British Chess Championships 2010

[John Philpott]

It was good to have the question of the Alexander Best Game Prize resolved. Is there any chance of the website at http://www.britishchess2010.com/gotd.htm being updated so that it indicates who won the game of the day prizes after round 7?

[Alex McFarlane]

Matthew,
It is not standard practice to name appeals committees for the simple reason that it is hard enough to get volunteers without them having to endure flack for their decisions. All I can say is that the committee was made up of a combination of arbiters and experienced players.

I believe the Mulhiem position was discussed and found to be acceptable, though I don't know what the criteria were. I know of one other case where a junior was declined entry so checks were in place.

John,
I'm afraid I don't have that info but if anyone can supply it I'll ask Steve Connor to post it on the site

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I believe the Mulhiem position was discussed and found to be acceptable, though I don't know what the criteria were. I know of one other case where a junior was declined entry so checks were in place."

Is it true that various juniors were found to be "over age" in some other sections? I am told the qualifying date had changed. so may have caused some confusion.

[Stewart Reuben]

I wonder if Alex is aware of the following extracted from the FIDE Tournament Rules. It is true they do not carry the same weight as the FIDE Laws of Chess. (b) is the relevant clause.

12. Penalties, appeals
(a) When there is a dispute, the CA or OC as appropriate should make every effort to resolve matters by reconciliation. If such means fail and the dispute is such that penalties are appropriate, where penalties are not specifically defined by the Laws or the regulations, he shall have discretionary power to impose penalties. He should seek to maintain discipline and offer other solutions which may placate the offended parties.
(b) In all events there shall be an Appeals Committee. The CA and OC shall ensure that the Appeals Committee is elected or appointed before the start of the first round, usually at the drawing of lots. It is recommended this consists of a Chairman, at least two members and two reserve members. Preferably no two members of the committee shall come from the same federation. No arbiter, administrator or player involved in the original dispute shall be a member of the appeal committee actually considering that dispute. Such a committee should have an odd number of voting members. Members of the Appeals Committee should not be younger then 18 years old.
(c). A player may appeal against any ruling made by the CA or CO or one of their assistants, provided the appeal is accompanied by a fee and submitted in written form not later than the deadline. Both fee and deadline shall be fixed in advance. The decisions of the Appeal Committee shall be final. The fee is returnable if the appeal is successful. It may also be returned if the appeal is unsuccessful, but reasonable in the view of the committee.

Stewart Reuben

[Matthew Turner]

Ernie,
I am sorry but you are wrong. It is standard practice to name appeals committees, this way the players have confidence in the system. Earlier Alex McFarlane stated

"The Appeals Committee decided to uphold the arbiter's decision BUT decided that it was unreasonable to expect the players to play on since it was now after 5pm. The AC stated that the game should not take place with Raynor scoring 1/2 and French 1.

Whether they agree with that decision or not, the control team are required to implement it.

The procedure for appeals will now be reviewed in light of this case."

The implication is that the control team (arbiters) had to abide by a (dubious) decision of the Appeals Committee. We now find that "the committee was made up of a combination of arbiters and experienced players." so in fact the dubious decision was again made by the arbiters.

There are exceptions, but the average quality of arbitting in England is some way behind the rest of (Western) Europe.

[Adam Raoof]

Ernie,
I am sorry but you are wrong. It is standard practice to name appeals committees, this way the players have confidence in the system. Earlier Alex McFarlane stated

"The Appeals Committee decided to uphold the arbiter's decision BUT decided that it was unreasonable to expect the players to play on since it was now after 5pm. The AC stated that the game should not take place with Raynor scoring 1/2 and French 1.

Whether they agree with that decision or not, the control team are required to implement it.

The procedure for appeals will now be reviewed in light of this case."

The implication is that the control team (arbiters) had to abide by a (dubious) decision of the Appeals Committee. We now find that "the committee was made up of a combination of arbiters and experienced players." so in fact the dubious decision was again made by the arbiters.

There are exceptions, but the average quality of arbitting in England is some way behind the rest of (Western) Europe.

Personally I think that appeals committees should be anonymous, save for the chair who is usually a senior arbiter and used to the flak. However the appeal decision should always be published where possible - that is usual practice.

[Matthew Turner]

Take a look at this hugely contentious decision

http://rules.chessdom.com/appeals-commi ... cko-foisor

The Appeals committee are named as is standard practice.

[Alan Walton]

In all the major tournaments I have played abroad, the tournament informs you which people are on the appeals committee before round 1, I am assuming they do this to give that panel a face and give players extra reassurance that decisions are conducted in the proper manner

Why is it in the UK we try do things different to everywhere else

[Sean Hewitt]

Why is it in the UK we try do things different to everywhere else

Because the British always think they know better than everyone else!

[Peter Turner]

In all the major tournaments I have played abroad, the tournament informs you which people are on the appeals committee before round 1, I am assuming they do this to give that panel a face and give players extra reassurance that decisions are conducted in the proper manner

Why is it in the UK we try do things different to everywhere else

This is also my experience abroad with England junior teams at World, European & World Schools' Championships. The Committee is often selected at the managers meeting prior to the first round and then published in a prominent public place. Perhaps more important at these events to ensure that, with so many different countries competing, there was a mix of languages and talented multi-linguists (probably the wrong word but you know what I mean) on the committee.

[Ian Thompson]

We now find that "the committee was made up of a combination of arbiters and experienced players." so in fact the dubious decision was again made by the arbiters.

That always has been known, assuming the appeals committee was properly constituted. It had to consist of one Senior Arbiter, two other arbiters and two players' representatives. It says that in the congress information.

It seems strange to me that players' representatives can be appointed without the players they represent being told who they are. The appeals panel should have consisted of at least 10 people, so you could be sure of getting 5 who weren't involved in the dispute. I see no reason why those names couldn't be published at the start of the event. There is one obvious reason why they should be - a player lodging an appeal may have a justifiable objection to one of them being involved in his appeal due to some previous incident between the two.

[Adam Raoof]

Take a look at this hugely contentious decision

http://rules.chessdom.com/appeals-commi ... cko-foisor

The Appeals committee are named as is standard practice.

The appeals committee may be named, but it is not necessarily standard practice.

Having said that, the 4NCL (always a model of good practice) publishes their committee;

* Alex McFarlane (arbiter)
* Dave Thomas (arbiter)
* David Anderton (ADs)
* Sean Hewitt (e2e4)
* Stephen Swanson (Poisoned Pawns)
* Johnathan Bourne (Brown Jack)

The question is; what difference would it make to the cases in point?

[Matthew Turner]

Adam,
You might also note that the 4NCL Appeals Committee has 'players' in the majority. I think the British Championships Appeals Committee is probably unique in having the majority of members being arbiters

[Adam Raoof]

Adam,
You might also note that the 4NCL Appeals Committee has 'players' in the majority. I think the British Championships Appeals Committee is probably unique in having the majority of members being arbiters

That is neither a good nor a bad thing; just different. As Alex has said, the procedures will be reviewed, but my personal opinion is that publishing the list of people involved in the panel would serve no practical purpose. But I am sure it is one option being considered.

[Matthew Turner]

Adam,
It is a basic tenet of the English legal system that you ultimately have the right to be judged by a panel of your peers. Every other chess event (that I know of) also applies this principle, why should the British Championships be different?