British Chess Championships 2010

[Stewart Reuben]

Do people who disagree with FIDE Tournament Rules wish to see this particular matter reviewed in Siberia? It is not currently on the agenda. There has been ample opportunity to make representations and it may now be too late. That will be the last opportunity for 4 years. Naturally I prefer the rules as they stand as I was one of their formulaters.
For the Rayner game it would have been very hard to get the previously appointed Appeal Committee to convene at the appropriate time. Most players would have been playing their game at the time.
Stewart Reuben

[Adam Raoof]

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?

You may be right. However FIDE does not explicitly require the publication of the panel's identities. I would be happy with just the text of the decision and the reasoning behind it.

"12. Penalties, appeals

(a) When there is a dispute, the CA or CO 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 CO 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."

[Matthew Turner]

Adam,
You are of course right that the FIDE rules do not require the publication of the names of the Appeals Committee. However, every other event publishes the names because it is best practice (ensuring player confidence in the system). Similarly, every other event has a majority of 'players' on the Appeals Committee, again this is best practice. Why should the British Championships be different?

[Adam Raoof]

Adam,
You are of course right that the FIDE rules do not require the publication of the names of the Appeals Committee. However, every other event publishes the names because it is best practice (ensuring player confidence in the system). Similarly, every other event has a majority of 'players' on the Appeals Committee, again this is best practice. Why should the British Championships be different?

You may be right. However not every other event publishes the names, and of those who do not every one of them has a majority of players. If you can give Alex and David a really compelling reason to do so I am sure they will listen. Here is what Gjissen says;

"About Appeals Committee in high level tournaments I can add the following: I know that players do not like to have meetings, but a tournament needs an Appeals Committee. I always make a list of candidates and I ask these candidates if they want to be a member of the Appeals Committee; I distribute this list to all players and ask them whether they accept these candidates as members of the Appeals Committee or not. Generally they agree. I remember one case when a player informed me that he had nothing against my candidates, but if he were involved in an appeal with one of them, there should be another way to resolve the dispute. This meant that one of the reserve members would replace him. An Appeals Committee in international tournaments normally has 3 members and two reserve members. If possible, they all belong to different federations."

[E Michael White]

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......

Stewart as I am sure you knew, but it might be still worth stating, the FIDE Tournament Rules must be applied fully in any event where title norms may be awarded; this is stated in the FIDE qualification regulations. Thus they carry equal weight with the FIDE Laws of Chess (with which they do not conflict). It could be stated, in view of the ability to override an arbiter discretion with an appeals committee, that they carry more weight.

As a result both the FIDE Laws and the FIDE Tournament Rules applied in the British Championship section where at least one of the appeals took place.

Unfortunately some cynics may be saying that the appeals committee may have come up with strange decisions in the hope that future competitions would be run without appeals committees giving the arbiter the final say !

The CA and CO shall ensure that the Appeals Committee is elected or appointed before the start of the first round, usually at the drawing of lots.

If the appointments usually take place at the drawing of lots, a meeting at which players are entitled to be present, players will know who is on the appeals committee.

[IM Jack Rudd]

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......

Stewart as I am sure you knew, but it might be still worth stating, the FIDE Tournament Rules must be applied fully in any event where title norms may be awarded; this is stated in the FIDE qualification regulations. Thus they carry equal weight with the FIDE Laws of Chess (with which they do not conflict). It could be stated, in view of the ability to override an arbiter discretion with an appeals committee, that they carry more weight.

The relevant section of the Handbook reads as follows:

Play shall be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess and FIDE Tournament Rules. Minor deviations may be permitted by the Technical Commission Chairman.

The Appeals Committee was not constructed before the start of round 1, but other than that, I believe it met the requirements. This arguably falls into allowed "minor deviations".

[Alex Holowczak]

Unfortunately some cynics may be saying that the appeals committee may have come up with strange decisions in the hope that future competitions would be run without appeals committees giving the arbiter the final say !

I don't see anything wrong with this.

I don't know if anyone saw what happened the other day at the PGA Championship at Whistling Straights on Sunday, but one player was deemed to have grounded his club in a bunker. He didn't realise he was in a bunker at the time. (Not as daft as it sounds!) Dustin Johnson grounded his club, and had a two-shot penalty added to his score. This was controversial, but the Rules Official (equivalent to the arbiter) made the decision. No grounds for appeal.

Golf has coped perfectly well for 500 years without them, so why does chess need them?

I think the problem here may be that there are two conflicting opinions:
a) A rigid default time that says after 30 minutes, you're defaulted, no matter what.
b) Arbiters who are trained (I believe?) to do what they can to get the game on in extenuating circumstances.

Having to balance a) with b) is where disputes arise...

[Matthew Turner]

The rules of golf are black and white, if you ground your club in a bunker you get a two shot penalty - there can be no argument. The rules of chess involve some subjective assessment, what does not trying to win by normal means mean? Chess Arbiters are trusted to apply the objective rules, but they are not trusted to have ultimate control over the subjective ones. That is why we have appeals committees.

[Alan Walton]

Alex,

Dustin Johnson has openly admitted he didn't read the note posted in the players dressing room, that all areas of sand on the course are classified as hazards, he just thought he was on a worn down piece of normal course

But in golf each match has an individual referee who they can ask for rulings, if only that happen in chess

[E Michael White]

The relevant section of the Handbook reads as follows:

Play shall be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess and FIDE Tournament Rules. Minor deviations may be permitted by the Technical Commission Chairman.

The Appeals Committee was not constructed before the start of round 1, but other than that, I believe it met the requirements. This arguably falls into allowed "minor deviations".

Only if the Chairman of the Technical Commission permitted it. Did he so Permit ?

I havent checked whether the process fully complied so cant comment on other aspects.

Golf has coped perfectly well for 500 years without them, so why does chess need them?

Golf is not recognised as an Olympic sport whereas chess is, in a way.

[Alex Holowczak]

Golf is not recognised as an Olympic sport whereas chess is, in a way.

Golf will be in the Olympic Games from 2016.

[E Michael White]

Where/when you will see appeal committees or you wont see golf.

[Alex Holowczak]

The problem with Appeals Committees is that they take time to form (I bet in Canterbury they weren't all huddled around in an Office waiting for something to happen), and then take time to make decisions. At the end of the day, the subjective decision they come to is often no more right or wrong than a subjective decision that someone else (e.g. the arbiter) can take.

In my opinion, if you have an arbiter, he or she should be trusted to make both objective and subjective decisions. There is usually more than one arbiter running a section anyway, so if the (however many arbiters there are) make a decision, then that should be the end of the matter.

An Appeals Committee just means that a player can appeal something if a subjective decision doesn't go his way.

[Ian Thompson]

In my opinion, if you have an arbiter, he or she should be trusted to make both objective and subjective decisions. There is usually more than one arbiter running a section anyway, so if the (however many arbiters there are) make a decision, then that should be the end of the matter.

So you would not allow an appeal against clearly incorrect arbiter decisions, such as these that actually occurred:
1. Player offers a draw while it is his opponent's move, and the arbiter rules that it cannot be accepted.
2. Arbiter sees that White's flag has fallen while White is thinking about his 41st move, and rules that White has lost on time.
3. Player claims a draw by repetition when the position has only been repeated twice and the arbiter accepts the claim.

[Adam Raoof]

In my opinion, if you have an arbiter, he or she should be trusted to make both objective and subjective decisions. There is usually more than one arbiter running a section anyway, so if the (however many arbiters there are) make a decision, then that should be the end of the matter.

So you would not allow an appeal against clearly incorrect arbiter decisions, such as these that actually occurred:
1. Player offers a draw while it is his opponent's move, and the arbiter rules that it cannot be accepted.
2. Arbiter sees that White's flag has fallen while White is thinking about his 41st move, and rules that White has lost on time.
3. Player claims a draw by repetition when the position has only been repeated twice and the arbiter accepts the claim.

Does it need a whole appeal committee to address these issues?