Answers.Body: <p>No. A good arbiter needs to know the Laws of Chess, but that's about it. There's no need to refer to tactics or openings or strategy when you're arbitering. After all, the days of adjudication are over.</p>
  
  <p>I've heard that there are a lot of arbiters with titles that aren't good arbiters, but that wouldn't be solved with imposing a minimum rating. In fact, such a minimum would end up excluding good arbiters who don't even play (my country's only active International Arbiter doesn't compete at all, she has no rating, but she does a great job at being an arbiter).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-07-24T13:48:49.170Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-07-24T13:48:49.170Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: kamekura
Answers.Body: <p>As far as I know, one of the best, Carol Jarecki, did not even play chess.
  <a href="https://arbiters.fide.com/news/6256" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://arbiters.fide.com/news/6256</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-22T14:29:38.440Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-12-22T14:29:38.440Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jack
Answers.Body: <p>In the <a href="https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&amp;view=article" rel="noreferrer">pre-2014 FIDE Laws of Chess</a> article 10 said this:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p><strong>Article 10: Quickplay Finish</strong></p>
    
    <p>10.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.</p>
    
    <p>10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon
    the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)</p>
    
    <p>a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win
    the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal
    means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall
    postpone his decision or reject the claim.</p>
    
    <p>b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be
    awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in
    the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result
    later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He
    shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position
    cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making
    sufficient attempts to win by normal means.   </p>
    
    <p>c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be
    awarded two extra minutes time.   </p>
    
    <p>d. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and
    (c).</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>In the <a href="https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&amp;view=article" rel="noreferrer">2014 to 2017 FIDE Laws of Chess</a> this moved to Appendix G and was expanded.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p><strong>Appendix G. Quickplay Finishes</strong></p>
    
    <p>G.1   A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining
    moves must be completed in a finite time.</p>
    
    <p>G.2   <strong>Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this
    Appendix shall apply or not.</strong></p>
    
    <p>G.3. This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay
    games without increment and not to blitz games.</p>
    
    <p>G.4   If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on
    his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an
    extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This
    constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to
    the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the
    opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall
    continue.</p>
    
    <p>G.5   If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has
    less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before
    his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the
    chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his
    opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been
    making no effort to win by normal means</p>
    
    <p>If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or
    that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal
    means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone
    his decision or reject the claim. If the arbiter postpones his
    decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game
    shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The
    arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as
    possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare
    the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag
    has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making
    sufficient attempts to win by normal means. If the arbiter has
    rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>The movement from the main articles to an appendix is significant and this trend continued in 2017 and the latest version of the rules. In the <a href="https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&amp;view=article" rel="noreferrer">latest version of the FIDE Laws of Chess</a> it has moved to a new section "Guidelines".</p>
  
  <p>It is not too dissimilar to the 2014-2017 version so I won't repeat it.</p>
  
  <p>There are two key points:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>The arbiter requires real chess skill to fulfil his/her function. "The opponent cannot win by normal means" is not a straightforward decision to make. A minimum rating for arbiters would make a lot of sense. I believe such a suggestion has been made at the level of the Arbiters Commission and I will try and find a reference. I believe a rating somewhere in the region of 1700 to 1900 has been suggested and no doubt argued over.   </li>
  <li>The clear trend for this rule is deprecation and elimination. The next revision of the rules is due in 2021. I think it is a better than even money bet that this rule (along with adjournments in Guidelines 1) goes away. If this happens the argument for a minimum rating for arbiters is much diminished but currently I don't see how an arbiter with only a weak grasp of the game could adjudicate such positions.</li>
  </ol>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-19T08:47:22.213Z
Answers.Text: @user30536 Overall chess skill seems more related to endgame adjudication than poetry is to military strategy
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-07-23T22:39:11.800Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-07-23T22:39:11.800Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>As it stands right now, FIDE does not have any minimum Elo rating requirement for arbiters. In fact, there's no test to check whether one can play chess or not before being awarded a FIDE arbiter-related titles.</p>
  <p>It seems clear to me that a minimum rating is required for an arbiter to do their job properly but what are the arguments for and against requiring a minimum over-the-board rating for arbiters?</p>
  
Tags: <rules><fide><rating><arbiters>
Title: Should FIDE introduce a minimum rating for arbiters?
ThreadText: # Should FIDE introduce a minimum rating for arbiters?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-07-23)
  
  As it stands right now, FIDE does not have any minimum Elo rating requirement for arbiters. In fact, there's no test to check whether one can play chess or not before being awarded a FIDE arbiter-related titles.
  
  It seems clear to me that a minimum rating is required for an arbiter to do their job properly but what are the arguments for and against requiring a minimum over-the-board rating for arbiters?
  
  **Tags:** rules, fide, rating, arbiters
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-07-23. Score: 7 | Accepted answer
  
  In the [pre-2014 FIDE Laws of Chess](https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&view=article) article 10 said this:
  
  > **Article 10: Quickplay Finish**
  >
  > 10.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.
  >
  > 10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon
  > the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)
  >
  > a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win
  > the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal
  > means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall
  > postpone his decision or reject the claim.
  >
  > b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be
  > awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in
  > the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result
  > later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He
  > shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position
  > cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making
  > sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
  >
  > c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be
  > awarded two extra minutes time.
  >
  > d. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and
  > (c).
  
  In the [2014 to 2017 FIDE Laws of Chess](https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article) this moved to Appendix G and was expanded.
  
  > **Appendix G. Quickplay Finishes**
  >
  > G.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining
  > moves must be completed in a finite time.
  >
  > G.2 **Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this
  > Appendix shall apply or not.**
  >
  > G.3. This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay
  > games without increment and not to blitz games.
  >
  > G.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on
  > his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an
  > extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This
  > constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to
  > the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the
  > opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall
  > continue.
  >
  > G.5 If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has
  > less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before
  > his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the
  > chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his
  > opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been
  > making no effort to win by normal means
  >
  > If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or
  > that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal
  > means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone
  > his decision or reject the claim. If the arbiter postpones his
  > decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game
  > shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The
  > arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as
  > possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare
  > the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag
  > has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making
  > sufficient attempts to win by normal means. If the arbiter has
  > rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.
  
  The movement from the main articles to an appendix is significant and this trend continued in 2017 and the latest version of the rules. In the [latest version of the FIDE Laws of Chess](https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=208&view=article) it has moved to a new section "Guidelines".
  
  It is not too dissimilar to the 2014-2017 version so I won't repeat it.
  
  There are two key points:
  
  1. The arbiter requires real chess skill to fulfil his/her function. "The opponent cannot win by normal means" is not a straightforward decision to make. A minimum rating for arbiters would make a lot of sense. I believe such a suggestion has been made at the level of the Arbiters Commission and I will try and find a reference. I believe a rating somewhere in the region of 1700 to 1900 has been suggested and no doubt argued over.
  2. The clear trend for this rule is deprecation and elimination. The next revision of the rules is due in 2021. I think it is a better than even money bet that this rule (along with adjournments in Guidelines 1) goes away. If this happens the argument for a minimum rating for arbiters is much diminished but currently I don't see how an arbiter with only a weak grasp of the game could adjudicate such positions.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: @user30536 Overall chess skill seems more related to endgame adjudication than poetry is to military strategy  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-07-24. Score: 8
  
  No. A good arbiter needs to know the Laws of Chess, but that's about it. There's no need to refer to tactics or openings or strategy when you're arbitering. After all, the days of adjudication are over.
  
  I've heard that there are a lot of arbiters with titles that aren't good arbiters, but that wouldn't be solved with imposing a minimum rating. In fact, such a minimum would end up excluding good arbiters who don't even play (my country's only active International Arbiter doesn't compete at all, she has no rating, but she does a great job at being an arbiter).
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2022-12-22. Score: 0
  
  As far as I know, one of the best, Carol Jarecki, did not even play chess.
  <https://arbiters.fide.com/news/6256>
  
  
  ---
  
  