Best Disputes

[Joey Stewart]

So, with the end of the season drawing near, I started thinking about interesting incidents that have happened off the boards in the leagues of the country and wondered if anyone had any good ones they have seen (or even been involved in) during this season and would like to share them with us.

[Mick Norris]

So, with the end of the season drawing near, I started thinking about interesting incidents that have happened off the boards in the leagues of the country and wondered if anyone had any good ones they have seen (or even been involved in) during this season

yes

and would like to share them with us.

No

[Ian Thompson]

So, with the end of the season drawing near, I started thinking about interesting incidents that have happened off the boards in the leagues of the country and wondered if anyone had any good ones they have seen (or even been involved in) during this season and would like to share them with us.

How about this for something that didn't cause a dispute, but perhaps should have done.

In Round 11 of Division 1 of the 4NCL Nick Thomas played out of rating order (two boards lower than the 80-point rule would have allowed) in the Warwickshire Select v BCM Dragons match. I understand this was to maximise his chances of getting an IM norm. The 4NCL rules allow this provided it is "in the best interests of the League".

After 10 rounds, 6 of the 8 teams in the Division 1 relegation pool were still at risk of relegation, with all to play for in the last match. The result of the Warwickshire Select v BCM Dragons match was relevant to who got relegated. I think any of the other 5 teams at risk of relegation (other than Warwickshire Select) could have reasonably questioned whether it was in the best interests of the league to allow Warwickshire Select's board order.

With hindsight, we now know that Warwickshire Select got relegated as a result of drawing their match with BCM Dragons, whereas they would have stayed up had they won it (with Guildford 2 being relegated instead). If anyone lost out it was Warwickshire Select themselves, but what if they had won - would that have been fair to the other teams?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Out of interest, how much would Nick Thomas's playing on a legal board have changed the expected result of the relevant match?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Since it was not necessary for Nick to play lower - just desirable, and probably not even increasing his chances of a norm by very much - I agree that the request might have been better refused. It is entirely up to the Chief Arbiter - he preserves the interests of other affected teams (the teams who actually play the match must agree, so they can look after their own interests).

I should add that normally it is right that permission should be given, notwithstanding the slight distortions that thus arise, both for the teams concerned and potentially for others. I don't blame the Chief Arbiter for agreeing to this among several other decisions to be made on a busy Sunday night. Still, since Ian asks, I think this request is rather different, the salient factors being that (a) Nick could still have quite easily have made the norm anyway, (b) it was entirely foreseeable that the match would be very close and that Nick's result might therefore determine it either way and (c) the impact of the match resut would have an unusually serious and direct consequence for other teams.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Ian.

"but what if they had won - would that have been fair to the other teams?"

That is a....'what if'....

You cannot have disputes revolving around 'what if's'.
We could flood the Fourm with 'what if's'.

What if BCM Dragons, under the 'if they can do it, then so can we rule,'
dropped the player Nicky Thomas was meant to play
two boards lower so he would play him anyway.

What if the BCM Dragons player Nicky faced threw a real strop and defaulted the game.
(do defaults count towards norms...what if they did?)

Too many if's.
Anybody got any facts on a dispute that did happen.

[IM Jack Rudd]

What if the BCM Dragons player Nicky faced threw a real strop and defaulted the game.
(do defaults count towards norms...what if they did?)

Defaults don't count towards norms, no. Except possibly Arbiter norms.

[Ian Thompson]

Hi Ian.

"but what if they had won - would that have been fair to the other teams?"

That is a....'what if'....

You cannot have disputes revolving around 'what if's'.
We could flood the Fourm with 'what if's'.

My point was that the 5 other teams at risk of relegation might reasonably have objected to what was being done, and asked for it to be undone, when the pairings were published, 90 minutes before play was due to begin.

What if BCM Dragons, under the 'if they can do it, then so can we rule,'
dropped the player Nicky Thomas was meant to play
two boards lower so he would play him anyway.

BCM Dragons, who were already relegated, could have refused the request from Warwickshire Select and required Nick to play in the correct board order if they didn't like what was being done.

What if the BCM Dragons player Nicky faced threw a real strop and defaulted the game.
(do defaults count towards norms...what if they did?)

I assume the BCM Dragons player was informed in advance and asked to agree to it. I hope that was done. It was when I was asked to do the same thing a few years ago.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Ian

It's still if's, but's, could have's and might have's....

"other teams at risk of relegation might reasonably have objected...."

"BCM Dragons, who were already relegated, could have refused the request..."

"I assume the BCM Dragons player was informed in advance..."

Wait a minute....we have something.

"....when I was asked to do the same thing a few years ago."

A fact!

Now we are getting somewhere.

Just how many IM's and GM's are out there having been norm'd up by dropping
down in the board order at the 4NCL.

How many weaker player have turned up expecting a fair game only to see the rules bent
('in the best interests of the League') and reduced to fodder for the chosen few.

Finally we have a dispute.

[Rob Thompson]

Perhaps more common is players going for norms being put on much higher boards than their ratings would normally allow. James Adair in round 10 was an example of this.

[Neil Graham]

Finally we have a dispute.

I don't think we have - the BCM Dragons player, rated some way below Nick, actually won the game thus depriving the Warwickshire player of his norm.

[Geoff Chandler]

Amazing.

You could not have made it up.

No dispute here Ian.

Looked at the game. Quite a battle.
Some heavy calcualtion and evaluation going on between moves 13 and 34.
(not a line I play from either side not sure how much is theory.)

Nicholas Thomas (2283) - Shawn Tavares (2168) 4NCL May 2013

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. c3 c5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 cxd4 8. cxd4 f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nh3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 12. Re1 O-O 13. Nhg5 h6 14. Nxe6 Bxe6 15. Rxe6 Ng4 16. Bc2 Bxh2+ 17. Kf1 Nxf2 18. Kxf2 Qg3+ 19. Kf1 Rxf3+ 20. Qxf3 Rf8 21. Bh7+ Kxh7 22. Qxf8 Qd3+ 23. Re2 Nxd4 24. Qf2 Bg3 25. Qe3 Qd1+ 26. Re1 Bxe1 27. Qxe1 Qd3+ 28. Kf2 Qf5+ 29. Kg1 Nc2 30. Qd1 Nxa1 31. Be3 Nc2 32. Bxa7 Qe4 33. Bf2 d4 34. Qf3 Qxf3 35. gxf3 d3 36. Kf1 Kg6 37. Bc5 h5 38. a4 Kf5 39. Kf2 Ke5 40. Bf8 g6 41. Bg7+ Kd5 42. Bc3 h4 43. Bd2 Nd4 44. Bg5 Kc4

[Nick Thomas]

Surely this non dispute isn't the best Best Dispute to dispute?

We requested flexibility in board order and the arbiters and opposition agreed. Jack asked the pertinent question earlier in the thread (puting aside the fact that I did play on a legal board):

Out of interest, how much would Nick Thomas's playing on a legal board have changed the expected result of the relevant match?

The result of the match could have been more or less likely to go our way with the change in board order, I don't know which. As it happenned I had a couple of forced draws in the game which under other circumstances I would have considered had it not been for the Norm and the fact that at that time I considered I needed more than that to help win the match.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Nick.

"Surely this non dispute isn't the best Best Dispute to dispute?"

This non dispute fits the criteria for this Forum ie. it's must have the abilty to throw
everyone off at a tangent whilst displaying the 'causing a row in an empty house' syndrome.
I think we should argue about this non dispute out of respect for all the other non disputes
that have have been argued about on here in the past.

What if it was discovered that the board colours for that match had been wrong.
Under the Oslo Agreement any player dropping down boards must take Black.
Nick was White in that game. The whole 2012/2013 season must be replayed.
(that will keep them busy Nick.)

That lad you played, Shawn Tavares, he is not a weaker player.
A few seasons ago he was 2200+ and I am of the opinion that players
do not get weaker the more they play.
Although the grading system would make it seem so.

Once you get to a certain level you are surely capable of playing at that
level (and even higher) irrespective of how your recent results have been.

I thought they had slipped you down to face an 1800 player.

The norm wll come, you have wins under your belt v McNab and Cherniaev from that event.
That game v Cherniaev is very entertaining.
White trying his best to set up a fortress with two Bishops v a lone Queen.
I've not seen many endgames with that line up.

You were in such good form they should have moved you up a couple of boards.

Or left you where you were to play against Ian Thompson.
Not only were you fired up to get a win for your team and the norm.
You could have exacted revenge for that 16 move loss v Ian in the 2003 4NCL.

I've added that game to my collection of Unfended Pieces exposed by a single pawn move.

Black to move in I.Thompson - N. Thomas 4NCL 2003

r1b2rk1/1pp1q1pp/3p1n2/p3np2/P1P1p3/BPP1N1P1/4PPBP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 13

Everything is OK but Black played 13...b6 and White was in with 14.Nd5

r1b2rk1/2p1q1pp/1p1p1n2/p2Nnp2/P1P1p3/BPP3P1/4PPBP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 14

Three threats.
15.Nxe7+
15.Nxf6+ and Qd5+ and Qxa1
15.Nxc7 Qxc7 16.Bxd6 Winning two healthy pawns.

Black decided that Knight has to come off. 14...Nxd5 15.Qxd5+ Be6 (else White picks up the a1 Rook.)

r4rk1/2p1q1pp/1p1pb3/p2Qnp2/P1P1p3/BPP3P1/4PPBP/R4RK1 w - - 0 16

The Undefended Black Queen allowed White to play 16.Qxe5 1-0.

All that's left is to wring it tactically dry by making sure the White Queen
does not get trapped in the Qxa1 line. (I like using one position to show other ideas.)

[FEN "r1b2rk1/2p1q1pp/1p1p4/p2nnp2/P1P1p3/BPP3P1/4PPBP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 15"] 15. Qxd5+ Kh8 16. Qxa8 Bd7 {Now Qd5 is the best move.} 17. Qb7 {Instead totally relaxed White sniffs at the c7 pawn waiting for Black to resign.} 17... Bc6 18. Qa7 Ra8 {And the game is back in the pot.}

[Malcolm Peacock]

This could have been a good dispute from the local league, but I believe it was resolved amicably:

1) Home team captain phones away team secretary to ask why their team has not yet arrived.
2) Away team arrive late, match starts ..
3) Home team captain's mobile phone rings, away team claim the game (its their secretary phoning back to see if the team has arrive yet )