess that. Understanding the rule is the hard part, assessing it is usually easy.

In the days of adjudication arbiters who were also adjudicators needed to be strong players. Even then they could still get it wrong, and these are good reasons why it is good that the present rules are written so that arbiters do not need to be strong players.

In the case I objected to an organiser was proposing that if games didn't finish by a certain time then Fritz would be used to adjudicate, and if Fritz showed a big advantage to one side then it would be a win, otherwise a draw. I objected mainly because I think adjudication is a bad idea no matter how good or bad the adjudicator. But it's worth noting there are still many positions computers are clueless about. One of these came up in a super-GM game this year when many computers were showing +5 or +7 but the position was actually drawn. The reason for this was that the line that caused the high result led to a drawn queen vs pawn ending.

Please give this utter tripe about arbiters needing to be strong players a rest. Preferably a permanent one. :hand:

antichrist
18-06-2011, 09:08 AM
Can you elaborate exactly on mathematically possible please? I can guess but can decide better if know well.

Now the other crucial point. In the debate about Tornelo and other CG issues, you absolutely refused to utter a word (even under pain of lashings) due to a perceived conflict of interest. But in this thread, (because you can't control yourself when comes to AC) you have thrown that scrouple out the window and come out with six guns firing.

Now who is a professional arbiter, perhaps the only know in the isle? Whose rating is below 2100? Who would lose out if such a rating was required to rate decent events?
Who has a financial interest if 1800-rated players can arbit comps in tourney? Now you join the dots..................

Rincewind
18-06-2011, 10:19 AM
Can you elaborate exactly on mathematically possible please? I can guess but can decide better if know well.

A number of the Laws of Chess swing on the possibility of there being a series of legal moves that can lead to mate. See for example Laws 5.2(b), 6.9, 7.4(b), 9.6 and 12.3(b). As the moves don't have to be reasonable, just legal, the arbiter does not need any more positional competence than is necessary to construct a possible help mate from a given position. In fact it is easier than this because apart from a very small number of mostly artificial exceptions and bona fide stalemates - the answer to this question depends only on the material and not the position on the board.

antichrist
18-06-2011, 12:14 PM
............ the arbiter does not need any more positional competence than is necessary to construct a possible help mate from a given position

Okay and any lowly-rated player can do this can they? That is what you bods think.

Now when I was DOP player B of about 2150 rating was seeking a draw on whatever rule as he was running out of time and the position was a draw. I looked at the board and seen about 10 bods still there both sides of equal value I think. maybe 4 pawns and minor piece only guessing now of course. Both sides pawns were in row 2 & 3 respectively.

So I consulted another player of about 2050 rating his opinion, he stated that there was still too much play in the game, so I declined to rule a draw. PLayer B took it in good stead as he knew I was just putting on comps out of generosity.

Well lo & behold after the game he reconstructed the position and burn his bum he showed me how all those pawns locked up etc etc and quite possibly or for sure a draw.

So there are a few lessons to be learnt from this tale. That under guillotine rules that are still legal to use, that highly-rated arbiters are necessary. That it can be very unfair if such are not available for important competitions.

That due to the top players are against enshrining increment time permanently in FIDE rules that guillotine time could be here forever.

That maybe there should be two different categories of arbiters, one for increment and one for guillotine flagfall.

antichrist
18-06-2011, 12:23 PM
Your cluelessness is not my problem.
There is no implication there at all.

Well if one cannot fully understand aspects of games played by GM's and IM's how can they arbit them?

Like that art prize the other day, he said eanie meanie minie mo to choose the winner, and the art world went mad at him.

Is that what you recommend for arbiters who are below playing form?

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2011, 01:15 PM
Can you elaborate exactly on mathematically possible please? I can guess but can decide better if know well.

Sometimes one player's flag falls and their opponent has very few pieces left. In such situations (unless it is a guillotine finish and a draw has been claimed) then whether the opponent wins on time or not depends on whether it is in theory possible for checkmate to occur from that position.

For instance if the position is King and Queen vs King and Knight and the player's flag falls who has the King and Queen then it is a draw as checkmate is not possible from that position with any series of legal moves (no matter how stupid those moves).

But if it is King and Queen and pawn vs King and Knight and the same thing happens then it is a win on time for the King and Knight since it is in theory possible that the player who has the pawn could underpromote it, move his king and his new piece into the corner and get checkmated by the King and Knight.


Now the other crucial point.

Which we can tell in advance won't be. :lol:


In the debate about Tornelo and other CG issues, you absolutely refused to utter a word (even under pain of lashings) due to a perceived conflict of interest.

Check the more recent Tornelo/CG threads and you will see this is no longer the case. ChessGuru crossed some lines with some personal comments about me on here in late March, as a result of which I no longer spare his comments from any criticism or praise I think they deserve just on account of having worked for him. Those were not cases where COI made it inappropriate for me to ever comment, rather, they were cases where I thought it made it diplomatic not to. CG does not share that view of diplomacy when it comes to people he has a business relationship with and therefore I am no longer returing it.

COI still applies, however, when it comes to me moderating anything he has posted.


Now who is a professional arbiter, perhaps the only know in the isle? Whose rating is below 2100? Who would lose out if such a rating was required to rate decent events?
Who has a financial interest if 1800-rated players can arbit comps in tourney? Now you join the dots..................

And make a picture of a troll with its pet goose and write "They both look like Peter Hanna".

The tournaments that I am paid to run are not your so-called "decent events"; they are interschool tournaments for juniors where all the games are played at 15 minutes per player. (And as it happens at this moment my rapid rating is not below 2100. :owned: ) When I run weekenders and so on I do it for free.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2011, 01:30 PM
Okay and any lowly-rated player can do this can they? That is what you bods think.

Now when I was DOP player B of about 2150 rating was seeking a draw on whatever rule as he was running out of time and the position was a draw. I looked at the board and seen about 10 bods still there both sides of equal value I think. maybe 4 pawns and minor piece only guessing now of course. Both sides pawns were in row 2 & 3 respectively.

So I consulted another player of about 2050 rating his opinion, he stated that there was still too much play in the game, so I declined to rule a draw. PLayer B took it in good stead as he knew I was just putting on comps out of generosity.

Well lo & behold after the game he reconstructed the position and burn his bum he showed me how all those pawns locked up etc etc and quite possibly or for sure a draw.

So there are a few lessons to be learnt from this tale. That under guillotine rules that are still legal to use, that highly-rated arbiters are necessary. That it can be very unfair if such are not available for important competitions.

The problem here is not your strength as a player but that you do not fully understand the rule. Actually your decision at the time was correct but your attempt to make something out of what the player showed you is wrong.

The rules do not allow the player to claim a draw just because the position is a draw. They can only claim a draw because the opponent cannot win by "normal means". So the fact that the player thought it was a draw is irrelevant and the fact that he could provide analysis supposedly showing it is a draw is irrelevant. Even if it is actually a forced draw (which it very likely is) that is also irrelevant.

The 2050 player had it right - even although that position would be a draw with best play, there is too much play in it to declare it drawn. And even a 1500 player who understands the meaning of the draw claim rule would know that you do not declare such positions drawn. You tell the players to play on until a flag falls. If the player who claimed a draw is the player whose flag fell, and the game has not finished some other way, then you look at the moves that have been made and the final position.

If at that point you reckon the opponent was trying to win, and if you think there is still any sort of play in the final position (even if it looks like a forced draw) then it's a win on time for the opponent. If the opponent has just been piece-shuffling or the final position is clearly a completely easy draw for the player whose flag fell (even allowing for fairly bad mistakes) then you can call it a draw. You don't have to decide whether the position is a forced win or not. A 1500 player who understands the rule can apply it correctly. If the position is clearly dead drawn and the player whose flag fell knows it is dead drawn then he will have demonstrated the drawing method in the time between claiming the draw and his flag falling.


That due to the top players are against enshrining increment time permanently in FIDE rules that guillotine time could be here forever.

Are they? Guillotine flagfalls are very rarely seen at the top level these days; even in armageddon playoffs they are becoming unfashionable.

Rincewind
18-06-2011, 01:53 PM
Okay and any lowly-rated player can do this can they? That is what you bods think.

In the example you cite the series of legal moves rule does not apply since as far as I can tell from your potted description the player was making a claim under the Quickplay Finish Law (10) which is much less relevant these days due to the ubiquity of increment time controls.

Judging by your information it sounds like there may have been no win by best play however there was a win by normal means and so the right thing was to deny the draw claim.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2011, 02:36 PM
I'd say players rated under 1000 probably shouldn't be making rulings on 10.2s. A 1200 player should be OK if they understand the rule well enough.

Bill Gletsos
18-06-2011, 04:43 PM
Well if one cannot fully understand aspects of games played by GM's and IM's how can they arbit them?

Like that art prize the other day, he said eanie meanie minie mo to choose the winner, and the art world went mad at him.

Is that what you recommend for arbiters who are below playing form?You are simply clueless and a waste of time.

Denis_Jessop
19-06-2011, 02:20 PM
Well if one cannot fully understand aspects of games played by GM's and IM's how can they arbit them?

Like that art prize the other day, he said eanie meanie minie mo to choose the winner, and the art world went mad at him.

Is that what you recommend for arbiters who are below playing form?

AC, My Dear Chap, the two things don't follow. As you may know, Marcel Duchamp was a strong chess player and played for France's Olympiad team before WWII. You may also know that Duchamp created art motifs by recording the shape made by a metre-long piece of string dropped from a metre height on three occasions - his three standard stoppages. He then used these shapes, created by chance, in some of his art works. But this does not mean that he knew nothing about Ponziani's Opening or the Opposition in the end game. :eek:

DJ

antichrist
27-06-2011, 12:57 PM
Thankyou everyone! I enjoy that time control . I offered Yi Liu a draw in the last round after going a bit wrong in the opening, and impressively he played on. He only went wrong in the tactics later. Darryl and I had a crazy opening leading to a very unusual ending, and then he offered a draw which I was very happy to accept as I thought I was slightly worse. He said he thought he was much worse! I didn't know much about the opening against Max and then he gave away the exchange for not much, after which it was a lot easier for me.

AC
And if this "questionable" judgement of position is at GM strength what hope does a 1600-rated player (for eg) arbiter have of adjudication arbiting?

I think Bill is correct - one needs to be 2200-rated to know what it is really about.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2011, 01:01 PM
And if this "questionable" judgement of position is at GM strength what hope does a 1600-rated player (for eg) arbiter have of adjudication arbiting?

Once again you miss the point that there is no "adjudication arbiting" anymore.

antichrist
27-06-2011, 01:06 PM
Once again you miss the point that there is no "adjudication arbiting" anymore.

If the Sydney Easter Cup gets revived there may very well be and didn't that Redcliffe comp use it recently?

I would not be paying good money for a tinpot-rated arbiter to come out and make a mess of things.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2011, 01:22 PM
If the Sydney Easter Cup gets revived there may very well be and didn't that Redcliffe comp use it recently?

There is no mention of them doing so anywhere that I can see. Unless you can substantiate it with detail I am tempted to delete your claim as it may reflect unfairly on them.

If you are referring to 10.2 draw claims for guillotines then keep in mind that that is not adjudication but is much easier if you understand the rule. See my post above (#23) on this.

As for true adjudication, if it is employed then the ACF will not rate the tournament.

antichrist
27-06-2011, 01:31 PM
There is no mention of them doing so anywhere that I can see. Unless you can substantiate it with detail I am tempted to delete your claim as it may reflect unfairly on them.

If you are referring to 10.2 draw claims for guillotines then keep in mind that that is not adjudication but is much easier if you understand the rule. See my post above (#23) on this.

As for true adjudication, if it is employed then the ACF will not rate the tournament.

I may have read one of those tourney details too quickly - I cant find that guillotine finish I thought I had read ealier. off to surf whilst still perfect weather