Arbiter Courses

[LawrenceCooper]

Can someone explain to me why the emphasis in 12.2 is on the player who has the move being unable to leave the playing area without the permission of the arbiter (AFIAK, the player waiting for his or her opponent to move is also unable to leave the playing area without permission). The tournaments (not many, but a few) that I've played in where the arbiters required the players to ask before leaving the playing area made no distinction whether it was your move or your opponents move (if you think about it for a second, you will see why). It was not a massive inconvenience to tell the arbiter that you were going to the toilet, but I really don't get the emphasis placed on the player who has the move. You should be free to go to toilet at any point and not have to move first or ask permission. Anything else corrodes the implicit trust that should be there.

I suspect it is anti-cheating. If you have the move you know the exact position, if it is your opponent's move then you don't know what he will play. It may also be a matter of etiquette.

Strictly speaking, if it was anti-cheating, it would apply to all positions regardless of who is to move. Your opponent may be thinking over two or three forced moves, easily amenable to analysis. The obvious bit is that if an arbiter sees a board with one person sat there, with an empty seat and the clock running next to that empty seat, do they enforce this rule? Did the player leave while his clock was running, or at some point before then? It is completely unenforceable.

It's completely different. Players are entitled to leave the board (toilet breaks etc) but it makes more sense to allow the player who has moved to leave the board. I do think there is a difference to leaving the board and leaving the designated playing area though. If an opponent regularly leaves the board when its his move I would alert the arbiter.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It's completely different. Players are entitled to leave the board (toilet breaks etc) but it makes more sense to allow the player who has moved to leave the board. I do think there is a difference to leaving the board and leaving the designated playing area though. If an opponent regularly leaves the board when its his move I would alert the arbiter.

Why does it make more sense to allow the player who has moved to leave the board? If someone needs to leave the board, what should be the focus is the reason for leaving the board, not whose move it is. If an opponent regularly left the board when it was your move and was away for long periods of time, you wouldn't be concerned? I should say that I'm saying this as a player who rarely sits at the board when it is not my move, and at times I get up and move around when it is my move if I need to clear my head or stretch my legs. If I needed to go to the toilet, I would (asking permission if this becomes the norm). I wouldn't rush my move and then go to the toilet, that would be silly.

[LawrenceCooper]

It's completely different. Players are entitled to leave the board (toilet breaks etc) but it makes more sense to allow the player who has moved to leave the board. I do think there is a difference to leaving the board and leaving the designated playing area though. If an opponent regularly leaves the board when its his move I would alert the arbiter.

Why does it make more sense to allow the player who has moved to leave the board? If someone needs to leave the board, what should be the focus is the reason for leaving the board, not whose move it is. If an opponent regularly left the board when it was your move and was away for long periods of time, you wouldn't be concerned? I should say that I'm saying this as a player who rarely sits at the board when it is not my move, and at times get up and move around when it is my move if I need to clear my head or stretch my legs. If I needed to go to the toilet, I would. I wouldn't rush my move and then go to the toilet, that would be silly.

For the reasons I gave above

[Christopher Kreuzer]

For the reasons I gave above

That's really helpful. I'm trying to have a genuine discussion here and you just roll your eyes? Maybe I should wait for an arbiter to contribute to this thread. Or maybe it is this bit I'm not getting: "I do think there is a difference to leaving the board and leaving the designated playing area though." What is the difference you see there?

[LawrenceCooper]

I don't see what more I can add apart from pasting and re-pasting my previous comments. You are entitled to not agree with what I'm saying but if you don't think I'm making any sense then I don't see what there is to be gained by repeating myself. I think who has the move is relevant but you clearly don't. I see a difference between a player being away from the board but within view of his opponent to being out of the designated playing area (potentially being able to cheat) but you don't.

Sorry if my opinion doesn't match yours, but ultimately that's all it is, my opinion.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I don't see what more I can add apart from pasting and re-pasting my previous comments. You are entitled to not agree with what I'm saying but if you don't think I'm making any sense then I don't see what there is to be gained by repeating myself. I think who has the move is relevant but you clearly don't. I see a difference between a player being away from the board but within view of his opponent to being out of the designated playing area (potentially being able to cheat) but you don't.

Sorry if my opinion doesn't match yours, but ultimately that's all it is, my opinion.

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I didn't say you weren't making any sense, I asked "why does it make more sense". I agree with you that there a difference between a player being away from the board but within view of his opponent to being out of the designated playing area. I'm not sure where you think I said otherwise.

[LawrenceCooper]

I don't see what more I can add apart from pasting and re-pasting my previous comments. You are entitled to not agree with what I'm saying but if you don't think I'm making any sense then I don't see what there is to be gained by repeating myself. I think who has the move is relevant but you clearly don't. I see a difference between a player being away from the board but within view of his opponent to being out of the designated playing area (potentially being able to cheat) but you don't.

Sorry if my opinion doesn't match yours, but ultimately that's all it is, my opinion.

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I didn't say you weren't making any sense, I asked "why does it make more sense". I agree with you that there a difference between a player being away from the board but within view of his opponent to being out of the designated playing area. I'm not sure where you think I said otherwise.

"Or maybe it is this bit I'm not getting: "I do think there is a difference to leaving the board and leaving the designated playing area though." What is the difference you see there?"

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I don't see what more I can add apart from pasting and re-pasting my previous comments. You are entitled to not agree with what I'm saying but if you don't think I'm making any sense then I don't see what there is to be gained by repeating myself. I think who has the move is relevant but you clearly don't. I see a difference between a player being away from the board but within view of his opponent to being out of the designated playing area (potentially being able to cheat) but you don't.

Sorry if my opinion doesn't match yours, but ultimately that's all it is, my opinion.

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I didn't say you weren't making any sense, I asked "why does it make more sense". I agree with you that there a difference between a player being away from the board but within view of his opponent to being out of the designated playing area. I'm not sure where you think I said otherwise.

"Or maybe it is this bit I'm not getting: "I do think there is a difference to leaving the board and leaving the designated playing area though." What is the difference you see there?"

I agree there is a difference. But I wasn't sure if what I thought the difference is was the same as what you thought the difference was. And I don't think it has anything to do with who has the move, which is where we seem to differ. But I think we are just compounding the original misunderstanding. I was just a bit taken aback by the eyeroll, that's all.

[Roger de Coverly]

The obvious bit is that if an arbiter sees a board with one person sat there, with an empty seat and the clock running next to that empty seat, do they enforce this rule? Did the player leave while his clock was running, or at some point before then? It is completely unenforceable.

The arbiter cannot know if the player left the board during their move, but the player certainly knows. So someone who feels a desperate need to visit a rest room immediately after you've played a move is potentially acting in a suspicious manner. If your opponent was a known smoker, you might be less bothered by absences.

[Greg Breed]

I frequently make a move then leave the board. I will walk around looking at the other games, get a drink, or whatever. If (at the 4NCL for example) I were to tell an arbiter I was going to the loo I'm pretty certain they would just say ok. Think about it. They don't know who I am or where I'm playing, so it's pointless, unless I state what board I am playing on.
It's never bothered me before because I've never come up against someone I thought was cheating. Clearly if that did happen I would have to change my stance and conform myself to eliminate any chance of falling foul of the same reasoning.
It's a shame we have to go to these measures and intricate nit-picking but ultimately understandable.

[Roger de Coverly]

I frequently make a move then leave the board.

That has never been a problem and it's not suggested that it becomes one provided you don't leave the playing venue.

The potential problem is players leaving the board when their turn to move, as stated to be the case in the Cork example and for that matter in the German league. If that happened repeatedly, it would be appropriate to draw the arbiter's attention to this.

(edit) To explain why, it should be obvious enough that if a player isn't very good at chess, they are going to need to consult an engine for suggestions as to their next move. They cannot do it at the board, so they need to retire somewhere that they cannot be observed with their engine. It's the same issue as if they were seen to go and consult their coach or trainer. When you get IMs doing it, it's because the position has become difficult and they would like some hints as to how to play it. (/edit)

[John Foley]

I would certainly welcome any thoughts from players on which aspects need emphasis.

One area that could do with some specific attention is junior chess. There are some specific characteristics mainly due to their having less familiarity with the laws. These include making illegal moves, distracting opponents, helping others, unilaterally penalising the opponent and the involvement of parents. Although not a major issue, there is also a debate about whether there is more cheating than in adult chess. It seems that to arbit in junior chess requires much greater monitoring of the games and more proactive involvement in sorting out irregularities.

[Greg Breed]

One area that could do with some specific attention is junior chess. There are some specific characteristics mainly due to their having less familiarity with the laws. These include making illegal moves, distracting opponents, helping others, unilaterally penalising the opponent and the involvement of parents. Although not a major issue, there is also a debate about whether there is more cheating than in adult chess. It seems that to arbit in junior chess requires much greater monitoring of the games and more proactive involvement in sorting out irregularities.

I think the difference is that generally the intent is not there to cheat from juniors. They tend to be more impatient and fidgety and that's perfectly understandable, because they are kids! Its boring to sit still for ages - even for me!

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I think the difference is that generally the intent is not there to cheat from juniors. "

Whether that is true or not, if you can jump on breaches of the Laws when players are young, hopefully it will break them of the habit. It's not always easy - I mildly pointed out to an inexperienced junior that he had moved a piece after touching another piece first and he insisted he hadn't touched the other piece. I had to say "I was watching you" three times before he accepted the fact. However, my teaching friends say that some pupils' concentration is so lacking that he might have forgotten he had touched the piece!

It is true in junior tournaments you need a lot of arbiters (and controllers) to watch the games, not that you can totally ignore adults of course...

[Alex McFarlane]

I always suggest at arbiting corses that candidates should seek one of their 'norms' at a junior tournament as they will learn more there than in half a dozen adult events.

If you can deal with a junior event and everything it throws up (sometimes literally) then you can deal with almost anything. The other learning experience can be to deal with one or two grandmasters.

There are lots of funny stories about juniors. I once had one claim the game because his opponent kept disturbing him. The opponent was reminding him to press his clock. I declined the request and told the opponent not to tell him again.
I've also seen (more than once) a game where after every move the players started their own clock. I assume one forgot to press and from then on they were out of sequence.

Both players claiming a win is also common. This often happens when one of then has walked into a mate but has assumed his opponent resigned.