British Chess Championships 2010

[E Michael White]

The arbiter who advised Rayner over the phone, before the expiry of 30 mins if that’s what happened, got ahead of himself. Under the FIDE rules and ECF/CAA modification the arbiters decision has to take place at the time or after the player arrives late ie after 30 mins. That’s what the rules say; it may not be what was intended.

The arbiter who advised Rayner on the phone in effect gave unofficial personal advice to Rayner outside of the game, rather than a decision as he did not have the power within the rules to decide the issue at that time. So that advice should not influence any subsequent arbiter or appeals decision. If French was first officially advised that he had been awarded the game it was Rayner who should appeal within the hour.

If a soft rule is to be allowed in instances like these I think at least 2 criteria should be met:- ie a) the reason for the delay should not be the players fault and b) the delay could not reasonable have been foreseen as a possibility.

Unless you have had a very sheltered life traffic jams, late buses/trains, ticket/cash machine malfunction and full car parks occur with monotonous regularity and should be foreseen as a possibility. In the case of cash machines at stations the Times and other papers reported recently that various bodies consider the reliability of these devices to be unacceptable which puts the onus on the player to allow for that in travel arrangements. I understand a cash machine was the cause of Rayners lateness so he should have been defaulted 0-1.

[David Sedgwick]

As a matter of interest, was the £20 appeal fee retained, since the appeal was rejected and the arbiters' decision upheld?

Whatever one thinks of the merits and justification of the appeal, isn't the real issue to emerge out of this the decision that to resume the game would be "unfair" and which was what led to the 1-1/2 decision (itself arguably unfair on Rayner - since the committee had ruled that the game should in principle go ahead, and he was white). In theory this sets a precedent of any player being able to manufacture some sort of dispute whilst a game is in progress, with play being suspended pending the outcome of an appeal (knowing that some random combination of points would be awarded at the end of it). There was a facility to play a short session and then adjourn (with pairings being done on basis of a provisional result, as in the old days) - were the appeals committee even aware of this?

I assume that this is possibly the arbiting team's main concern and is why appeal procedures are being reviewed.

BTW, has it been revealed who was on the appeals committee?

It's normal to return the deposit even if the appeal is rejected. The deposit would be retained only if the appeal were felt to be entirely devoid of merit.

If I were the arbiter involved, my number one concern would be that an important message had failed to reach me in the first place. (In response to Justin, my understanding is that that was what happened (or rather didn't happen), not that the arbiter knew but failed to speak to Angus.)

Both the appeal procedures and the administrative procedures are to be reviewed.

[David Sedgwick]

Under the FIDE rules and ECF/CAA modification the arbiters decision has to take place at the time or after the player arrives late ie after 30 mins. That’s what the rules say; it may not be what was intended.

"Players arriving 30 (10 for Rapidplay) minutes or more after the start of a session shall lose, unless the arbiter decides otherwise."

Where does that say that you cannot "decide otherwise" prior to the situation actually eventuating?

[Alex Holowczak]

Do we know whether French knew of Rayner's troubles before he launched the appeal?

[Roger de Coverly]

The arbiter who advised Rayner over the phone, before the expiry of 30 mins if that’s what happened, got ahead of himself.

I don't think we know exactly what was said. From Rayner's demeanour, it wasn't that of a player who was desperate to make a 2.45pm cutoff. There would have been no "dispute" and several pages of forum if he'd been a minute earlier.

A reasonably hard line would be that Rayner should try and make 2.45pm. The clocks would be started at 2.15pm . If he arrived between 2.45 and 3.15 the arbiters would allow the game to be played but only with the opponent's agreement.

I think that the conventions of when, if ever, you can phone ahead and ask for special treatment need to be established. The old 60 minute default would have avoided the issue - perhaps events where players may be commuting should consider (like the 4NCL) retaining or going back to 60 minutes.

[Martin Benjamin]

Re some of the discussion above, I honestly have no intention of making spiteful comments about anybody. I have no reason to doubt everyone acted in good faith and in firm conviction that they were doing the right thing. I just want to state my strong opinion that I can think of no circumstances in which awarding 1.5 points between two players for one game can be the best available option, and it should have been avoided at all costs in these cases. If the game could not have been played, one or other of the players should have been awarded the full point, with the other receiving no points. Two precedents in a single tournament is a concern for the future.

[Alex Holowczak]

I just want to state my strong opinion that I can think of no circumstances in which awarding 1.5 points between two players for one game can be the best available option, and it should have been avoided at all costs in these cases.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. We may disagree with what the right decision was, but the one made was certainly the wrong one!

[E Michael White]

Where does that say that you cannot "decide otherwise" prior to the situation actually eventuating?

Reference to "time frame grammar" might help you.

Maybe appeals should only be allowed by the late person between 30-60 minutes (late time) with their clock running so French need only wait until 60mins.

[Richard Bates]

The problem i have with the whole default time debate is the idea that the opponent of the late player is disadvantaged by the lateness of their opponent, and therefore has a right to claim a full point as a result. The default time is intended as a (partly deterrent) penalty to the player arriving late, the awarding of a point to the opponent is merely an unavoidable ("by default") consequence. Thus, where an "arbiters discretion" clause is in place, which it was, the only criteria is whether the player should be penalised or otherwise. The opponent, who is anyway advantaged by an advantage on the clock, shouldn't enter the equation (unless perhaps they express a particular desire to play which mitigates in favour of the late player).

With regards to the discussion about the validity of the excuse for lateness, there is nothing in the regulations that says that the arbiter has to apply some sort of "blame criteria" when deciding whether to apply the ultimate penalty*, and therefore such discussion is moot.

I suppose the grounds for the appeal are in this thread somewhere, but since there seems to be no accusation of discriminatory behaviour on the part of the arbiter, I am somewhat mystified as to what they were, and why the appeal committee took so long to reach their conclusion. As far as i can tell, Rayner arrived (very marginally) late, the arbiter used their discretion to waive the penalty allowed for in the rules, and that was that.

One can argue all day about whether circumstances leading up to this could have been handled better, but it does not affect the final outcome. Had Rayner not rung up in advance, arrived marginally late, and the arbiter anyway used their discretion not to penalise him, it would have been no different.

*I suspect that most British arbiters would seek to ideally apply something along the lines of the following 3 principles:
1) Presumption that the game should go ahead (outside of first round and possibility of repairings)
2) That the late player has a believable justification for being late
3) Has endeavoured to keep the tournament informed of their situation

It is even quite possible that many would even not require 2) or especially 3) (stuck on the Underground?) if the player arrived within seconds of the official default time! Once the decision has been irrevocably taken it is of course unfortunately too late (that is when you might start getting into debates about 1/2pt byes for defaulting players - which i have seen happen many times at weekenders)

[E Michael White]

One can argue all day about whether circumstances leading up to this could have been handled better, but it does not affect the final outcome. Had Rayner not rung up in advance, arrived marginally late, and the arbiter anyway used their discretion not to penalise him, it would have been no different.

This is of course correct as a side statement but you cannot disregard that the first official arbiter statement by any arbiter seems to have been that French was declared winner and Rayner did not appeal that.

My suggestion re criteria, was for a going forward improvement that the ECF could include to avoid similar incidents. Historically there have been several times the ECF have sought to include their own well intentioned variation of FIDE rules but they do not follow up with clear statements and drop the arbiter in at the deep end. I think the approach of leave it to the arbiters discretion favoured by Stewart Reuben and others does not help.

In addition I meant to say about 20 pages back, somewhere I read that the clock used to measure late times is the tournament clock, on which the arbiters must agree, and not each individual games clock.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I understand a cash machine was the cause of Rayners lateness ....

This is also my understanding although I find it hard to believe that this was actually the reason given/accepted.

There's been quite a lot of debate on various aspects of all this, much of it under the assumption that Mr R had given a reason why he would be late but ...


a broken cash machine can't be a reason for being late. If you have a card to get money out of a machine you by definition have the means to buy a train ticket, the rail system having accepted alternatives to cash as payment for tickets for several decades now. I don't see why the stated 'reason' could possibly actually be a cause for lateness.

[Alex Holowczak]

The reason I was told (second-hand) is that the machine swallowed his debit card. So he had no choice but to stay there.

[Richard Bates]

The reason I was told (second-hand) is that the machine swallowed his debit card. So he had no choice but to stay there.

Yes, nothing wrong with defending your man to the hilt, but no need to cast aspersions on the opposition's good faith.

[David Sedgwick]

I wonder whether in future instances the game might be started while the appeal is being considered and the outcome of the appeal not announced until the game is concluded. It's not totally satisfactory, but what is?

Had it been one of our events we would have acknowledged the intent to appeal and asked the players to play under protest. That allows the game to be concluded and then conduct the appeal afterwards.

I don't like this idea at all. In my view it's almost impossible for a player to do himself/herself justice under such circumstances. Would you take the same view if a player had been judged to have lost by default and that player had then appealed?

And if you did that at one of your tournaments, is it not entirely possible that not just the game in question but the following round might have had to take place before the appeal could be conducted?

It's certainly not the normal practice, at least in the British Isles. I've been involved in four instances within the last twenty years in which play has been suspended pending an appeal. Admittedly all of them involved incidents which occurred during play, rather than prior to the start.

In two of the four cases the appeal process resulted in a decision that play should continue. That then happened.

As has been pointed out, there were other possibilities in the present case which the Appeal Committee could have adopted, had it felt them to be practicable. A game could have been played with a shorter time limit. Or it could have been adjourned if necessary after (say) five hours play, either to another location or, if essential, to the following morning.

If you're really worried about disruption to the schedule, you can specify that the Chief Arbiter's decision is final.

So in essence we have the following options:

a) playing under protest, with an appeal being held later;
b) playing the game after the appeal if that is the decision, under special conditions if necessary;
c) admitting of the possibility that the appeal process may not allow the game to be played;
d) not having any appeal beyond the decision of the Chief Arbiter.

I appreciate that there are practical difficulties where there are two or more than one rounds in a day and everyone plays at the same times. In such circumstances, d) is the least bad option in my view.

[David Sedgwick]

I just want to state my strong opinion that I can think of no circumstances in which awarding 1.5 points between two players for one game can be the best available option, and it should have been avoided at all costs in these cases.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. We may disagree with what the right decision was, but the one made was certainly the wrong one!

I disagree. I appreciate that I'm very much in a minority on this thread.