English Chess Forum

Some clubs only hire their venue when there is a match scheduled to take place. Do any leagues make provision for those clubs to be compensated in the event of a visiting team defaulting the match?

I imagine most leagues do not have any sort of means of enforcing such a ruleset but it is still really poor form for any team to be defaulting whole matches without notice and if it was a regular occurrence without mitigating circumstances should put them on the chopping block to be kicked out of their League permanently.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 16, 2022 3:08 pm

Some clubs only hire their venue when there is a match scheduled to take place. Do any leagues make provision for those clubs to be compensated in the event of a visiting team defaulting the match?

Compensated? You mean monetarily? So the home team shows receipts to the League who then invoices the away team. Meanwhile the away team, in addition to any mitigations, argues that the venue was also being (and going to be) used as a club night, i.e. not only for their particular match. On top of which, the away club may even disassociate itself from its own team's actions. In other words, I cannot imagine leagues making such provisions, far beyond the powers of voluntary organisations, embroiling themselves in the financial affairs of individual clubs. Which is not to say that defaulting teams should not be penalised in other ways.

Some leagues penalise clubs for defaults at home matches. I once successfully got travel expenses when I went to an away match, was defaulted against on board 1 (I think for the sixth time by the same opponent), and the home club refused to use a substitute.

I finally persuaded Surrey that a whole match default should attract a deduction of match points (from memory either half or 1 was agreed). They already had the rule that if you defaulted an away match, you had to travel again the next season. This followed Redhill travelling in alternate years to two different clubs and usually losing, but then winning 8-0 on default for the home matches in the other alternating years. Once this happened three times against each club, we got a bit fed up. (One of the clubs apologised at the AGM and voted in favour!)

If you default an entire match, you need a pretty good reason, and there should be penalties if there isn't one.

The 4NCL sets what is, to my mind, a good example here. Monetary fines on top of game-point deductions for defaulted games.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:02 am

If you default an entire match, you need a pretty good reason, and there should be penalties if there isn't one.

This impression this season is that many clubs are running on cut down resources, therefor a default by virtue of not being able to raise a full team or not being able to raise a team of requisite quality is more likely.

Berkshire has a weather based rule. In its current form it says

(b) Once 28 days have elapsed since the fixtures meeting, no matches shall be postponed
without the agreement of both captains.

(d) Where, because of severe road conditions, fog, ice, snow or floods a match cannot be
played, rule 3 (b) shall be waived. Irrespective of the conditions, a match is deemed playable
if at least three members of each team be present. A match captains wishing to call off a match
under these conditions should attempt to contact their opposite number or the League Controller no
later than 5:30 pm on the day of the match. In the event of a dispute about the severity of the conditions,
the League Controller should be asked for a ruling on the reasonableness of the claim.

Given the presence of the River Thames, the "floods" provision is sometimes necessary.

When the Met Office were in the League, they once claimed a postponement on the grounds of an imminent blizzard. Difficult to argue against that.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:02 am

I went to an away match, was defaulted against on board 1 (I think for the sixth time by the same opponent), and the home club refused to use a substitute.

This sounds like a potentially interesting story, he must have really hated you for some reason to be repeatedly defaulting like that - I'm amazed you have stuck it out and continued playing in the Surrey League all these years, the general impression I get from everything I've heard on the forum is that it is one of the worst leagues in the country to play in.

Joey Stewart wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:32 am

This sounds like a potentially interesting story, he must have really hated you for some reason to be repeatedly defaulting like that - I'm amazed you have stuck it out and continued playing in the Surrey League all these years, the general impression I get from everything I've heard on the forum is that it is one of the worst leagues in the country to play in.

That just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything which you read on this Forum.

I haven't played in the Surrey League for fifteen years, but I think that that comment is very unfair. The current Controller, Huw Williams, is doing an excellent job, as indeed Kevin Thurlow did when he was the Controller.

Joey Stewart wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 18, 2022 11:32 am

that it is one of the worst leagues in the country to play in.

They certainly have stupid time control rules in addition to retaining adjournments.

I would characterise the SL as living in a time warp.

The Surrey League is useful in providing a competitive arena for clubs from quite a wide area. Geographically, it fills a gap. I can think of a couple of improvements though.

1. The playing rules are bureaucratic, complex and very detailed. They seem to have developed piecemeal over the years. They should be simplified and modernised. The rules worked against me recently. I play for Guildford in Division 1 and I also wanted to play for Streatham in Division 2 (the rules allow this as they are separate competitions). I got as far as being named in a Streatham team before the league officials intervened to stop me playing on the ground that I hadn't been registered for both teams at the start of the season.

2. The method of deciding what finish to adopt is more complicated than it needs to be and is outdated and is possibly unique. The home player offers a choice of two finishes out of adjournment, adjudication and quickplay, and the away player chooses one of those two. Very few OTB leagues offer adjudication or adjournment these days. A reformist and active leadership group could steer the league into the 21st century with a mandatory quickplay finish. Of course, league members may have already tried to do this.

James Toon wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 18, 2022 3:15 pm

A reformist and active leadership group could steer the league into the 21st century with a mandatory quickplay finish.

Or its modified form with an increment.

"This sounds like a potentially interesting story, he must have really hated you for some reason to be repeatedly defaulting like that - I'm amazed you have stuck it out and continued playing in the Surrey League all these years, the general impression I get from everything I've heard on the forum is that it is one of the worst leagues in the country to play in."

It was actually in the Civil Service League, and on the rare occasions I saw him he was very affable. He did deny that he had defaulted against me more than "once or twice". I think he just forgot to turn up, possibly having stopped at a pub on the way... It was still annoying though.

I rarely appear in Surrey now, but I get the impression Huw is doing a good job.

A lot of the rules (or bye-laws, as they like to call them) in Surrey are badly worded. I suspect that as most of the opponents to QP/increment are no longer there, that it may be possible to change that, but it would require the club representatives that attend the AGM to get organized and actually do something.

Or its modified form with an increment.

Of course. Digital clocks allowing an incremental finish are now widely used. This is a significant improvement on the traditional quickplay finish.

I find increments like marmite - if they are helping you survive you love them but if it is preventing your opponent from a deserved loss on time then they are the worst thing ever.

James Toon wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 18, 2022 3:15 pm

I got as far as being named in a Streatham team before the league officials intervened to stop me playing on the ground that I hadn't been registered for both teams at the start of the season.

I don't blame you not reading the rules of the competition, but it sounds as though your captain should have done.

reformist and active leadership

What glorious and uplifting words to describe a policy of getting rid of the deadwood who have supported the league for fifty years and are now considered past their sell-by date.