Naughty Spectators

[E Michael White]

it would be realised that in some instances eg FIDE rated large Swisses a better rule would be to have a 0 default with specified exceptions.

Why?
I don't think you could have a "large" Swiss with a 0 default in the UK. Personally I would boycott such an event and suggest to others that they do the same.

I am only thinking of Swiss events regarded as suitable for norm seekers. 5 rounds such as the Blackpool Open if FIDE rated, wouldnt come into that category. I think there is a chance that a 30 min default may deprive player(s) of a GM or IM norm. A worst case scenario could be:-

After further DCMS raids the ECF brings in an effective seek out and encourage scheme for promising young players. In 2015 a 15 year old star emerges who is going for his final GM norm in the British, played in Tonbridge. Going into a round he needs a draw against any opponent to gain the norm. The draw shows:-
A v Star
B v C.
At the scheduled start time A and C are absent and the remaining games get underway. At +5 mins C drifts in and begins play against B. After 30 minutes A has still not arrived and then a phone call is received to say he has broken his leg and wont be coming. At this stage the norm has gone, which would dent media interest and good publicity etc.

Compare this to a 0 default, B could probably be repaired v Star at 0 minutes. A modified 0 default could also allow, after the scheduled start, late arrival parings such as de Coverley v Amateur to go ahead unless one or other is required to play a repaired norm seeker. We probably need to help norm seekers.

Regarding the 10.2s
My previous examples were too complicated. My point is not concerned with players forgetting to watch or press the clock. A simpler version is :-

LP QPF rules.
With level material, player A has 3 minutes and an overwhelming attack. B has 20 mins.

B offers a draw, which A declines as he wants to go for a risky in the time win. B then delays the mate as long as possible sacrificing nearly all his material.

The Arbiter is watching everthing, alert and no distractions.
At the end A has K+R+N+B+3P and B has K+N.

With only 1-2 secs left A misses a mate in 4 as the BK can hide amongst the WPs. He then needs a further 6 moves.
A then states clearly, so the arbiter hears, that he wishes to claim a draw under 10.2 that it is not possible to win by normal means. He reaches to stop the clock and the flag falls before he does. I feel the claim is made during the last 2 mins of the game before the flag fell and meets all the requirements of an immediate draw under rule 10.2.

However the current tranche of arbiters come preprogrammed to first look at the clock when deciding a 10.2 and disallow the claim if it is then fallen. This is not the same as evaluating whether the claim was made in time as required by the rules.

Scenarios are further complicated by insufficient arbiter Rapidplay rules, where an arbiter may not point out a flag fall and also when the arbiter is away from the board.

[Richard Bates]

I don't think you could have a "large" Swiss with a 0 default in the UK. Personally I would boycott such an event and suggest to others that they do the same.

I am only thinking of Swiss events regarded as suitable for norm seekers. 5 rounds such as the Blackpool Open if FIDE rated, wouldnt come into that category. I think there is a chance that a 30 min default may deprive player(s) of a GM or IM norm. A worst case scenario could be:-

After further DCMS raids the ECF brings in an effective seek out and encourage scheme for promising young players. In 2015 a 15 year old star emerges who is going for his final GM norm in the British, played in Tonbridge. Going into the final round he needs a draw against any opponent to gain the norm. The draw shows:-
A v Star
B v C.
At the scheduled start time A and C are absent and the remaining games get underway. At +5 mins C drifts in and begins play against B. After 30 minutes A has still not arrived and then a phone call is received to say he has broken his leg and wont be coming. At this stage the norm has gone, which would dent media interest and good publicity etc.

Compare this to a 0 default, B could probably be repaired v Star at 0 minutes. A modified 0 default could also allow, after the scheduled start, late arrival parings such as de Coverley v Amateur to go ahead unless one or other is required to play a repaired norm seeker. We probably need to help norm seekers.

[/quote]

That's a somewhat manufactured attempt to try and argue that zero default is good for norm seekers!

Far more likely is that in any one of the tournament's rounds, "Star"'s opponent doesn't turn up (maybe they would rather not be on TV and decide to skip the game citing the plausible explanation that they got caught short on the toilet - it's a lot easier to plausibly chuck a game with zero default times) and the TV cameras are somewhat disappointed to learn that no matter how well "Star" performs in the remaining rounds, the coveted norm and title is impossible (OK so cost cutting has meant that the British is now run as a nine-round affair).

Oh, and under scenario 1 zero default times, B would probably be able to argue against being repaired anyway.

[E Michael White]

.....under scenario 1 zero default times, B would probably be able to argue against being repaired anyway.

I am sure that is correct but B should try to see the wider benefits and agree to help the norm seeker.

I only think this should apply to large swisses suitable for norm seekers of which I only know 3 in the UK

[Richard Bates]

.....under scenario 1 zero default times, B would probably be able to argue against being repaired anyway.

I am sure that is correct but B should try to see the wider benefits and agree to help the norm seeker.

And perhaps if the correct repairing is B vs E, we can all hope that one (but only one) of them will do the decent thing, and refuse to be repaired

[John Constable]

[quote="E Michael White"]

When arbiters write unclear rules and dont update them it brings the game into disrepute. "

Since when have arbiters written the laws. I thought that arbiters are there to enforce the Laws of Chess as written by the appropriate chess authority.

[Stewart Reuben]

In the 18 years I ran the British Championships from 1981-1997 there were about 10 disputes. There was one in 2008. About half of these were appeals about the can't win by normal means rule. As the late Harry Baines said, they didn't really count as appeals at all. The modern 10.2 does not allow appeals against the arbiter's decision. That is hardly an avalanche of disputes causing people to give up chess.

John Constable >Since when have arbiters written the laws. I thought that arbiters are there to enforce the Laws of Chess as written by the appropriate chess authority.<
The FIDE Rules Committee (now a commission) consists of arbiters. They write the rules. The General Assembly then votes on them, they can hardly do anything other than rubber-stamp them. The Presidential Board does have the right to overturn the GA decision, but has not done so. This is unlike the Title Regulations that the PB made a mess of. The 2009 Laws do contain the zero default time, but that was deferred to the PB by the GA.
After 8 rounds of a FIDE Rated Open Swiss in the UK where title norms are possibled to achieve (there are at least 5 in England this year), a player can achieve a norm provided he plays and does not lose to his opponent. But his opponent does not show up, whether with zero time default or 30 minutes. Everybody else is in play. The only solution is to put in a filler. Everybody gains. The other contestants do so because the norm candidate may not win and is thus less likely to gain more prize money. I chose this example because that has been referred to before. But the argument applies equally well to any other round.
A filler, most often introduced in round 1, does not work if the player is professional and prefers to win by default. If he does so, of course everybody else in the tournament is disadvantaged.

Stewart Reuben

[E Michael White]

That’s interesting I didn’t know a filler could be played, if one is available of the right grade and nationality, in the last round of a swiss for title norms. If a filler is not available is a repairing of B v Star permitted as in my example ?

Which are the 5 or more large English swisses where norms are possible ? I only know of the British, Scottish Open and South Wales Masters where the correct mix of titles and nationalities is more or less guaranteed.

[Alex Holowczak]

Which are the 5 or more large English swisses where norms are possible ? I only know of the British, Scottish Open and South Wales Masters where the correct mix of titles and nationalities is more or less guaranteed.

Hastings, presumably.

[Stewart Reuben]

E Michael White >That’s interesting I didn’t know a filler could be played, if one is available of the right grade and nationality, in the last round of a swiss for title norms. If a filler is not available is a repairing of B v Star permitted as in my example ?
Which are the 5 or more large English swisses where norms are possible ? I only know of the British, Scottish Open and South Wales Masters where the correct mix of titles and nationalities is more or less guaranteed.<

The business of fillers is rather moot with FIDE. But there have never been any objections.
Pairing two players neither of whom otherwise have an opponent, as in your example, would not be noticed by FIDE if they had the same score.

Hastings, Jessie Gilbert Memorial, London Chess Classic Open, Coulsdon December event (although I am not sure that is a Swiss) all additionally meet your criteria. I am not sure whether any of the e2e4 events is a Swiss. I was unaware that the Scottish Open and South Wales Masters were English. In that case, please include Gibraltar which is certainly organised under the umbrella of the ECF.

Stewart Reuben

[E Michael White]

Well I originally said UK. So that makes 6 which can be reached without crossing water. Why do we not have more new IMs then?

[Alex Holowczak]

Well I originally said UK. So that makes 6 which can be reached without crossing water. Why do we not have more new IMs then?

I suspect it may be down to the fact that there aren't enough players who are good enough (yet!), rather than a lack of opportunities to acquire the norms they need to get there.

[Stewart Reuben]

E Michael White. >Why do we not have more new IMs then?< 6 events isn't many.
That is certainly a change in topic. I 'think' people reach 2200+ and then realise they are not going to make it professionally as chessplayers. So their ambition wilts. It has been very noticeable for many years that the distribution of players in events does not follow Gaussian distribution. There is a considerable lack of players in the 2300+ range. Due to the current financial crisis there may be a change coming. The London Chess Classic may also have a substantial effect. There has been a clear move towards patronage of chess events.
Stewart Reuben

[E Michael White]

The modern 10.2 does not allow appeals against the arbiter's decision.

Stewart Reuben

In the scenario where A claims a draw with K+R + misc v K+N and makes his claim marginally before his flag falls, the arbiter then replies, “Your flag has fallen so you can’t claim under 10.2”.

As the arbiter has disallowed the claim from being put under 10.2 rather than evaluating the 10.2 it seems to me that a player should be able to bring this to the attention of the appeals committee under rule 13.1 where the arbiter has not strictly enforced the rules. By stating that the player may not claim under 10.2 the arbiter cannot hide behind the prohibition on appeals against the arbiter under a 10.2 claim, as the arbiter did not allow the 10.2 to get underway.

What is your view ?

[Roger de Coverly]

In the scenario where A claims a draw with K+R + misc v K+N and makes his claim marginally before his flag falls. The arbiter then replies, “Your flag has fallen so you can’t claim under 10.2”.

I don't really see how this can happen.

Suppose the claimant has 10 seconds left. You make a move, press the clock and claim the draw. The opponent's clock is now running. The opponent declines the draw by making a move. Surely in the 10 seconds remaining you first have to stop the clock and then get the arbiter. The clock is still showing, say 8 seconds remaining. The arbiter either awards the immediate draw or asks for play to continue with the clock restarted ( wouldn't take long presumably). When the time expires, the arbiter awards the draw ( or not ).

[E Michael White]

You make a move, press the clock and claim the draw.

The rules state this can only be done while a player has the move.

My example is that with 1-2 secs left a player, just before moving, realises the mate takes longer than he thought, gives up and claims under 10.2. Whilst going to stop the clock his flag falls. He has clearly made the claim to his opponent while his flag was up.

Most players would claim in this way by directing the claim to their opponent first. The rules could be made clearer to state that the player must stop the clocks first before making the claim even to his opponent and the flag must be up; at present they do not say that. Also the rules do not require him to stop the clock.

We should hope an arbiter would not ask play to continue when the opponent only has a knight as that in itself is a clear indication that a player is trying to win on time.