PubXChess Invitational: An Arbiter's Report (30 Mar 2019)

If I recall correctly, this should be the 5th event I served as an arbiter since passing the examinations at the FIDE Arbiter's Seminar (25-27 Jan 2019). They are:

1. The Defender v.s. Tyrant Blitz Match on 2 Feb 2019
2. The Brew Master v.s. Tyrant Blitz Match on 15 Feb 2019
3. The Chess & Jazz Blitz Knockout Tournament on 20 Mar 2019
4. The Rapid Chess Tournament at the Tanglin Club on 24 Mar 2019
5. The PubXChess Invitational Round Robin Blitz Tournament on 30 Mar 2019

Even though these events were informal and I do not get any arbiter norms, I enjoyed the experience very much. Hopefully, I can become a more effective arbiter with time.

This event was marvellous! Great players (not only in terms of playing strength but also etiquette and sportsmanship), great venue at LeVeL33 and great organiser! I love the thoughtfulness put into this event: a video cam set up to capture games to be selected as game of the tournament, and there was even a professional photographer covering the event! Everything was great.

Thanks for making such a nice pic for me, PubXChess!

Frankly, PubXChess is 1 of the 3 current local chess initiatives I will do my upmost to support. Check out their facebook page for updates and meetup page to register for the weekly free-to-play blitz tournament. (The other 2 local initiatives I support wholeheartedly are the Singapore Chess Meetup and the QCD Adults Team Chess League. For the former, you would probably know about my existence if you are part of the meetup community, and for the latter, I helped to matchmake players to form 3 new teams this year!)

Nevertheless, despite the great experience, I think there's still much more room for me to improve my service as an arbiter. I will share what I thought I did well, as well as what I thought I could've done better in future services.

What I thought I did well

1. Pre-tournament briefing. Even though most of the players are active players familiar with the FIDE laws of chess, I still made an effort to go through the rules. What I covered includes the correct procedure to make a pawn promotion (and what happens if you cannot find the piece you wish to promote to), situation / penalty arising from the making of an illegal move, reminder that it is the arbiter's right to call any flag fall if I observe it (and explaining the rationale in doing so), encouraging players to press the clock even if the move they are making delivers checkmate (this is not required under the laws of chess, but I encourage the players to do so to avoid any potential claims that the checkmate may have occurred after the flag fall). Even though the organiser finds me a bit long-winded (LOL), I felt it an obligation to manage the players expectations at the onset. 
2. Managing minor incidents. There were 2 minor incidents which I thought I handled well. First, one of the players kept switching on the alarm / countdown "buzz" of the chess clock by mistake. Because it was unintentional, I just reminded all players not to do it again, as the countdown buzz may distract other players or their opponent. In the other incident, one of the players was so passionate about the game, he made a shout out in the midst of his own game (e.g. if he made a serious blunder), or he made a cheer seeing his friend defeat a tough opponent. For both incidents, I did not single out any player to name and shame. Rather, I was just conveying my general feedback before the start of the next round of games, first explaining to all players that these offences were unintentional and then remind players not to do that again in case they cause unnecessary distraction to other players. I think the players who made these offences knew who they were and case closed. I don't think they warrant any concrete penalty.

What I thought I could've done better

1. Choice of tie-breaker. The choices I recommended to the organiser (who followed my recommendations) were, in order of priority, a) direct encounter (because it is the most straight-forward, and which I argue is the fairest) ; b) Sonneborn-Berger (sum of the defeated opponents' scores, because the organiser specifically requested tie-breakers that will result in clear-placing, as due to schedule and time constraints, we are unable to play Armageddon tie-breaks) and c) Koya system (The number of points achieved against all opponents who have achieved 50 % or more, again with the intention to come up with clear-winners).
   
   While the top 3 placings (who get a prize) need not resort to any tie-breakers, it was evident afterwards that while Sonneborn-Berger was useful, Koya seems quite useless. As shown on the chess results page, while Sonneborn-Berger generated values with big variations / differences, many values were the same under the Koya system tiebreak. On hindsight, I should have proposed the Extended/Reduced Koya system instead -- that would have probably generated values with wider variance / differences. This is a learning point for me.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Anyone who is interested to have a general understanding of how various tie-breaker system works can refer to this site with a rather concise explanation.
   
2. A player did not want to claim an illegal move (he's allowing his opponent to take back without seeking to exploit the situation with a "discovered check"). There was 1 incident whereby 1 of the players pointed out his opponents illegal move, but rather than either claiming it for 1 minute to be added OR playing his own move to exploit the situation (he can make any legal move and the position becomes the situation of a "discovered check"), he actually requested his opponent to just change a move. Given that the player was a willing party, and in the spirit to not cause any undue disturbance, I allowed the game to continue with no time penalty imposed. (This was exactly what I did in a local team tournament 1-2 years ago as well, before I became an arbiter.) Luckily, this result would not have affected the final standings. However, what if it actually had an effect on the final standings? I would have been guilty, or possibly been accused of being guilty, to be unfair. On this, I still do not know exactly what I should have done. But during the half-time break in the tournament, I actually asked the player again regarding the incident, and he confirmed that he had no intention to make a claim and exploit the penalty. For now, I can only hope that such incidents would be kept at a minimum.

Final concluding thoughts

After serving as the arbiter for this pleasant event, I have to say that, I feel that to serve well as an arbiter, one should be, or had been, a tournament player. Because I feel that I can better empathise incidents of minor illegal actions. (For instance, adjusting the pieces during opponent's turn. Especially for blitz, sometimes the pieces are not placed in the most centralised position in the square, so after making the move and pressing the clock, the player proceeded to adjust the piece, arguably, to help his opponent confirm the intended piece placement.) Also, after the arbiter's seminar, I realised that my natural tendency was way too strict on imposing possible penalties on players, so I tried to counteract as much as possible. I do feel the quality of my service today was fine. Hopefully, I will continue to serve well in future chess events!

Yours sincerely

Ong Yujing (Eugene)

a.k.a. newbie_learner

Siglap South CC Chess Quartet