Naughty Spectators

[Sean Hewitt]

Hastings, Jessie Gilbert Memorial, London Chess Classic Open, Coulsdon December event (although I am not sure that is a Swiss) all additionally meet your criteria. I am not sure whether any of the e2e4 events is a Swiss. I was unaware that the Scottish Open and South Wales Masters were English. In that case, please include Gibraltar which is certainly organised under the umbrella of the ECF.

Stewart Reuben

There hasn't been a 9 round e2e4 swiss yet. The Uxbridge Premier in October will be our first venture into this field. We shouldn't have a problem with strength or mix of foreign / titled players.

If the Sunningdale weekender were 9 rounds, it would certainly be strong enough for norms. When was the last English weekender to see 4GMs, 2IMs, 1WIM and 3FMs in the same field? (and possibly more to come!)

[Alan Walton]

Sean,

Only 2 years ago, Blackpool had 4GMs, 1IM, 3FM, 1WFM

Also in 2004 at Blackpool there was 3GM, 5IM, 2FM, and looking at the players who entered some have become titled (2GM, 2IM, 3FM)

Also in 2004 I was rated 2124 and was bottom of the top half with a bye in round 1 (unfortunately I got paired with a late entry and it was Danny Gormally), so maybe that tournament was the strongest in depth for a weekender

[George Tunstall]

it would be realised that in some instances eg FIDE rated large Swisses a better rule would be to have a 0 default with specified exceptions.

Regarding the 10.2s
My previous examples were too complicated. My point is not concerned with players forgetting to watch or press the clock. A simpler version is :-

LP QPF rules.
With level material, player A has 3 minutes and an overwhelming attack. B has 20 mins.

B offers a draw, which A declines as he wants to go for a risky in the time win. B then delays the mate as long as possible sacrificing nearly all his material.

The Arbiter is watching everthing, alert and no distractions.
At the end A has K+R+N+B+3P and B has K+N.

With only 1-2 secs left A misses a mate in 4 as the BK can hide amongst the WPs. He then needs a further 6 moves.
A then states clearly, so the arbiter hears, that he wishes to claim a draw under 10.2 that it is not possible to win by normal means. He reaches to stop the clock and the flag falls before he does. I feel the claim is made during the last 2 mins of the game before the flag fell and meets all the requirements of an immediate draw under rule 10.2.

However the current tranche of arbiters come preprogrammed to first look at the clock when deciding a 10.2 and disallow the claim if it is then fallen. This is not the same as evaluating whether the claim was made in time as required by the rules.

Scenarios are further complicated by insufficient arbiter Rapidplay rules, where an arbiter may not point out a flag fall and also when the arbiter is away from the board.

I might not be a fully qualified arbiter yet, but in the following situation I would be tempted to award the win on time. My reasoning is thus.

1) Player A can have a draw for certain at any time he wants, as all he has to do is take B's knight, leaving B with a lone king
2) Player A has left it very late to claim a draw. If he had claimed with 10 seconds or so left, then a draw can quite easily be awarded, as it will be easy to show that B is making no progress.
3) Player A should have stopped his clock before his flag fell. He could then of claimed under law 10.2.
4) If the arbiter had not been watching, then he would have no prior knowledge of the game. If player A had claimed with his flag still up, then the draw would very likely have been given.

In conclusion, I think that giving the win on time is justifiable, as the player with the advantage can claim the draw at pretty much any point he wants, provided their flag is still up. Also, Player A can simply capture B's knight at some point in order to leave B with no material. Finally, 10.2 is there to protect players from an opponent trying to purely win on time. It can't be used retrospectively as an "insurance policy" for a player to play for the win only to claim a draw after his flag falls. If a player wants a draw under 10.2 they should leave enough time in order to claim it.

What do other people think?

[Adam Raoof]

I might not be a fully qualified arbiter yet, but in the following situation I would be tempted to award the win on time. My reasoning is thus.

1) Player A can have a draw for certain at any time he wants, as all he has to do is take B's knight, leaving B with a lone king
2) Player A has left it very late to claim a draw. If he had claimed with 10 seconds or so left, then a draw can quite easily be awarded, as it will be easy to show that B is making no progress.
3) Player A should have stopped his clock before his flag fell. He could then of claimed under law 10.2.
4) If the arbiter had not been watching, then he would have no prior knowledge of the game. If player A had claimed with his flag still up, then the draw would very likely have been given.

In conclusion, I think that giving the win on time is justifiable, as the player with the advantage can claim the draw at pretty much any point he wants, provided their flag is still up. Also, Player A can simply capture B's knight at some point in order to leave B with no material. Finally, 10.2 is there to protect players from an opponent trying to purely win on time. It can't be used retrospectively as an "insurance policy" for a player to play for the win only to claim a draw after his flag falls. If a player wants a draw under 10.2 they should leave enough time in order to claim it.

What do other people think?

George, I hope you become an arbiter.

When you need some practical experience, let me know.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

I'm with George too!

[Roger de Coverly]

It can't be used retrospectively as an "insurance policy" for a player to play for the win only to claim a draw after his flag falls. If a player wants a draw under 10.2 they should leave enough time in order to claim it.

The Chess Arbiters Association Guidance used to say this.

From http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/frul.htm (2005)

If, when short of time, you continue to play for a win, you risk losing unless your opponent has only a King.

[Ian Thompson]

I'm not an Arbiter, but I think the key sentance is. "He reaches to stop the clock and the flag falls before he does."
To me this is the same as playing your last move before a time control and not pressing the clock in time.
I would therefore agree with George

The two circumstances are not quite the same. The rules require you to stop your clock before your flag falls to make a time control. A 10.2 claim does not require you to stop the clock. It is optional.

If I was the arbiter and I saw that the flag had not fallen at the time the 10.2 claim was made, then I would allow the claim. It should make no difference whether there is 1 second left on the clock or 1 minute, so long as the flag has not fallen.

if I was the arbiter and I wasn't watching the clock at the time the claim was made, then all I have seen is that the flag has fallen and that a claim has been made. I don't know which happened first. In this case, I would agree with George's reasoning.

[Sean Hewitt]

Only 2 years ago, Blackpool had 4GMs, 1IM, 3FM, 1WFM

Sunningdale now has
4 GMs
4 IMs
6 FMs
1 WIM
1 WFM

There are still spaces in the Open, the Major (U2000/U165) and the Minor U135. Details here or enter online here.

[Neill Cooper]

It seems more sensible to raise this issue here rather than on the Remaining poker faced.. thread

Twice in the last calendar year, a Sutton GS school game has been drawn by a spectating player calling out a flag fall - one for, one against! Neither incident had any influence on the match result, though curiously the Sutton player was the same person on both occasions. As they say, luck balances out over time...

Could someone clarify the rules about this. Why is the result a draw?

[Ian Thompson]

Twice in the last calendar year, a Sutton GS school game has been drawn by a spectating player calling out a flag fall - one for, one against! Neither incident had any influence on the match result, though curiously the Sutton player was the same person on both occasions. As they say, luck balances out over time...

Could someone clarify the rules about this.

The rules do not explicitly cover what happens when a spectator interferes in a game, so its up to the arbiter to decide how to deal with it.

Why is the result a draw?

You'd have to ask the person who made the decision why they thought that was the best thing to do.

[John Moore]

Does Daniel mean that the match was drawn.

[Daniel Young]

Does Daniel mean that the match was drawn.

No. Only the individual games; in both cases the team that lost a half-point won the match crushingly.