Author: Alex

Arbiting Matters Too

Newsletter of the Chess Arbiters Association
April 2015 Issue 7

Editorial
Cheating in chess has caught the media attention featuring in news articles on both the press and television. The reporting has not always been accurate and in some cases speculative.
Alex McFarlane outlines three recent cases and gives his opinion on the arbiters’ behaviour.
CHEATING IN CHESS
There have been three cases recently which have attracted some media attention.
The most high profile case involved Wesley So and the US Championships. So forfeited a game after making notes on a sheet of paper. The notes were of the form “double check, triple check, use your time “. When his opponent complained, the arbiter Tony Rich investigated and awarded the game to the opponent. So had previously been warned on two occasions about making similar inspirational messages on his scoresheet. After the second occasion he had been warned that he would forfeit his game if he wrote similar messages on his scoresheet again.
Comment: The decision of the arbiter has been generally accepted as correct. There are some who say that the offence was not that serious and that the punishment was extreme. Certainly making such notes is not as major an offence as writing down moves to be played.
The Laws relating to this case are:
Law 8.1b states what may be written on the scoresheet. “The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data “
Law 11.3 "During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. “
11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
11.7 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent.
Clearly Law 8.1b limits what may be written on the scoresheet. Law 11.3 states that sources of advice are banned. I think that So’s notes can be classified in this way and so the arbiter was correct to take action.
To my mind the arbiter made a couple of minor mistakes. By his own words Rich warned the player of the consequences of continuing to make such notes on his scoresheet and warned him that a repeat offence would lead to a forfeit of the game. The third offence was clearly against the spirit of the warning but not the actual wording. In addition I believe that the opponent claimed a breach of 11.5 in as much as he was being disturbed.
The arbiter backed himself into a corner by warning what the punishment would be for the next offence. The arbiter gave a specific example of what was not allowed rather than being more general in his warning. I also have concerns that the punishment increased from a warning to a loss with nothing in between. I would have been much happier if the second warning had been accompanied by some form of time penalty. Law 11.7 states that persistent refusal to comply with the laws will lead to the loss of the game but there is no guidance on ’persistent’. I would say that this varies with the seriousness of the offence. For very serious offences one repeat may be enough to trigger 11.7 but for more minor transgressions multiple offences may be required.
So admits that he has made similar notes in other tournaments. He won the Millionaire event held recently.
Case 2: Georgian GM Gaoiz Nigalidze who has twice won the Georgian Championship was caught using a mobile phone at the Dubai Open. An opponent who had played him in an early tournament had concerns and when drawn against him this time was keeping extra vigilance. He reported his concerns to the arbiters who examined his opponent but failed to find anything. As the game progressed Nigalidze went to a certain toilet cubicle on a fairly regular basis. This was searched and a mobile phone found. It is reported that he originally denied that the phone was his but when it was switched on a position from his game was discovered and it was logged inti his facebook account. He was immediately thrown out of the tournament .
Comment: There seems little doubt that the right course of action was followed here. 11.3b … The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance with Article 12.9. “ (12.9 is a list of penalties.)
Searching a player is something I would not do lightly. If innocent the player is likely to be annoyed and disturbed by such an action. Even giving him some time to recover it is unlikely that a player would be able to continue his game unaffected by the commotion. The opponent may be annoyed by an apparent lack of action on the arbiter’s part but if a search is to be carried out immediately on conclusion of the game is preferable. If anything is found the opponent will be given a win even if the game ended otherwise.
Case 3 occurred in the B section of the Aeroflot event in Moscow. Here IM Pavel Dvalishvili forfeited the game for continually writing down his move before playing it. It is reported that the opponent made several claims to the arbiter that Dvalishvili was recording his move before playing it. Finally the opponent said that he had had enough and was claiming the game. The arbiter got both players out of the playing hall and summoned Chief Arbiter Guert Gijsson. On hearing that this was at least the third occasion Dvalishvili was forfeited.
Comment: It appears that the two players had been making accusations about each other throughout the game. It may have helped matters if an arbiter had, on being alerted to the problem, spent more time near that board monitoring the situation and hopefully preventing it from escalating.
More generally, if I spot a player writing a move down before playing it I will have a quiet word with him after the game. If a player does it several times then I will speak to him during the game, preferably waiting until he has the move or otherwise giving his opponent some extra time for the disturbance. If I see a player writing down a ‘candidate move’, crossing it out and then replacing it with another then I will immediately step in and issue a warning. Any further moves written in advance of playing them would be punished more severely.
It is surprising that in two of the above incidents we have titled players apparently unaware of the Laws of Chess. Arbiters cannot be expected to go through the Laws before every event. It is certainly good practice to announce new Laws when these come into force. Arbiters are expected to answer any questions on the Laws put to them by players. When doing so arbiters must try to make sure that their explanation is as clear as possible. In the So case the arbiter told the player not to make notes on his scoresheet. It would have been better simply to have said not to make notes! An autistic player may take information given literally and fail to appreciate that the information given is general and not related to a specific example.
The FIDE Anti-Cheating Commission are suggesting the following sanctions
1st Offense – up to 3-year suspension from all FIDE rated events (up to 1 year if the defendant is under the age of 14 years at the time of the offense; up to 2 years if the defendant is under the age of 18 years at the time of the offence)
2nd Offence – up to 15-year suspension from all FIDE rated events.
When a player is found in breach of AC regulations, he/she shall be subject to revocation of all FIDE titles and norms.
If a player is caught cheating during or immediately after a game then it will count for rating but other games in the tournament will not.
A player who refuses to return prize money won improperly will face further sanctions.
Until these proposals the maximum suspension allowed by FIDE statutes is three years.
Retiral
Roger Edwards has announced that he is retiring from arbiting. I give Roger’s email announcement:
Dear All
Another birthday has come and gone, so I am now even more past it than I was before.
I have decided that now is the time to call it a day, before I start behaving like various people I can remember who didn't know when to retire and went on too long. I am therefore giving notice that I shall be resigning / not seeking re-election to all chess posts that I hold with effect from the end of the current season and retiring from those that I am just a helper. This does not apply to the "honorary" positions / titles that I hold, those I will be proud to retain. Also, anything I have committed myself to after the end of the season, I will keep my promise to do it. It is not my intention to let anybody down.
I have been on the organisational side of chess for 45 years and whilst it has been a bit of a roller-coaster, I have enjoyed most of it. I would like to say a big thank you to all those who have helped me and given me support over the years and wish you all the success in the future.
Thank you all very much.
Roger Edwards
We thank Roger for his contributions to arbiting. People like him have resulted in arbiters being held in respect by players. We wish him and Maureen a long and happy retirement. There is little doubt that Roger will be a hard act to follow.
Letters
Thank you for circulating this copy (AMToo 6) of Arbiting Matters.
I see that it includes a useful report from Alex Holowczak comparing pairing programs. However, one program missing from the comparison is Vega
http://www.vegachess.com/tl/index.php/Home_page_English.html.
I did some work with its Italian author Luigi Forlano over the summer sorting out some ‘glitches’ in the way that it interfaces with the English grading system (i.e. both input from the ECF database and report file generation) and am happy that the interface now works correctly.
The program uses the FIDE (Dutch) pairing system, although other options are also available. Pairings can be manually overridden if required. Byes (including half-point ones) can be pre-set. It is FIDE approved. Web-site presentation is generated automatically. Results files can be generated in both ECF and FIDE formats. At 50 euros for an unlimited licence it is also one of the cheaper programs.
It would be interesting to know if anyone else has experience of this program. I intend to trial it at Frome in May.
Regards,
Gerry Jepps
Hopefully Gerry will give a review of this in a future edition. There is a free version of the program which can be used in Linux which is identical to the Windows version, though updates to this version can take a few days longer to appear.
Odd Pairings
The Major at the Blackpool Conference (when will they change the name?) was subject to a drugs raid when cocaine was found at one of the boards or, to be more exact, COE-KANE. Laurence Coe was playing Brendon Kane.
Why is Blackpool called a conference rather than the normal congress? This goes back to the events days in the Winter Gardens when certain ‘conferences’ were given a free or reduced fee let by the local authority. The use of the name allowed the event to save money!
TIME TROUBLE IN A LEAGUE MATCH
A player has got into time trouble in a league match with no arbiter present. He stops recording but continues to tick his moves. On reaching what he believes to be the required 36 moves he asks his opponent for confirmation that the time control has been reached. The opponent looks at his scoresheet and says that only 35 moves have been played. When the opponent has moved the player quickly makes an extra move. This turns out to be a game losing blunder.
It is then discovered that the time control had in fact been reached when the player thought and that the opponent had missed recording a move. The blunder need not have been played.
The player’s team and others were suggesting that either the game should be agreed drawn or that the game should be continued from move 36, before the blunder took place.
Certainly the opponent has committed an offence by not having an up-to-date scoresheet. However, the player himself has committed two offences. One, he has distracted his opponent by asking him a question during his thinking time. Secondly the player has actually sought advice about a game still in progress. The latter is a far more serious offence than any of the others. It is only as a result of this offence that the opponent has given him the wrong information. There should therefore be no question of the game being declared drawn or re-instated to an earlier position.
Arbiters Course
An Arbiters Course is being organised on the Saturday 19th September - Sunday 20th September 2015. The cost to enter the course will be £20. There will be an exam at the end of the course. You must be an ECF bronze member or higher to take the test.
The venue is Ryecroft Community Hub in Walsall, West Midlands.
Lecturer - David Welch: ECF Chief Arbiter
If you would like more information or to apply for the course please contact Matthew Carr on mattcarr2700@gmail.com
FA Course
Subject to FIDE approval there will be a FIDE Arbiter course the previous weekend to be held at Preston. Anyone wishing to gain international status an an arbiter is required to attend, and pass, one of these courses. Such courses are also recognised by the ECF
Provisional details
Date and Times
Friday 11 to Sunday 13 September 2015
Friday: 20:00 to 22:00, Saturday: 10:00 to 19:00, Sunday: 09:30 to 18:30
Location and Venue
The Legacy Preston International Hotel
Marsh Lane, Preston, ENGLAND PR1 2FY
http://www.legacy-hotels.co.uk/hotels/legacy-preston-international
Seminar Leaders and Organisers
FIDE Lecturer: David Welsh IA IO
Assistant Lecturer: Lara Barnes IA IO
Observer: Alex McFarlane IA IO
Fees
Course and all inclusive accommodation - £250
2 nights’ accommodation (Check in Friday, check out Sunday)
2 evening meals (Friday & Saturday)
2 hot & cold buffet lunches (Saturday & Sunday)
2 am & pm tea/coffee/biscuits (Saturday & Sunday)
FIDE exam fee
Course only - £100
2 am & pm tea/coffee/biscuits (Saturday & Sunday)
FIDE exam fee
For further information, please contact David Clayton by email to organisercaa@gmail.com
Topics covered include Laws of Chess, FIDE Pairings, FIDE rating and title conditions, Anti Cheating Measures, Duties of an arbiter, Tie breaks and Clocks.
HUMOUR??
The following allegedly happened.
A boy in the beginner's section was furious when a little girl captured his piece. He grabbed his Queen and hit her over her head. Her calm reply? "Touch move". Needless to say, he had to move that Queen!
I would hope that, if true, the arbiter did more than insist on the touch move rule applying!!
What is an arbiter?
Answers.com gives the following answer to the above question.
“Like a referee or umpire in other sports the International Arbiter is a certified members of FIDE World Chess Foundation. Usually they are formerly strong players with a full command of the rules of the game. “
Are you certified? Were you once, but no longer, a strong player? What is the World Chess Foundation?
The Internet can be a wonderful source of information. This does not seem like one of its better examples.
SHOULD CHESS BE BANNED?
The following is from the July 2nd 1859 edition of “Scientific American”. This period saw the birth of a large number of chess clubs to which the publication’s reaction was-
“…a pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages. Why should we regret this? it may be asked. We answer, chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while at the same time it affords no benefit whatever to the body. “
A common claim today is that skills learned in chess can not only apply to other areas but will in fact improve those skills. This was disputed in the following dismissive way.
“Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, because it requires a strong memory and peculiar powers of combination. It is also generally believed that skill in playing it affords evidence of a superior intellect. These opinions, we believe, are exceedingly erroneous. Napoleon the Great, who had a great passion for playing chess, was often beaten by a rough grocer in St. Helena. Neither Shakespeare, Milton, Newton, nor any of the great ones of the earth, acquired proficiency in chess-playing. Those who become the most renowned players seem to have been endowed with a peculiar intuitive faculty for making the right moves, while at the same time they seem to have possessed very ordinary faculties for other purposes. A game of chess does not add a single new fact to the mind; it does not excite a single beautiful thought; nor does it serve a single purpose for polishing and improving the nobler faculties.”
There you have it, none of the great literary or scientific minds were any good at chess. Even those with plans for world domination were poor players unable even to beat a grocer (though no evidence of the grocer’s strength as a player are given). The article continues ...
“Persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises for recreation — not the sort of mental gladiatorship. Those who are engaged in mental pursuits should avoid a chess-board as they would an adder’s nest, because chess misdirects and exhausts their intellectual energies. Rather let them dance, sing, play ball, perform gymnastics, roam in the woods or by the seashore, than play chess.”
Anyone for tennis?
The same arguments seem to be used today against computer games.
TIE BREAKS
Tie breaks always throw up problems. Mention a tie-break method and you will immediately find players with an objection to it. Even the direct result between the players has its critics. One argument against it is that it gives victory to the player who performed less well against the rest of the opposition. Another criticism is that when the game is played its full significance is not known.
A method which seems to be gaining support recently is APRO (Average Performance Rating of Opponents). This method cannot be calculated until the end of a tournament when the mean TPR (Tournament Performance Rating) of the opponents of each of the tied players is calculated. This does seem to have advantages over the simpler Sum of Opponents’ Scores in that it better reflects how well the opponents were playing. However, without the method being programmed it will take a bit of time at the end of the event to calculate. One big advantage is that byes have much less effect on the final result as these can be effectively ignored.
Anyone willing to do some research on this method and compare it with others?
AGM
The AGM is scheduled for Sunday 2nd August at Warwick University at 16.45pm.
Among the subjects for discussion on the agenda are:
The future of the CAA
Should all arbiters seek FIDE recognition?
Should revision courses be offered for experienced arbiters?
Should the CAA offer courses for League captains?
Should the CAA recommend a fee structure for arbiters?
Comments on any of the above are welcome in advance of the meeting. Any additional items should be intimated to the Secretary, Alan Ruffle
aa.chess@btopenworld.com

A scoresheet and the phone with the position from game

The above was a birthday card sent to one of our members.

Items for inclusion in future issues should be sent to Alex McFarlane
ahmcfarlane@yahoo.co.uk

#

#