British Chess Championships 2010

[Keith Arkell]

Jonathan Bryant said:
''Good work Keith - especially since (quite reasonably) you had that early bath after the two long games in the middle there.

Do you think the incremental time control might have something to do with driving the average length of games up?''

Hi Jonathan,yes this is an improvement on sudden death both in terms of game length and game quality; but my favourite was 20 moves every hour indefinitely. I remember completely wrecking the prize giving at the Watson Farley Williams GM event in 1991 by taking many hours to grind down GM Suba in the last round with my R,R + g pawn v his 2 Rooks.

[David Sedgwick]

If Angus French then refused to play in the latter case

Do you have any reason at all to suggest that he did?

The arbiters asked him to play the game. This decision was appealed. If he had any intention of playing, there would have been no appeal, and no one would be talking about this whole saga.

Making needlessly spiteful comments seems to be catching.

If a player feels that (s)he had a valid claim and the arbiter rejects it, then the player has the right of appeal. If the Appeal Committee decides that the game should be played or resumed, then that's what happens. If a player were to refuse to abide by the decision of the Appeal Committee, then that would be a different matter, but that wasn't the case here.

Have you ever had the experience of having to play an important game after being told, or having reasonable cause to believe, that you've won it by default? I have, and I know how unsettling it can be. I forget all about what happened in the vast majority of my games, but I remember that one.

In my opinion the arbiter's decision was reasonable, but so was Angus French's decision to lodge the appeal. As to the outcome, I won't comment further as I've already had my say.

[Carl Hibbard]

Making needlessly spiteful comments seems to be catching.

It does, keep to the point please everyone

[Angus French]

If he had any intention of playing, there would have been no appeal

The thought of playing or not playing wasn't actually part of my thinking. My instinct was to appeal as I believe I had good grounds to do so. I certainly did not refuse to play.

[Richard Bates]

As a matter of interest, was the £20 appeal fee retained, since the appeal was rejected and the arbiters' decision upheld?

Whatever one thinks of the merits and justification of the appeal, isn't the real issue to emerge out of this the decision that to resume the game would be "unfair" and which was what led to the 1-1/2 decision (itself arguably unfair on Rayner - since the committee had ruled that the game should in principle go ahead, and he was white). In theory this sets a precedent of any player being able to manufacture some sort of dispute whilst a game is in progress, with play being suspended pending the outcome of an appeal (knowing that some random combination of points would be awarded at the end of it). There was a facility to play a short session and then adjourn (with pairings being done on basis of a provisional result, as in the old days) - were the appeals committee even aware of this?

I assume that this is possibly the arbiting team's main concern and is why appeal procedures are being reviewed.

BTW, has it been revealed who was on the appeals committee?

[JustinHorton]

I would have thought the main issues arising were:

a. what the proper grounds are for imposing (or not) a default ;
b. the need to inform players of events and decision relating to their games ;
c. how one proceeds in the particular circumstances that were involved here.

I wonder whether in future instances the game might be started while the appeal is being considered and the outcome of the appeal not announced until the game is concluded. It's not totally satisfactory, but what is?

It would, conceivably, be quite good to know who among the arbiters spoke to the late player when he called, what they told them, and why. And perhaps most of all, why they didn't inform the other player. That seems to me to be the one manifestly indefensible aspect of the whole affair. Everything else, whether anybody agrees with it or not, can be understood. But not the failure to inform Angus French.

[Roger de Coverly]

Could I post a link to chesscafe Arbiter's Corner 132?

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt132.pdf

In this the Dutch arbiter suggests in response to a question about how many byes should be given to a single player that half point byes be outlawed, or confined to Sunday mornings in unrated Dutch weekenders.

There is nothing in the FIDE rules or regulations that a player has the right to ask for a bye and receive a half point. It is my opinion it should be forbidden for rated tournaments, because it has an enormous influence on the pairings in Swiss tournaments.

In The Netherlands some tournament committees allow only one request for a bye; most often in weekend tournaments that are not rated. The reason is to give some players the possibility to church on Sunday morning. I do not know whether any committee of a FIDE rated tournament admits these byes. It should be discussed in the RTRC to forbid them.

It would be difficult to remove HPBs from the Major Open because of the players who choose to play in junior events that have a one round overlap. It would be one way of preventing 1.5 points being awarded for a single game.

[Richard Bates]

I would have thought the main issues arising were:

a. what the proper grounds are for imposing (or not) a default ;
b. the need to inform players of events and decision relating to their games ;
c. how one proceeds in the particular circumstances that were involved here.

I wonder whether in future instances the game might be started while the appeal is being considered and the outcome of the appeal not announced until the game is concluded. It's not totally satisfactory, but what is?

It would, conceivably, be quite good to know who among the arbiters spoke to the late player when he called, what they told them, and why. And perhaps most of all, why they didn't inform the other player. That seems to me to be the one manifestly indefensible aspect of the whole affair. Everything else, whether anybody agrees with it or not, can be understood. But not the failure to inform Angus French.

Some may take the view that being under the impression for about 30 seconds that one has been given a free point, only to discover that is not the case, is the most devastating psychological blow from which recovery is impossible. Others may think differently.

The fact remains that the rules stated that ultimately the arbiter has discretion, and the appeal committee agreed. Had everyone understood that in the first place there wouldn't have been a problem. I would say that there is something majorly deficient in the appeals process if somebody can appeal because they think they have grounds to be given a free point, lose the appeal, but be given the point anyway.

Still the good news is that Nigel Short is playing in the Championship next year, so we'll look forward to some fireworks

[Jonathan Bryant]

I remember completely wrecking the prize giving at the Watson Farley Williams GM event in 1991 by taking many hours to grind down GM Suba in the last round with my R,R + g pawn v his 2 Rooks.

As seen here ...
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... w-iii.html

[JustinHorton]

The fact remains that the rules stated that ultimately the arbiter has discretion, and the appeal committee agreed.

It's not all they said, though, is it? If it was, they would not have allotted the points as they did.

I'll repeat something that I wrote above: that I don't believe for a second that the same thing would have happened in the Championship. Anyone who thinks otherwise is free to think so, but they'll do well to convince me. And if anybody wants to explain why a totally different standard should apply at a crucial stage of the Major Open, again, I'm keen to hear their explanation.

And I'll also repeat that above all, what was indefensible was the failure to inform the player who had arrived on time. This has been adversely commented on by a number of people above, including one Richard Bates. I would hope that this extraordinary failure does remain a matter of concern, otherwise it is liable to happen again.

[JustinHorton]

Shorter me: I think people have every reason to find the award of 1.5 points obscure and unsatisfactory, and to ask for explanation. But I think there's as much need and more to find the original events obscure and unsatisfactory, and I've not seen any explanation of it at all.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'll repeat something that I wrote above: that I don't believe for a second that the same thing would have happened in the Championship.

In the very next (last) round, there was an announcement at the start of play, that because of traffic congestion, the start of some games would be postponed. I'd imagine they had learnt the communication lesson from the previous day. At least two Championship games were affected.

[JustinHorton]

Could I post a link to chesscafe Arbiter's Corner 132?

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt132.pdf

I think it would be interesting for somebody to refer this - all of it - to the distinguished arbiter and his column, something I've done more than once in the past. It won't be me this time though, as I'm off on my holidays tomorrow....

[JustinHorton]

I'll repeat something that I wrote above: that I don't believe for a second that the same thing would have happened in the Championship.

In the very next (last) round, there was an announcement at the start of play, that because of traffic congestion, the start of some games would be postponed. I'd imagine they had learnt the communication lesson from the previous day. At least two Championship games were affected.

Of course, but as I'm sure you appreciate Roger, I'm not saying that no game would ever be postponed for any reason (we can all think of times when this has happened, in more prestigious tournaments than the British Championship.) I'm saying that an arbiter wouldn't take a phone call from a player who said they were going to be late and then not inform their opponent. Nor do I think for the aforementioned second that that the particular reason given for lateness here would have been accepted. Certainly not on a high board in the penultimate round. I think that if that had happened, the opponent would have said that wasn't acceptable. I can''t imagine professionals taking any other view, or accepting it without an appeal.

[Sean Hewitt]

I wonder whether in future instances the game might be started while the appeal is being considered and the outcome of the appeal not announced until the game is concluded. It's not totally satisfactory, but what is?

Had it been one of our events we would have acknowledged the intent to appeal and asked the players to play under protest. That allows the game to be concluded and then conduct the appeal afterwards.