A question of behaviour

[Roger Lancaster]

One drawback with the internet can be that games are published much faster than they were 25 years ago. Not only that – more games, even those by strong 8- and 9-year-olds, are published. This seems more prevalent in the UK than in some other countries, a source of lament by parents of some junior internationals – “John’s opponent was able to research all John’s previous games but none of the opponent’s games appeared so John was disadvantaged from the start”.

I mention this as background to an incident at the under-8 championships at Warwick where I’m interested in others’ opinions.

Before the event started, parents were called together. A senior arbiter explained that parents had the option to decide whether games would be published or not. It was up to them, he explained, and he proposed to put the matter to the vote.

[Before anyone asks, I don’t know the ECF thinking behind this. It surely cannot have anything to do with safeguarding so my assumption is that the ECF wished to avoid causing embarrassment to any child by publishing games where the standard of play was so poor as to cause the child to be derided … in itself, a laudable intention. However, and perhaps significantly, no such offer was made next day to the parents of under-9’s].

Anyhow, the option “publish” resulted in a vast number of hands being raised while no-one voted for the alternative “not publish”. So the parents (including many whose children would be playing in the under-9 and/or under-10 later in the week) left the meeting in the clear belief that all the games would be published.

However, after the meeting had ended, three sets of parents approached the arbiter to say they had changed their minds. These were not, as one might expect, the parents of the weakest children but of children with considerable international experience.

The three sets of parents told no-one else of their changed wishes so it was not until after the under-8 had ended that others noticed that the scores of some games had been withheld. Once it became clear what had happened, other parents were furious. They pointed out that, in the under-9 and later events, the three children concerned had the benefit of seeing their opponents’ under-8 games while their opponents had been denied the same benefit.

Now, there is absolutely no suggestion that the parents involved had infringed any of the laws of chess. However, parents of the juniors at my club have asked whether this is the type of behaviour needed to get one’s child into England junior teams. How would other forum members suggest I answer?

[David Robertson]

Publish.

No vote. Just publish.

No exceptions. No parentally-inspired manipulation

To the question of whether some parents are fit and proper people to have children, I need to reflect further. Presumably the three parents in question were bankers

[NickFaulks]

The idea that the games of 8 year olds are crucially affected by in-depth opening preparation is beyond farcical. Any children whose development is affected by such thinking should for their own protection be banned from all competitive chess until they have obtained new parents.

[NickFaulks]

Presumably the three parents in question were bankers

That may be an unfair assumption. They could be lawyers or professors.

[Roger de Coverly]

Before the event started, parents were called together. A senior arbiter explained that parents had the option to decide whether games would be published or not. It was up to them, he explained, and he proposed to put the matter to the vote.

I'm somewhat puzzled by this, although I'm not surprised by junior organisers inventing their own rules.

Looking up the playing conditions of the both the Under 8 and Under 9, they say

All moves in 50 minutes with 10 seconds per move added from move one. Junior Champs: U9
All moves in 20 minutes with 10 seconds per move added from move one. Junior Champs: U8

I would have thought that both count as rapidplay and therefore scoring is optional.

Proof of the U9. 50 minutes + 60 * ten seconds = 56 minutes, thus below the cutoff for rapidplay grading.

[Michael Flatt]

My understanding is that the under-8 and under-9 tournaments took place on the electronic sensory chess boards as a means of testing them prior to the Championship and other competitions. This is one of the rare instances where the Organisers of the BCC did pre-tournament checks of the technology.

The time control for the under-8's and unders 9's were G20mins +10secs (Rapidplay) and G50mins + 10secs (Standardplay), respectively.

Competitors in rapidplay events are not required to record moves on a score sheet so that without the use of the sensory boards there would not have been a reliable record of the games.

In the under-9's the added time is less than 30 secs per move and again competitors are not compelled to keep score once they have less than 5minutes remaining. Thus, competitors may not themselves have a complete record of the game.

1. The question I would ask is: Why were the under-8 games ever published since the scores would never have been available without the use of sensory boards?

2. Having taken the decision to publish the games then ALL games should have been published.

3. The decision to publish should never have been subject to a vote.The Organisers should have made the decision prior to the event and included that in the "terms and conditions of entry".

I have to admit it is easy to be wise after the event but the Organisers should be aware that it is unreasonable to take these arbitrary decisions during the event and to treat individual players differently.

In addition, readers may not be aware that these two events took place behind closed doors and all parents, coaches and spectators were excluded. Very young players are often protected from outside pressures in this manner.

[Roger de Coverly]

The time control for the under-8's and unders 9's were G20mins +10secs (Rapidplay) and G50mins + 10secs (Standardplay), respectively.

I would dispute that 50 10 is anything other than rapidplay by the 60 move check.

[Michael Flatt]

FIDE Laws of Chess - Appendix A

A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player; or the time allotted plus 60 times any increment is of more than 10 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player.

[Ian Thompson]

“... a source of lament by parents of some junior internationals – John’s opponent was able to research all John’s previous games but none of the opponent’s games appeared so John was disadvantaged from the start”.

That's something you just have to get used to, if you believe it to be a disadvantage. Older adults are the ones really disadvantaged here. They may have hundreds of games published whilst a junior hasn't played that many games in their life. To my knowledge, about 600 of my games have been published. I'm currently playing in a tournament where only one of my opponents had a similar number. One other opponent had a few dozen games published; the other six, only a few games each.

Teach the children that if this bothers them they could deal with opening preparation by having a wide opening repertoire, so their opponents will find it difficult to prepare for all possibilities, and by having a sound opening repertoire, so successful preparation by the opponent doesn't matter very much.

[Roger de Coverly]

There was a serious dispute last year about whether an illegal move had been played or not. That might have influenced a decision to record all games using sensory boards. Having done that, there is an additional decision as to whether to publish the resulting games. In fairness, all should be published or none.

[Michael Flatt]

There was a serious dispute last year about whether an illegal move had been played or not. That might have influenced a decision to record all games using sensory boards. Having done that, there is an additional decision as to whether to publish the resulting games. In fairness, all should be published or none.

True.

In this year's under-8 event the second illegal move lost the game (standard play rules). Last year, the new FIDE Rapidplay rule came into force immediately before the tournament. The loss of the game is through playing a single illegal move was introduced (previously it was the third illegal move). This year the ECF have adjusted this to two illegal moves, in recognition that the rule is too severe for the youngest Juniors.

Incidentally, 60 x 10 secs= 600 secs = 10 mins.
So, G50 mins + 10 secs meets the minimum requirement to be considered standard play.

In addition, readers may not be aware that these two events took place behind closed doors and all parents, coaches and spectators were excluded. Very young players are often protected from outside pressures in this manner.

[LawrenceCooper]

I would have thought that both count as rapidplay and therefore scoring is optional. Proof of the U9. 50 minutes + 60 * ten seconds = 56 minutes, thus below the cutoff for rapidplay grading.

This time control is used in the Junior 4NCL and counts as standard play. I think there is a typo in your maths as 60 x 10 = 600 and therefore 10 minutes not 6. When added to 50 minutes this gives a full hour and therefore qualifies as standard.

[Roger de Coverly]

When added to 50 minutes this gives a full hour and therefore qualifies as standard.

I hope there's a general view that you publish all available games of a tournament or none at all and it should not be in the gift of parents to say whether games are published or not. If there's any doubt about this, then add it to the conditions of entry alongside the right to publish grades and store results on an electronic system.

[LawrenceCooper]

When added to 50 minutes this gives a full hour and therefore qualifies as standard.

I hope there's a general view that you publish all available games of a tournament or none at all and it should not be in the gift of parents to say whether games are published or not. If there's any doubt about this, then add it to the conditions of entry alongside the right to publish grades and store results on an electronic system.

Agreed, it should be the same for all players.

[David Sedgwick]

The idea that the games of 8 year olds are crucially affected by in-depth opening preparation is beyond farcical. Any children whose development is affected by such thinking should for their own protection be banned from all competitive chess until they have obtained new parents.

Studying your prospective opponents' games doesn't just involve opening preparation. It may identify weaknesses in an opponent's abilities which indicate the type of position for which you should aim.

I would have thought that that was within the understanding of the most talented eight year old players. Not many, I accept.