Home

By Najib Wahab

Arbiters are not referees ........

Arbiters are not referees or umpires, neither are they the judges. According to Merriam Webster online, "arbiter" is a noun and it means "one who works with opposing sides in order to bring about an agreement", the key word being "...works with opposing sides...". According to the same website, both the words "referee" and "umpires" are verbs having the same meaning which is "to give an opinion about (something at issue or in dispute)", the key word here being "... to give an opinion about..." So, arbitering is not about giving opinion but it is about working with opposing sides to achieve a common understanding arising from a certain situation. In other words, from that understanding, arbitering is about discussing a situation in a civilized manner to bring about a decision that may or may not be favourable to all parties involved. 

In most cases, as most chess players are quite civilized and acts in gentlemanly (or womanly) fashion, it is much easier to make a decision without having to debate or discuss for an extended period of time. I envy football referees and basketball umpires for being able to put up with physical and verbal abuse from the players because I don't think that I can accept such situation. Well, maybe the referees or umpires were thinking that "It won't happen to me" but it did. The other thing about refereeing a football game, or umpiring a basketball match is that such abuse, more often than not, can even originate from fanatic fans and
wild spectators, uncontrolled hooligans who are overly obsessed (or possessed - whichever way you look at it) about their team. I am sure we have witnessed this either in real life or when watching games on the television. 

In chess, the closest for that to happen is when parents or coaches are not happy with some situations that may arise during a tournament especially when their children or apprentice is not doing well. But still, I am yet to see punches thrown (touch wood!) or tables and sets
overturned. It may have happened but to date, it has not happened under my watch, or in tournaments that I was involved in. I am also yet to see spectators (or even players) using colorful metaphors to show his or her displeasure towards the arbiter. I have though, seen an arbiter doing such but trust me, it was not me! Most of the colorful metaphors would have been blurted after leaving the tournament hall but never it was mentioned straight in the face of an arbiter or even doing so to their opponenets (touch another wood!). There was one tournament where I have witnessed a chess player started shouting in the tournament hall for being asked to leave and even then, it was a "civilized" shout i.e. without the swearing and the vulgarities. But all in all, chess has been a peaceful game and arbitering has been very safe and not so very stressful. At least, this is my experience and I am sure, Hamid (who has been to many tournament around the world) would have a different opinions, having witnessed and interact with many players, at international level where a win or a lost can means thousand of dollars, dignity, reputation and fame. 

The most challenging part in arbitering chess events is when a player claims that a spectator has helped his opponent to make a move - almost always a decisive move, or pointing to his opponent that his time has lapsed. It is challenging because you cannot penalized the opponent and the game has to go on as it is, or the point has to be given to the losing player (time lapsed) even though it was due to someone's helping hand. In some cases, the winning move or the time lapsed are being pointed out by innocent bystanders who are merely making comments about the game that they are seeing without the intention of helping any of the
players. Kids are the most innocent culprit of them all "Eh, I think your time is running out." Most players are graceful enough to accept defeat but in some cases, players are not too receptive about it especially when it was an important game - to earn an important point, or if the game was really tight i.e. both players in time scramble. On a more serious note, its the coach or the parents (or a friend) that pointed out the advantage. Its true that we can bar the friend, or the coach, or the parents from entering the hall but it can only be done after the
damaged has been done and not before. Sometimes spectators do not understand the reason why they are not allowed to roam around the tournament hall because for the arbiter, it is better to contain and control the damage before it gets out of hand.

Another challenging bit in running a tournament is when two players are arguing about what his opponent had done, and the opponent adamantly denying it. Touch move is one chess rule that is sometimes a bit difficult to enforce in situation where a player claims that his opponent had touched a piece and refused to move it, and the opponent furiously defending himself saying that he did not touch it. In most cases, a player usually touches the piece first and realizing that it would be a bad move (of having second thoughts), quickly blurt out "J'adobe" or "Adjust" which in reality is not how it is supposed to be - you are supposed to
announced your intention first and then touch the piece but not the other way round. Of course, this is very argumentative... In some cases, players have the tendency to hover his hand over a certain chess piece and sometimes, it gets too close as though it seems to be touching the piece. It may have well did but whether it was an accident or otherwise, it would be difficult to judge. Again, arbiters can only warn the players (and take note if the same complaints was received in previous rounds or subsequent rounds) and act upon it accordingly.

There was an incident where a game clock went dead (and resetted itself to "0") and there was no choice but to ask the players involved on the remaining time left on each of their clock. It was a rather easy agreement to achieve as both players concurred on the remaining time they had on their clocks perhaps because there are still plenty of time left i.e. one player had 13 minutes and the other 17 minutes. I had a situation where it was blitz game and one player claims that his clock is not stopping and time continues to lapse, with his opponent having just a few seconds more to spare. When it was time to reset the clock, the opponent (whose time is running out) claimed that he had more time than what is actually shown on the clock - to the displeasure of the crowd (there were plenty of "witnesses" around) and as an arbiter, no matter what the losing player was saying, I was more inclined to believe the crowd
and resetted the clock according to their "observation". I doubt the crowd had any bad intention towards the losing player (he is one of the nicer fella on the circuit but of course, he acted as such because he was in his competitive mode.... can't blame him there!) and therefore, I don't think that I acted wrongly when I made the decision. Unless if it was a single witness, then it maybe a different story. 

It is definitely impossible to have an arbiter overlooking each table (unless it is a very important event - the world championship sometimes will use up to 3 arbiters just to look over a single game!) hence, there are bound to be slip ups and dissatisfaction especially in cases where there are dubious and questioable actions. Again I would like to say that most players are rather civilized and resigned to the fact that they have lost their game fair and square - even though their opponent may have had some "outside" help - and therefore accepted the situation as it is. Maybe because they thought that if they had played better or
quicker, they would have not gotten themselves entangled in such a situation. However, some players are not that receptive and not so forgiveable perhaps because it is very difficult to swallow a lost especially when playing with players that are much "weaker" hence, it is a very
convenient way to put the blame on someone else, or something else. What ever it is, these players need to grow up and learn to be more mature in their approach because chess, in its true sense, is a very civilized, mature and "fine" game.

Chess rules are prepared as guidelines to regulate and ensure that everyone has the same understanding of how the game needs to be played, a common ground that is fair, just, acceptable and reasonable. Arbiters are just the middle person to provide assistance when there are disputes, to work with all parties involved (the 2 players), to find a resolution using the rules of the game as its guidelines. Interpretation may differ (sometimes) but consistency and fairness are the main keys that makes a good arbiter. At the end of the day, an arbiter has to be logical and rational (just like the game itself), following the principal of good sportsmanship and be decisive when arriving to a decision. And like everyone else, arbiters do make mistakes, but as long as he or she follows the head and not the heart, the arbiter should be in good hands. An advised that I received from a friend on arbitership, "Whatever you do, be fair and consistent in making the decision because that is the most important thing that you need to practice."