Finals day 2 July

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Mike Truran
Posts: 2219
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Mike Truran » Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:04 pm

I understand that there were lots of positive comments about the day. Many thanks to everyone involved - organisers, arbiters and above all players. :D

Mick Norris
Posts: 5862
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Mick Norris » Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:53 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:Well done to Yorkshire, they are just better than the rest at the moment


Well, that does have to be qualified slightly - yes, we're fielding much stronger teams for the finals than anyone else. Not quite sure why.

The 1/4's and 1/2's? Those teams were fairly vunerable and the match results were close. Same vs Lancashire actually, not that it counted for anything formal!

Fantastic result(s) though. We'd somehow not even won two in a row before this run so three is very good going :)


Yes, been over to Yorkshire for lunch for the 2nd Sunday running - absolutely beautiful countryside, warm sunshine and a wonderful place to be :D
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2122
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby MartinCarpenter » Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:32 pm

Definitely. Next up for a triple is hopefully the county cricket team - although they are making much more of a meal of it this year! They really do know how to win historically though :)

Mick Norris
Posts: 5862
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Mick Norris » Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:40 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:Definitely


I can tell you what I was doing next time I see you, but in the meantime, Forums have ears :wink:

I'm sure the Bronte sisters wouldn't have been bothered about their local cafe running out of ciabatta before noon, but I'd like to think that they wouldn't approve of charging £14 for a sandwich, panini and tea for two in a place with no toilets, let alone needing a 20p coin to get through the turnstiles in the toilets in the park :roll:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

NickFaulks
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby NickFaulks » Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:01 pm

"Abolish Pay Toilets" was a slogan which greatly informed my early political development. Warning, the below contains juvenile content.

http://www.shazam.com/track/44146248/caca-rocka

Michael Flatt
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Michael Flatt » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:22 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Neil Graham wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.

The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.

But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.

Nothing further has appeared on this alleged incident so would I be correct in assuming that it was something trivial or even a simple misunderstanding?

NickFaulks
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby NickFaulks » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:39 am

Michael Flatt wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:
Neil Graham wrote:The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.

But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.

Nothing further has appeared on this alleged incident so would I be correct in assuming that it was something trivial or even a simple misunderstanding?

No.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Michael Flatt » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:46 am

I am impressed at how tight lipped everyone is about it and nothing has leaked out.

Is the dispute ongoing or subject to non disclosure agreement?

Mick Norris
Posts: 5862
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Mick Norris » Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:48 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.

Nothing further has appeared on this alleged incident so would I be correct in assuming that it was something trivial or even a simple misunderstanding?

No.


Lancs lost the final - Karma?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

NickFaulks
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby NickFaulks » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:17 pm

Neil Graham wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.

The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.

I realise that it is the "as originally reported" in this comment which most annoys me. The captains disagreed on the result and the Lancashire captain got his version in first, presumably because the "neutral venue" of Derby was closer to Lancashire than to Surrey. If this gives Lancashire some moral high ground, then I think captains should bear this in mind in future.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Andrew Zigmond » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:45 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Neil Graham wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.

The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.

I realise that it is the "as originally reported" in this comment which most annoys me. The captains disagreed on the result and the Lancashire captain got his version in first, presumably because the "neutral venue" of Derby was closer to Lancashire than to Surrey. If this gives Lancashire some moral high ground, then I think captains should bear this in mind in future.


Neutral venues will form part of my report this year. While Derby may be nearer to Lancashire as the crow flies it should be noted that Lancs is less well connected by motorway then the Southern Counties, especially for players who live out in the coastal/ rural parts.

The procedure for confirming match results is that one captain enters the result and the second confirms it. Of course the controller has to check every result and ensure that there are no board order violations/ ineligible players etc.

A difficulty can arise when there is an issue affecting the result of the match, as happened twice this year. In the Kent vs Lincolnshire U120 match I made the result private as soon as I picked up on the issue until it could be resolved - I maintain strongly that the teams involved have the right to be consulted first (obviously the suppression of the result flagged up to the general public that there was a problem but not the nature of the problem). With Surrey vs Lancs it seemed better to keep the result as `originally reported` rather than set tongues wagging.

I would also note that Surrey did not contact me about the match until Tuesday 14th June, two days after the match.
County Championships Controller
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Michael Flatt
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Michael Flatt » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:14 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:I would also note that Surrey did not contact me about the match until Tuesday 14th June, two days after the match.

County Championships 2015/16 – rules[1] wrote:D5. Reporting of Results

D5.1. Results must be reported by both teams on the results server not later than 48 hours after the match was played. If a result is not reported or confirmed within the due time, the Controller may impose a fine of £10 on the offending county or counties. If neither team reports the result, the Controller may eliminate both teams.

If Surrey had missed the 48hr window to report or dispute the result and the Competition Controller was unaware of a dispute it is understandable that he would accept the result as reported by one captain; however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.

It would be best if the chairman of the Appeal Panel provided a factual report on the incident and its resolution.

[1] County Championships 2015/16 – rules: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/competitions-plp/county-championships-2/

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Andrew Zigmond » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:27 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.


No such request was made. The only person who requested the assistance of an arbiter was myself when making the initial ruling. At this stage both teams were consulted to ensure the arbiter concerned was acceptable to them.
County Championships Controller
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Michael Flatt
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Michael Flatt » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:41 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote:however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.

No such request was made. The only person who requested the assistance of an arbiter was myself when making the initial ruling. At this stage both teams were consulted to ensure the arbiter concerned was acceptable to them.

In that case the rule seems crystal clear. If one captain reports a result within the specified time and the second doesn't the reported result must stand.

Why is there such reluctance for the Appeal Panel to openly report the facts of the dispute and its resolution?

Neil Graham
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Finals day 2 July

Postby Neil Graham » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:22 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote:however, if he had been requested to provide a list of Arbiters to assist the captains then the situation becomes less clear since he would have been alerted to the dispute.

No such request was made. The only person who requested the assistance of an arbiter was myself when making the initial ruling. At this stage both teams were consulted to ensure the arbiter concerned was acceptable to them.

In that case the rule seems crystal clear. If one captain reports a result within the specified time and the second doesn't the reported result must stand.

Why is there such reluctance for the Appeal Panel to openly report the facts of the dispute and its resolution?


The Appeal Committee reported to the Controller & the Director of Home Chess and thereby discharged its duties. The situation regarding the report is given on Page 3 of this thread by Alex Holowczak as follows "I am not publishing the verdict of the Appeals Committee. So far as I am concerned, the information has been distributed to those involved, and if they want to bring it into the public domain, that's up to them. To the best of my recollection, I haven't published other disputes/appeals in the recent past, and I don't see why this one is so different.


Return to “County Championships”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest