Arbiter Question

[IanDavis]

I don't think you are reading what I have written very carefully, but since it's only a forum post, perhaps that is understandable. I did not advocate the removal of the word valid (alone) anywhere, and if you have no idea what the Bishop means, then you should probably not mention him in the first place.

Of course, when you checkmate your opponent, he may well point it out. You may well observe it. An arbiter may observe it. What I was hinting at, was the Heidenfeld principle. Wrong things can happen, quite amusingly, and only be noticed after the event. Now, if a flag has fallen, it will remain fallen in later moves, and this can be observed. It does not necessarily have to be observed by an arbiter, or either player, but it can be. As it can be, why not be consistent, and use this wording in the rule? That was the point I understood Richard to be making.

Ian >The definition of valid in this context seems obvious, but why use the wording 'valid claim'?
I don't really see why it should be necessary to invoke the Bishop. To make an extreme example, if you checkmate your opponent, but don't observe the fact, it is fairly obvious that play will continue. If a flag falls, and nobody observes the fact, isn't it obvious that the same will happen. Why introduce a distinction in the wording that is not especially beneficial? Overall it's not terribly important, but I think it was the point originally being made by Richard.<

If you mean that the word valid could simply be deleted, that is a view. It doesn' really matter. Claim also appears in 10.2. There a person may claim a draw.
I have no idea what you mean by 'invoke the Bishop'.

You are quite wrong to say 'if you checkmate your opponent, but don't observe the fact, it is fairly obvious that play will continue.'
The opponent may notice. The arbiter may notice. In both cases the game will not continue. Moreover, if it should continue, and then attention is drawn to the illegality, while play is still in progress, then the checkmate will stand. It may even stand after the game is finished with a different result.

[E Michael White]

I think this is very common in England, and the FIDE rules don't have no arbiter matches in mind. I think the ECF could useful draft rules for arbiterless league play. From my point of view, ideally with clear instructions for players in particular situations. This certainly would not be an easy task, but if the ECF is reinventing itself as a governing body, it is a thing it could do centrally to complement local chess organisations.

This idea has merit. I have suggested in the past that 10.2 fails largely because the ECF did not offers appropriate 10.2 guidance notes for players/leagues but your suggestion of wider arbiterless rules is preferable.

A further improvement would be to arrange for the rules you suggest to be produced by an arbiterless group of experienced players. It seems to me experienced players would have more experience of arbiterless play and be able to contribute more than arbiters who play a bit. How about you Paul, John Cox and RdeC ?

[Roger de Coverly]

The only 10.2 claim I've ever been directly involved in was in a league match. I was asked for an opinion because I was watching the game, while the two captains were still playing (each other if I remember correctly). Coincidentally an experienced arbiter was also present, and also still playing.

If I recall correctly, play ceased and the final position was discussed. It was established that not only probably but by force or tablebase, the non-claimant had a winning position. The 10.2 claim was withdrawn and "resigns" substituted.

[Roger de Coverly]

But I think more because his flag was hanging, than because he was convinced the position was definitely lost.

I didn't recall the actual position, but I did after the match test some plausible positions against a table base and they were lost. So a 10.2 draw claim to the league lacked justification. That possible but not forced continuations existed that won was also a reasonable denial of a 10.2.

I've also seen games where one player had tried without success to find a winning plan and where the defender had claimed once down to the last two minutes. I would usually advise a player, if my club, to accept the verdict of a draw.

[Geoff Chandler]

HI,

With all the hoo-ha going on in St.Louis and chess paranoia in general.

Can a player refuse to play on a DGT board if the game will be going out live, even with a delay?

I could not find out if this has been asked before.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Choice of what equipment is used is ultimately with the arbiter. It's up to them whether they feel that's a reasonable request.

[MJMcCready]

But why would someone not want to play on a DGT board?

[MJMcCready]

HI,

With all the hoo-ha going on in St.Louis and chess paranoia in general.

Can a player refuse to play on a DGT board if the game will be going out live, even with a delay?

I could not find out if this has been asked before.

There is a bigger issue in play here, and that is DGT boards haven't come on much in 20 years or so and are not reliable in time scrambles. Better can be built. More modern can be built but no one is doing it. Seems like they've got a monopoly going down there.

Monopoly, what a great game that is.

[Geoff Chandler]

But why would someone not want to play on a DGT board?

Hi MJM,

It's really just to find if it was possible to ask to play with a dead board than a live one.
As Aronian said in a recent interview 'All my colleagues are paranoid.'
A player wound up tight enough to think people are cheating and the DGT boards
are gving out his moves to 'someone' then they might insist the their board is unplugged.

Hi Jack.

I thought there would a yes or no answer. Is it not covered anywhere that you
must use one due to a possible loss in revenue in live streaming.
(If that is the case the players should insist on a cut as it is them playing the live games.)

[IM Jack Rudd]

I thought there would a yes or no answer. Is it not covered anywhere that you
must use one due to a possible loss in revenue in live streaming.
(If that is the case the players should insist on a cut as it is them playing the live games.)

That would be covered in the terms and conditions of the tournament, not the Laws of Chess.

[Chris Goodall]

(If that is the case the players should insist on a cut as it is them playing the live games.)

That's a Pandora box of worms. Sveshnikov would have approved! Intellectual property and all that. But then, if chess moves can constitute intellectual property, and I won in 10 moves with a gambit that I got from Chandler Cornered, could you demand a cut of my cut?

[Geoff Chandler]

That would be covered in the terms and conditions of the tournament, not the Laws of Chess.

Hi Jack,

That is basically what I am trying to establish - it's just a general query, I won't quote anyone.

If a player does not want to go live who does he see or is he bound by T & C's which do not seem to mention it.

Hi Chris,

My latter statement was really just a 'by the way' question.

But linking it to the above question.
What if the player refuses to go live unless he gets a cut remembering at that moment
there is no Intellectual property to discuss, the player has not created it yet.
(maybe they should get paid in advance like authors do for books they are about to write.)

'..won in 10 moves with a gambit that I got from Chandler Cornered, could you demand a cut of my cut?'



The chances are I'd get sued for some of the opening variations (traps) I've suggested in the past.
However I have received PM's from some of the gang at Red Hot pawn who are overjoyed
at showing me a game where a trap that I have suggested has caught someone.

If games were copyright and the owner was the first to put the moves in print I reckon
by now I'd owe the estate of the Reverend E E Cunnington about £50,000. his;
'Chess Traps and Stratagems' was my chief weapon, my guiding light...my bible if you will.

[MJMcCready]

But why would someone not want to play on a DGT board?

Hi MJM,

It's really just to find if it was possible to ask to play with a dead board than a live one.
As Aronian said in a recent interview 'All my colleagues are paranoid.'
A player wound up tight enough to think people are cheating and the DGT boards
are gving out his moves to 'someone' then they might insist the their board is unplugged.

Hi Jack.

I thought there would a yes or no answer. Is it not covered anywhere that you
must use one due to a possible loss in revenue in live streaming.
(If that is the case the players should insist on a cut as it is them playing the live games.)

Play with a dead board rather than a live one. What's all this then? And I see no mention of a time machine here also...this site is going down the drains man, it really is.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi MJM,

..this site is going down the drains man, it really is. What makes you say that?

My question is perfectly valid. Can a player ask if his DGT Board (live) be switched off (dead.)

Nobody appears to know in spite of the place being infested with arbiters, controllers...

I've either asked the question that must never be asked or they don't know.
It's a simple question, all it requires is a simple answer.

Yes. (thank you)
No. (a reason would be appreciated )

Or I'm in the bad books regarding the sainted arbiters/controllers gang for cracking a joke about one of them.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12240&p=286288&hili ... ve#p286288
I know they have skins as thin as eggshells and very long memories, are they still sulking.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The reason "nobody appears to know" is that it lies outside the Laws of Chess; it's a tournament-level question, not a laws-level question. (It's certainly not the player's decision, though.)