Oi, it wasn't an intentional swindle, it wasn't even meant as a trap...Joey Stewart wrote:In a nailbiting finish, the Warwickshire u180 team managed to defeat Devon on board count after being 3.5-6.5 down.
Most of the results went according to the position on the board although there were a couple of swindles by certain members of these forums...
Semi-finals
-
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
- Location: Behind you
Re: Semi-finals
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.
Re: Semi-finals
MATCH - STAFFORDSHIRE v SUSSEX DATE -19/6/10 VENUE - BOURNE END
1W LAWRENCE COOPER 108844A 209 1 LUKE RUTHERFORD 118361J 210 0
2 PAUL WALLACE 104823F 198 0 FELIKS KWIATKOWSKI127746H 199 1
3 DARREN WHEELER 121442B 198 1 DONALD MACFARLANE266936F 196 0
4 DAVID ANDERTON 105731F 192 0.5 BRIAN DENMAN 109590A 199 0.5
5 GERALD ACEY 105462E 192 0.5 GARETH ANTHONY 105783C 197 0.5
6 NICHOLAS WALKER 157248K 189 0.5 DAVID GRANT 231304C 196 0.5
7 ALAN CROMBLEHOLME109109J 186 0.5 PETER FARR 105436D 195 0.5
8 ALEX RICHARDSON 117886G 185 0 KENNETH NORMAN 116276H 194 1
9 LEE GRINSELL 111759c 183 0 PETER KEMP 127445E 194 1
10 SIMON EDWARDS 110144E 179 0 GEOFFREY JAMES 113513C 183 1
11 JOHN TURNER 120687E 175 0 RICHARD ALMOND 105672E 181 1
12 PATRICK BENNETT 106612C 174 1 PAUL BATCHELOR 106379A 177 0
13 MALCOLM ARMSTRONG105843F 171 0.5- BERNARD CAFFERTY 147325G 175 0.5
14 JOHN KEAVENEY 209464C 165 1 BRIAN DONNELLY 210851D 174 0
15 DAVID PRITCHARD 143016G 163 0 ADRIAN PICKERSGILL 117110A 173 1
16 JOHN STANIFORTH 119583K 157 0.5 JEFFREY BOARDMAN 258604G 171 0.5
TOTAL 7 9
1W LAWRENCE COOPER 108844A 209 1 LUKE RUTHERFORD 118361J 210 0
2 PAUL WALLACE 104823F 198 0 FELIKS KWIATKOWSKI127746H 199 1
3 DARREN WHEELER 121442B 198 1 DONALD MACFARLANE266936F 196 0
4 DAVID ANDERTON 105731F 192 0.5 BRIAN DENMAN 109590A 199 0.5
5 GERALD ACEY 105462E 192 0.5 GARETH ANTHONY 105783C 197 0.5
6 NICHOLAS WALKER 157248K 189 0.5 DAVID GRANT 231304C 196 0.5
7 ALAN CROMBLEHOLME109109J 186 0.5 PETER FARR 105436D 195 0.5
8 ALEX RICHARDSON 117886G 185 0 KENNETH NORMAN 116276H 194 1
9 LEE GRINSELL 111759c 183 0 PETER KEMP 127445E 194 1
10 SIMON EDWARDS 110144E 179 0 GEOFFREY JAMES 113513C 183 1
11 JOHN TURNER 120687E 175 0 RICHARD ALMOND 105672E 181 1
12 PATRICK BENNETT 106612C 174 1 PAUL BATCHELOR 106379A 177 0
13 MALCOLM ARMSTRONG105843F 171 0.5- BERNARD CAFFERTY 147325G 175 0.5
14 JOHN KEAVENEY 209464C 165 1 BRIAN DONNELLY 210851D 174 0
15 DAVID PRITCHARD 143016G 163 0 ADRIAN PICKERSGILL 117110A 173 1
16 JOHN STANIFORTH 119583K 157 0.5 JEFFREY BOARDMAN 258604G 171 0.5
TOTAL 7 9
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:35 am
Re: Semi-finals
For goodness sake, it's a chess game, not a murder trial. And anyway, at a murder trial you can report the facts - no one's asking for your opinion, humble or otherwise.Neil Graham wrote:I have already sent off the result to the Controller and IMHO until the appeal process is finished and a final result arrived at, the matter is sub-judice. No doubt the ECF will publish the result in full then.Alex Holowczak wrote:I assume we can't be privy to the details of the appeal, but can we at least see the result, board-by-board, and the new corrected result, and see if we can find the problem for ourselves?
I would have thought Warwickshire's win in the U-100 was of more interest to you!
-
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-finals
As one of the two captains in this dispute I'm not here to debate the matter on a message board until a final decision has been reached whether you like it or not.Tim Spanton wrote:For goodness sake, it's a chess game, not a murder trial. And anyway, at a murder trial you can report the facts - no one's asking for your opinion, humble or otherwise.Neil Graham wrote:I have already sent off the result to the Controller and IMHO until the appeal process is finished and a final result arrived at, the matter is sub-judice. No doubt the ECF will publish the result in full then.Alex Holowczak wrote:I assume we can't be privy to the details of the appeal, but can we at least see the result, board-by-board, and the new corrected result, and see if we can find the problem for ourselves?
I would have thought Warwickshire's win in the U-100 was of more interest to you!
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:35 am
Re: Semi-finals
Sigh! No one was asking you to debate the issue; some people were asking for the facts. But if it makes you feel important to know something, however trivial, that other people don't ...
-
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-finals
Tim, I'm not trying to hide something here. The match was drawn 8-8 over the board, Yorkshire winning on Board Count; Nottinghamshire appealed over the eligibility of one of the Yorkshire players and I understand that Yorkshire have counter-appealed over the eligibility of one of the Nottinghamshire players. My version of the facts may well be different from the version of other parties and whilst the matter is being considered by the Controller and possibly the Director of Home Chess I don't consider it appropriate to discuss the dispute on here. I'm sorry if some board readers finds this unsatisfactory but whilst a decision is being reached I don't want to comment further.Tim Spanton wrote:Sigh! No one was asking you to debate the issue; some people were asking for the facts. But if it makes you feel important to know something, however trivial, that other people don't ...
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Semi-finals
Curious readers may care to look on the Nottinghamshire website at http://www.nottschess.org/2009_10/county.html#u140_7.Neil Graham wrote:I'm not trying to hide something here. The match was drawn 8-8 over the board, Yorkshire winning on Board Count; Nottinghamshire appealed over the eligibility of one of the Yorkshire players and I understand that Yorkshire have counter-appealed over the eligibility of one of the Nottinghamshire players. My version of the facts may well be different from the version of other parties and whilst the matter is being considered by the Controller and possibly the Director of Home Chess I don't consider it appropriate to discuss the dispute on here. I'm sorry if some board readers finds this unsatisfactory but whilst a decision is being reached I don't want to comment further.
The detailed match result is given and someone, possibly the webmaster, opines that Yorkshire were "correctly penalised".
On a lighter note, I see that the Nottinghamshire team contained Graham Neil, with an estimated grade of 135, and Neil Graham, with an actual grade of 135. That situation should provide scope for endless confusion on future occasions.
-
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-finals
The opinion is the webmasters and not mine. The Graham Neil/Neil Graham situation has already caused confusion when the ECF lumped us together as one player prior to the start of the season - any hope I had of progressing were rapidly dissipated when I found that his 8 games from 2008/9 were at 135 so removing them from my grade made no difference at all.David Sedgwick wrote:Curious readers may care to look on the Nottinghamshire website at http://www.nottschess.org/2009_10/county.html#u140_7.Neil Graham wrote:I'm not trying to hide something here. The match was drawn 8-8 over the board, Yorkshire winning on Board Count; Nottinghamshire appealed over the eligibility of one of the Yorkshire players and I understand that Yorkshire have counter-appealed over the eligibility of one of the Nottinghamshire players. My version of the facts may well be different from the version of other parties and whilst the matter is being considered by the Controller and possibly the Director of Home Chess I don't consider it appropriate to discuss the dispute on here. I'm sorry if some board readers finds this unsatisfactory but whilst a decision is being reached I don't want to comment further.
The detailed match result is given and someone, possibly the webmaster, opines that Yorkshire were "correctly penalised".
On a lighter note, I see that the Nottinghamshire team contained Graham Neil, with an estimated grade of 135, and Neil Graham, with an actual grade of 135. That situation should provide scope for endless confusion on future occasions.
Re: Semi-finals
And when I authorised Graham Neil to play in the county championship, more than one person emailed me to point out my mistake as Neil Graham was already graded.Neil Graham wrote:The opinion is the webmasters and not mine. The Graham Neil/Neil Graham situation has already caused confusion when the ECF lumped us together as one player prior to the start of the season - any hope I had of progressing were rapidly dissipated when I found that his 8 games from 2008/9 were at 135 so removing them from my grade made no difference at all.David Sedgwick wrote:Curious readers may care to look on the Nottinghamshire website at http://www.nottschess.org/2009_10/county.html#u140_7.Neil Graham wrote:I'm not trying to hide something here. The match was drawn 8-8 over the board, Yorkshire winning on Board Count; Nottinghamshire appealed over the eligibility of one of the Yorkshire players and I understand that Yorkshire have counter-appealed over the eligibility of one of the Nottinghamshire players. My version of the facts may well be different from the version of other parties and whilst the matter is being considered by the Controller and possibly the Director of Home Chess I don't consider it appropriate to discuss the dispute on here. I'm sorry if some board readers finds this unsatisfactory but whilst a decision is being reached I don't want to comment further.
The detailed match result is given and someone, possibly the webmaster, opines that Yorkshire were "correctly penalised".
On a lighter note, I see that the Nottinghamshire team contained Graham Neil, with an estimated grade of 135, and Neil Graham, with an actual grade of 135. That situation should provide scope for endless confusion on future occasions.
-
- Posts: 5839
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Semi-finals
"until the appeal process is finished and a final result arrived at, the matter is sub-judice."
This reminds me of an old dispute (previous millennium) in postal chess, where a final(!) decision was made and so I reported it, only to be told that I was wrong to do so as it was "sub-judice". I replied that "sub-judice" implied investigation by a competent legal authority, so I failed to see how this could apply to any investigation by them. That seemed to upset them as well, probably as the Chairman was a very senior police officer...
I think Neil is right not to say anything here, as even a bald statement will attract loads of questions. Are we sure Graham Neil is a separate person, does Neil position his board next to a mirror and play both games?
This reminds me of an old dispute (previous millennium) in postal chess, where a final(!) decision was made and so I reported it, only to be told that I was wrong to do so as it was "sub-judice". I replied that "sub-judice" implied investigation by a competent legal authority, so I failed to see how this could apply to any investigation by them. That seemed to upset them as well, probably as the Chairman was a very senior police officer...
I think Neil is right not to say anything here, as even a bald statement will attract loads of questions. Are we sure Graham Neil is a separate person, does Neil position his board next to a mirror and play both games?
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Semi-finals
What are the rules and practice supposed to be? I see that Notts had two players with "e" status - meaning players who were in the grading data but without published grades. Only one of these players is on Sean's list but both players played in the quarter final without the results being challenged. Of course Sean's list may not be current because of the change of controller.Sean Hewitt wrote:And when I authorised Graham Neil to play in the county championship, more than one person emailed me to point out my mistake as Neil Graham was already graded.
-
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-finals
I have had occasion in the past to see someone whose name was "Simon Peters" (or similar) and who entered into a civil partnership with someone who changed their name to "Peter Simons" (or similar)
Can I assure you that Graham Neil isn't my partner, the fact that I sit next to him at county matches is purely due to our gradings.
Can I assure you that Graham Neil isn't my partner, the fact that I sit next to him at county matches is purely due to our gradings.
-
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: Semi-finals
The list hasn't been updated on the web.Roger de Coverly wrote:What are the rules and practice supposed to be? I see that Notts had two players with "e" status - meaning players who were in the grading data but without published grades. Only one of these players is on Sean's list but both players played in the quarter final without the results being challenged. Of course Sean's list may not be current because of the change of controller.Sean Hewitt wrote:And when I authorised Graham Neil to play in the county championship, more than one person emailed me to point out my mistake as Neil Graham was already graded.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Semi-finals
I'll try to answer the specific question.Roger de Coverly wrote:What are the rules and practice supposed to be?.
From the Rules of the Counties Championships:
"B2. Grading limits shall be based on the ECF Grading List (for chess other than Rapidplay) current on 1st September in each season. Except in The Open Championship, a player who has no current published grade may play in the Final Stage only if permission has been previously obtained from the Controller. Requests for permission must be submitted to the Controller so as to arrive at least seven days before the player is to play. The team captain must, prior to making such an application to the Controller, be satisfied that the player is not of such a playing strength as to breach the limits set for the Division in question, and must submit evidence where this is available from the local grader or master list or other source. Such a player shall be declared ineligible (or no longer eligible) if the Controller is not (or has ceased to be) entirely convinced that the player’s strength is clearly below the relevant grading limits. The Controller shall assign the player a grading for the purposes of this event only."
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Semi-finals
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.David Sedgwick wrote:
From the Rules of the Counties Championships:
Except in The Open Championship, a player who has no current published grade may play in the Final Stage only if permission has been previously obtained from the Controller. Requests for permission must be submitted to the Controller so as to arrive at least seven days before the player is to play.