Board Orders

[Adam Raoof]

Just spotted the thread title and thought it might be a juicy discussion on instructions given to the ECF Board by its President in an attempt to keep them in line.

I was a bit disappointed to see the subject was of a more technical nature

Well I thought at first it was an advertising pitch by someone wanting to flog off a load of surplus playing equipment.

Apologies, I thought it was a new channel four reality tv show about a bunch of cockney surfers with ocd...

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Although one can see why it might be unwise simply to take a club's own estimate, no?"

Yes I agree - but you need to take their info into consideration, and make any estimated grades consistent and as fair as possible (and use the same procedures for each club). We were most irritated at being told, "We know more about your player than you do", which was just a blatantly false statement.

When I was League Secretary I tended to accept clubs' estimates, but say we will revise the estimates if necessary when we get a few results. Everyone was happy with that.

[John McKenna]

Can Kevin answer this one - a home capt. strongly suspects one of the top board players in his team may not turn up so they agree that if that player has not arrived by a certain time then a weaker player than any other in the team will be sustituted on the higher board - is it illegal/unethical/unsporting/only to be expected?

[MartinCarpenter]

Awfully generous of the opposition

You'd normally just make them either start the match with the potential default on a high board - and then wait and see - or put the substitute in on bottom board. Making people wait for a while then play a substitute really isn't something I'd want to get involved with. A very hard mental adjustment to make etc.

Of course, even regular defaults on a high board would tend to get you into trouble with many leagues.

[Roger de Coverly]

Of course, even regular defaults on a high board would tend to get you into trouble with many leagues.

There was a match captain around twenty years ago who almost admitted to doing this, although a substitute was usually fielded to avoid an actual default. The idea was to offset the inevitable loss on top board with results lower down. The 4NCL has a rule that the substitute cannot start play until 55 minutes have elapsed.

[Ihor Lewyk]

The Bradford league has this year adopted a yellow/red card system. If a team defaults a board other than the bottom board in a match then the league secretary with give that team a yellow card. The next time this happens the team will be docked a board point in addition to the default.

So far only a handful of yellow cards have been issued, none of which have been appealled against.

[John McKenna]

Martin, this thread is based on the Surrey League. I think RdC may have hinted at the totally competive nature of contests in it. For example, my previous post (aimed at KT) was to preempt any jiggery-pokery in next Monday's Redhill-I v. Crystal Palace-I match by the home side.

You sound as if you only play in leagues of gentlemen, lacking pre-match mind games.

(Keep this under your hat - we hope to arrive wiith 7 players and leave board 1 to be taken by a rabbid-rabbit sub who our non-playing capt. will pull out of his hat to face their top board GM. The other 7 of us getting an easier ride by all going a board lower.)

[Colin S Crouch]

Then there is the case of a team deliberately defaulting on the top board, with no intention of providing a full team, even though this was a home match. There was a prima donna in the team, who has an intense hatred of losing a game, and hates players graded over 200. He reckons he could handle players of up to about 190, but anyone else is seen as the enemy.
The net result was that, in a very random knockout, I found myself no opponent on board 1. I did not particularly object to this at the time, as a couple of mediocre pints, and an unexpected chance to relax, seemed a more enjoyable prosepect than trying to grind out a win against a significantly lower rated opponent. Besides, the opposing team was only the second team, there being a stronger team playing against Wimbledon. The squealing prima donna evidently decided that he did not like the prospect of being spanked either by me, or by the Wimbledon player.
Afterwards though, this gave me the feeling that this was decidedly unethical by the opposing team, and club.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Can Kevin answer this one - a home capt. strongly suspects one of the top board players in his team may not turn up so they agree that if that player has not arrived by a certain time then a weaker player than any other in the team will be sustituted on the higher board - is it illegal/unethical/unsporting/only to be expected?"

Interestingly enough, Redhill played South Norwood a few years ago, when Andrew Ledger was our usual top board, but unavailable on this night. We arrived at SN to find 8 players milling about in the match room and others elsewhere. Their named board one was not there. We started and about five minutes later their spare player was getting very agitated and wanted to step in as reserve as their board one was absent, and their captain (also the League Secretary) told us that the board one had never responded to the invitation to play. I (as board one) suggested there was no hurry, but we played and I won. The next week I saw their absent board one, and said, "hello where were you last Thursday?" (and explained) - he said he was never asked...

Surrey now has a penalty point system for defaults above bottom board. This reduced top board defaults dramatically. In an 8 board match, a default on board 1 gets 8 penalty points, on board 2, gets 7 penalty points etc...The team is fined half a match point for each ten penalty points. It doesn't stop the above scenario but it at least means the top board usually gets a game.

"For example, my previous post (aimed at KT) was to preempt any jiggery-pokery in next Monday's Redhill-I v. Crystal Palace-I match by the home side."

"(Keep this under your hat - we hope to arrive wiith 7 players and leave board 1 to be taken by a rabbid-rabbit sub who our non-playing capt. will pull out of his hat to face their top board GM. The other 7 of us getting an easier ride by all going a board lower.)"

If our top board does fail to appear, we hope to provide a strong enough reserve. Actually, you had better hope your top board does turn up now you've said that!

[John McKenna]

Thanks, kindly, for your measured response, Kevin. I know you always play fair. However, as you have just told us, some (m)others think that all is fair in love and war. My response to you and illustrious IM Dr. Colin Crouch follows in my next post...

[John McKenna]

Grateful to Colin for his fascinating posts and particularly the one above Kevin Thurlow's since it gives me the opportunity to say what a situation, such as the one he describes, looks like from the other end of the telescope.
A long time ago I was at the Bishopsgate Institute and found myself - don't recall how exactly - in the boardroom there being asked to substitute (to avoid a default penalty?) on top board in a 1st Div. London League match for my old club. I do not recall the name of the opposing team but my adversary was Tim Wall. The match was already under way so I had less time, and the black pieces. I think Tim went 1.e4 and me 1... e5, anyway, I survived for twenty moves or so and everyone was content. Tim suggested a couple of improvements but since the game was played in the days before I had a PC I will just have to hope the scoresheet turns up someday - don't know why I didn't just keep them in a box. If it does ever materialise I will put it up here but don't hold your breaths.
Two things strike me about what Colin recounted above, first, his expectation that if he had a weaker opponent he would have had to grind out a win when probably he would have won quickly. And, second, that the ECF grading and FIDE rating systems are good for at least one thing - putting two opposing teams together in a reasonable manner so that all players have the chance of a good, close game.
All joking aside, this coming Monday the 7 minnows of Crystal Palace will be in order on boards 2-8 and hopefully there'll be no rabbit or default on top board. The challenge for us is to avoid a whitewash against strong opposition.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Then there is the case of a team deliberately defaulting on the top board, with no intention of providing a full team, even though this was a home match. There was a prima donna in the team, who has an intense hatred of losing a game, and hates players graded over 200. He reckons he could handle players of up to about 190, but anyone else is seen as the enemy.
The net result was that, in a very random knockout, I found myself no opponent on board 1. I did not particularly object to this at the time, as a couple of mediocre pints, and an unexpected chance to relax, seemed a more enjoyable prosepect than trying to grind out a win against a significantly lower rated opponent. Besides, the opposing team was only the second team, there being a stronger team playing against Wimbledon. The squealing prima donna evidently decided that he did not like the prospect of being spanked either by me, or by the Wimbledon player.
Afterwards though, this gave me the feeling that this was decidedly unethical by the opposing team, and club.

An interesting story. I am not sure I can see what benefit a team might gain by deliberately arriving with 7 players for an 8 board match, and defaulting top board, rather than arriving with 8 players. Their maximum possible score immediately falls from 8 points to 7. The only advantage I can see is that each of the 7 players would be playing 1 board lower than they otherwise would. If that gave them a significant grading advantage on each of those boards to offset the likelihood of their board 1 losing to Colin, then maybe, but over 7 boards things can not be so clear-cut.

By the way, I never shirked the opportunity to play Dr Crouch, and received a couple of excellent lessons from him for my trouble.

[Stewart Reuben]

Quoting 'The Chess Organiser's Handbook' page 14 of the 3rd edition
It is normal to require the teams to be played in strict order of playing strength. If not, there may be a totally fallacious result. Consider two teams A and B which are evenly matched. A1 and B1 are rated 2800, A2 and B2 2550, A3 and B3 2300, A4 and B4 2050. The expected scores with various pairings are shown below for a ten game match. The probability tables of Page 167 has been used to determine the results.

Pairings Result Pairings Result Pairings Result Pairings Result

A1-B1 5-5 A1-B2 8-2 A1-B3 9½-½ A1-B4 10-0
A2-B2 5-5 A2-B3 8-2 A2-B4 9½-½ A2-B1 2-8
A3-B3 5-5 A3-B4 8-2 A3-B2 2 -8 A3-B3 5-5
A4-B4 5-5 A4-B1 0-10 A4-B1 0 -10 A4-B2 ½-9½
TOTAL 20-20 24-16 21 -19 17½-22½

[Roger de Coverly]

Pairings Result
A4-B1 0-10
A1-B2 8-2
A2-B3 8-2
A3-B4 8-2

TOTAL 24-16

That was the scenario discussed earlier, where board 1 is filled by a relatively weak substitute. On the Elo probabilities, that demonstrates that it doesn't work to your advantage.

Notwithstanding this, FIDE themselves don't enforce this for Olympiads and other team events, with the only Board order rule usually being that a fixed squad order is required. Increasingly fewer, but there would still be a few teams containing players without ratings, leaving someone with the job of estimating these for board order purposes where any rule to be deployed.

[David Williams]

I think a lot of leagues may have moved from tossing for colours to the away team having white on odd boards. If you hear at short notice that your top board is not coming, and you are wrestling with the ethics, you may not fancy telling your team that they have all prepared the wrong colour openings.