The Layman’s Guide to World Chess Match Officials
By GM Yasser Seirawan
Events in Elista and the recent ruling by the FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov
that game five would be awarded by forfeit to Veselin Topalov have sparked
an enormous number of letters and articles. In making his ruling, Ilyumzhinov
referred to the legal issues behind his decision, and numerous messages therefore
discussed legal points. In reading the many arguments put forward, I realized
that even knowledgeable chess fans are not always fully aware of the various
roles and responsibilities of chess officials. I therefore thought it would
be helpful, for sorting out the unfolding events in Elista, to offer a layman’s
guide to the roles and responsibilities of chess match officials. A proper
understanding makes it easier to assess how, where and why things went awry
in Elista.
We begin, logically enough, with the Chief Arbiter, whose prime task is to
be an impartial referee and insure that the Laws of Chess are respected. In
practice the Chief Arbiter’s duties have been expanded to responsibility
for making sure that the playing conditions remain constant for each successive
game. When the Chief Arbiter is absent from the stage, the Assistant Arbiter
takes his place. The Chief Arbiter and Assistant Arbiter are employed by the
Match Director.
The Match Director insures that the conditions in the match contract are
fulfilled. These include proper accommodation for the players and their teams,
appropriate conditions in the playing hall, proper staging of the Opening and
Closing Ceremonies, adequate facilities for spectators, a suitable media room
for journalists, the schedule of play, the distribution of per diem monies,
the proper awarding of prize money and much else.
The Match Director is supported by an Organizing Committee, whose members
are assigned specific duties regarding, for instance, press releases, the official
website, match commentators, programs/brochures, dinners for sponsors, etc.
Before the match starts, the players and their representatives, the Match
Director, the match organizers and the Arbiters inspect the playing hall. The
players try out their respective chairs, approving them for use throughout
the match. They also approve the lighting, after which the Arbiter will note
the agreed candlelight intensity so that it will be the same for all the games.
They select the chess pieces, often after being invited to choose between a
wide variety of sets. The Chief Arbiter will then watch over the chosen set
like a hawk. They approve the clock, and the Chief Arbiter will make thorough
tests of its accuracy throughout the match. Finally, all the parties will inspect
their rest areas and bathrooms. Usually, each player will have his own bathroom,
but often a common bathroom is provided. Once all the playing conditions have
been settled, the Chief Arbiter will make sure that they remain constant for
every game. Any changes to the playing conditions require the approval of both
players.
The Appeals Committee is there to consider protests regarding decisions by
the Chief Arbiter. For example, in a time-scramble a player may fail to keep
a complete score. When a flag falls the Chief Arbiter may rule a forfeit, but
in such a case players can file an official protest within two hours of the
end of the playing session. The Chief Arbiter’s decision may be upheld
or overturned by the Appeals Committee. Afterwards, any player still wishing
to pursue the complaint may do so, as a last resort, to the FIDE President,
who has the power to overrule the Appeals Committee. An important point is
that once both players have signed the score-sheets the game is over, and there
can be no further protest over its outcome.
As a hypothetical example, suppose that one day Vladimir Kramnik wakes up
to discover that his car and driver have disappeared and he therefore has to
take a taxi to the playing hall. Annoyed, he files a complaint and delivers
it to the Chairman of the Appeals Committee. The latter should immediately
reply, “Sorry this isn’t my job!” He should simply walk Kramnik
over to the Match Director and leave it to the Match Director to settle the
matter, who will no doubt do so with profuse apologies and prompt reimbursement
of the taxi fare. Incident closed.
In principle, the last thing a Match Director wants is to receive a complaint
from the players. He wants everything to flow smoothly all the way from the
Opening Ceremony to the Closing Ceremony. If a player files a complaint, the
first thing the Match Director will do is to consult the match contract to
see if the subject of the complaint is addressed in a specific clause. If it
is not, the Match Director will seek a compromise which suits the aggrieved
party but also insures that the other player is not disadvantaged. Players
unhappy with how the Match Director has handled their complaint can appeal
to the Organizing Committee and, as a last resort, to the FIDE President.
With the abolition of adjourned games, protests by players regarding Arbiters’
decisions have been cut ten-fold. Indeed, they have become so rare that being
a member of the Appeals Committee is nowadays a marvelous “job.”
There is virtually no work, VIP treatment is assured, and there are often handsome
honoraria for the whole outing. For the past decade and more it has become
the practice of FIDE officials to hand out these cushy assignments, with the
concomitant perks and rewards, to themselves and to other insiders.
In the days when I worked as a second to Victor Kortchnoi (1980-81) and to
Jan Timman (1993), the players had input, and the power of veto, regarding
the appointment of the Chief Arbiter and the Appeals Committee members. The
players strove to pick a Chief Arbiter who hailed from a “neutral”
country and who shared a common language with them. As members of the Appeals
Committee they nominated respected and distinguished individuals. The hosts
were usually allowed to choose an Assistant Arbiter, as well as one member
of the Appeals Committee.
As John Nunn pointed out in his article on Elista, the members of the Appeals
Committee for the Kramnik v Topalov match are egregiously ill-suited. Georgios
Makropoulos is the Deputy President of FIDE, Zurab Azmaiparashvili is the Vice-President
of FIDE, and both men are also members of the FIDE World Chess Championship
Committee. It is as if FIFA officials were appointed as linesmen in a World
Cup soccer game. There is an evident conflict of interest, and they have used
their positions as FIDE officials to obtain paying jobs.
With this clear understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities
of the match officials we can start to dissect events in Elista and see what
went wrong. Firstly, though, I would stress that I have not been in Elista
during the match and am relying upon the reports that we have all read. Another
point to note is that hindsight is wonderful. It is not always easy to realize
that a mistake has been made under the pressures of the moment. As Mikhail
Tal would say about a post-mortem, “Finding the right move hours or days
later is not the same thing as when you are down to seconds on a clicking clock.”
At some point during the first four games in Elista, Topalov and his team
noticed that Kramnik would leave the stage and go to his restroom. Concerned
by these absences, the Topalov team somehow received access to the video tapes
which showed Kramnik going in and out of his bathroom on many occasions. (How
and why Topalov’s team obtained access to those – private –
tapes is not our concern here.) Silvio Danailov, Topalov’s manager, filed
a complaint on behalf of his client regarding Kramnik’s behavior, casting
suspicion of unfair conduct.
Now we come to the first mistake. The Chairman of the Appeals Committee, Georgios
Makropoulos, agreed to receive the complaint. Given that Danailov’s complaint
did not concern a decision by the Chief Arbiter, Makropoulos should have had
nothing to do with it and should simply have referred the matter to the Match
Director. From what I can best discern, that person is Valery Bovaev. On the
official website, he is listed as Chairman of the Executive Committee World
Chess Championship match 2006. (Whether he has any world chess championship
match experience is another question.)
If he had received Danailov’s complaint, Bovaev would have, or should
have, immediately consulted the match Contract. He would have known that the
playing conditions had been accepted and applied for the first four games.
He could have suggested that the players’ bathrooms would, from then
on, have an attendant. Such a change would have required the approval of Kramnik
and his team, but the whole matter could have been settled simply and amicably.
(Armchair attorneys have described the Topalov/Danailov complaint as invalid
because it was filed more than two hours after game four ended, but this reveals
a further misunderstanding. The complaint was not about a decision by the Chief
Arbiter but about the behavior of Topalov’s opponent. Such a complaint
can be made at any time.)
Having made a first mistake by taking receipt of the complaint, the Appeals
Committee made a second mistake by issuing a ruling that Kramnik’s bathroom
door should be locked. In this way the Appeals Committee unilaterally changed
the playing conditions, which was a violation of the match contract because
Kramnik had not agreed to the change.
Now the Chief Arbiter, Geurt Gijssen, compounded the first two mistakes by
making a mistake of his own: 22 minutes after game five had been due to start,
he pressed the clock and the game officially began. With hindsight it can readily
be seen that Gijssen should have realized that the playing conditions had been
changed without the approval of both players. Indeed, it was quite obvious
to everyone that one player, Kramnik, was in his rest area, clearly protesting
that his bathroom door was locked. In writing this passage I have been struck
by a particular photo from Elista. It shows an earlier game in the match about
to begin. Gijssen stands between the seated players with his palms open and
appears ready to address both players with the familiar, “Gentlemen,
are we ready to begin?” Clearly, when he started the clock for game five
something was wrong. Kramnik was missing and he was certainly not ready to
begin.
Instead of starting the clock, Gijssen should have called for a further delay
to settle the issue of the bathroom. Indeed, he should have insisted that the
playing conditions of the previous games be reinstated until both players were
in agreement. If the issue could not be settled in a timely manner, Gijssen
should have called the game an official time-out.
Once the clock had been started, the train wreck was in motion. The outcome
was clear. Kramnik forfeited game five. Topalov signed the score-sheet, as
did Gijssen. Kramnik did not. If he had signed it, the game would have been
officially lost for him. Full stop.
It can thus be seen that the crisis occurred because the match officials failed
to fulfill their respective duties properly. The FIDE President subsequently
accepted the resignation of the Appeals Committee and took these responsibilities
upon his own shoulders. In itself, this was a truly remarkable development
when it is considered that the FIDE President is supposed to be the last resort
for handling protests. I now understand that a new Appeals Committee is in
place.
Clearly, the FIDE President was in an almost impossible position. His calls
for compromise by the two players and their respective camps after several
rounds of negotiations proved fruitless. Finally, he decided that game five
should indeed be awarded by forfeit to Topalov. He faced a legal issue: There
was a score-sheet signed by the Chief Arbiter awarding a forfeit win to Topalov.
To my knowledge, it is unprecedented in the history of World Chess Championship
matches for a forfeit win, signed by the Chief Arbiter, to be overturned.
Even so, I believe that the decision by Ilyumzhinov was a mistake since in
effect it punished Kramnik for demanding that the same playing conditions as
for the first four games should be maintained. However, we have seen that the
administrative structure allows the Appeals Committee to overturn a decision
by the Arbiter and that the FIDE President has the power to overturn the decision
of the Appeals Committee. The fact that the members of the Appeals Committee
had their resignation accepted is a clear confirmation that the Committee had
over-reached its responsibilities and had made a faulty ruling. Logically,
it follows that the Chief Arbiter made a mistake too and that, therefore, it
was well within the FIDE President’s discretion to overturn the forfeit.
Kramnik made a noble sporting gesture by agreeing to continue to play, albeit
under protest. All genuine chess lovers will be grateful to him for that.
Links
