There is a strange place on the internet called Reddit where, among nearly infinite other threads, unfortunate miscommunications, poorly timed comments, and hard to watch videos are catalogued and celebrated for their “cringeworthy” quality. Once in a while, a perfectly polished gem of shudder-inducing content will appear on the front page and produce that mixture of schadenfreude, recoil and ick that is known as “cringe.” Wincing like this is pleasurable in the same way that watching a scary movie can be fun—not despite the suspense, thrill, and horror but because of it. Watching the broadcast of the final round of the 2021 Tata Steel Tournament was just such a cringeworthy gem. 

The playoff game between Jordan van Foreest and Anish Giri was set to be broadcast on schedule, however, there was still a game being played at the classical time control between Alireza Firoujza and Radoslaw Wojtaszek that would have interfered with the mise-en-scene the organizers had originally planned for the broadcast of the playoff game. Rather than immediately interrupt, the Chief Arbiter waited for the players to reach the time control before requesting that they move tables. I’m certain that the arbiter considered this to be a reasonable request, given the fact that the players were no longer in severe time trouble and had been briefed before the game that such a request may be made. Needless to say, he was wrong.

For those who missed it, you can watch the cringeworthy moment here.

To his credit, Robert Hess, who was announcing the game, immediately recognized the error of judgment by the arbiter and suggested that this may have a psychological impact on the players, Firoujza in particular. Firoujza had been pressing his opponent and retained an advantage after reaching time control. Once the players moved tables, however, he missed an idea that allowed his opponent to escape into a drawn position. Did the arbiter’s interference in the game have an effect on the result? The answer appears to be: Maybe.

There are often times in chess events when the wishes of the organizer may diverge from those of the players, and the unique role of the arbiter can sometimes be at odds with the wishes of the organizer as well. This is why FIDE suggests that one person cannot wear both of these hats, since the arbiter should represent the best interest of the players when any such conflict of interest with publicity or organizational planning occurs. It seems clear to me that what happened here was the pressure to stick to a schedule led the arbiter to make a regrettable decision in the moment. As a fellow arbiter, I sympathize with him immensely having felt that pinch between the interest of the organizer and the players myself.

My first thought when trying to make sense of this controversy was that this is an example of why it is so important for tournament directors and arbiters to frequently play in tournaments themselves. This ensures that they retain a player’s perspective and can approach delicate situations with solutions that best address a player’s expectations, concerns, and wishes. 

The Chief Arbiter of the event, Pavel Votruba, is a titled player with a respectable rating, though it appears it has been some time since he has played in a rated event. Having said that, the same could be true for most of us at the present moment. 

—Greg Keener, FIDE Arbiter

---

White to Move and. . . What?

---

Online Reciprocity with MICR