Hastings13-14

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
David Sedgwick
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:16 am

Keith Arkell wrote:I guess I would prefer it if the rules were clear cut.
Different events have different time limits, different default times (see up thread) and different provisions about whether or not "Sofia Rules" apply. Why should the same not be true of the provisions regarding half point byes?

Surely the important thing is that the rules for each event are clear to those who choose to enter that event. I accept that that may not always be the case.

However, the entry form for the London Chess Classic Open states quite clearly "Untitled players can take up to three half-point byes between Rounds 1-8 provided they are requested before the end of the previous round" (my emboldening).

Hence when you entered you knew, or should have known, that you had no entitlement to take a half-point bye. I really can't see that you have any cause for complaint because another GM has been allowed half-point byes at a different event.

Am I missing something?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17995
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:29 am

David Sedgwick wrote: However, the entry form for the London Chess Classic Open states quite clearly "Untitled players can take up to three half-point byes between Rounds 1-8 provided they are requested before the end of the previous round" (my emboldening).

Am I missing something?
Definition of Untitled? FMs (Andy Smith (and others?) in round 1) and IMs (John Cox) were allowed half point byes.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3942
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by Stewart Reuben » Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:45 am

"Untitled players can take up to three half-point byes between Rounds 1-8 provided they are requested before the end of the previous round"

That doesn't state that titled players cannot.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:26 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote: However, the entry form for the London Chess Classic Open states quite clearly "Untitled players can take up to three half-point byes between Rounds 1-8 provided they are requested before the end of the previous round" (my emboldening).

Am I missing something?
Definition of Untitled? FMs (Andy Smith (and others?) in round 1) and IMs (John Cox) were allowed half point byes.
That's a rather selective quotation. I said that Keith had no entitlement to a half-point bye.

Stewart Reuben wrote:"Untitled players can take up to three half-point byes between Rounds 1-8 provided they are requested before the end of the previous round"

That doesn't state that titled players cannot.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, perhaps?

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:33 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
More recently the Laws have been changed, possibly be me. A move is required from both players for it to constitute a game.
Which leads to the anomaly of 1 e4, mobile phone rings and the player can't lose because both players have not yet moved.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by Richard Bates » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:44 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
More recently the Laws have been changed, possibly be me...
Yep, sounds like a robust decision making process. What could possibly go wrong?

John Moore
Posts: 1758
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by John Moore » Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:13 am

Tom Stonehouse's dream pairing has arrived, I see. Mr Mchedleshvili (2656) on Board 4. At least Tom has White.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3942
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by Stewart Reuben » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:42 am

Sean Which leads to the anomaly of 1 e4, mobile phone rings and the player can't lose because both players have not yet moved.<

Wrong. The player loses the point. The opponent gets the point. But there was no game so it wasn't rated. Of course as secretary I would be involved in the Law changes. But when I wrote. 'possibly by me', I meant that it is possible I instigated the clarification of what constitutes a game.

Similarly it is 40 moves in 90 minutes. A plays 1 e4 and B is present. But he sits there for 90 minutes without making a move until his flag falls. He is 'thinking' about his first move. A scores the point, B scores zero, but it is not a rated game.

Thus my comment about Monty Python some considerable time ago to which David Sedgwick took exception. FIDE now have a definition which enables you to know whether a happening was a chess game, or like a dead parrot, hard to define. My encounter with Tony Miles would not now be defined as a game in FIDE terms. Is something like 1 e4 c5 draw agreed in some way better than 1 draw agreed? I think the latter is better. If two people play a concocted 30 move draw, I think that is significantly worse and brings the game into disrepute if discovered.

I voted against the automatic loss if a mobile phone goes off, but the majority voted in favour democratically. Just as they have now voted in favour of a less rigid approach.

Barry Sandercock
Posts: 1356
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:52 am

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by Barry Sandercock » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:53 am

I am finding it impossible to get the Results/pairings. Is there something wrong with the Website ?

John Upham
Posts: 4302
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by John Upham » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:56 am

Barry Sandercock wrote:I am finding it impossible to get the Results/pairings. Is there something wrong with the Website ?
Try this :D
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by David Sedgwick » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:03 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:Sean Which leads to the anomaly of 1 e4, mobile phone rings and the player can't lose because both players have not yet moved.<

Wrong. The player loses the point. The opponent gets the point. But there was no game so it wasn't rated. Of course as secretary I would be involved in the Law changes. But when I wrote. 'possibly by me', I meant that it is possible I instigated the clarification of what constitutes a game.

Similarly it is 40 moves in 90 minutes. A plays 1 e4 and B is present. But he sits there for 90 minutes without making a move until his flag falls. He is 'thinking' about his first move. A scores the point, B scores zero, but it is not a rated game.

Thus my comment about Monty Python some considerable time ago to which David Sedgwick took exception. FIDE now have a definition which enables you to know whether a happening was a chess game, or like a dead parrot, hard to define. My encounter with Tony Miles would not now be defined as a game in FIDE terms. Is something like 1 e4 c5 draw agreed in some way better than 1 draw agreed? I think the latter is better. If two people play a concocted 30 move draw, I think that is significantly worse and brings the game into disrepute if discovered.

I voted against the automatic loss if a mobile phone goes off, but the majority voted in favour democratically. Just as they have now voted in favour of a less rigid approach.
Delchev v Conquest, European Team Championship 2009 was rated, as I pointed out on the thread to which you allude. I'd also pointed it out previously, but had forgotten.

See http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 0&start=30 and http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 0&start=60.

John Moore
Posts: 1758
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by John Moore » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:19 pm

It is nice to have a lot of live games from Hastings but the bottom 4 boards are not exactly of the highest quality. Still I suppose some of the players concerned don't get on a live board too often.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5726
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by Carl Hibbard » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:23 pm

John Moore wrote:It is nice to have a lot of live games from Hastings but the bottom 4 boards are not exactly of the highest quality. Still I suppose some of the players concerned don't get on a live board too often.
8. Nb5 1-0 not nice to even watch.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

John Moore
Posts: 1758
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by John Moore » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:32 pm

Oh! 17 Bb5 in Stonehouse -Mchedleshvili. Would like to check that with an engine but at least Stonehouse T is giving it a go.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5726
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Hastings13-14

Post by Carl Hibbard » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:41 pm

John Moore wrote:Oh! 17 Bb5 in Stonehouse-Mchedleshvili. Would like to check that with an engine but at least Stonehouse T is giving it a go.
Looks lost quickly to me?
Last edited by Carl Hibbard on Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: No, wrong again.
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Post Reply