Semi-finals

[Sean Hewitt]

What the rules don't state is any requirement for the list of permitted players to be published or circulated. So a match captain will not know whether a player without a published grade in the opposition team is legitimate or not. Presumably this is the basis for the Yorks counter claim.

Indeed. I tried to drag the competition (and the ECF) into the 21st century by publishing such a list. It seems that my successor does not share that vision.

[John Philpott]

Roger de Coverly wrote

What the rules don't state is any requirement for the list of permitted players to be published or circulated. So a match captain will not know whether a player without a published grade in the opposition team is legitimate or not. Presumably this is the basis for the Yorks counter claim.

The situation that we have at present - a list of cleared players on the ECF website that has not been updated since the change of acting controller - is arguably the worst of all worlds, particularly as it ends with the now untrue statement

No other ungraded player has been cleared to play.

Notts fielded a player without a published grade on board 7 of the U180 match at the weekend. The acting controller has told me that he was cleared to play on 7 June (he had previously been cleared by the MCCU controller for the purposes of the qualifying event), and that as far as I am concerned is the end of the matter.

[David Sedgwick]

The situation that we have at present - a list of cleared players on the ECF website that has not been updated since the change of acting controller - is arguably the worst of all worlds, particularly as it ends with the now untrue statement

No other ungraded player has been cleared to play.

Different people have different ways of doing things. When we have three different controllers during the course of the event, it's not surprising that there should be one or two problems. Let's hope that a similar situation doesn't arise in 2011.

I'm inclined to think that the best short term solution would be for the out of date list to be removed from the ECF website (and from this Forum).

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm inclined to think that the best short term solution would be for the out of date list to be removed from the ECF website (and from this Forum).

I can't delete the post so I've edited it to make it clear what it is.

[Kevin Williamson]

Bedfordshire played four ungraded players in the u180 Quarter Final with Notts. Three of these had been cleared with Sean, and were listed on the web. The fourth was later cleared with Cyril and his name did not appear. It did occur to me that this may lead to later confusion so I had kept the ‘evidence’ in case of a challenge (there wasn’t one).

I thought the list was an excellent idea as it gave visibility to all parties and I would like to see it re-instated for future seasons.

What is not clear from the rules is whose responsibility it is to enforce them if an illegal player is fielded. Is it up to opposing captains to make a claim, or should the controller pick this up once the results are submitted? If the former, and no list is available, captains will feel duty bound to query every ungraded player in the opposing team with the controller

[Simon Spivack]

In their zealotry to enforce the letter of the law some appear to have lost sight of what they ought to be aiming at: playing chess over the board.

In the early nineties there was a match in which the opposing captain told me that he wished to blood a new player. Unfortunately, the requisite seven days' notice had not been given, none had. I told him that he would not hear a squeak out of us; however, for added security, I suggested that he ring for approval. The response from on high was that this was fine provided the opposition did not protest.

I then told the opposing captain that a custom of mine was to ring one of my players twice, ten days in advance of a match for his agreement to play and a reminder at ten on the morning. Regrettably, I had not got through to that player that day, despite repeated attempts. I thought it unlikely, although not impossible, that my intended board one would turn up. I had cajoled another player to act as a substitute. I asked the opposing captain whether he preferred that I move everybody up a board or gamble. He sensibly asked his top board, who opted to take the risk of having to play a reserve.

If a player was known to be ineligible before the match, the subject should have been raised then. Otherwise, assuming the team was in order of playing strength, I'd have let the matter go.

[Neil Graham]

I have now received an e-mail from the ECF so am in a position to make some more comments about the disputes in the Notts v Yorkshire B Under 140 match. I know several people were anxious to know the facts - the first thing I'd like to say is clearly there are substantial e-mails from Yorkshire to the ECF and probably others. I have not been copied into the e-mails so I have no idea what has or hasn't been said.
It's important that we don't get into a slanging match now a decision has been reached.

Yorkshire fielded a player, Quinton Lip, who hadn't been passed by the Controller in accordance with Rule B2. The eligibility of this player was questioned, not because of this but on the question of strength. Mr Lip's grade is in the region of 163 and the ECF ruling is that he wouldn't have even qualified for the U-160 event let alone the U-140. The evidence of Mr Lip's strength is available on the Yorkshire CA website where 21 games are shown. Notts claim is therefore upheld

Yorkshire made a counter claim about a Notts player. I have no idea what the basis of that claim was. The two Notts players who have been shown as estimated had been cleared prior to the round. One, my namesake Graham Neil, we have discussed previously. The other player was Greg Paxton - I held an e-mail from the Controller which I offered to the Yorkshire captain confirming his eligibility. I made thorough checks before inviting Mr Paxton to join the team. The ECF say Yorkshire's claim is unfounded.

The result therefore is confirmed as Notts 9 Yorkshire 6.

The only question is should I have challenged the Yorkshire captain about Mr.Lip's eligibility before the match? It's always easy to be wise after the event, as indeed I had no hard evidence to show as, of course, I had no idea who would be appearing in their team and it took some time afterwards to confirm my suspicions that he wasn't eligible (this after he'd knocked our player off the board in record time - his was the first game to finish). At the time I was busy panicking as a carload of juniors hadn't shown up - and I was busy trying to find where on earth they were (they'd got the start time wrong by 1/2 hour). The responsibility of eligibility should rest fairly and squarely with the team who are producing "ungraded" players.

I will suggest an amendment to the Rules that no ungraded players are allowed to start a match without written authority from the Controller.

I hope that this clears up the matter. I'm sorry that the match has had to be decided by appeal and should my proposal be accepted we may be able to avoid acrimonious appeals/counter appeals after the match.

[Alex Holowczak]

The only question is should I have challenged the Yorkshire captain about Mr.Lip's eligibility before the match?

Of course not. It's hard enough worrying about your own team without worrying about everyone else's.

You probably didn't know he'd be playing until you filled in the scoresheet, anyway. Given that the scoresheet had been filled in, it would have been too late by then anyway.

[Joey Stewart]

I am pleased you won this dispute though - it was a pretty shameless attempt at sneaking a ringer into a lower level competition as his playing strength must have been known to their captain.

This is why such rules exist too, not to discourage the playing of the game but to make sure it is played as fairly as possible.

[Simon Spivack]

It's hard enough worrying about your own team without worrying about everyone else's

Nonetheless, a lot of captains do try to learn something about the opposition. I often had players coming up to me to ask the strength of an opponent. I could usually give an estimate. I could ordinarily tell whilst writing down the list of competitors whether an opposing team was properly constituted. It is easy enough to say something neutral to the other side's captain along the lines of: "You've been recruiting, Henry Buggins hasn't previously played for you." In effect an innocent question that would get a response, probably indicating his suitability. This would be better than a challenge.

Indirect methods are often superior. Older readers may recall when BT forbade its operators from giving out addresses. Some of us overcame this by ringing Directory Enquiries, asking for the telephone number and raising the query, "Is that the Excalibur in Brompton Road?" This would elicit a reply giving where the Excalibur was situated.

Certainly a captain has a greater responsibility for his own side. But it doesn't always work that way. When someone drops out at the last moment there can be quite a panic to find a replacement.

When I was a club secretary, I had someone join at the start of the season from overseas, this was before the Internet became ubiquitous. Typically I'd try to arrange a meeting to assess his playing strength. Unfortunately, there was no time, I had to send in a list of nominations to the league secretary. This new member told me his USCF grade. After the first match and in conversation it became obvious that he was somewhat optimistic as to his playing ability. I had my doubts whether he had a USCF grade. I therefore contacted the league secretary, explained and apologised. He allowed me to withdraw the nomination in favour of another.

Neil, proportionately, does not appear to have made an allegation as to whether the selection was a deliberate ploy. There is still some distance to travel before that conclusion can be reached. In my view there is something for the Yorkshire CCA to consider. Every chess organisation has had individuals who are far from ideal. Cock-ups occur, though, except in Surrey, perhaps, to judge from the Surrey wars.

[Alex Holowczak]

Certainly a captain has a greater responsibility for his own side. But it doesn't always work that way. When someone drops out at the last moment there can be quite a panic to find a replacement.

Yes, I've pulled people off school buses to get them to fill in for people in school games...

I always ask other captains who might be in their team. It's useful to prepare for the type of players you might play. I always pass on my team too...

[Neil Graham]

Does anyone know what happened in the other U-140 semi (Suffolk-Hants)?

According to Richard Haddrell on the SCCU website, it's not being played until 26th June.

The result in this match was 6.5-9.5 to Hampshire according to the SCCU website.