English Chess Forum

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?

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

Try this

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.

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.

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.

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

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?