FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

[Adam Raoof]

Don't spout such drivel. I'm reporting exactly what the CAA course said. The position was on a demo board with Messrs Welch and Jones explaining it. This exact position! Indeed, in the original link to the game, the person delivering the course is saying exactly what I've repeated here!

Let's accept that the Law is as it stands, and that you are correct in your interpretation of the Law. It doesn't mean that you have to interpret it that way, or that you are happy with the Law itself. True?

[Alex Holowczak]

As the other Alex suggests, much better to watch the game and award the draw on the evidence of the move count.

Of course. If that was what I was supposed to do, I'd be quite happy to go along with it. But why does the CAA course not say this, and why do two ECF Senior Arbiters agree with my interpretation?

Suddenly I find myself agreeing with Nick; it seems to me that arbiters don't have a clear and consistent message of what they're supposed to be looking for with 10.2. They can't agree on whether specific situations are one thing or the other. So what chance has the student got of knowing what to do? The student comes on explaining questions with answers based on interpretations he's been taught, and gets a rollocking about it from all angles, for absolutely no reason.

[Alex Holowczak]

Don't spout such drivel. I'm reporting exactly what the CAA course said. The position was on a demo board with Messrs Welch and Jones explaining it. This exact position! Indeed, in the original link to the game, the person delivering the course is saying exactly what I've repeated here!

Let's accept that the Law is as it stands, and that you are correct in your interpretation of the Law. It doesn't mean that you have to interpret it that way, or that you are happy with the Law itself. True?

I couldn't care less about any of that.

If I'm showed a specific situation which is identical to the one being queried and explain that that's what the CAA says, then all I want to know is why it turns into people telling me that I'm talking nonsense, and that Alex M is giving a better approach, even though two ECF Senior Arbiters would apparently disagree with Alex M, and agree with me. The CAA is setting potential arbiters up for a public flogging.

[David Shepherd]

I haven't had the time to read this thread in the detail which would be needed.

The Law is designed to give some protection to a player who would undeservedly lose on time. It can be argued that if the opponent does not know how to convert a superior position into a win and decides to use the clock as his only means of obtaining that win then the win should not be given. That is the principle that we seem to have been discussing.

I have given K+R v K as a draw. I've also given it as a win. If the bare king shows that he knows how to defend i.e. stays in the middle of the board and the other player is just making random moves or continuing to check etc then I will normally count 50 moves but provided a reasonable number have been made before flag fall I don't see a problem.

When both players are making random moves then a mate is always possible. I would then either need to reach the 50 moves or be satisfied that there couldnot be a mate before 50 to give the draw.

The standard of the players obviously comes into any decision made. But you normally don't have to make such simplistic decisions when the standard is reasonable.

A specific question to Alex M and Alex H - on link this http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2 example 4 which is discussed above - based on these 3 moves would you always give this as a draw (no other facts).

If the answer is yes, then add a few more facts - the white player is an adult not playing long, he is short of time, has been shown how to checkmate with king and rook and is trying to remember/work out how to do it. He knows the rule about repeating the position three times. The clock is right by the rook so he makes three quick moves while he works out his plan. his opponent runs out of time is the answer still yes?

Add another fact - he has 2 minutes left, his opponent one minute, after his third move his opponent sits there for 60 seconds and makes no attempt to move is the answer still a draw?

[Ian Kingston]

As the other Alex suggests, much better to watch the game and award the draw on the evidence of the move count.

Of course. If that was what I was supposed to do, I'd be quite happy to go along with it. But why does the CAA course not say this, and why do two ECF Senior Arbiters agree with my interpretation?

Suddenly I find myself agreeing with Nick; it seems to me that arbiters don't have a clear and consistent message of what they're supposed to be looking for with 10.2. They can't agree on whether specific situations are one thing or the other. So what chance has the student got of knowing what to do? The student comes on explaining questions with answers based on interpretations he's been taught, and gets a rollocking about it from all angles, for absolutely no reason.

I don't think anyone's attacking you - it's the interpretation of the law in this particular case that is causing the fuss. If the CAA and senior arbiters think one thing, whereas a group of players think the other, then there's a problem that needs to be resolved. It's not the first time that players in a sport or game have disagreed with the officials: rugby union players are sometimes bemused by how laws are interpreted and footballers have been struggling with the 'new' offside law for a while now.

It is possible that the CAA interpretation is wrong. It is also possible that the CAA is right and that the law is an ass. However, awarding a draw to a player in a lost position on such flimsy evidence is, in my opinion, setting the arbiter up for a much bigger kicking than you're getting here!

[David Shepherd]

Alex H. Yes I agree with Ian, it is really good that you are discussing here and shows you determination to get things right and improve the quality and standard of arbiting. I think you are following correctly what you have been taught and it just just shows how important it is to discuss the various situations.

[Alex Holowczak]

As the other Alex suggests, much better to watch the game and award the draw on the evidence of the move count.

Of course. If that was what I was supposed to do, I'd be quite happy to go along with it. But why does the CAA course not say this, and why do two ECF Senior Arbiters agree with my interpretation?

Suddenly I find myself agreeing with Nick; it seems to me that arbiters don't have a clear and consistent message of what they're supposed to be looking for with 10.2. They can't agree on whether specific situations are one thing or the other. So what chance has the student got of knowing what to do? The student comes on explaining questions with answers based on interpretations he's been taught, and gets a rollocking about it from all angles, for absolutely no reason.

I don't think anyone's attacking you - it's the interpretation of the law in this particular case that is causing the fuss. If the CAA and senior arbiters think one thing, whereas a group of players think the other, then there's a problem that needs to be resolved. It's not the first time that players in a sport or game have disagreed with the officials: rugby union players are sometimes bemused by how laws are interpreted and footballers have been struggling with the 'new' offside law for a while now.

It is possible that the CAA interpretation is wrong. It is also possible that the CAA is right and that the law is an ass. However, awarding a draw to a player in a lost position on such flimsy evidence is, in my opinion, setting the arbiter up for a much bigger kicking than you're getting here!

I don't think there is such a thing as "CAA guidance". My course was delivered by Messrs Welch and Jones, with Dave Thomas dipping in and out while helping Neville run a tournament next door. The impression I get is that if Alex McFarlane was giving the course, he might have given different guidance. I think a lot may depend on who is running your course. It seems there is a difference of opinion in certain specific situations between various arbiters in the CAA.

[Adam Raoof]

I couldn't care less about any of that.

Ah, but you should - after all the laws are written by arbiters like us, and they can often be badly worded and at worst wrong.

It's different if you are shown an interpretation of the law by a Senior Arbiter, think about it independently and agree with the interpretation.

If you are shown an example, given an interpretation and disagree, I hope that you would say so.

Arbiters have a hard enough job in situations like this, but as long as an arbiter acts fairly and doesn't bring the game into disrepute, I'm happy.

In this case I have some doubts about the example, because in a normal game I wouldn't penalise a player for repeating moves. I find it hard to make a judgement which deprives the player with an extra rook of their full point based on the fact that their opponent ran short of time, maybe deliberately, and only claimed with seconds on their clock, possibly frivolously. I think at the very least three repetitions would have to occur for me to award a draw.

Get used to people arguing the toss about everything, but don't let that stop you from listening, just in case they have a point!

[Ian Kingston]

It seems there is a difference of opinion in certain specific situations between various arbiters in the CAA.

Which is a troubling state of affairs!

[Alex Holowczak]

A specific question to Alex M and Alex H - on link this http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2 example 4 which is discussed above - based on these 3 moves would you always give this as a draw (no other facts).

Based on those three moves, I would always give a draw, because that's what I've been taught to do. It's also what Dave Thomas would do. Since I tend to be arbiting at tournaments where he is also arbiting, it makes sense for us to have a consistent position. Until someone advises us otherwise, that's what I'll do.

If the answer is yes, then add a few more facts - the white player is an adult not playing long, he is short of time, has been shown how to checkmate with king and rook and is trying to remember/work out how to do it. He knows the rule about repeating the position three times. The clock is right by the rook so he makes three quick moves while he works out his plan. his opponent runs out of time is the answer still yes?

In my opinion, yes. The concept of making "three quick moves" is not an attempt to make progress. It's an attempt to make three quick moves in order to get yourself more time relative to your opponent, while your opponent gets less time, thus making his time trouble worse. The act of making moves is increasing your opponent's time trouble, without making the position any closer to checkmate than it was three moves ago. It's just the fact that moves are repeated - in this case - that suggests no progress is being made. If the game continued 1 Kf3, 1 Ke3, or maybe even 1 Ke2, with 2 Rh4 or 2 Ke3 to follow the King, then there's no evidence that white isn't making progress.

Add another fact - he has 2 minutes left, his opponent one minute, after his third move his opponent sits there for 60 seconds and makes no attempt to move is the answer still a draw?

No, it's a loss for black because 1 minute is a perfectly reasonable amount of time in which to make moves.

[Alex Holowczak]

I couldn't care less about any of that.

Ah, but you should - after all the laws are written by arbiters like us, and they can often be badly worded and at worst wrong.

At the time I couldn't because I was getting angry.

It's different if you are shown an interpretation of the law by a Senior Arbiter, think about it independently and agree with the interpretation.

I agreed with the interpretation I was shown. It seemed like a perfectly reasonable interpretation to have. Given that a second Senior Arbiter had backed this interpretation up, it seemed like it was an industry standard until this thread started!

If you are shown an example, given an interpretation and disagree, I hope that you would say so.

Of course, but this isn't something that came to that end. There'll be something at the CAA AGM that is arising because I disagree with the interpretation of the ECF Chief Arbiter.

In this case I have some doubts about the example, because in a normal game I wouldn't penalise a player for repeating moves. I find it hard to make a judgement which deprives the player with an extra rook of their full point based on the fact that their opponent ran short of time, maybe deliberately, and only claimed with seconds on their clock, possibly frivolously. I think at the very least three repetitions would have to occur for me to award a draw.

I wouldn't award a frivolous claim if I had no evidence it was frivolous. I'd think KR v K was a bizarre claim, so I'd suspect it was either frivolous or something strange was going on. If the moves get repeated, and five seconds later K loses on time, then there was good reason for the claim, it wasn't frivolous. If the claim was frivolous, and the guy knows what he's doing, then the claimant is about to lose on time, so it's no big deal.

Of course, this is distinct from the situation where one player had 20 minutes and the other 2, where the game had reached about move 20 in a G/45 game with the guy having an overwhelming position. That should have been rejected because I cold see on the scoresheet - which admittedly he didn't need to have a copy of - showed that his last few moves had been making progress. From memory, he'd won a pawn back from a gambit and had directed all his pieces at the opponent's King...

Get used to people arguing the toss about everything, but don't let that stop you from listening, just in case they have a point!

I listen, and I can see where they're coming from. I just felt as though I was getting undue abuse about it, which I can't see I was giving back to people.

[Nick Thomas]

As the other Alex suggests, much better to watch the game and award the draw on the evidence of the move count.

Of course. If that was what I was supposed to do, I'd be quite happy to go along with it. But why does the CAA course not say this, and why do two ECF Senior Arbiters agree with my interpretation?

Suddenly I find myself agreeing with Nick; it seems to me that arbiters don't have a clear and consistent message of what they're supposed to be looking for with 10.2. They can't agree on whether specific situations are one thing or the other. So what chance has the student got of knowing what to do? The student comes on explaining questions with answers based on interpretations he's been taught, and gets a rollocking about it from all angles, for absolutely no reason.

Thanks Alex

Ian Kingston said:

It is possible that the CAA interpretation is wrong. It is also possible that the CAA is right and that the law is an ass.

I think it's a bit of both hence my proposal to strengthen the law itself and devolve power away from the arbiter. The proposal can be found in Chess Questions.

[David Shepherd]

Thanks Alex, yes thats what I thought your answers would be (infact I guess your answer to the third question shows you would not always give the draw, but it is logical - black had time to move - failed to do and so should not be given the draw). I think the issue is over question 2 and it would be interesting to see what the view of Alex M is.

[Adam Raoof]

I don't think the discussion on this Forum is even half as heated as some of the (ahem) discussions I have had with players at tournaments!

There'll be something at the CAA AGM that is arising because I disagree with the interpretation of the ECF Chief Arbiter.

Tell us more!

[Nick Thomas]

Alex H wrote:

I listen, and I can see where they're coming from. I just felt as though I was getting undue abuse about it, which I can't see I was giving back to people.

Apologies if you feel any of it was coming from me. It's only because you (should) know that I think you're priceless, brilliant and one of a kind that I am so blunt with you. I also thought that you were incapable of being wound up actually and enjoy the badger "back against the wall" challenge of defending against a pack of hounds looking for the kill...