I have been asked by Andy Howie to comment on an incident which occurred in a Women’s event. In a blitz game with very little time remaining the position came down to K+N v K+N. As it was an Armageddon Black would go through to the next round with a draw. Black did not claim the draw until after her time had run out.
The arbiter awarded the draw. White appealed and the Appeals Committee overturned the arbiter’s decision.
Let’s consider the appropriate Law:-
C3. An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. However, the opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made a move. If the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before making his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected.
Also remember that the (infamous) Law 10.2 does not apply to Blitz games.
The red text is the relevant part. This indicates that the Arbiter gave the wrong decision, as White could achieve checkmate (e.g. Black king on a8, knight on a7 white king on c7 and knight moving to b6 gives mate). I agree that this is unlikely at any level of chess but it is possible and therefore the win must be given. Had Black claimed a draw before her flag fell then I would have given the draw as it could be argued strongly that to give any other result would bring the game into disrepute, particularly with players of a high ability as in this case. Another argument would be that in Blitz the clock is the determining factor and therefore unless it is a stonewall draw play should continue.
I am therefore sympathetic to the decision reached by the arbiter involved but agree with the Appeals Committee. The fact that it was an Armageddon game and therefore one player benefitted from the draw is an extra pressure on the arbiter, but one that should be ignored as far as possible. Having said that, it is most likely that had it not been an Armageddon then the game would have been agreed drawn by the players and no arbiter intervention needed.
For Armageddon games it may be advantageous to have more than one arbiter officiating. At Hastings when the Armageddon was used 3 arbiters were employed, one to record and watch White, one for Black and one in overall charge. Even in the Rapidplay play-off for the British this year two arbiters watched the games. Fortunately in that case neither arbiter had to take action other than to quieten members of the audience (an experienced IA/IO whose opening of a bar of chocolate sounded like the ripping of a telephone directory in the rarefied atmosphere and a snoring ‘spectator’ who obviously found the excitement too much!!!)
In one of the grading championships at the British this year a player with vastly superior material was awarded a loss when his time ran out against King and Knight. Again, had a draw been claimed it would have been given (this is a case of 10.2). But as it had not it was correctly deemed that the player was trying to win and therefore the award of a loss was the correct result. The player claimed that his opponent did not have mating material, but in this case a smothered mate was possible. Remember, if a player continues to play for a win then that player may also lose.
Returning to the original problem and in no way referring to the arbiter involved, who is quite experienced, FIDE have in the past appointed some arbiters whose skills leave something to be desired. FIDE are working on this and it may soon be necessary to attend an approved course before becoming a FIDE or International Arbiter.
Interestingly, in Scotland the International Arbiter title is available only to those who are Senior Arbiters whereas in England the title of Senior Arbiter is seen as being above that of International Arbiter.