Just noticed the 2022 FIDE Arbiters Manual is out: arbiters.fide.com/wp-content/up … al2022.pdf. What are your thoughts on the manual?
I like the tip after 6.10.2 that says: “It is essential to write down the times shown on the two clocks and the number of moves made before making any adjustment.” I think a tip like this would be good to add to the US Chess rulebook.
Gee, shouldn’t it also suggest bringing something to write on and a pen or pencil?
No.
Geez. That document is 275 pages, and contains all kinds of detailed stuff – a President’s welcome, the Laws of Chess, a Glossary, tournament setup details, etc.
Also, it seems FIDE is adopting U.S.Chess-style TD Tips, but labels them as “advice”, encloses them in gray boxes, and disclaims them as not part of the Laws. Some of this advice is so rudimentary as to be childish.
For those of you who have complained that the U.S. Chess rulebook is too long, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
And for those who have noticed that a few U.S. Chess TD Tips seem to contradict the rules, you, too, ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Sometimes the gray-boxed “advice” comes just before the rule it is explaining, and appears designed to warn the reader ahead of time that the rule was never intended to mean what it says.
Example of gray-boxed advice:
Is anybody going to be able to figure out, from the above definitions, what increment and delay really are, if they don’t already know? I think not. Furthermore, these definitions are at odds with other (older) areas of the document, such as:
(Emphasis mine.)
Is this the “old” increment (i.e. does it mean “increment or delay”) or is it the “new” increment (cumulative only)? I think the former was intended, since both of those passages come from older material, but who knows for sure?
I don’t like the way FIDE is going right now. The “old” guard and the “new” guard seem to be at odds, and we’re all confused now.
Bill Smythe
My light bulb moment (TD TIPs) from so many years ago is shining bright on others!
One second doesn’t count as increment? I almost always play 1+1 when I play bullet chess online these days.
I like the fact that FIDE is doing this. I dislike the way they are creating internal inconsistencies in the process.
The inconsistencies do not stem directly from the TIPs (or “advice”). They stem from what seems to be two opposing individuals, or camps of individuals, with sometimes opposite ideas of what the rules should say.
1+1 is not ratable under any FIDE rating system.
Bill Smythe
That wasn’t my point Bill.
A reasonable argument could be made that very small delay or increment times probably don’t have much impact, I’d probably draw the line around 2 seconds, and it is worth noting that 3+2 is a popular time control for online chess.
Apparently increment > 60 seconds also can’t be used. I know there were some US organizers running events with 90 seconds increment, but I think they weren’t FIDE rated.
MY point is that, since 1+1 is not FIDE ratable, they saw no point in talking about an increment of less than 2 seconds.
Bill Smythe
What about 5+1 for example? Also, FIDE does bullet stuff online now.
OK, OK. So FIDE just doesn’t want any increment below 2 seconds, for whatever reason.
If that’s true, then we (you) may have discovered yet another inconsistency in the new FIDE Arbiters Manual.
Bill Smythe
The 2021 Norway Chess tournament had the following time control for the Armageddon each round: “white has 10 minutes and black has 7 minutes with an increment of 1 second per move, starting from move 41”. I know Armageddon isn’t FIDE ratable.
Possibly, although one could argue that a one second increment makes a huge difference over having no increment.
An increment of >60 can probably be used. It’s just that the poor definition of increment in the FIDE glossary just says 2 to 60 seconds.
I’ll buy that. Another problem may be that some clocks cannot handle increment greater than 60 (or 59) seconds.
Bill Smythe
The popular Titled Tuesday tournaments on Chess.com are 3+1. Chessbase collects these games for its giant databases.
Just came across this, tec.fide.com/wp-content/uploads … r-2021.pdf, which mentions
Blitz tournament - Bullet G-1’ + 1”
So, after all the discussion, what’s the final verdict on the OP’s original question:
I think the final answer is, it’s a hot mess.
The manual takes a recent version of the FIDE rules, and scatters gray-boxed “advice” (rather like USA’s TD Tips) throughout.
The problem is, the main text and the “advice” were obviously written by two different people, or two different groups. I strongly suspect that the “advice” was supplied by somebody in the USA delegation to FIDE, perhaps in a well intentioned but misguided effort to clarify, and possibly motivated by the fact that English is not the first language of some of the FIDE writers.
Sometimes the “advice” contradicts the rules. In particular, there are differences in terminology.
In the gray-boxed “advice”, the word “increment” is used to mean cumulative time added, while “delay” stands for non-cumulative time added. This is in line with the USA terminology.
But in the main parts of the document, “increment” means either cumulative or non-cumulative time added. To distinguish the two, FIDE prefers “Fischer” or “bonus” for cumulative, and “Bronstein” or “delay” for non-cumulative.
These different usages will invariably cause confusion, especially in areas like “Quick Play Finishes without increment” (FIDE). This translates to “Sudden Death with neither increment nor delay” (USA), but the less savvy reader may have trouble noticing this distinction, and is likely to provide an incorrect response to players’ questions like “If there is a 30-second delay, is scorekeeping still required when under 5 minutes?”.
As I said, it’s a hot mess now.
Bill Smythe
I emailed the FIDE Arbiters Commission about this but received no reply.
FIDE commissions tend to work through national federations and their representatives, rather than with random folks around the world. Especially ones that aren’t FIDE arbiters.
It may depend on the committee. I got a response from the Qualification commission in the past.