Arbiting question and rating gap

[Joseph Conlon]

I ran an event at the weekend and have both an arbiting and more frivolous question.

The arbiting question: White picks up Ra1 intending to move to Rf1, accidentally drops it on Rb1 losing contact, immediately picks it up again to move to Rf1.

Both players agreed on the facts and that the dropping on b1 was clearly accidental; Black's claim was that White has to play Rb1 (as Black had a rook on b2, and was a rook down at this point, the decision mattered)

My ruling was that Rb1 was played, grounds being (a) 4.2.2 refers to clearly accidental contact, but makes no reference to clearly accidental loss of contact (whether it SHOULD refer to this being moot for this purpose) (b) 4.7 is clear and does not seem to allow exceptions.

Opinions?

The more frivolous question is that in the same section, the rating gap between the top seed and the next player was almost 1000 ECF points (982 to be precise). Are there similar examples?

[Ian Thompson]

You should have applied Law 7.4.1.

[NickFaulks]

Both players agreed on the facts and that the dropping on b1 was clearly accidental; Black's claim was that White has to play Rb1

Was Black genuinely claiming the game ( in effect ), rather than just making a point that the Laws are faulty? If the former, then Black should be shamed by his peers into never playing again.

I think I remember a case where Jon Speelman was the unwilling beneficiary of a perverse arbiter's ruling and cut through it by offering a draw on the spot.

[David Sedgwick]

My ruling was that Rb1 was played, grounds being (a) 4.2.2 refers to clearly accidental contact, but makes no reference to clearly accidental loss of contact (whether it SHOULD refer to this being moot for this purpose) (b) 4.7 is clear and does not seem to allow exceptions.

I think that you should have allowed White to play Rf1, applying one of the tenets of the Preface:

"Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws."

[Joseph Conlon]

Both players agreed on the facts and that the dropping on b1 was clearly accidental; Black's claim was that White has to play Rb1

Was Black genuinely claiming the game ( in effect ), rather than just making a point that the Laws are faulty? If the former, then Black should be shamed by his peers into never playing again.

I think I remember a case where Jon Speelman was the unwilling beneficiary of a perverse arbiter's ruling and cut through it by offering a draw on the spot.

Black was a rook down, so this brought Black to parity. Touch-move claims and illegal move claims, in every possible variety, are common in junior chess; I think your approach is rather draconian.

[David Sedgwick]

I think I remember a case where Jon Speelman was the unwilling beneficiary of a perverse arbiter's ruling and cut through it by offering a draw on the spot.

You are correct except that I do not accept that the arbiter's ruling was perverse. Quite the contrary.

[NickFaulks]

You are correct except that I do not accept that the arbiter's ruling was perverse. Quite the contrary.

It is not clear from my post whether it is the arbiter or the ruling which is being described as perverse . Either way, that is probably unfair. If the Laws do not give the arbiter discretion to allow a piece to be immediately j'adoubed to the square where both players agree it was intended to be, then I think they should.

[NickFaulks]

The more frivolous question is that in the same section, the rating gap between the top seed and the next player was almost 1000 ECF points (982 to be precise). Are there similar examples?

Yes. A few years ago two Ukrainian masters found themselves close to the top of ( separately ) the rapid and blitz rating lists. All they had done was to play in local tournaments where they were overwhelmingly the best player and win all of their games, which at that time gave them buckets of rating points.* However, FIDE Council deemed this to be cheating, they were both punished and their federation was censured by a unanimous vote of the General Assembly. So you have to be careful!

Actually, even if your event had been FIDE rated I expect you would be ok, provided that your federation is not out of favour with FIDE. That seems to be the crucial consideration in such cases.

*One good outcome from this sad affair was that we finally managed to push through an amendment to the regulations which removed this feature. I had wanted that for years, but had been stymied by a small but influential federation which had been relying heavily on the mechanism.

[Joseph Conlon]

Actually, even if your event had been FIDE rated I expect you would be ok, provided that your federation is not out of favour with FIDE. That seems to be the crucial consideration in such cases.

*One good outcome from this sad affair was that we finally managed to push through an amendment to the regulations which removed this feature. I had wanted that for years, but had been stymied by a small but influential federation which had been relying heavily on the mechanism.

I hope it's OK, as the event will be FIDE rated! It was an U18 event, the player in question is local and entered along with others from his school (where the event was advertised).

Despite the rating gap, one of the games was far far closer than it had any right to be, with an unrated player entering the endgame actually better (before finally losing).