"Chess Arbiters Are 95% Useless" : Fabi Debates International Arbiter Chris Bird

[@NikoBased]

Is it just me or are YT ads getting out of control? I had no joke 4 different ads within a minute just from clicking on the video, and fast forwarding through the intro.

[@flipina]

A different podcast I watch said they had to manually remove the mid-roll ads that KZbin automatically adds upon video upload.

[@vlnow]

They are making that harder all the time, especially on phones and tablets. What i do now is download if its a long vid like this ​@@magikarp653

[@ErykKrzeminski]

Use an adblocker lol. Imagine wasting your time watching youtube ads

[@bobwilkinsonguitar6142]

Personally, I stream like 80 gigs of video a month, and pay for youtube accordingly. No ads! Though I have used 3rd party solutions in the past ;)

[@babyitsnatural]

yeah I finally gave in and got Premium... I think it's their strategy to annoy you with the world's most terrible ads until you finally give them your money what a shake down

[@Zwellop]

Damn we got a confrontation

[@SanjayKumar-n8h3s]

They are becoming more edgy

[@cust4rd.4pple]

@@SanjayKumar-n8h3s about as edgy as a smooth thing

[@AdityaPal_sciencepal]

50:50 - this is insane. Arbiter training should be a thing!!!!! Other sports like football refreeing and cricket umpiring have training schools and entrance examinations. Without training, how do you expect a random person to know the rules by the FIDE handbook?

[@Senatios]

Right? And they didn't even adress this!

[@nilsp9426]

I agree with you 100%. The problem is in my experience that chess has a lack of volunteers and arbiters. At the highest level, they are payed well (I hope!), but that does not apply all the way down into some lower leagues or open tournaments. Therefore, adding an additional hurdle may make it impossible to find enough arbiters. In my time in multiple chess clubs in Germany, we were always lucky if we had any motivated youth trainers, let alone someone organizing some additional club tournaments. Hell, we even had a hard time recruiting enough players with a car so we could get everyone to our chess league games. So I think we need both arbiter training (mandatory at a certain level), and more awareness that volunteer or organizational work is needed. I think it is a bit of a dilemma in many sports. But a male dominated sport like chess is especially likely to face many people who avoid the mental and practical burden of things and just consume their surroundings.

[@AdityaPal_sciencepal]

@@nilsp9426 I understand that incentive to become an arbiter is minimal. However, this is where FIDE should step in and popularize the role and increase their salary, build training programs and infrastructure for arbiters.

[@Corteum]

If not training, at least a comprehensive compentency check to ensure you know wtf youre doing as an arbiter.

[@adifferentusername999]

@@Corteum there is a test you have to take before you become any level of arbiter lol, and a seminar as well taught by an International Arbiter usually.

[@vlnow]

It might be good or interesting for fabi to volunteer one time as an arbiter. Would be eductational and he could make a video about his experience. Ive done some organisational stuff in my sport in the past, and it for sure made me more apprechiative and understanding of the reality of it. ( as well as being a bit better at spotting really bad organisational issues over just lack of training organisation issues, like not to automatically attribute malice to what might just be incompetance or even attributing incompetance to what might just be huge understaffing, terrible or no pay, overwork and lack of good management)

[@Kamamura2]

A bit like a Chinese rehabilitation camp, no?

[@dronaacharya2183]

Love from India to Chis and Fabi ; This was a really good conversation, one that is definitely in the right way to make chess better .

[@MrSubWright]

The rule about being able to claim a draw is just stupid to be honest and went hand in hand with the stupid no increment in OTB. Dictating results should never be up to interpretation and should be based on concrete conditions. I think if they really wanted to make a no increment rule, then they should have a clock which gives players at least 1 second to move a piece before the clock starts counting down. So you can never gain time via increment, but you can avoid losing it if you move fast enough.

[@foobar5809]

this so called „delay“ is sometimes used at US tournaments

[@tradtrad1000]

no increment otb is a ridiculously stupid time format

[@26iain]

This exists.

[@mayank78207]

The arbiter here went basically saying... Arbiters mostly don't have the powers, oganizers interest are different, arbiters let the players carry on with the scramble, it is difficult to butt in during a scramble etc etc....all that ultimately to ironically suggest 'arbiters are useless' which was precisely Fabi's point

[@jorgebetancourt3657]

Exactly! Fabi was saying very real and specific scenarios, even calling the number of players and type of events, and Chris would just go like with a similar but different scenario just to avoid answering

[@coolcat23]

Other explanations given were that some arbiters lack training and that arbiters have a lot of responsibilities. So again, he basically was just explaining why Fabi was correct to call out insufficient arbiting standards.

[@2vhg7]

Yeah arbirer was trying to explain that the conversation isn't about "arbiter bad" but more complex, especially when he said that in us chess rules you can't intervene, that explains so much in itself, means as a player you should stop clock and call arbiter yourself, and that forces arbiters "behind the scenes" since they can't intervene during game, it definitely makes it a hard job

[@hosiahjones]

Respect to Chris Bird for stepping into the arena.

[@azctw]

Re: the Nihal game, he only got an extra bishop because he was bouncing every piece, hitting his clock, and adjusting the piece on his opponent's time. That should have been taken into consideration for the claim, since the arbiter did nothing during that illegal play.

[@czechpirc3212]

Will always have alot of respect for Chris, over a couple decades ago, Las Vegas chess was pretty much dead (other than the 2 big opens), Chris worked his butt off to get a league and plenty of other local events going to make it one of the best local scenes in the U.S. and im forever grateful, cmon u Irons😜(if u know u know)

[@skippingclouds]

It seems that arbiters are basically stretched thin and expected to multi task multiple games at a time, and THATS the problem. For the most part, I don't think its the arbiter's fault for being kinda useless in games because they're pulled in different directions and are just human at the end of the day. But, after this interview I do kinda agree with Fabi about arbiters being kinda useless, not because of their own fault(in the majority of cases) but because of this system of using one arbiter for multiple games. If chess players have to point out bad moves and disruptions to arbiters, then yes they are useless. But I also understand the tough and overwhelmed spot arbiters are in. All of this to say, I think the chess federation needs to overhaul their arbiter system to be more efficient. I don't know how practical it is to have just one arbiter per game, but I would presume that's the most efficient way for both the players and the arbiters to enjoy proper and undistracted arbitration.

[@RahulKumar-r5m2h]

Love from India Fabi

[@FrGOMG]

I bet plenty of ppl haven't seen the interview by Nigel short after his game w Cheparinov. After Nigel won his game because cheparonov refused to shake his hand, he commented that even the arbiter didn't know that was a rule and said smthg like only a handful of arbiter know what they're actually doing

[@nilsp9426]

My favorite controversy in my home club was about noise. During a tense tie-break game, one of the club members watching was on his smartphone. His Whatsapp was constantly making sounds. One of the players complained and the person with the phone politely left the room. After that, all spectators tried their best to be as quiet as possible, to not disturb the players any more. The room was dead silent - with one exception: the player who had complained nervously dinged his leg against a metal leg of the table for minutes. It was such perfect comedy. I wonder what an arbiter would have done in that situation (beyond silently laughing inside). Sometimes you are just in a situation that no one can anticipate.

[@TheVictorpenha]

😆😆😆

[@ashishprasad3311]

Thank you for showing the world how an intelligent debate can be held while maintaining composure and mutual respect

[@jacobmayer7803]

Training for practical experience for arbiters isn’t really readily available. Also, people should note that often arbiters do this in their spare time because they love chess, not for a grand payoff. Not saying this excuses mistakes, but calling them “useless” isn’t likely to encourage more active participation from the group. Even if Fabi is right, his message doesn’t likely help his cause. Appreciate Chris’ perspective on this, there’s no one I can think of better to advocate for chess arbiters everywhere.

[@DanRaj-o8y]

Don Caruana strikes again! He should be careful with the power he wields.

[@anday7421]

This is what I like about you guys, you have integrity and you don't try to backpedal. This was a great episode.

[@D.U.D.E-]

When the arbiter was telling us what arbiters did, I couldn't help but think, man everything he is saying is simple and trivial. If you need to mention that your job as an arbiter involves checking to see if the scores updated properly and that the a/c is on... I mean you're just scraping the barrel at that point. There were more examples but I don't want to rewind and find where he mentioned the arbiters duties.

[@RichACBlues]

It's really the same for most sports man.They are unnecessary with the technology we have nowadays and they are only there for political reasons and to control outcomes.

[@Kamamura2]

My thoughts exacly. What has the temperature in the room have in common with the fact that in critical moment, you laid a patronizing hand on the shoulder of an infuriated player and perhaps pushed him over the edge? I saw the footage, and I strongly disliked the gesture.

[@MegaNardman]

You think this makes the arbiter seem useless? Try getting a room full of chess professionals to operate a thermostat, let alone agree on a temperature.

[@junaubomber6977]

ikr! I wish Ioan told us about his father's work as an arbiter instead

[@rsr22.3]

Is this stemming from the Nihal incident in GCL?

[@horacelidenbrock3905]

I'm amazed that an international arbiter would say: I get a lot of my training by watching bad things happen on the internet.

[@marcinz.3570]

I understand Fabi’s frustration about arbiters not interfering when illegal moves are played, but paraphrasing he saying: don’t hate the arbiters, hate the game. You can’t play competitive no increment blitz and get mad that chaos happens when players are low on time.

[@yogi2543]

I've reffed football before and I sucked. The problem is that we didn't have many people that wanted to do it. So I made some horrendous calls and that was that. I suspect that chess arbiters have a similar problem. They can't get people to apply, those that do apply suck and don't work very hard to get better.

[@ericv00]

A good ref deserves as much credit as the athletes playing.

[@8964TS]

Refereeing for football is much harder though as the game is free-flowing and you're making judgements constantly. Chess arbiters don't watch every moment of a game. They only get involved when a player has a complaint against the other.

[@grandeypeludo]

53:30 Maybe I am too pedantic, but ... when the players have plenty of time on the clock and their infraction of the rules (no matter how small) takes place, that would be the perfect time for the arbiter to intervene and clarify the rules.

[@TheRajneeshsrivastav]

I believe an automatic illegal move indicator can be built into a chessboard in this modern era of technology

[@ckq]

I guess some concerns about cheating to have a computer connected to the board and only the highest level chess would use this and only applicable in these blitz games without increment which are usually online

[@ckq]

And false positives would be extremely annoying

[@NotQuiteFirst]

@@ckq A computer is already monitoring the game and logging the moves. It's not a stretch to just say that an illegal move could be auto-flagged and maybe a time bonus automatically given to the opponent if an illegal move is played. Chris Bird in this conversation said that they are currently developing the tech to automatically show if threefold repetition has occurred - it's insane to think that the software they use doesn't even show this already. This is why whenever someone makes a claim of repetititon/50-move-rule it takes the arbiters 2-5 minutes to come to a decision, as they are manually looking through the move list to count moves and make a decision. It's laughable how underdeveloped the DGT tech is, it's like it hasn't advanced in 20 years.

[@Apopjak]

19:58 Christian's face :D :D :D

[@boromir674]

"It speaks for itself" in terms of arbiters' performance, hearing Fabi's experiences being similar to my 15 year club-level chess play!

[@sahilbhardwaj441]

It came as a shock to me last time when Fabi who's always so articulate and measured in his responses to make an extreme statement. Glad there is a bigger discussion. Love the podcast!!

[@Kaorii1905]

Don't understand this, the extreme statement was still articulate and measured

[@sahilbhardwaj441]

@@Kaorii1905 I don't know if it was. Clubbing all the arbiters together without the data to back it in the 95% category seemed odd as it was discussed most of the matches don't require an arbiters interpretation. This is different from sports like football where refrees usually have 1-2 decisions per game where you can objectively state how good or bad he/she is. A better way would have been to say the times he has had issues with arbiters neither of them were able to solve it.

[@nevilleduplessis1750]

Exactly my thoughts.

[@Kaorii1905]

@@sahilbhardwaj441 Being articulate means you convey your thoughts well, being measured means you are calm and in the right mind when you say the statement. It seems to me that the statement might have been irrational and unprofessional, but your comment makes it seem as if he struggled for word choice or was angry which was not the case

[@AdamGaffney96]

I think the issue I take with the argument of "well, I've missed the time to step in" is that's basically just using inaction to avoid making a decision. The best time to step in was at the first mistake, the next best time is right now, as they say. If you're bound by the rules that you can't step in then fine, but if it's just a decision made that it's "too late" that's unacceptable in my view.

[@amarasa2567]

It is explicitly stated in the FIDE rules that for unsupervised rapid and Blitz games “[…] Once the opponent has made his/her next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.” (Laws of chess A.5.2) Sadly, once the opponent's move is made and the opponent did not claim, or the arbiter did not intervene for any reason, then there is no way to intervene without having an appeals panel reverting the decision

[@OrangeKing529]

I was a local tournament director for many years when I was involved in organized chess, and it was extremely important to me that I knew the ins and outs of the rules, especially in areas where conflicts seemed likely -- areas like draw claims and clock issues in particular. Sadly, it was apparent that not every TD felt this way. At a state championship event, an opponent attempted to claim a draw by insufficient losing chances while we were using a clock with time delay, which was not allowed under (at that point) the latest edition of USCF rules. The TD still went through the old/analog clock method of finding a strong player, asking them, and coming to a determination. Thankfully, we were allowed to play on, and I eventually won. But it was shocking to me not only that they didn't know of a very important rule change that had happened years earlier at that point, but also that they wouldn't take a moment to look up the rule after I explained it multiple times.

[@googlesettingssobad]

"7.5.1 An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his/her clock. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position." Seems to strongly imply that an illegal move may be discovered and corrected after several moves have been played. I don't see anything to suggest this rule is affected by more moves being made, but maybe it is discussed somewhere else? For example in the case of draw offers etc. it is explicitly stated how long the offer is open for, but nothing here. There don't appear to be any limitations imposed. I do remember an incident where a player failed to claim an illegal move, made his own move, and then got punished for himself making an illegal move, or some such thing, so possibly there are specific rules for illegal moves in blitz or something?

[@amarasa2567]

This only applies to standard games, as well as rapid and Blitz games with sufficient supervision, (A.4 and B.2) Look at annex A.5 about unsupervised rapid play, which also applies to unsupervised Blitz games (B.3). In this case: “A.5.2 If the arbiter observes an action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 [illegal move, incomplete promotion, pressing the clock before playing, two-hand move, respectively], he/she shall act according to Article 7.5.5 [+1 minute to the opponent, adjusted through A.5.1], provided the opponent has not made his/her next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent has not made his/her next move. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his/her next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.”

[@ejhuerta8026]

I look forward to the rematch of Chris vs Fabi in St. Louis starting this weekend at the US Championships.

[@RajAgarwal-pg7kn]

We need a part 2

[@bendewolff5994]

As a fan we love the time scramble. They need to make the players responsible for accuracy when playing pieces. Use technology

[@Uragaan1]

The real solution is just to play on computers so illegal moves literally cannot be made. Also pieces don't fly off the board. No increment over the board chess just doesn't make sense, regardless of the competency of the arbiters.

[@Surreal_Bread]

Or just play with increment, in classical there are never/very rarely pieces flying off boards or illegal moves in high level chess. The reason is they usually get 30" increment each move

[@allippincott]

Elite players are 95% rude, cosseted and self-centred ; ) I think in general top level chess presents quite a different set of problems to an arbiter than most other levels they might encounter. I felt it wasn't right for Fabi to express it the way he did but I get the perspective is very different. I've had the pleasure of playing a tournament arbited by Chris and his team and it was a delight. Only issue I've ever had with an arbiter related to entry of an unrated player into a minor section he shouldn't have been allowed into. Which shows the range of roles arbiters can have.

[@larry3498]

Clueless rather than useless.

[@c2c001]

Right

[@1CO1519]

👍

[@BanditLover-gw5us]

A clueless arbiter is a useless arbiter

[@jamesch6359]

Just been to Global Chess League at Friends House. It’s a no camera no recording at the viewing section. I found almost a third of the audience did just that, and they did that in plain sight. There were 2 arbiters I saw, and one stared at those people but did not do anything. I think he waited until the change of games because before the next game, the lady announcing the incoming players mentioned about no camera rule again…..to no success. Same thing happened again. I do think volunteers in the viewing section need to address the issue at the time when it happens, but if an arbiter sees it himself he should point the guy to the volunteer to ‘fix it.’ I understand the arbiter had his primary job and could not make too much noise as he was downstair at the stage (it was dead quiet) but the front row viewers were in closer sight to him than the volunteers so both the volunteers and the arbiters needed to work together. Afterall, if the players feel bothered, they are going to complain to the arbiters so arbiters can’t just give ‘well we have informed the audience’ excuse. Of course in a persistent case, then security guard may have to be called. Global Chess League is more of a casual tournament so maybe it is ok. But all I am saying is, in a more serious situation, I can understand the frustration from players such as Fabi who just want a competent arbiter to fix the problem.

[@jakobegger5007]

Holy moly, did you see that perfect 20°C room temperature?

[@synchronium24]

That's a touch on the cold side if you ask me.

[@ericv00]

@@synchronium24 *throws flag and blows whistle

[@alienwarex51i3]

For real, the whole video I'm thinking about what his CO2 ppm is, probably very low.

[@alejandrogonzalez5505]

56:19 These are not actually the current rules, if you check the 2023 Fide rules you will now find them rules in Guidelines III at the end of the handbook, and now they say: "III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his/her clock, he/she may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue."

[@nilsp9426]

Regarding corrupt arbiters I think it is important that the arbiter's role is to be the person with integrity who counters any suspicious thing going on and makes sure nothing like this happens. So even if players are corrupt, if arbiters are negligent, they can be rightfully blamed.

[@Laila_Ha_d]

I think that most of the times arbiters rely on the players to notify them if there is something wrong, and that’s how the rules of chess were made, for example, in the case of the three fold repetition, one of the players should stop the clock and notify the arbiter for the game to be considered a draw, or when a player makes an illegal move, the other player should notify the arbiter, and this puts a lot of responsibility on the players and only little responsibility on the arbiter. That’s why they’re not very attentive during the games. And to be honest this should change, an arbiter should be very attentive during the game, and must be allowed to stop the game if he sees something wrong without the players having to notify them. That way the players can concentrate more on playing chess, and arbiter would find something useful to do. This said, Fabi statement wasn’t wrong, he just spoke about the elephant in the room 😅 the arbiter 😂

[@31redorange08]

You'd need at least one arbiter per game. That's not feasible.

[@8964TS]

Sure, in a World Championship match where there's only one game at a time, but this isn't going to work in a huge open event with one hundred boards to monitor.

[@Laila_Ha_d]

@@31redorange08 @8964TS in chess every game is important, and if it takes one arbiter per board to ensure fair play so be it. But arbiters shouldn’t feel vexed when someone states the obvious that in current circumstances they clueless and useless. Or maybe they should just replace arbiters with AI and digital boards way more efficient and avoid all this drama !

[@esheppshepard]

23°, 550ppm, 55% humidity, 5db loudness, geuine leather chair, sunlight or artifical light in sun spectrum, no smelling, own toilette, observers behind mirrorglas, sparkle water, good coffee, fruits, wooden DGT boards and pieces. Then we talk about professional arbiters. It is not that difficult if you take chess competitions serious.

[@krakonstefano]

I don't understand why "time management" isn't rated as a player feature. If you end the game with 2 seconds and the opponent has more time it's only your fault no matter if you have a complete winning position on the board. Losing by time is a way to lose game at chess. Making random move to shut down opponent's time is part of the strategy. Adding time at the end of the game only because a player has a better position but not enough time to win looks like a legal cheating. My question is: why using timers? just give unlimited time to players but only a determined amount of second per move (like 3 sec each move from start to finish).

[@Surreal_Bread]

Because it's not chess anymore. The aim of a chess game is to checkmate the king. Very few games end in checkmate because when one of the players is down in material and will eventually get mated they resign. But playing dirty checks sacking queens or rooks or any pieces just to force your opponent to make an extra move or two to take time off their clock is in no way chess. That's why increment is logical. Also increment exists because even if you know exactly what move you want to play it will still take you a second over the board so increment adjusts for that aspect. Thats why more online games play without increment, the move take no time.

[@krakonstefano]

@@Surreal_Bread so why giving time? chess is evolving, 99% of the games are not played in classical chess. Time is a resource nowadays and losing on time is a way to lose games even if you don't checkmate. If players have the same amount of time is ok to give extra time but benefit the player well positioned on board only because he didn't manage his time well is unfair. Sometimes a player can be in a winning position but can't convert into a checkmate.

[@coolcat23]

Effectively, Chris confirmed Fabi's point that there are insufficient arbitration standards. He just provided a lot of reasons why the standard of arbitration isn't as good as it should be: Arbiters have too many responsibilities, cannot watch all games they are responsible for, are not given the authority by organisers to enforce certain standards, many arbiters lack training, etc. FWIW, it strikes me as being odd that an arbiter would have to involve players when deciding a threefold repetition. There is no room for opinion regarding threefold repetition, so an arbiter should be able to make an authoritative ruling. The arbiter can explain the reasoning to the players, but it should never be the case that the arbiter will need correction from the players. That would be akin to a football referee refereeing a match without being entirely sure about the offside rule and then letting players weigh in on the decision.

[@eljanrimsa5843]

Since the arbiter is working with the players' scoresheets, he needs to clarify with the players if they are accurate, and what actually happened when they are ambiguous or have omissions. Threefold repetition also needs to be claimed in a certain way according to the rules, so this is very much dependent on the player making the claim.

[@stephenejack3855]

My takeaway here is that the ruleset is to blame, at least in the Nihal vs. Dardha situation, not the arbiter. If the rules leave it up to a human, who has no rating qualification, to make the final determination whether one GM is "trying to win" against another, they are fundamentally flawed. A GM who is up a piece is unlikely to lose against any opponent. However, carry this principle to its logical conclusion and said GM could claim a draw in any roughly equal position and leave it up to a lower rated arbiter to decide the validity of the claim. I advocate a rule change: only situations in which it is objectively impossible for one side to win, given worst play by the opponent, should be allowable as draw claims (i.e. K vs. K or KB vs. K). The clock is there for a reason.

[@andrewroberts8139]

Thanks to C Squared for putting this on, and clarifying for me how uninterested I am in the issue. Fabi claims that 95% of arbiters are useless, and yet the chess world keeps on turning. Fwiw, if you want a better class of arbiter, might be an idea to pay them better. Put them on Caruana's pay levels and they'll defo meet his expectations

[@Truthinessization]

is it fabi's job to make sure arbiters are paid adequately or FIDE's? for someone so uninterested, you definitely had time to take potshots at a person much better at the sport than you.

[@letsmakeit110]

i think arbiters should step in more, and award penalties when appropriate. it seems like Chris is saying they don't want to disturb the players, but the players are asking to be disturbed! Like did anyone besides Alireza complain when Alireza was asked to walk quieter/bring softer shoes? Arbiters shouldn't be scared to draw those lines. Same for illegal moves go ahead and stop the clock and give 2 minutes. And then if, as I suspect they suspect, the chess world complains about the aggressive style, they can go back to being passive. I remember when Wesley So got forfeited for writing on his scoresheet he was very indignant. Knowing what I know now, he probably felt targetted, because apparently nobody else gets in trouble for breaking the rules.

[@Lewis714]

Half way through the video and it seems the arbiters are taking credit for tournament organisers.

[@ConcreteBombDeep]

Imagine if one player just stared directly into the eyes of the opposing player with a crooked smile. That would be legal and effective way to disrupt your opponent.

[@craigrathe2469]

As an outsider, none of this seems "professional". And seems like someone wants to treat every tournament the same... the elite level events are NOT the same. Players are dedicating almost all of their time to this, and are at an elite level. I think there should be an expectation that Organizers, Media, and Rules reflect the same level of professionalism, training, testing, etc. Plus, aren't all these boards digital? how tough is it to just pause the clock and turn on a light to signal the arbitor? seems very solveable.

[@Wargasm54]

An arbiter should uphold standards of fair and equitable gameplay as well as anti-corruption and cheating measures. There should be at least 10-20 primary FIDE appointed arbiters to insure the integrity of the game. At each rated/sanctioned event there should be at least one primary Arbiter present to oversee local arbiters. The primary arbiter should have the final word in resolving issues.

[@SerLaama]

Sure, will you pay for it, then?

[@darrenjohn8524]

​@@SerLaamaFide should pay for this. Are you suggesting FIDE are cheapskates or broke🤣?

[@vlnow]

To avoid pieces flying everywhere could they not just make them magnetic ?

[@higgledypiggledycubledy8899]

that would not help

[@Surreal_Bread]

Capturing pieces and just moving pieces would be a lot harder and less practical, likely causing more problems.

[@FreeApophis]

TL&DW: There is no formal training for arbiters.

[@hetNetwel]

Are you going to update Spotify with your most recent podcasts? Please? Thanks already!

[@SerLaama]

So there are two possibilities: 1: most everyone who ends up being an arbiter is a total idiot and bad at the thing they've been trained to do, and 2: players take arbiters for granted and notice them specifically when anything goes wrong and they have to make a call very quickly. It's not really a mystery which is the case here. Arbiters make events happen and receive very little compensation and players still bitch and moan.

[@SerLaama]

Also, notice how universally in every sport people complain about referees. Wonder why that it? Because all sports magically have horrible referees/arbiters?

[@ArchangleTyrel2]

Football referees make $205,000 to $250,000 per year, they are highly qualified and know the rules inside and out. The same is not true for chess arbiters. Indeed, most often they have not been trained to do anything, they are often unpaid, or barely paid, they are not ex-pros, they certainly do not know the rules inside and out, often they aren’t even club level players much less expert level.

[@SerLaama]

They are there as arbiters, not players. Also, if you haven't noticed, everyone bitches and moans about arbiters in football pretty incessantly.

[@dew9103]

I absolutely agree that players take arbiters for granted but it’s mention in the video I believe that arbiters don’t actually have formal training

[@Tresorthas]

Agreed. It's clearly option 1, with the caveat that (according to what Chris also admitted) a lot of them didn't even train to do the job.

[@ysf-d9i]

They should have a system where, if the player with more time doesn't agree to a draw, then they play it out with like 30 mins extra per player or w/e, and IF the game ends in a draw, it counts as a loss for the player with more time, and if the player with more time lost, it would be a -5 or something.

[@Deerjason]

That’s terrible. Top players would just always agree to a draw then.

[@ysf-d9i]

@@Deerjason unless they were clearly ahead

[@jelielvii5709]

The quickplay finish rule section is obviously obsolete, as it was in place 40 years ago when adjournments started to disappear and was needed to address game endings, where players had no time left and tried to win in dead drawn or even lost positions. On a different note 95% clueless arbiters seems generous to me, as in my experience I rarely found really competent ones and in most part they often are more local organizers than anything else (at lower levels weekend tournaments and the like).

[@manuelg758]

40 years ago the rules were definitely not the same as today. Every 4 years rules get updated. The rules for non-increment games were modified all the time. If you don't believe compare the old versions of the FIDE Laws of Chess. (Some hints: 10.2->G->III)

[@bendewolff5994]

I really believe that the arbiters have not been able to keep up with the modern changes that we now see in chess

[@foobar5809]

I dint know if its still in the current FIDE laws of chess, but it used to be that on this „not trying to win by normal means“ claims, the arbiter had the option to let play continue and postpone his decision until after he had seen more about how the opponent was trying to win, making the decision on the claim possibly only after the claiming player had flagged. If that is still allowed, that is what I would have done as the arbiter there.

[@foobar5809]

ah, just after I wrote this, Chris mentioned this option as well

[@modolief]

76 minutes of video on this?? Can someone give me the TL;DW?

[@deeperanddeeper]

Exactly, life isn't long enough.

[@LyndsieDances]

Where do I go to arbiter college?

[@Northseapirate44]

When they both grabbed the king and were moving it back and forth

[@OldmanNix]

That first response already shows us a problem. He goes on too long, repeats his points too many times and feels like it's about him. Arbiters should leave their ego out of it. Be clear, strict and keep it simple. That's really hard, obviously but that's why it's a beautiful job. And that is also why you should be judged by very high standards if you're refereeing very high standard chess.

[@iseriver3982]

'arbiters aren't useless, they just aren't meant to do anything' 😊

[@petrus_red]

I completely disagree with the interpretation that the only way Nihal can lose is on time. A similar argument could be made in the Alireza Hikaru game where Alireza blundered. In the Gunina game Fabi mentioned the last 4-5 moves were useless including a few repetitions. In the Nihal game, the last few moves had resulted in captures and the position was fresh, so to interpret that as a drawn position is a bit too much. At least the last moves should demonstrate the drawing idea on the board.

[@qazedctgb19]

Who is playing chess in the background?

[@coolcat23]

Regarding "pieces flying", why can't players be given the right to stop the clock and then call an arbiter? If arbiters have too many games to watch then why can't the players freeze the situation until the arbiter can give them the attention they deserve? There should always be a penalty, if a player has to stop another player from throwing pieces around so that throwing pieces around cannot become a means of getting a longer look at the position.

[@duaflip]

When did Fabi say arbiters were 95% useless in the last episode? Seemed to me like excerpts from the last podcast were uploaded but not the full thing…? Surely I’m just missing something here

[@andrewanyplace]

At the 35 minute mark

[@duaflip]

@@andrewanyplace 0:55

[@zbarrett727]

So I can grind to a clearly winning position and never have to worry about flagging, because as long as I have 1 second left on my clock, I can claim a draw? Why allow arbiters to decide result? Absurd

[@zaftnotameni]

making a judgement that only time would make someone lose is such a stupid rule, flagging is part of the game

[@brun4775]

This guy’s accent is all over the place. Northern England, the US, Scotland, Australia, Cornwall.

[@zak3744]

I don't know his life story, but I thought his accent sounded pretty much like someone that grew up in Northern England but has spent some time in the US which has started to give his accent a subtle American twang. The addition of American r's to that Northern accent somehow creates a vaguely Caribbean feel in places, which is interesting!

[@shivamshah806]

Fabi is wrong regarding the game of guinina. She claimed threefold repetition I think.

[@Sacha7200]

No Fabi is correct. Here is a salimova interview afterwards where she mentions Guinina claiming an objective draw: kzbin.info/www/bejne/naDLco2koK2tfa8si=f7xJ-XBVP9t2u_d6

[@shivamshah806]

@@Sacha7200 My bad.

[@ElevenKnights2600]

Here's the real problem: We've overcomplicated the rules. The idea of "insufficient losing chances" is ridiculous. The game is played with a clock and both opponents know the time controls from the beginning. If you get into time trouble it is entirely legitimate to "run out the clock" on your opponent, just as it is in any other sport. Only in chess do we try to make these ridiculous, arbitrary exceptions that require you to know the intent and thinking of the opponent when they're choosing a move. It's absurd on its face, and yet here we are.

[@skid47un]

very informative

[@hylen26]

Alice Lee: Busted. I knew she looked suspicious!

[@Abhishek-y6i3j]

Why is everyone targeting Nihal? If Nihal made an illegal move, then Dardha should have paused the clock and called the arbiter. Expecting the arbiter to intervene within 5 seconds is nonsense. And also if dardha feels that nihal made illegal move then he should not agreed to draw when arbiter asked him.

[@FloppsEB]

so i'd call this a complete fail. if this man is any way representative of an arbiter at any chess tournament, or god forbid, an arbiter, then i have zero faith in chess. this is an atrocious standard.

[@fabianram9702]

The TD here also takes thing personal and mess up chess events.

[@rishabh2mgupta787]

Anyone knows why fabi is not playing in global chess league

[@Zwellop]

Probably cuz he wanted to play his national championship. US Chess championship starts 11th Oct, Global Chess League ends 12th Oct

[@saicharand7765]

Christian enjoying every bit of the drama 😂

[@vlnow]

Simple solution, employ ex croupiers and table bosses. Or hire current ones for events. These people have an insane eye for detail and high awareness. They really dont miss much. On roulette they are constantly having to catch out people pushing their luck, and I have only once spotted a mistake on a casino table and the pit boss stopped play, checked the vid and within a minute or so solved the issue and payed me out. And there is a lot more going on on a roulettte table than a chessboard. And these guys have hundreds of hours of experience. It is their full time proffession. Would take a day to teach them the rules as they are all pretty smart by default

[@vlnow]

Disclaimer, i think gambling is terriblly dangerous, although i did do it in the past, but just saying croupiers are highly skilled at exactly what you would require from an arbiter

[@clownfisk]

Why was the arbiter not more open to hear Fabiano's criticism? The arbiter kept on saying "it's hard to step in". Most jobs are hard, but you still have to at least try and do them? The point of chess competitions is not to be easy on the arbiter. The focus should be on the game and the players, not the arbiter's personal experience, and then it's most valuable to hear what Fabiano has to say.

[@trinidadtobagogs]

I think Fabi’s statement is over exaggerated and he admits it at the beginning. The percentage is not clear but it is obvious that there are many issues. Chris gives very reasonable answers and you can see he is really trying to contribute to the development of arbiters in chess. But from his answers you can see that arbiters are mostly “useless”. Ofc few incidents and mistakes shouldn’t define the problem. But what I understand from his responses is that arbiters have little power over organiser’s decision on media and spectators, they are very few in rabid and blitz games that they cannot focus on games and rule, they don’t have one system and every arbiter solves the disputes in their own ways - some checks on sheet, some check on computer and some gives wrong decision after checking with computer(!)etc.. but they decide where the tables and chairs should be and the temperature of the room which I believe makes them useless 😅

[@triangle1332]

"The rules say the players should figure it out themselves" "The TO has the authority, not us" "I use the thermostat though... AND there was that 1 time we forced that guy to change his shoes!!" Oh..... okay then..... Yeah that sounds super useful..... Seriously though. There needs to be a third party/referee at these tournaments even if you use them 1% of the time. Is how any competition works.

[@michaeloconnor6264]

Back to the shoegate with Alireza loud shoes. Was there a few players or just one player,I forgot now.

[@PoucoHabilidoso]

If time is not a piece, why even have time then ?

[@coolcat23]

In my view, the guidelines that allow someone to claim a draw when they are about to be flagged are ridiculous. The question cannot be whether a position is holdable in theory, it must be whether the player can hold the position while flagging the opponent. If there are time controls at all, they must be enforced. Playing quicker than your opponent must count for something and shouldn't be annulled by the slower player claiming that they "only ran out of time but were otherwise fine". What a ridiculous guideline.

[@Matthew-bu7fg]

23:18 - all media access should be prohibited in all tournaments in the playing hall once clocks are started. No exceptions. There's no reason for any media to be in there. What are they even in there for? Media in chess is largely dull anyway. 80% of chesscom commentators are dull/cringe to listen to. Most chess interviews are boring. I wish they'd do away with chess interviews apart from absolute extreme examples (Hans Niemann being one obvious exception). If they want to let a player go through a game and their thoughts without interrupting them then so be it. But far too many interviews are filled with loaded questions. And I don't care what Shakriyar Mamedyarov had for lunch today or what Wesley So's cat got up to last night. Leave it out.

[@Northseapirate44]

It certainly makes chess more fun

[@LyndsieDances]

Except the room temperature is always extremely too hot or cold. Soooo

[@bendewolff5994]

Shots fired

[@Northseapirate44]

If pieces are going flying I think the easiest thing is a fine

[@Northseapirate44]

For high level events

[@chrisrollins8322]

Fabi: "You guys don't do anything when we need you to" Chris: "We can't do anything" Fabi: "So.... you are useless"

[@c2c001]

I don't think I can find more ways to disagree with Bird. All the points he made are wrong for the exact reason(s) he thinks they are right including saying that someone of Caruana's caliber and reach shouldn't say such things. Wrong, someone like Caruana is exactly who needs to say it and if someone like Caruana does then you should listen. In short, Bird's entire approach is unprofessional in the old, dictionary meaning of the word. Someone taking care of the air conditioning or that there's quiet is by definition a low level generic worker. Literally anyone can do that. You give a 5 year old kid the AC's remote controller and he can very well make sure to fix the degrees. What Caruana is saying is that when it comes to chess, which the very sport these arbiters are... wait for it... arbitering (if that hasn't sunk in yet, give it another second), can't even put the king on the right square let alone solve complex disputes where as the bloody arbiters it's literally, by definition, supposed to be the very thing they would know even better than the players they are judging (don't know if anyone caught that but judges are meant to know the law better than layers) are so incompetent they make things worse... dude, we have a problem. If a judge sent innocent people to jail because he didn't know the rules I doubt people will still value him because, oh, he's a nice old fellow who made sure the court is at the perfect temperature. Seriously? I mean... seriously? By the way, Caruana was actually being kind. Arbiters who disturb players, make noise, ruin everyone's experience to deal with just one person, don't actually make sure crowds are quiet and the AC is on are... numerous. I really don't care for Bird's feelings and I don't care about his statistics... what he's saying is junk.

[@AA-zq1sx]

Judges get paid.

[@Truthinessization]

Never lose sight of the fact that incompetent arbiters, like nearly everything else wrong in the chess world, is FIDE's fault.

[@MiddleClassCitizen]

Arbiters should be taught what an "electronic gadget" is that can be used for cheating. A SIM card or a simple watch can not be used for cheating.

[@fabianram9702]

Arbiters Job is just to be fair, which is not hard. what makes them bad is when they want to rule what the feel is better. then it alway the wrong choice.

[@kc910]

Yikes. 😵‍💫 I can certainly understand the frustration of players and feel pretty confident in agreeing with Fabi’s original sentiment because that was about as clear as mud, respectfully. If I had to summarize the takeaways it would be - 1) arbiters have a lot of laws written, so many we forgot about some of them and 2) we have no obligation to enforce those laws. It’s way too subjective for a professional sport. The phrase that stuck out to me most was Chris saying as arbiter “who am I to…?” 🤨 That mindset, imo, just helps prove Fabi’s point that the explanations veer more towards building the case against usefulness at all for arbiters. Respect to Chris for agreeing to have the discussion but I think this round clearly goes to .

[@potatoonastick2239]

Couldn't get a Grand Arbiter?