Arbiter question

[Wadih Khoury]

Last weekend I was at a tournament where there was a lengthy debate between a player and the arbiters.

Some of the facts, keeping in mind that the sequence was unclear

• White had a king and pawn. Black king and knight
• White offered a draw which was accepted by black
• White had likely flagged when the offer was made
• A spectator had loudly pointed out at the flag (it was a rapid with lots of juniors)
• An arbiter observed the flag and declared black winner as there is a series of legal moves that would allow him to win

The arbiter only focused on explaining the last bullet point to the player who was quite upset as a draw was accepted.

Am I however correct in thinking that the main thing that matters in this dispute is whether the arbiter observed the flag before or after the draw offer was accepted?

According to the laws of chess, a game ends when a draw offer is accepted or when an arbiter "observes the fact". So whichever comes first is the one that counts.
Further confusion can occur if the arbiter did not hear acceptance of the draw as he cannot then say which event occurred first. On this case, how should he rule?

Am I correct in my interpretation?

[Rich Wiltshir]

Spotting a flag fall is either the player's responsibility or the arbiter's.
Spectators are not participants (even in team events when there's likely no arbiter in attendance0.
Grrr with a capital G to the interfering spectator.

[Wadih Khoury]

Spotting a flag fall is either the player's responsibility or the arbiter's.
Spectators are not participants (even in team events when there's likely no arbiter in attendance0.
Grrr with a capital G to the interfering spectator.

Agreed.
While it was annoying, I think in this scenario the spectator is irrelevant, whether he was the one who brought the flag to the attention of the arbiter or not. I am checking whether my interpretation is correct that what matters is the sequence between acceptance of the draw and observation of the flag by the arbiter. And what happens if the arbiter can't determine the sequence.

[Reg Clucas]

Article 5.2.3 states that agreement of a draw immediately ends the game. So I believe this means it should be irrelevant whether a flag has fallen if neither player has made a claim to that effect.

[Joey Stewart]

Definitely should have been a draw if it was agreed by the players, and furthermore the arbiter should be named and shamed for such an appalling decision so that he is never allowed to control an event again!

[Wadih Khoury]

Article 5.2.3 states that agreement of a draw immediately ends the game. So I believe this means it should be irrelevant whether a flag has fallen if neither player has made a claim to that effect.

But 6.8 states

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.

And 6.9 then explains whether it is a loss or draw.

So if the arbiter observed the flag, the game ends. Any subsequent player agreement to draw is void, no?

[Adam Raoof]

Article 5.2.3 states that agreement of a draw immediately ends the game. So I believe this means it should be irrelevant whether a flag has fallen if neither player has made a claim to that effect.

But 6.8 states

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.

And 6.9 then explains whether it is a loss or draw.

So if the arbiter observed the flag, the game ends. Any subsequent player agreement to draw is void, no?

Agreed.

[NickFaulks]

So if the arbiter observed the flag, the game ends.

This rule, which I know is in the Laws ( having argued against it ), really annoys me. The result of a game should not depend upon whether an arbiter is by chance in the vicinity.

It can get worse - what if it isn't by chance? Suppose both players are very short of tome, one of them is trying to bash out a win but their flag falls. Neither is paying any attention to the clock. A friend of the other player grabs an arbiter and says "you have to come and look at board 14, something bad is happening". What is the arbiter supposed to do?

As a general rule, I wish arbiters would not intervene ( or be required to intervene ) when two players who know what they are doing are quite happy for the game to proceed to a result which they both accept, and without outside interference.

[Reg Clucas]

So if the arbiter observed the flag, the game ends. Any subsequent player agreement to draw is void, no?

Well, yes, but your original post implies that the draw agreement was before the flag fall was noticed, not subsequent.

[Roger Lancaster]

This simply boils down to whether the players agreed the draw before the arbiter noticed the flag fall. It's as straightforward as that.

[Wadih Khoury]

So if the arbiter observed the flag, the game ends. Any subsequent player agreement to draw is void, no?

Well, yes, but your original post implies that the draw agreement was before the flag fall was noticed, not subsequent.

I mentioned at the beginning that the sequence was unclear.
I am pretty convinced that the arbiter who was nearby only spotted the flag because of the spectator and it is unclear whether the draw had been accepted by that point.

Also want to know what happens if the arbiter doesn't know whether he observed before or after the draw was agreed (I personally think he should be reasonable and validate the draw, but I'd like to know what is the actual law) .

[IM Jack Rudd]

I think this is a rules hole, and the relevant law is Law 0.2.

[Paul McKeown]

Literally by the Laws, if the arbiter saw the flag fall before the agreement of the draw being made, then the game was won and lost. However, as an arbiter, I would think carefully before pissing off both players in one game; it's bad enough when you have to piss off one. If nothing was at stake, I would let it ride, as I see part of the role of an arbiter as maximising the opportunity of all playing to have a pleasurable experience, and arbiters sticking their oar in uninvited does not aid in that. If the interests of a third party were affected, however, then I would enforce the official position.

[Joseph Conlon]

Late to this one, but it seems that if the arbiter is watching, the arbiter should step in immediately the flag is down. If the arbiter watches the flag fall, and then allows play to (apparently) continue, it is a mistake of the arbiter.