British Chess Championships 2010

[JustinHorton]

Hodgson's record 10/11 was achieved in 1991. He drew in rounds 4 and 5, against Mestel and Hebden respectively. Like Yates, he achieved a two-point margin of victory (and he clinched the title with one round to go).

Ta. So two points is the record Adams may or may not beat, or equal, today. (I'll miss it, as it happens, as I actually have to go and do something constructive with my time this afternoon.)

[JustinHorton]

Someone told me that it was Angus French who appealed, but that could obviously be mistaken.

No, that's quite right, but it doesn't follow from that that he was refusing to play.

[Richard Bates]

Aren't you mixing two different things? Presumably the arbiters decision was that the game should be played, a decision from which Angus French dissented and appealed. Presumably David's comment was made in the context of the arbiters having two options in front of them - default or playing the game.

I'm not sure I grasp this either, but my point is that the Appeals Committee decided that it was not a default. But if I understand it, the rules say repairing of players previously paired is acceptable if there was a default. But there wasn't a default!

The appeals committee seem to have ruled that there wasn't a default, but neither did they play. So no issue with them meeting in the tournament for the first time, I would think.

[JustinHorton]

I wonder if it has been realised that Roger de Coverley and others could possibly have appealed against the decision of the Appeal Committee? Their decision is still subject to a judicial view in Britain. As far as I know that would be unique in chess history. According to the FIDE Tournament Rules the AC decision is final and that may well be true in some countries. But not here according to David Anderton.

One would cite Tottenham Hotspur v The Football Association, 1990 (or it was have been 1991) in this context.

[JustinHorton]

The appeals committee seem to have ruled that there wasn't a default, but neither did they play. So no issue with them meeting in the tournament for the first time, I would think.

Right, well I'm probably being a bore on this subject (but don't worry, I shall go out soon!) but don't the rules specifically refer to a default, rather than simply their not having played?

I'm aware that this may be a situation unforeseen by the rules, which of course happens all the time, but if that's the case and the rules have been interpreted in that light, that's one thing, and a different one from the rules actually saying that.

(Sorry for the use of bold, just trying to clarify rather than to shout.)

[John Saunders]

Hodgson's record 10/11 was achieved in 1991. He drew in rounds 4 and 5, against Mestel and Hebden respectively. Like Yates, he achieved a two-point margin of victory (and he clinched the title with one round to go).

Ta. So two points is the record Adams may or may not beat, or equal, today. (I'll miss it, as it happens, as I actually have to go and do something constructive with my time this afternoon.)

I can't confirm your tentative assertion. I have not checked all years.

[Richard Bates]

The appeals committee seem to have ruled that there wasn't a default, but neither did they play. So no issue with them meeting in the tournament for the first time, I would think.

Right, well I'm probably being a bore on this subject (bit don't worry, I shall go out soon!) but don't the rules specifically refer to a default, rather than simply their not playing?

I'm aware that this may be a situation unforeseen by the rules, which of course happens all the time, but if that's the case and the rules have been interpreted in that light, that's one thing, and a different one from the rules actually saying that.

Actually reading the rules would be a bit too much of an effort to establish the facts, so i would guess that the rules say that no player may meet somebody they have already played, with a sub-clause clarifying the position in relation to defaults.

[Adam Raoof]

Someone told me that it was Angus French who appealed, but that could obviously be mistaken.

No, that's quite right, but it doesn't follow from that that he was refusing to play.

Are you saying that Angus French was happy to play? Or are you saying that he refused to play?

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder if it has been realised that Roger de Coverley and others could possibly have appealed against the decision of the Appeal Committee?

I did think of that before I knew that there had already been one appeal. I was also put off by the one hour default time!

  

The intention to appeal must be declared within one hour of the Principal Arbiter’s decision.
 

[JustinHorton]

Actually reading the rules would be a bit too much of an effort to establish the facts

Happily my posting of 10.32 provides a link for you. This is about two pages ago now....

[JustinHorton]

Someone told me that it was Angus French who appealed, but that could obviously be mistaken.

No, that's quite right, but it doesn't follow from that that he was refusing to play.

Are you saying that Angus French was happy to play? Or are you saying that he refused to play?

Neither. If he was happy to play, he wouldn't have appealed, but he didn't refuse to. He was given time to write an appeal, and of course he can't both do that and play the game!

[David Sedgwick]

..... my point is that the Appeals Committee decided that it was not a default. But if I understand it, the rules say repairing of players previously paired is acceptable if there was a default. But there wasn't a default!

I said I wouldn't comment further, but I wish to do so on this. In my original post about the pairing, I said:

Not surprisingly, the British Swiss Pairing Rules don't cover this precise situation. The nearest we have is Rule 39, which states:

"If two players are paired together but one or both defaults, although the two players are still eligible to be paired together subsequently, this should be avoided, providing priorities (a) score, and (b) colour balance, are not violated."

As we don't have a rule which covers the exact circumstances, we look for an analagous situation. Although the Appeals Committee in effect ruled that neither player had defaulted, it's clear than no actual play took place. That makes pairing the players afresh an admissible option in my view. It would be a totally different matter if the ½-1 outcome had resulted from something which had happened during the game (unlikely but not impossible). (Edit: Stewart Reuben has mentioned an instance when it occurred.)

As to whether or not the renewed pairing is the most appropriate option, I commented above on the drawbacks of the alternative(s). Again, it's a matter of opinion, in a most unfortunate situation.

[Richard Bates]

Someone told me that it was Angus French who appealed, but that could obviously be mistaken.

No, that's quite right, but it doesn't follow from that that he was refusing to play.

Are you saying that Angus French was happy to play? Or are you saying that he refused to play?

Perhaps Angus was awarded the win, but to show his good faith appealed on behalf of Francis Rayner! Perhaps they even concocted the plan together in the first place. Today Angus will turn up 31 minutes late, cite precedent, and he and Francis will have produced 3pts between them over two rounds without having to push a pawn in anger

[Roger de Coverly]

But it's also possible that as Rayner arrived late he was defaulted and that he was the one who subsequently appealed on the basis that he had been given permission to be late.

To the extent that the other players in the tournament knew what was going on, a Rayner default was the most likely original decision. I cannot be sure but I think the win had been claimed seconds before Francis arrived.

Default time:- Players arriving 30 (10 for Rapidplay) minutes or more after the start of a session shall lose, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Repairing will normally be offered after that time."

The rules seem a bit muddy as to whether you win by default for a half-hour no show in the Championships or Major Open. They talk about repairing but as it's internationally rated isn't there the Short precedent? Also what possible repairing could you do in round 10 of the Major Open apart from Rayner-French?

[Alex Holowczak]

1-1/2 suggests to me the following thought process: Rayner (in effect) requested a half-point bye. Since French was the odd-one out and couldn't be repaired, he got the full-point bye. Hence the game was never played; both received byes. Hence they can play again today.

Again I stress that this is just a punt that Jack and I thought might have been the case.