A kiddo named 'A' and another kiddo named 'B' got matched up in serious chess tourney
The game started...
And both of them don't even know basic rules about chess and they exchanged their Kings at move 8!
You're casually spectating matches in the tourney as an arbiter, and you see these kiddos playing chess without Kings!
What will you do?
Result: 0-0 !
JK, not an arbiter but I'd tell them not to do that but they can just keep playing, first to checkmate/take the Queen then.
If the players don't follow the rules an arbiter can set the result of the game to 0-0 as #2 mentioned. No help can be given the players during the game so that would likely be the result.
assuming serious game with player not knowing that king cannot be taken is bit odd BUT serious game player are supposed to keep score sheet. With help of that game would be restored to first position where no illegal move has been made and continued thereof. With current rules arbiter needs to intervene illegal move even no claim has been made there would odd situation to solve : on first illegal move opponent should be given two extra minutes but now obviously both have done it so should I add to both- i presume I should . And then game continues and if either makes illegal move again and arbiter rules game result to non offending player.
Calling it 0-0 seems also fine solution. Assuming score sheet does not exist or is not credible that presents the game as it happened.
@what_game_is_this said in #3:
> No help can be given the players during the game so that would likely be the result.
Players may ask clarification to rules from the arbiter and the arbiter is assumed to clarify them. Not that I ever encountered case where I need to explain anything this fundamental. Closest to this is explaining that castling is allowed even if rook passes cross a threatened square.
Not all player know FIDE rules on draw material on timeout. But serious games are played with increments so that never happens.
I am (sometimes) a arbiter. So I would decide as follows:
1) in a rapid tournament: draw (like when the arbiter comes and both kings have check)
2) in a serious tournament (90min+30sec/move): returning the position (according to entries in the partiaries) before impossible moves.
I'll fire them out of the hall..
@Acrobat31 said in #1:
> A kiddo named 'A' and another kiddo named 'B' got matched up in serious chess tourney
>
> The game started...
> And both of them don't even know basic rules about chess and they exchanged their Kings at move 8!
>
> You're casually spectating matches in the tourney as an arbiter, and you see these kiddos playing chess without Kings!
> What will you do?
I would probably tell them the rules, and let them restart.
I’d call it a draw (essentially a no contest)
draw, tell next time to not take the kings, let them shake hands.
how serious is "in serious chess tourney" when the players don't know the most fundamental rules of the game? how serious is an arbiter who is "casually spectating matches in the tourney as an arbiter"? I'm tempted to say not very, but YMMV.
I'd let the kids play, and come to whatever conclusion they came to: 1-0, 0-1. 1/2. It's not the arbiter's role to decide the result of the games, but to uphold fair play. Let the players determine the winner. True, an arbiter's decision can and often does affect the outcome, but as much as possible, it is not the arbiter's job to decide a winner. You're not the judge at a dance contest.
You're also not there to spectate. You do have to watch, to keep an eye on how the games are developing, but that is not because you are collecting samples for your new book, "Exciting games I witnessed first hand". It's because you are looking for trouble before it happens. For potential time scrambles. For unethical players who will try (and they will) to bend and break rules in order to better exploit an opponent's time pressure. For anything that might affect the integrity of the game. And that includes yourself.
in chess, as in hockey or baseball or whatever, the best referee/arbiter/umpire is the one who is invisible. You make calls, some better, some not. You'll let infractions go, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. but what you want to be remembered for is letting the players play the game.
So let the kids finish their game, and take whatever result at face value. then take the 2 of them aside and explain to them what they're missing. And that in their next games, against players who know the rules, they are going to take the consequences of their ignorance. Let them play the next round, but make sure they both know that 1) there are rules, and the rules must be followed, and 2) you will be watching. Properly administered, this can be one of the most important lessons that chess can teach a youngster.
