Yuri Eliseev Tells How the Arbiters Changed His Game Result Twice

Время публикации: 09.01.2014 23:59 | Последнее обновление: 10.01.2014 01:47

Yuri Eliseev, 17-year-old GM from Russia, told how he was registered defeat in the encounter against Daniel Naroditsky at the WYCC in Al ain. It became thetopic of discussion after Anastasia Ziazulkina shared her impressions on the competition. We have published them here

"I got a slightly worse position after the opening in the 9th round game against Daniel Naroditsky," Eliseev says. "Actually the very same assessment is fair for the position on the board up to 38th move. Last several moves were made by me in a terrible time trouble. After we both made the 39th move, we got time increment. Now Ihad 30 minutes as I only had seconds left before the increment. After making the 40th move, Daniel went to the arbiter having a discussion somewhere between the neighboouring tables. I had to stop the clocka that moment, but I thought Daniel was only requesting me to make the 40th move with the time I had before the increment. Moreover, I wasn't sure I had the right of stopping the clock because of my rival's claims (the game should be stopped by the person who is appeals to the arbiter). I had to play, but I was distracted by the situation, by the way in the position where an important choice had to be made. At that moment my rival and the arbiter came back to our table - my clock showed 29 minutes. The arbiter stopped the clock and said, "You lose by time."

Later the decision was changed twice. First I was forfeited, then I went to the chief arbiter of the competition who was in the neighbouring building, where Iwas told that the game had to be continued and my rival had to be found. An hour later Naroditsky came with his coach and they appealed already against this decision. After another meeting, the final decision was similar to the very first one. By the way, I haven't signed the score-sheet; actually I haven't seen it after that "adventure" to the neighbouring building to the chief arbiter.

We didn't appeal against the decision because it's not entirely clear what we should be requesting. The rematch? That's nonsense. The continuation of the game after the home prepared analyses end? Not any better.

Some think that what the clock showed was of no importance if 40 moves were not made in the given time, others disagree saying the decision made by the arbiters was strange because it was the clock that didn't work properly. 

The question is how to qualify such situation in future. Exactly such situation is not mentioned in FIDE Regualtions, but it can be taken as a special case of the Paragraph 6.10.b:

6.10.b. If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks was incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall stop the clocks immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move counter. He shall use his best judgement when determining the correct settings.

Anyways, despite all the justice and injustice of the particular decision, situations like this are unexceptable in sports. I think appropriate is to put additional amendments in FIDE Regulations. For instance, that could be - if the clock is not working properly (the increment worked on tfhe 39th move or the 5th or the opposite happened and it didn't work at all; the button couldn't be pushed, etc) the game should be stopped, the clock replaced and the time corrected to the very last indicator, although such definition also has plenty of disadvantages.

At the end, I would like to join Anastasia in all she has written and especially in the "etc." part in the 3rd paragraph."

 


  



Смотрите также...