British Chess Championships 2010

[Jonathan Bryant]

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.

Hi Richard,

I'm happy to confirm that i was in no way trying to 'cast aspersions' on anybody's good faith as you put it.

Alex's response makes sense. A card being swallowed by a bank machine makes sense. That's not the same thing as a broken cash machine - which doesn't.


[Edit:-]
I'd also like to make clear that I'm not anti-Rayner in the sense that had Angus been informed in advance that the usual 30 minute cut-off might apply - i.e. had he not had a reasonable expectation that he had won the game at 2:45pm - then I would be arguing that the game should have been played. (Although I'd probably still have have some things to say about how the decisions came about).

Also, If Mr. R did arrive with the reasonable expection that he'd been given permission to exceed the usual time limit (opinion still seems divided on this point but let's say for the sake of argument that he did) then regardless of the outcome for his opponent then a half point is the very least that he - Mr. R - could expect.

[Sean Hewitt]

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.

My comment was talking about the scenario where an incident occurs prior to OTB play commencing where [for some reason] it is not possible to convene the appeals committee immediately (perhaps because the required player component are busy playing!). This avoids the situation where an appeal decision can't be implemented because there is insufficient time left. Of course it is preferable to conduct the appeal without delaying subsequent play, and I would not entertain hearing an appeal after a subsequent round has commenced.

[John Saunders]

One further fact, which I have on good authority - Francis Rayner called the arbiter's mobile (from a call box in Hastings) at around 12.35pm, having just missed a train, and left a message.

If that is correct, he did not talk directly to said arbiter and, as far as I know, no response was made to his message, nor could it have been - he did not have a mobile phone on him so was effectively incommunicado until he arrived at the venue.

It is of course perfectly understandable and reasonable that an arbiter's mobile phone should be switched off as they spend most of their time in the playing hall. It seems quite possible, or even probable, that the message was not picked up until the situation occurred in the playing hall.

This makes a material difference to some of the arguments and observations that have been made. It means, for example, that the floor arbiter(s) making the decision on the default was/were not tied to any commitment or promise given to FR by themselves or a colleague as no such commitment was made.

Justin Horton has written on this subject at the Streatham & Brixton blog. I agree with most of his conclusions. Like most people, I detest FIDE's zero minutes default rule but I also dislike going to the opposite extreme and giving arbiters discretionary powers to relax the default time in such circumstances (which in this case struck me as being rather run of the mill and hardly exceptional). If I were an arbiter, I think I should dislike having such a discretionary power as any decision I made would make me unpopular with someone, particularly if one gave a ruling against a high-profile player. Much better to have a hard and fast rule (of course, if both players want to play the game, they can be allowed to do so).

I am not at all sure that the specific FIDE regulation allows such latitude anyway (although it too is badly drafted). For some reason British arbiters/organisers seem to like tinkering with the rules and awarding themselves these discretionary powers but they often became a rod for their own backs or lead to bad feeling. The only exceptional circumstances where I would consider delaying play would be in the event of a major transport dislocation or other major incident involving a significant proportion of players.

I agree with another poster who commented that there should be one official clock to govern the default time. The tournament rule should perhaps also have specified that the 30 minutes started from the scheduled start time (as opposed to the actual start time).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

One further fact, which I have on good authority - Francis Rayner called the arbiter's mobile (from a call box in Hastings) at around 12.35pm, having just missed a train, and left a message.

<snip>

Was this mobile number one provided on the entry form or website or noticeboard for people to call, or was it one that only some people knew about? My view is that people phoning in should have an official number to contact, though you might also have cases where people call friends and ask them to pass on messages, and stuff like that. There are quite a lot of ways to try and pass on messages. Imagine someone going to an internet cafe and leaving a message on these forums that they were running late and pleading for someone to pass on a message!

[David Sedgwick]

One further fact, which I have on good authority - Francis Rayner called the arbiter's mobile (from a call box in Hastings) at around 12.35pm, having just missed a train, and left a message.

If that is correct, he did not talk directly to said arbiter and, as far as I know, no response was made to his message, nor could it have been - he did not have a mobile phone on him so was effectively incommunicado until he arrived at the venue.

It is of course perfectly understandable and reasonable that an arbiter's mobile phone should be switched off as they spend most of their time in the playing hall. It seems quite possible, or even probable, that the message was not picked up until the situation occurred in the playing hall.

This makes a material difference to some of the arguments and observations that have been made.

You may well be entirely correct, but my information is different and also comes from what I would have expected to be good authority.

There are a lot of matters to be reviewed and a lot of lessons to be learned, probably not just for the British Championships but also for the London Chess Classic, Hastings, Tradewise Gibraltar, etc.

[Roger de Coverly]

There are quite a lot of ways to try and pass on messages. Imagine someone going to an internet cafe and leaving a message on these forums that they were running late and pleading for someone to pass on a message!

Many players in the tournament had internet access either through the university network, their personal mobile broadband or their smartphone. Some of them may have looked at the forum to catch the latest gossip before leaving to go to the venue. So a posting here could have worked rather well as a means of communication.

[LozCooper]

You could always try phoning your opponent on the off chance he has his mobile switched on

[Mark Page]

Although I've never posted on here before, I feel in danger of being the only person in England who hasn't voiced an opinion on Rayner v French and I feel a need to have my say.

I don't recall anyone using the word "responsibility" in any of the many messages posted on this thread - ie the "responsibility" of each player to get themselves to the board for the appointed start of the game, or at least before the designated default time or the moment when the flag finally falls. As far as I'm concerned that is the beginning and the end of the matter, and if you don;t get there in time you lose whether you are 1 second late or 45 minutes late. Just as you lose on time whether you are 1 move short or 20. Excuses for being late are just that - they don't alter the fundamental fact that you have lost.

I don't think it matters one jot if its a case of "the cashpoint ate my card"; "suspect package on the Underground"; "leaves on the line" or even, in Steve Coogan's immortal phrase, "massive bereavement". If one party is there on time and the other is late the game is over as far as I'm concerned, and I like to think I would accept that fact. As John Saunders pointed out, the "arbiter's discretion" phrase is a large part of the problem in this case, and in my unforgiving world it is unneccesary, as no extenuating circumstances apply to matters of fact. As there seems no argument that Francis Rayner was late, he should just have scored zero, and that should have been the end of the matter. He could have felt himself unlucky and cursed his fates, but guess what, "we live on a blighted star".

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Although I've never posted on here before, I feel in danger of being the only person in England who hasn't voiced an opinion on Rayner v French and I feel a need to have my say.

I don't recall anyone using the word "responsibility" in any of the many messages posted on this thread - ie the "responsibility" of each player to get themselves to the board for the appointed start of the game, or at least before the designated default time or the moment when the flag finally falls. As far as I'm concerned that is the beginning and the end of the matter, and if you don;t get there in time you lose whether you are 1 second late or 45 minutes late. Just as you lose on time whether you are 1 move short or 20. Excuses for being late are just that - they don't alter the fundamental fact that you have lost.

I don't think it matters one jot if its a case of "the cashpoint ate my card"; "suspect package on the Underground"; "leaves on the line" or even, in Steve Coogan's immortal phrase, "massive bereavement". If one party is there on time and the other is late the game is over as far as I'm concerned, and I like to think I would accept that fact. As John Saunders pointed out, the "arbiter's discretion" phrase is a large part of the problem in this case, and in my unforgiving world it is unneccesary, as no extenuating circumstances apply to matters of fact. As there seems no argument that Francis Rayner was late, he should just have scored zero, and that should have been the end of the matter. He could have felt himself unlucky and cursed his fates, but guess what, "we live on a blighted star".

To be fair, there *are* circumstances where you could justifiably say you were prevented from getting to the board in time, but these are probably classed as something other than "excuses". Mainly of the sort "my opponent paid for someone to kidnap me", but (invoking the shade of Fischer again) let's not go there. With the zero default time rule, there are more opportunities for this sort of thing, but let's hope that never happens. More tricky is cases of deliberate misinformation (someone incorrectly tells you that a round start time has been delayed, or directs you to the wrong venue).

Talking about the zero default time rule, I played in a tournament recently that was using this rule, and they actually locked the door to the playing hall at the start time, and sorted out who was present and who wasn't, before unlocking the doors again! As someone who is habitually late, it was actually not that difficult to adjust to arriving early and allowing time for being late. The main problem was on the days when the round times were different, some people turned up late because of that and found they had been defaulted, which was their own fault for not reading the round times properly.

[Alex Holowczak]

I dont know of any national sport which allows this sort of discretion certainly not at the national championships. Crikey it opens up all kinds of skull duggery; a player who is very good at playing fast is drawn against someone who he think he cannot beat so he plays mind games by turning up late after the specified time knowing his opponent will be unsettled by all this! He then cons the arbiter with any sob story that comes to mind. Its a mine field.

The fact that you play quickly is irrelevant. Suppose someone offers Jack a draw on move 9, and he needs to finish ahead of someone else to win a prize. He can sit there for an hour doing nothing, waiting to see how his rival was getting on. Then he could accept the draw, or play on with no consequences. Depending on which suits him best. Is that unsporting? I remember doing just that; waiting for 20 minutes or so in a team game to see how my team would get on before accepting the draw. As soon as we went 3-1 up, I accepted the draw. Sorted.

[Roger de Coverly]

This occured in a local congress with small prize money was I right or wrong? Given my previous post I was probably wrong.

I think you were right. Allowing the penalty for a late arrival to be loss of the time on the clock since the start time is a proportionate penalty. It should however be your spirit of fair play that guides you in this. If you opponent was notorious for demanding the letter of the law, you would be justified in sticking to the forfeit.

I don't think other sports necessarily have instant forfeits for late arrival - tennis for instance seems to allow some leeway. If it were so, then more forfeits would be reported.

[Roger de Coverly]

There are a lot of matters to be reviewed and a lot of lessons to be learned, probably not just for the British Championships but also for the London Chess Classic, Hastings, Tradewise Gibraltar, etc.

Here's a checklist of possible issues:-

* Is it sensible to go back to one hour forfeits to give a bit more leeway for travel delays?

* Under what circumstances will the arbiter start either the whole round or an individual game after the published start time?

* Under what circumstances will the arbiter extend the forfeit time beyond the published minutes?

* For the player present, under what circumstances should they expect to win by default and under what circumstances should they expect re-pairing possibly against a "weak" filler?

* All the events have a mixture of internationally rated games and domestic only rated. To what extent will the rules depend on whether a particular tournament is internationally rated?

* Do you expect players to contact someone or something if they expect to be delayed?

[Alex Holowczak]

The overiding consideration for me was and remains this ' Are there any circumstances likely to arise that would cause me to be unduly late or require me to leave a game/tournament' if so I dont play, end of.

Sure.

But if you don't enter a chess tournament because an ATM might swallow your debit card, then you'd never do anything, let alone enter a chess tournament.

[E Michael White]

Sure.

But if you don't enter a chess tournament because an ATM might swallow your debit card, then you'd never do anything, let alone enter a chess tournament.

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

Staying at the cash machine, in the event of card retention, is neither an acceptable reason in support of the arbiter regarding Rayner’s lateness nor is it sensible from a security angle.

APACS recommend phoning the Building Society or Bank immediately to lock the card. In the link below try ^F for “retained” if you wish to check.
http://www.cardwatch.org.uk/cardholders ... le=tips%20

Acting in a way contrary to APACS advice does not seem to me to be his only choice nor does it seem sensible for an arbiter to regard it as such if that is what happened.

It seems that being a good arbiter, and exercising discretion, requires knowledge in all respects of how a rational, well informed, person should act in order to properly manage his time to arrive at the venue on time. Arbiter discretion in rules should clearly be kept to a minimum.

[Roger de Coverly]

But if you don't enter a chess tournament because an ATM might swallow your debit card, then you'd never do anything, let alone enter a chess tournament.

I'm not sure I'd enter a tournament with a half-hour forfeit time if I was using a once an hour public transport service. The options would be to arrive say 1 hr 15 mins early, 15 mins early or 45 mins late. This may yet be a practical issue for me in playing in the London Classic. Arriving at Kent University at 1pm would perhaps have been no great hardship, targeting 8.15 am with at least an hour's journey beforehand rather more so.