English Chess Forum

Chess Arbiters Association
Minutes of the Annual General meeting held on Sunday 2nd August 2015 at Warwick University, Coventry. From 3pm until 5pm and 6-45pm until 8-50pm.
Apologies for absence-Peter Gibbs, Celia Gibbs, John Swain, Carl Tillotsen, Adrian Elwin, Priscilla Morris, David Sedgwick, Tom Thorpe, Jack Rudd, Kevin Staveley, David Thomas and Roger Edwards.
3pm - 5pm present-Lara Barnes, Alex McFarlane, Geoff Gammon, Paul Bielby, Tony Tatum, Tony Corfe, Alan Ruffle, Kevin Markey and Francis Bowers.
6-45 The above were joined by-Andrew de Santos, Stewart Reuben, Mike Gunn, David Welch, Matthew Carr, Neil Graham and visitor Phil Ehr
Guest Speaker-Cancelled
Minutes of the last AGM dated 5th May 2013 were read.
Matters arising -
David Sedgwick proposed the following change, which, after discussion, was accepted-
Item 7-There was eyebrow raising when he (David Sedgwick) went on to state that the proposed level one, although recognised as competent organisers but without any recognised arbiting qualifications, would be licensed as arbiters by FIDE upon payment of £20-00.
I (David Sedgwick) said that I had considered it necessary as a short term measure for the ECF to licence such people during the early months of the FIDE Arbiters licence scheme. I did not say that such people would be included in the new ECF level one category.
For the avoidance of doubt the ECF now applies for FIDE arbiters licences only for people who have passed either the ECF or FIDE arbiters examination or who already hold either the International Arbiters title or the FIDE arbiters’ title.
Lara Barnes proposed the following change, which, after discussion, was accepted -
Item 4- Chairman's report- Change Tournament organisers meeting to International Organisers’ seminar.
Subjects for discussion-
Lara Barnes suggested that item 2 should be discussed first. She suggested that if it failed there was no point in continuing the meeting. She invited Tony Corfe to open the debate.
(2) Has the CAA outlived its usefulness and if so should it continue?
Tony Corfe-Explained that he had become concerned that the meeting scheduled for 6-45pm would be of insufficient length to properly discuss the important issues on the agenda and so he had taken steps during the past few days to have an initial meeting at 3-00pm, not necessarily meeting the requirements of a quorum, to allow for increased opportunity for discussion and to provide recommendations for the official meeting at 6-45pm. He observed that there were nine members present and that a quorum required ten.
The meeting felt that the CAA should continue but with a raised profile. It felt that its influence was dissipated by its current peripheral standing and some thought that it was probably worthy of an ECF management board position. An example of this was that there had been a number of rule changes made at FIDE level at which the ECF had input but not the CAA; the words 'unwieldy' and 'lobbying' were used but other examples were made. The meeting felt we could have more productive input in the below categories
• Training of Arbiters and coaches
• CAA to select arbiters and recommend them to ECF
• ECF to take responsibility for training of arbiters and expenses incurred by coaches. The meeting felt that this was not an expense that should be met from CAA membership fees.
• Pressure other National Associations
• Prevent impression of lack of cohesion
• Direct discussion with FIDE regarding rule changes and new laws.
CAA members who are current ECF managers of arbiters are Matthew Carr (home) and David Sedgwick (International)

(1) Should all CAA officers be recognised by FIDE?
The meeting was informed that some people who had applied to become FIDE arbiters and had paid the £20-00 fee, had now lost their money.
Lara Barnes -Recognition by FIDE was to be encouraged. It was generally recognised that British arbiters working on the continent were au fait with the rules and were good organisers but should be wary of the South African scenario see item 6 to follow.
(2) – see above
(3) Should there be revision courses for experienced arbiters?
There was general approval of the idea of the CAA organising seminars for experienced arbiters. It was suggested that these should be held every four years prior to the AGM and that venues in North and South of the country be sought to implement this. It was felt that AMtoo was a splendid publication and that it supported Arbiters to keep abreast of current legislation.
The meeting applauded and acknowledged the input by Alex McFarland into AMtoo.
(4) Should there be seminars on the laws of chess for league captains?
It was noted that most leagues were still using mechanical clocks and that 10/2 was alive in local league use. The meeting felt that it would probably be beneficial for local arbiters to provide the necessary coaching, for an appropriate fee, if necessary, paid by that league.
Attention was drawn to the fact that there was very often confusion between the laws of chess and local league laws.
(5) Should the CAA seek to have greater influence over decisions taken by FIDE?
This subject was referred to in item (2) The meeting felt that the first step should be that the ECF Managers of Arbiters Matthew Carr and David Sedgwick be allowed 12 months to seek to raise the profile of the CAA on the ECF board.
Dave Welch made the point that the board had arbiters in a number of ECF posts and there might be reluctance to have any more.
Alan Ruffle replied that that was the entire point. Arbiters in general were responsible for most of the chess organisation in the country-The 'British' and Annual tournaments in particular.
(6) After attending the 'world Youth Championships' In South Africa there was a failure by the organisers to pay the arbiters.
Lara Barnes and Alex McFarlane informed the meeting that they still had not been paid and they were still pursuing this although some of the other arbiters had been paid. In clarification, they explained that the problem had been caused by some optimistic accounting with regard to hotel accommodation.
(7) Suggested agreed rates for arbiters attending English events.
Lara Barnes reported-in Scotland, it was a regular practice for an arbiter to be paid a small fee for his services; usually with the prize winners in the form of an envelope and applause; whilst in Britain it was considered to be a voluntary role.
Dave Welch suggested that at the very least an arbiter should not feel out of pocket. Alan Ruffle stated that an arbiter does not have the option of taking a half point bye and was still on duty between rounds organising the draw for the next round.
There was general agreement that many players do not appreciate the amount of work that goes into organising a chess tournament i.e. the arbiter usually works hand in glove with tournament organiser organising or assisting with-administration, seeking a venue, legal requirements, parking, game supervision, enforcement of the laws of chess etc.
Alan Ruffle suggested that a recommended basic set of fees should be stipulated by the CAA namely, hotel expenses, 45pence/mile travel expenses (as per current HMRC directive) and subsistence. Individual arbiters involved in their own home event may prefer to resist taking any kind of payment. This should be acknowledged in some way, perhaps by a mention on the entry form.
Dave Welch made the point that many tournament organisers very often provided bed/breakfast and subsistence and he was concerned about legal implications with regard to the minimum wage.
Neil Graham suggested that account should be taken as to whether the tournament was making a profit or not.
Stewart Reuben-suggested that a trophy be awarded by the ECF / CAA to the most efficient arbiter.
David Welch pointed out that none of this was enforceable.
AOB-
Managers of Arbiters Matthew Carr and David Sedgwick to research the exact position with regard to CRB requirements.
2016 'British Championships' - Bournemouth
The meeting agreed that the 'Minutes' should be shown on relevant forums
Chairman’s report-Lara Barnes - Submitted and approved. Lara stated she had learned a lot
Secretary's report- Alan Ruffle - Had not been able to set a date for the 2014 AGM
Treasurers report - Tony Corfe- Submitted and approved subject to auditing by Richard Jones
ECF delegate - Neville Belinfante
Election of officers - All reinstated
• Chairman - Lara Barnes
• Secretary - Alan Ruffle
• Treasurer - Tony Corfe
• Chief Arbiter - Alex McFarlane
• Information officer - Alex McFarlane
• Committee - David Welch, Kevin Staveley and Neville Belinfante.
• ECF delegate - Neville Belinfante.
• Chess Scotland Delegate - Alex McFarlane
• Welsh Chess Union - Kevin Staveley
• Independent Examiner - Richard Jones

Date of next meeting - There was much debate about this which concluded in a suggestion that it be left to the committee. Alan Ruffle resisted this and insisted on some kind of guidance. It was agreed that the AGM 2016 would be in July 2016 in Birmingham.........probably at the 4NCL but to be confirmed.
Meeting closed 8-50pm
Alan Ruffle
Secretary

It was noted that most leagues were still using mechanical clocks and that 10/2 was alive in local league use.

Is this correct ?

The number of digital clocks being sold within the UK would suggest that leagues have mostly moved away from mechanical clocks.

So, is your league all/mostly Digital or Mechanical ?

Digital clocks I think getting common - the cheap ones are cheap now - but you really can't assume that digital clocks automatically mean increment time controls.

Not sure if Manchester allows increment time controls (not played with them so far), York evening league doesn't, Yorkshire league doesn't. Stockport league has the choice between G1:30 rather than G1:20+10. Baffled as to why there's even a choice there actually, but some teams do seem to actively prefer plain 1:30.

Often digital clocks in these leagues though.

If you mean switching over to increments on demand, I've never seen that. You'd have to educate people, and find someone capable of setting the digital clock!

Yes - digital clocks purchased from yourself used by one club out of six in Bucks, but as Martin says without moving to increments. Indeed the motion to trial increments in that clubs internal event was defeated at the AGM. Not unreasonably although the option to use increments would have been discretionary people wanted to play the competition under consistent conditions.

MartinCarpenter wrote:Not sure if Manchester allows increment time controls (not played with them so far)

Yes, I produced a paper, passed at the AGM, which was circulated to all clubs - ask your club secretary (or PM me if you want a copy)

Increment has to be agreed in advance, though, so I guess take up is slow (if you think home team should be able to insist, team up with Reg at Altrincham to propose a rule change at 2016 MCF AGM - hint )

Many clubs have digital clocks now in the Manchester League, I guess a majority

Alan Ruffle wrote: (7) Suggested agreed rates for arbiters attending English events.
Lara Barnes reported-in Scotland, it was a regular practice for an arbiter to be paid a small fee for his services; usually with the prize winners in the form of an envelope and applause; whilst in Britain it was considered to be a voluntary role.

Since when did Scotland cease to be part of Britain?

Did she actually say that or did she say "England and Wales" or "England"?

Alan Ruffle wrote:(7) Suggested agreed rates for arbiters attending English events.
Lara Barnes reported-in Scotland, it was a regular practice for an arbiter to be paid a small fee for his services; usually with the prize winners in the form of an envelope and applause; whilst in Britain it was considered to be a voluntary role.
Dave Welch suggested that at the very least an arbiter should not feel out of pocket. Alan Ruffle stated that an arbiter does not have the option of taking a half point bye and was still on duty between rounds organising the draw for the next round.
There was general agreement that many players do not appreciate the amount of work that goes into organising a chess tournament i.e. the arbiter usually works hand in glove with tournament organiser organising or assisting with-administration, seeking a venue, legal requirements, parking, game supervision, enforcement of the laws of chess etc.
Alan Ruffle suggested that a recommended basic set of fees should be stipulated by the CAA namely, hotel expenses, 45pence/mile travel expenses (as per current HMRC directive) and subsistence. Individual arbiters involved in their own home event may prefer to resist taking any kind of payment. This should be acknowledged in some way, perhaps by a mention on the entry form.
Dave Welch made the point that many tournament organisers very often provided bed/breakfast and subsistence and he was concerned about legal implications with regard to the minimum wage.

My view is that arbiters should always be paid. They are providing a professional service to enhance someone else's leisure time. There is no good reason that arbiter's should not be paid for this, and their out of pocket expenses met. If you want chess to be attractive to a broader public, chess players have to break from the idea that everything is laid on for them, on a shoe string budget in a disused downstairs lavatory.

Paul McKeown wrote: My view is that arbiters should always be paid. They are providing a professional service to enhance someone else's leisure time.

The thing is though, that provided a tournament has someone competent to use a pairing and results program, and sufficient digital clocks to be able to play all games with increments, what value does an Arbiter actually add that deserves payment over and above someone willing to volunteer to be present and not play to ensure the event takes place?

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Paul McKeown wrote: My view is that arbiters should always be paid. They are providing a professional service to enhance someone else's leisure time.

The thing is though, that provided a tournament has someone competent to use a pairing and results program, and sufficient digital clocks to be able to play all games with increments, what value does an Arbiter actually add that deserves payment over and above someone willing to volunteer to be present and not play to ensure the event takes place?

Having a thorough knowledge of the laws of chess and enforcing those rules.

Andrew Bak wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:.................. what value does an Arbiter actually add that deserves payment over and above someone willing to volunteer to be present and not play to ensure the event takes place?

Having a thorough knowledge of the laws of chess and enforcing those rules.

If only

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Paul McKeown wrote: My view is that arbiters should always be paid. They are providing a professional service to enhance someone else's leisure time.

The thing is though, that provided a tournament has someone competent to use a pairing and results program, and sufficient digital clocks to be able to play all games with increments, what value does an Arbiter actually add that deserves payment over and above someone willing to volunteer to be present and not play to ensure the event takes place?

I tend only to do arbiting at local adult and junior events and rarely get paid a fee or expenses since like all those involved in organising I do it purely voluntarily. At the last ECF County Final I was the arbiter for the under-100 section and was offered travel expenses but was persuaded by the organisers to only claim a proportion of the agreed rate.

It is actually quite difficult to gain the ECF Arbiter (level 2) title since although one may know the rules and have passed the ECF Arbiter's test there remains the hurdle of gaining the patronage of a Senior ECF Arbiter (level 3). Without that patronage one remains a mere trainee (level 1) and not considered sufficiently experienced to be awarded the full title regardless of how many years one has served or how many competitions one might have overseen.

It is possible to gain recognition from FIDE as an International Arbiter but still remain a trainee ECF Arbiter as happened to a well respected and prominent chess organiser in North London. Also, there are some BCF (British Chess Federation) Arbiters who were never admitted to the ECF list because of an additional requirement that had been was imposed by the ECF but has been since withdrawn as unlawful.

Arbiting in England is too much of a closed shop. As far as I am aware the Senior Arbiters never meet as a group to discuss the training and development of new Arbiters.

For the current system to to work effectively, I believe that it would be helpful if the ECF could create some new Senior Arbiters so as to provide better geographic coverage across the country and provide aspiring Arbiters with a proper choice as to whom they work with and request the necessary endorsement to gain the Arbiter title.

In fact, there is a severe bottleneck in the creation of new ECF Arbiters (level 2) and ECF Senior Arbiters (level 3) due to the very limited number of active Senior ECF Arbiters. The regulations demand that to gain the Senior title (which is awarded for life) one requires the patronage of three other Senior ECF Arbiters. I believe that the requirement might have had to be waived in the appointment of at least one of the younger ECF Senior Arbiters since there hadn't been sufficient for her to call upon.

So, perhaps the time has come to eliminate the title of Senior Arbiter and devise different rules for the award of the ECF Arbiter (level 2) title.

I don't see why organisers of rapidplays and weekend events should be expected to pay for the services of an Arbiter if they have a number of competent but untitled Arbiters available to them locally.

I have played in congresses (including one of the country's largest weekenders) where the organiser and members of the control team are not ECF arbiters. There is no bar to this as `the organiser's decision is final` tends to stop most disputes going on beyond a certain point. That said, a full understanding of the laws of chess is not that easy to obtain; most of think we know most of it and we probably do but to stay abreast of the full laws and any recent changes requires dedication and an attention to detail.

With regard to whether arbiters should be paid, it does tie into the `rag bag of amateurs` debate yet again. At the end of the day, if you pay somebody to do a job then you are within your rights to demand certain standards and terminate the contract if these standards are not met. If you rely on somebody to work for free then you also rely on their good will.

Andrew Bak wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Paul McKeown wrote: My view is that arbiters should always be paid. They are providing a professional service to enhance someone else's leisure time.

The thing is though, that provided a tournament has someone competent to use a pairing and results program, and sufficient digital clocks to be able to play all games with increments, what value does an Arbiter actually add that deserves payment over and above someone willing to volunteer to be present and not play to ensure the event takes place?

Having a thorough knowledge of the laws of chess and enforcing those rules.

As with everything else it comes down to risk assessment. What kind of event are you running and how damaging are the implications of a wrong decision being made. The vast majority of us could probably intervene in a dispute between two players but top level players would expect somebody with up to the minute knowledge and a proven track record at similar events. `What value does a (qualified) arbiter add` ... to use a metaphor, if you were running a large under 11s football tournament with a hundred youngsters involved you'd want a proper St John's ambulance volunteer on site. If it's just one match then somebody with basic first aid training would suffice.

Tim Harding wrote:Since when did Scotland cease to be part of Britain?

I suspect that if you ask the Scots they will tell you that they are not part of Britain. Rather it is Scotland which puts the "Great" in Great Britain

When the Scots were asked, they answered emphatically that they do want to be part of Great Britain.

Ideally, all Arbiters should appear in the ECF or FIDE list of Arbiters or be supervised by someone who is.

In practice, the supply of ECF Arbiters is severely restricted due to the regulations governing their appointment and the limited number of ECF Senior Arbiters whom one must approach to provide an assessment of competence and suitability.

Even if all Arbiters hold the ECF Arbiter title (and the Chief Arbiter is an ECF Senior Arbiter) that doesn't necessarily mean that everything will run faultlessly as witnessed by two particular disputes in the under-8 section of the British Championships in 2014 and 2015.

It is not only about knowing the Laws of Chess, the Arbiter needs to be able to justify his decision calmly and authoritatively to the player or parent and not get drawn into unnecessary and pointless arguments.

Although in rapidplays and weekend tournaments there often isn't time between rounds, it may be possible to convene an Appeals committee made up of respected senior players.