Local Law Variants

[John Saunders]

This seems a more democratic approach than trying to get ECF to impose rules from above.

My point is that the ECF wouldn't be imposing any rules from above, they'd be giving the leagues more freedom within the rules for the leagues and congresses to choose a variation they wish to play under.

Really? I seem to recall that you were also suggesting that the ECF should abolish adjournments/adjudications as part of this initiative. Please explain to me in what way that would give local leagues more freedom.

[Alex Holowczak]

This seems a more democratic approach than trying to get ECF to impose rules from above.

My point is that the ECF wouldn't be imposing any rules from above, they'd be giving the leagues more freedom within the rules for the leagues and congresses to choose a variation they wish to play under.

Really? I seem to recall that you were also suggesting that the ECF should abolish adjournments/adjudications as part of this initiative. Please explain to me in what way that would give local leagues more freedom.

OK, that bit was a personal thing (I did say it's the things I would want to be implemented), but the other two things I suggested would increase the freedom. In fact, they wouldn't increase the freedom, they would simply make the local laws currently implemented (which they have no right to implement, technically), legal.

For the record, I do plan to go to my League's AGM regarding the abolition of adjournments, as you suggest. Thinking about it, I'm not sure whether the ECF not grading them (the League could still play them, but they wouldn't be graded under this) would be helpful to the anti-adjournment cause.

[Kevin Thurlow]

".....I'm not sure whether the ECF not grading them (the League could still play them, but they wouldn't be graded under this) would be helpful to the anti-adjournment cause."

But ECF want the "Game Fee", so they are not going to refuse to grade games if they can help it. They already grade games which are played without clocks etc.!

[Alex Holowczak]

But ECF want the "Game Fee", so they are not going to refuse to grade games if they can help it. They already grade games which are played without clocks etc.!

Wow, really?

[Sean Hewitt]

"All" FIDE say? It's a very significant "all", don't you think? And a very stupid one in most people's opinion, surely..

I don't think it is that significant John to be fair. Organisers have total flexibility to have whatever default time they like. That seem's pretty reasonable to me. I've chosen 1 hour and every event in the world could do that if they wanted to but they don't. Clearly therefore there are organisers who think that zero default is a good idea. If I had a big sponsor (enquiries welcome!) or a dignitary attending an event I may go for zero default too. Perhaps it's a cultural thing but you very rarely get other 'sportsmen' arriving after the scheduled start of their game. Football, tennis, snooker - it would be an anathema. Even darts players make it to the ocky on time!

I really don't know why FIDE felt the need to specify rigid penalties in such cases. Previously, the law allowed an arbiter freedom to choose from a suggested list of suitable penalties for article 12 infractions.

Again, maybe it's a cultural thing but the thing you like about the chess laws [arbiter flexibility] I dislike. I'm used to sports that have laws which say that if you do this then that will happen to you. In football, you punch a player then you get sent off. No flexibility. No choice for the referee (provided he sees it of course!). Golf too. Penalties are prescribed. Snooker is the same. The miss rule in snooker used to have referee flexibility originally but they soon got rid of that. Why? Because arbiter / referee flexibility = inconsistency. This is not the fault of the arbiter but when two players can commit exactly the same offence and end up with very different consequences that's not good in my opinion. Humans can make mistakes, but the laws should not encourage inconsistency.

Flexibility between tournaments is fine provided that it's allowed within the laws and announced in advance. Flexibility within a tournament is not good.

[Alex Holowczak]

Snooker is the same. The miss rule in snooker used to have referee flexibility originally but they soon got rid of that.

The miss rule still does have flexibility. The referee is quite entitled to not call a miss, if he deems the striker has done his best to hit the ball on. Given they're a professional though, and often not trying to bash into the pack of reds but to "land on a safe one", they're making the shot harder for themselves, so the striker isn't doing all he can to hit the ball on. The referee has to call a miss.

At local league level, presumably, the miss rule is probably applied much less severely - I doubt whether they even have referees - and probably just agree penalties between themselves. My friends and I tend to ignore the miss rule completely, on the basis that we're so hopeless, it's reasonable to assume we're trying our best to hit the ball on, even if we miss it off two-cushions by two to three feet.

[John Saunders]

One thing to bear in mind that is that some of the people involved in the law-making process had to fight tooth and nail to retain arbiter/organiser discretion as regards the default time rule. The hard-liners were all for making it mandatory. And the rules as they stand imply a bias towards zero time default unless the competition states otherwise - which seems plain daft to me, and probably to most other people too.

In football, you punch a player then you get sent off. No flexibility.

Well, yes, that seems pretty obvious, but there is a world of difference between thumping someone and turning up a minute or two late for the game. And the sent-off player's team can still go on to win the match. Other analogies you mention - a "miss" in snooker - that does not entail the loss of the match (or even the frame). I'm afraid you are missing the main point by a country mile - which is that the punishment does not fit the crime.

Here's something I heard the other day from an extremely well-informed source. He told me that, contrary to what FIDE said at the time, 8% of the games at the Dresden Olympiad were decided by the zero-time default rule. If true it is breathtaking.

[Alex Holowczak]

Well, yes, that seems pretty obvious, but there is a world of difference between thumping someone and turning up a minute or two late for the game. And the sent-off player's team can still go on to win the match. Other analogies you mention - a "miss" in snooker - that does not entail the loss of the match (or even the frame).

Sorry to be pedantic, but: three consecutive misses can result in the loss of the frame, if the striker was not snookered when he took the shot on either of the three occasions.

[Mike Truran]

Alex, shouldn't you be studying rathar then spending your time on ecforum?!

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex, shouldn't you be studying rathar then spending your time on ecforum?!

Shouldn't you be working, rather than spending your time on the ECForum?

[Roger de Coverly]

.

Here's something I heard the other day from an extremely well-informed source. He told me that, contrary to what FIDE said at the time, 8% of the games at the Dresden Olympiad were decided by the zero-time default rule. If true it is breathtaking.

I think that's out by a factor of 10. My TWIC collection from 2008 has 5527 Olympiad games of which 75 were determined in 1 or 0 moves. Given that Uganda and others defaulted at least 20 games through not being present in Dresden, this seems to suggest 50 or fewer as defaults. It's still 50 too many though.

FIDE officials seem ignorant of practices in other sports. The future Wimbledon Ladies Champion was late on court for one of her earlier round matches at Wimbledon without penalty. Apparently it was on an outer court and she was waiting for an official to show her where it was.

[Ian Kingston]

Here's something I heard the other day from an extremely well-informed source. He told me that, contrary to what FIDE said at the time, 8% of the games at the Dresden Olympiad were decided by the zero-time default rule. If true it is breathtaking.

According to Olimpbase, 3204 games were played in the open (men's) olympiad, of which 109 were defaults (3.4%).

For the women's event, the numbers are 2420 games, 34 defaults (1.4%).

Combined figures: 5624 games, 143 defaults (2.5%).

Seems like a more plausible figure to me, although still very high. I'm assuming that all of the defaults were for not being present at the start of the game. There may have been some missed drug tests, for example, which would alter the figures a little.

I got almost identical statistics to Roger from a check of my database. Whether all of the zero-time defaults made it into the database files is an open question.

[John Saunders]

Roger - thanks for looking up the Dresden stats. I must confess the figure of 8% did sound improbable. Perhaps the story became garbled in the telling at some point. I agree with your comments. As you say, FIDE officials seem ignorant of practices in other sports. And their own as well, perhaps.

[Sean Hewitt]

Well, yes, that seems pretty obvious, but there is a world of difference between thumping someone and turning up a minute or two late for the game. And the sent-off player's team can still go on to win the match. Other analogies you mention - a "miss" in snooker - that does not entail the loss of the match (or even the frame). I'm afraid you are missing the main point by a country mile - which is that the punishment does not fit the crime.

With the greatest respect John I think it is you that has missed the point. Namely that the punishment (whatever it is) should in my opinion be fixed in the rules rather than be at the airy fairy whim of an arbiter.

The only comment that I have made about the zero default time is that I exercise my flexibility as an organiser not to have it. That should tell you whether I think it's a good rule or not.

[David Sedgwick]

I'd like to make a couple of points regarding the Dresden statistics. In both cases they're based on my understanding of the facts and this may not be completely correct.

1. The zero-time default rule was not enforced in the first two rounds. Hence one needs to look at the statistics for rounds 3-11.

2. In the much discussed Ermenkov case, some moves were actually played before the default was confirmed. Hence the game won't show up in the statistics. I've no idea whether this happened in any other game (or rather non-game).

Recap of this episode:

Ermenkov arrived at the board and attempted to fill in the headings of his score sheet. His pen did not work. On the arbiter's table at the end of the row of boards, there were spare pens for players' use. He went to get one - round trip approximately 20 seconds. During that 20 seconds the gong sounded and he was defaulted. He protested and the matter was referred to Chief Arbiter Leong. Ermenkov's opponent wanted to play, so the game started. After they had played about ten moves Leong arrived and confirmed the default by resetting the pieces.