Not a dispute

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1219
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them

Re: Not a dispute

Post by Joey Stewart » Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:12 pm

I was thinking of it more for league situations rather then tournaments or national league competitons, where there are usually several arbiters present to resolve most issues that arise. I bet the vast majority of problems of this nature come in league chess, where there are only going to be a handful of players left at the end of the night and it is highly possible that they have never even heard of fide, let alone had the chance to digest its weighty tome of rules covering all sorts of silly situations where common sense would not otherwise be applied.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Not a dispute

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:13 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:It's less about adjournments than eligibility.
I realised; I just hadn't had a dig in a while. :P

I fell foul of eligibility rules in the Birmingham League - I had simply forgotten to send the e-mail that would have registered a player I picked for my game. It depends on the local rule for the league, I guess. In the Birmingham League, the penalty was one gamepoint within the match; the game had ended. This was picked up by the Records Secretary though, not the opposing team. I guess if the match had adjournments in it, the game would be played out if it was between sessions, but the team would incur the same penalty.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4064
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Not a dispute

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Apr 25, 2011 10:27 pm

Richard Thursby wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:This is a handy thread to dump arbiter questions in!
I have a new one. Something I've never seen discussed before.
Are you sure you should even be discussing this in a public forum at the moment?
For that reason I'll refrain from answering the question at the present time. I hope to do so at a later date.

For the benefit of confused readers, I'm referring to a currently unresolved eligibility issue in the Surrey Main League. I'm not sure whether Richard is alluding to the same matter or to something different.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7527
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Not a dispute

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:56 pm

Richard Thursby wrote:Are you sure you should even be discussing this in a public forum at the moment?
Maybe not, though as far as I'm aware there is nothing controversial or disputed about the situation in question (I may explain more in private). I was trying to generalise from the specific situation, when a thought occurred to me about the timings involved, but waiting a few more days or weeks wouldn't have hurt. I'll try and do that next time. Knowing when the right moment comes to mention examples (even anonymised ones, but ones that those involved would recognise when reading about it) is difficult. End of the season is sometimes best in some cases.

Post Reply