Best Disputes

[Geoff Chandler]

That's a good one.

Wait outside the club house and keep checking with your club secretary to see if the home team phoned.
Once they have quickly rush in to get the match started hoping their team captain has forgotten to switch off the phone.

Away team sec waits 5 minutes, makes return call and is filled when joy when it is answered.
Home Team 0 - Away Team 1.

[Nick Thomas]

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.

You make some good points but I am a bit concerned that this thread is turning into "Nick Thomas's most disappointing/embarrassing losses".

BTW I didn't know who I was going to play (the same as anyone else) and agree that Shawn Tavares is a good player. He played a good fearless game against me and deserved his win.

[Stewart Reuben]

I do not have the Title Regs in front of me.
But, if I have read it the thread correctly, a player was played on a lower board to give him a lower rated opponent than he would otherwise have met. This was in a misguided effort to make it easier for him to secure the win he needed for a norm.

That is against the rules and, if found out, would have invalidated the norm had it been achieved.

[Stewart Reuben]

In the 18 years I organised the British Championships and 1 year part organised, there were just 10 appeals. Of these 5 were to do with the precursor of 10.2 and, as the late Harry Baines said, that is not a real dispute.
I am playing in a bridge festival in Croatia. One hears the call for the director several times each evening. Disputes in chess are very rare, but when they happen can be very, very fraught.

[Roger de Coverly]

That is against the rules and, if found out, would have invalidated the norm had it been achieved.

Whose rules though? It was against the 4NCL's 80 point rule except for the "interests of the league" exemption, but if there's an implication board order rules are FIDE rules for Norms as well, arbiters and match captains need to be aware of what they can and cannot do. What happens if a player plays on an artificially high board? Does this mean the 4NCL needs to tweak its rules to add an additional "rating performance" rule to apply to rounds 9,10 and 11?

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Stewart.

Looks like this thread is going die disputeless.

Can you fill us in on one of the Bridge disputes.
It's not a game I have played.
(I hear you need a friend or partner so I'm on a sticky wicket there.)

All I know about the game is that Karpov and Korchnoi were once Bridge partners at Hastings.

I know it's popular because every second hand shop I go into the Chess books
are always lumped together with the Bridge books and a few of the titles are very similiar.

Logical Bridge, Improve Your Bridge, The Mammoth Book of Bridge,
The Complete Book of Opening Leads, (that must the MCO of the Bridge world)
and How Good is Your Bridge (Danny King awarding the points)

So where and what is there to dispute?
Are there electronic devices at work or is it dealing from the bottom.

[Richard Bates]

That is against the rules and, if found out, would have invalidated the norm had it been achieved.

Whose rules though? It was against the 4NCL's 80 point rule except for the "interests of the league" exemption, but if there's an implication board order rules are FIDE rules for Norms as well, arbiters and match captains need to be aware of what they can and cannot do. What happens if a player plays on an artificially high board? Does this mean the 4NCL needs to tweak its rules to add an additional "rating performance" rule to apply to rounds 9,10 and 11?

There may be something obscure that i'm missing but i can't see how that there is a rule against this. It seems to me that there are only two rules which try to stop this sort of thing, but both seem too explicit to prohibit what goes on regularly in the 4NCL.

1.11 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 tournament system must be a fair one. Tournaments where the composition is changed (without FIDE approval) during the tournament or those where players have different conditions in terms of rounds and pairing are not valid.
The tournament must be registered at least 30 days in advance on the FIDE server, and all details of the tournament must be published in the FIDE calendar.

1.42g Tournaments that make changes to favour one or more players (for example by altering the number of rounds, or the order of rounds, or providing particular opponents, not otherwise participating in the event), shall be excluded.
The tournament program and the pairing system used must be published at the time of the registration of the tournament.

The latter seems to most closely correlate to the scenario of somebody deliberately being paired against a required opponent, but clearly cannot be applied here because Nick's opponent was "otherwise participating in the event". Actually it is difficult to create a scenario where this rule could ever be applied in the 4NCL (was Vassily Ivanchuk "otherwise participating in the event", prior to the last round!?).

The former is less specific but again it is difficult to see how it could be applied to invalidate norms in the 4NCL.

Of course the way these rules are written, if the scenario were to invalidate a potential norm on the grounds of either of the above rules, it would invalidate ALL norms secured in the entire tournament!

There is an established practice in the 4NCL of people moving outside of standard 80pt limits (in both directions) to secure required opponents (be it players of minimum ratings/titled players etc). If it is to not be allowed (and i don't see why moving higher should be any different to moving lower) then FIDE rules would have to be a lot more clear in forbidding it.

[Nick Thomas]

I do not have the Title Regs in front of me.
But, if I have read it the thread correctly, a player was played on a lower board to give him a lower rated opponent than he would otherwise have met. This was in a misguided effort to make it easier for him to secure the win he needed for a norm.

That is against the rules and, if found out, would have invalidated the norm had it been achieved.

This is almost certainly not true. Rules are in place to stop tournaments from allowing norm seakers from playing people outside the tournament and to prevent organisers from changing the format of the tournamrnt mid cycle. 4NCL regulations allow relaxation of the 80 point rule though in certain situations and this is well known and well publicised.

It didn't take long for this non dispute to become a dispute then

Edit: Just beaten by previous post which I agree with

[Roger de Coverly]

There is an established practice in the 4NCL of people moving outside of standard 80pt limits (in both directions) to secure required opponents (be it players of minimum ratings/titled players etc). If it is to not be allowed (and i don't see why moving higher should be any different to moving lower) then FIDE rules would have to be a lot more clear in forbidding it.

There are team competitions, including the Olympiad, European team and national leagues which require that a squad order, once announced at the start of a season, is fixed for the duration of the competition. I don't think it has ever been suggested this is a requirement for a team competition to offer norms. The Olympiad and several other events break what could be regarded as a basic rule of team chess, namely that teams are, more or less, arranged in order of playing strength.

[MartinCarpenter]

Oh goodness, bridge disputes.....

They make chess look blissfully simple. The route cause of the funniest ones is that in bidding the only information you're actually allowed to use is the fact of the bids made and explanations of what the opponents bids mean.

But there are lots of other potential sources. Take the tempo at which your partner bids (slow/fast). A prioiri probably easier to use than not use! Even with honest people you can't trust their subconcious not to. The rules therefore get rather strict - not only do you have to 'ignore' such information but you have to actively try and not take any action which might have been suggested by it.

Or with bidding mix ups where you've forgotten your agreements, the opposition have asked your partner for an explanation of your bids, he's got it right and told them. That's fine but he's also reminded you. You're not allowed to use that information and have to keep bidding as if you'd forgotten, even when you know you're heading for a train crash. Or.....

As you might imagine this all keeps both the directors and appeals commities very well employed

Anyway the chess question here seems perhaps gently interesting so apologies for the diversion!

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Martin,

Thanks.

This moving players about dispute is something I'm not really interested in.

But I like the sound of Bridge disputes so I'm off to join a Bridge Forum.
I had a quick scan at the rules, it appears to be Trumps only with more cards.

[Joey Stewart]

Since nobody has had/is willing to discuss any disputes yet, I have an old grudge that I would like to get off my chest.

There used to be a team in the Coventry league called Coventry Transport, who loved to win trophies.
So much so that they had a system to win a trophy every year, which went as follows:
Year 1 Start in division 3 with a side of 130-150 strength players, thrashing everyone in sight.
Year 2 Comfortably win division 2
Year 3 Add a "B" team to division 3, with minimal players, and half way through the season drop the A team citing lack of players as the reason. The said players would then reappear a few weeks later in division 3 and start the whole process again, thus avoiding ever having to face any strong opposition.

Unfortunately their ringleader, Des McCarthy, was quite a fiery character and the league committee relatively reluctant to take him on so he was allowed to do this year in year out.

What would the others of you have done in the situation? I was all for threatening to throw him and his cheating team out of the league but, as often is the case, no support was ever forthcoming when people were asked to turn up to the AGM.

[Stewart Reuben]

Take events like the LLoyds Bank Masters. In the last round, the natural opponent of a norm seeker, according to the Swiss Rules, was to play an opponent rated X. By fiddling the pairings, not using top half v second half, he could play an opponent rated considerably lower than X. He would still require the same score for the norm.
This always seemed to me totally wrong. If ignoring the 80 point rule for the last round of a norm is not totally wrong, I do not see why it is not. 1.42g just gives examples, it is not supposed to be a definitive list. The 4NCL 80 point rule is published at the start of the season.
1,42g last paragraph. The tournament program and the pairing system used must be published at the time of the registration of the tournament.

I did a great deal of work to ensure that the FIDE title regulations were more user friendly than in 1977.

[Richard Bates]

Take events like the LLoyds Bank Masters. In the last round, the natural opponent of a norm seeker, according to the Swiss Rules, was to play an opponent rated X. By fiddling the pairings, not using top half v second half, he could play an opponent rated considerably lower than X. He would still require the same score for the norm.
This always seemed to me totally wrong. If ignoring the 80 point rule for the last round of a norm is not totally wrong, I do not see why it is not. 1.42g just gives examples, it is not supposed to be a definitive list. The 4NCL 80 point rule is published at the start of the season.
1,42g last paragraph. The tournament program and the pairing system used must be published at the time of the registration of the tournament.

I did a great deal of work to ensure that the FIDE title regulations were more user friendly than in 1977.

My interpretation is that the rules exist to prevent the outcome of a tournament being corrupted by manipulation of the pairings. Which doesn't occur in the 4NCL because the 80pt rule is explicitly stated to not apply if both captains agree. The opposition captain agreeing is protection against a team taking advantage of a potential norm to influence the result of a match in their favour. The 80pt rule really has nothing to do with the pairing system (which defines which teams play each other), it is an internal tournament rule restricting how teams can distribute their players. Put it another way - the 4NCL could have NO published restrictions on board order. In those circumstances any such arrangements to produce norms would obviously be valid. It would be bizarre that just because the 4NCL includes an additional rule, which it explicitly states can be disregarded with the agreement of both teams, then norms could be invalidated where otherwise they would be valid if such a rule was not in place.

Do you believe that James Adair's GM norm at 4NCL should be deemed invalid?

[Roger de Coverly]

Put it another way - the 4NCL could have NO published restrictions on board order.

Or like some leagues, it could insist that the team in every match followed squad order as determined at the start of a season. I don't think FIDE have ever published or even hinted at publishing guidelines as to what was or was not accepted for Norms in team events.