An Arbiter's Notebook
Through the Eyes of a Spectator

by Geurt Gijssen.

It is very logical that arbiters and organisers would most of all
like to please the players, especially in high category
tournaments. I understand this, because they are the stars. And I
know chess players also like this.

Recently I visited a tournament, not as an arbiter, but as a
spectator. I did not go to the playing area, but followed the
games from the gallery. There were no computer boards and no
monitors on which spectators could follow the games. A boy
who wrote the moves on a scoresheet moved the pieces on a big
demonstration board. In this month's column I would like to
share my observations at this tournament with the readers... 

When time trouble arose, the boy working the demonstration
board was only able to write the moves down and did not move
the pieces on the demonstration board. This may be
understandable, but the public, perhaps with the exception of
the spectators in the first row who could see the actual board on
which a game was being played, could not see anything. And
when the Zeitnot was over, the boy made the moves on the
demonstration board so quickly that nobody could follow what
had happened.

On another board, also in time trouble, the situation was
apparently very interesting, so much so that a number of
players, deputy arbiters and organisers were standing around
the board and in front of the demonstration board. None of the
spectators could see what was going on. Still, the spectators
kept silent, were polite and accepted the situation.
 
Another example. Once again a situation with both players in
time trouble. The arbiter went to the table, wrote some moves
on his scoresheet, began to talk to both players and then went
back to his table. The players started to talk to each other. The
game had apparently ended, but with what result, no one knew. 

There are tournaments where spectators have to buy admission
tickets. It is my opinion that many people involved in the
organising and running of tournaments do not realise the extent
to which the paying spectators are ignored. I can understand
that arbiters and organisers as chess lovers are interested in
watching the games, especially in international tournaments,
when compatriots are involved. What I see happening many
times is that they get so involved following these games that
they interfere with the viewing by the paying public. The
spectators are left with no choice but to protest by hissing. 

I am talking about arbiters, who know the Laws of Chess very
well, who have a lot of respect for players, but who show
disdain toward the spectators. For some reason, they do not
understand that spectators are also an essential part of the chess
scene.

There were other things I did not like. As I was entering the
playing hall, I met two players of the main group (both were
grandmasters), just outside of the playing hall. I asked them
what the result of their game was, because I thought they had
played each other. I was very surprised - and from a
professional point of view as an arbiter - shocked that their
games were still in progress. They were not playing each other,
but were having an interesting conversation outside of the
playing hall.

A few month ago I witnessed, in a women's tournament, one of
the participants talking with her trainer during the game. And
not just a word or two. No, they were talking in the playing hall
for at least five minutes. When I told the arbiter that this was in
my opinion an impossible situation, he replied that he had
already told to them several times not to talk with each other
during the game, but as he told me, he could not stop them. I
explained to him, that, even when they do not talk about the
game, the situation is quite unpleasant for the opponent. Finally
he went to the player and her trainer and told them to stop the
conversation. Later I saw an interview with this referee, in
which he repeated this story, complaining that I was a very
strict person and, as far as he was concerned, as long as players
do not complain everything is OK with him...

I started my column with some remarks about the "rights" of
the spectators. Recently I received an email from Charles
Kennaugh, from the United Kingdom. He wrote:

Dear Mr Gijssen,
Let me first congratulate you on your very interesting and
informative column at The Chess Caf‚. I am a fairly regular
tournament player and I have a couple of queries and a couple
of points of view on which I'd be very interested in your
comments. All refer to normal tournament play with fixed time
controls (e.g. 40 moves in 2 hours) and no element of quickplay
finish.

What exactly is the role of a kibitzer? I think I am right in
saying that if your flag falls before you have made the
stipulated number of moves, you lose automatically without
your opponent needing to claim. Normally the arbiter will
intervene, but sometimes in large tournaments an arbiter may
not be to hand.

What happens then if a kibitzer (who may or may not have an
interest in the outcome of the game) intervenes to point out that
the flag has fallen? Some may consider this to be bad form, but
as far as I can see the player who has lost on time has no
grounds to complain. Am I right? And does this also apply to
illegal moves being pointed out by a kibitzer? 

Thank you, Charles, for your email. Let us replace "kibitzer" by
"spectator" in Mr. Kennaugh's inquiry and take it from there. In
the Laws of Chess there is one Article that mentions spectators.
It is Article 13.7: 

Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or
otherwise interfere in a game. If necessary, the arbiter may
expel offenders from the playing venue.

It is clear what the arbiter may do if a kibitzer acts as described
in Mr. Kennaugh's email. But as a matter of fact, the die has
already been cast. And to be honest, the instances he cites are
not the worst. You know, when a player loses on time, the
game is over and the intervention of a spectator does not
change the result. An illegal move pointed out by a spectator
also has no decisive consequences. But nevertheless, it is quite
unpleasant when spectators intervene. The best course of
conduct is for the spectator (kibitzer) to inform the arbiter. And
then the arbiter can intervene in the game. (Mr. Kennaugh's
other questions will be taken up by me in my February
column.) 

As already noted, there are worse situations. For instance, a
spectator shouts in the playing hall: "Garry, play Ne4". What to
do in this case? The only thing the arbiter can do is to expel the
player from the playing hall. The next question is of course: Is
the player allowed to play Ne4? I think so, because a player
should never be penalized as a result of actions of spectators. 
Recently there was an incident in the Dutch team competition.
The captain of a team told one of his players that he had
completed 40 moves. The arbiter warned the captain and a
member of the board of the Dutch Chess Federation ruled that
the game was lost due to the intervention of the team captain.
The Appeals Committee decided that the player should not be
penalized because the captain made a mistake. 

The same thing, more or less, also happened in the European
Club Competition. Finally the Appeals Committee decided that
the player was not to blame, but the team captain was
penalized. He was banned from all official functions in the
European Club Competition for two years. 

Although from time to time captains cause problems, in the last
Olympiad I must say the co-operation between arbiters and
captains was wonderful. I have been present at several team
competitions, but from the very beginning of the Olympiad in
Elista, starting with the captains' meeting, the atmosphere was
very relaxed. 

Finally, I would like to mention a very special kind of
spectator: the family. In youth tournaments parents many times
create a lot of problems. I started my career as an arbiter in
youth tournaments and could write a book about the bad
behaviour of parents. Parents who promise their children
money in case of a win, parents who tell their children moves,
parents who blame other parents and so on. The best youth
tournaments are the tournaments in which the parents are not
present. I know I am exaggerating a little bit, but it was often
no pleasure to be an arbiter in youth tournaments, due to the
parents. 

On the other hand, I must admit that the behaviour of chess
players' wives or husbands is generally very correct. You see
the tension on the faces of the accompanying persons, but they
do not interfere at all. Next month, I shall again turn my
attention to the many questions I have received from readers...


