English Chess Forum

Well since someone asked and I had been wondering - nice report on the website from Spirit of Atticus A.

Presume no really major surprises in that first round? The rather brutal 'welcoming' for the Martlets and White Rose 2 was rather striking. White Rose 2 were rather under strength vs the team that got promoted of course, which can't have helped.

Depends how major a surprise you think Barbican 1's win against Guildford 2 is. It'll certainly make the race for second place more interesting this year.

On the 3Cs 1 front, I think we came out of the weekend quite well considering the unfortunate situation of having to default a board

On the point the default, I have had received some feedback on how the situation should have been handled; where I agree that waiving the additional penalties was the correct thing to do, some comments have been that actually defaulting the board was also too much and perhaps the affected games should have been awarded as a draw.

Imagine the headline (which somebody suggested); British Chess League penalises teams due to the effects of the Paris bombings

Not a good publicity image

Alan,
Is it up to the league here? Or do the teams take some responsibility not to claim a win by default (or bring about a double default). Whilst I was aware of a number of French players defaulting it wasn't at the forefront of my attention and it seems that Barbican didn't face any such defaults. However, I would have thought that the majority of Barbican players would have been very uneasy about claiming a default in these circumstances. I perhaps shouldn't attempt to speak for my colleagues, but on a personal level I cannot imagine claiming a win because my opponent was unable to travel due to terrorism.

Matthew Turner wrote:Alan,
Is it up to the league here? Or do the teams take some responsibility not to claim a win by default (or bring about a double default). Whilst I was aware of a number of French players defaulting it wasn't at the forefront of my attention and it seems that Barbican didn't face any such defaults. However, I would have thought that the majority of Barbican players would have been very uneasy about claiming a default in these circumstances. I perhaps shouldn't attempt to speak for my colleagues, but on a personal level I cannot imagine claiming a win because my opponent was unable to travel due to terrorism.

It is a difficult one, as the situation happened so late in the day (I only got final confirmation of the default around 11am, and first made aware around Midnight), so there was no easy way on discussing the situation with other captains; I was talking to the control team early in the morning (lucky I arrived the previous evening), but even they were frantically making calls to Telford to come up with guidance (where the chief arbiter was based), and they only came up with the waiving of additional penalties. Personally I was happy with just the waiving of penalties and didn't really consider other options (too busy trying to run a team), but in the future a more considered approach may be worth looking at

The rules don't really allow for any flexibility as regards the zero score for a default. There is flexibility regarding game point and financial penalties under rule 11.4. I for one would be a bit nervous about allowing flexibility for the zero score part of the rule because of the potential effect on other teams in a tight promotion/relegation battle.

Mike, I am not disagreeing with any of the rules which are currently in place, and I am understanding in the potential problems around flexibility, it is just a very difficult situation to get the balance exactly right in difficult circumstances (even last year when teams were affected with the major crash on the M40 caused problems)

it is just a very difficult situation to get the balance exactly right in difficult circumstances

I think that's something we can all agree on, particularly with often short timescales involved.

Alan Walton wrote: Imagine the headline (which somebody suggested); British Chess League penalises teams due to the effects of the Paris bombings

Not a good publicity image

Here is a thought then, why not play the match over 7 boards. Place the moves e4 e6 d4 d5 on the remaining board and run with headline
The French Defiance

Does anybody know if the first weekend games are being submitted for ratings in the December list; or are they being submitted in one lump at the end of the season?

Alan Walton wrote:Does anybody know if the first weekend games are being submitted for ratings in the December list; or are they being submitted in one lump at the end of the season?

I've been told that they are being submitted after each weekend and rated on the next rating list even though there is no entry on the FIDE rating website tournament list apart from for June 2016. We'll find out for sure next Monday/Tuesday.

LawrenceCooper wrote:We'll find out for sure next Monday/Tuesday.

The 4NCL results have now (Friday 27th) been loaded to the FIDE ratings site.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

LawrenceCooper wrote:We'll find out for sure next Monday/Tuesday.

The 4NCL results have now (Friday 27th) been loaded to the FIDE ratings site.

They appeared on Wednesday but the rating calculations now show in each player's record. The remaining weekends are also showing in the rating tournament calendar, albeit duplicated for June 2016.

Tomorrow's Yorkshire Post column will be about White Rose's teams in Division 1. Next Saturday will focus on Div 3 North.

Pleasing lack of fear (sense?) in the Guilford - White Rose match