Default Times

[Tim Spanton]

I've suggested this before and got shot down, but one partial solution is to have round times a few minutes later than they now are, eg 2.05pm instead of 2pm, 6.35pm instead of 6.30pm.
As has been shown with baseball games in the States, most people still aim to get there for the "rounded-up" time, ie 2pm or 6.30pm. Those who are a few minutes later than this, still arive on time.
In chess it would reduce the hubhub associated with late arrivers.

[Phil Neatherway]

I agree that defaulting a player for being late is over the top. Here are some suggestions for appropriate penalties for lateness.

If one player is late, they should lose double the amount of time e.g. if you are 10 minutes late, you lose 20 minutes of your time.

And if both players are late, they should BOTH lose double time on the clock.

[Stewart Reuben]

For a large tournament with few arbiters, I would only be willing to use the zero default rule if the arbiters started all the clocks themselves. That was done in the early days of the Lloyds Bank Masters when the players were unfamiliar with the clocks. Otherwise there would be unseemly wrangling. It is unlikely I will be asked to be arbiter for a zero tolerance event.

One of the reasons for the cult of tardiness of the players is that the administrators are such poor time-keepers. After the first round let us have a new rule. For every 10 minutes that a round is delayed after the scehduled start, the organisers shall increase the prize fund by 1%. Where there is no cash prize fund, the fees of the relevant administrators shall be decreased by 1%for every 10 minutes late.

I might even have suggested this in Dresden, but people would have thought incorrectly that I was being facetious. Of course if there is no prize money and the administrators receive no fee, it is difficult to see what penalties could be imposed.

Meanwhile, spread the word that all events commencing after 1 July should have an appropriate note about the default time that will apply.

A word of warning. The Title and Rating Regulations issued by Ignatius Leong as the final versions and published on the ECF site are being changed at his request! Mikko Markkula and I have been doing that work today. Sigh.
Stewart Reuben

[Leonard Barden]

An occurrence today relevant to this thread:

Hou Yifan, the 15-year-old heiress apparent to Judit Polgar as the world No1 woman player, was today defaulted in round 8 of the all-play-all Chinese championship, where she was the only female invitee.

Hou was reportedly five seconds late for the game......

[Alex Holowczak]

To be fair, chess players are horribly unpunctual. The one time I played 4NCL, pretty much the entire opposing team turned up late. One player arrived 10 minutes late for his match, and then he had the cheek to complain when others making minimal noise were distracting him, because he suddenly had to make 10 moves in 2 minutes before the time control. Given that he spent about 45 minutes of his 2 hours for the first 40 moves out of the room doing goodness knows what, I didn't feel too sorry for him (he ended up losing over the board, rather than on time). If there was an exam, people would make sure they'd get there half an hour or so before the start, just in case. I think that chess players just have bad time-management skills.

[JustinHorton]

If there was an exam, people would make sure they'd get there half an hour or so before the start, just in case.

This strikes me as something of an exaggeration (and I say that as somebody who's time-conscious to the point of obsession).

There are, in fact, sometimes - even often - good reasons why people are late and for this reasons alone we should cut people some slack for it.

[Alex Holowczak]

If there was an exam, people would make sure they'd get there half an hour or so before the start, just in case.

This strikes me as something of an exaggeration (and I say that as somebody who's time-conscious to the point of obsession).

There are, in fact, sometimes - even often - good reasons why people are late and for this reasons alone we should cut people some slack for it.

Well, my point was, if people had to put themselves out to get there on time, they would make sure that they do. There are good reasons why people are late, but in the case of the 4NCL, where the accommodation is about 500 yards away from the playing venue, I don't really see what the good reason is. If you haven't eaten breakfast yet, then you should have got up earlier and eaten it. If you haven't packed your luggage yet to go home, then you should have got up earlier and packed it. Too tired to get up earlier, then you should have gone to bed earlier etc.

Lateness is just something that I generally loath.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Not everyone who plays in the 4NCL stays on-site, or indeed even stays away from home overnight at all. (Which, indeed, is why Bristol had a weaker team in the final match than Richmond might have been expecting: the players who were travelling up every day decided to be the two to take the wins by default.)

[Tim Lunn]

The rule for my tournaments is a half-hour re-pairing time and a one-hour default time. If you turn up between the re-pairing and default times and cannot be re-paired, you get a half-point bye.

I wondered if it might be odd to have a re-pairing and NOT default the late person (if turn up between re-pairing and the one-hour default time).
If a player was paired against someone they didn't have much chance again, they could turn up 45 minutes late and get half point (or a stab at different player to the one they didn't fancy playing)!
I think a re-pairing should only occur once the player is deemed late and hence defaulted.
In professional tournaments, I can see how a re-pairing policy would affect the professional player. There perhaps is a distinct differences between professional tournaments and amateur ones?

I think the zero time policy is too severe. I can see how it would help in the running of the tournament (again, maybe a professional tournament), but at amateur level - there are several reasons for not being at the board in time. (Arriving at the tournament town or city on same day - especially on a Friday night!; nerves delaying one from the toilet; seeing that children or spouses are settled in their tournament - often in a separate room; having to find a pen; getting that early morning coffee - for which there's always a long cue; and finally through general incompetence!)
I may be biased here as I am habitually late!!

[JustinHorton]

Lateness is just something that I generally loath.

So do I, believe me. However, things aren't always entirely within our control. Anybody can think of dozens of reasons why somebody might not be able to make it to the board on time for entirely legitimate reasons.

[Ben Purton]

ID PREFER NO DEFAULT TIMES!

so I could turn up at 3.45pm to ncl, this would make defaults alot less likely from the Sharks. Id happily play 15min V 2 hours, it makes no difference. I reackon if I play Jack Rudd, we should just have a 5 minute game at 6.50pm to decide it.

Ben

[Ben Purton]

Lateness is just something that I generally loath.

So do I, believe me. However, things aren't always entirely within our control. Anybody can think of dozens of reasons why somebody might not be able to make it to the board on time for entirely legitimate reasons.

There are a lot worst forms of "lateness"

[Ian Thompson]

In professional tournaments, I can see how a re-pairing policy would affect the professional player. There perhaps is a distinct differences between professional tournaments and amateur ones?!

FIDE has clearly stated that altering the pairings after they are published is unacceptable, which, I assume, applies to any FIDE rated event. They made this statement after Nigel Short complained to them that he had been re-paired at the Isle of Man tournament a few years ago. Unfortunately, English organisers appear to ignore this rule.

Being re-paired at short notice can be very disconcerting for the affected player. It happened to me at one 4NCL weekend this season. I turned up at the board expecting to play one player, only to find someone else sitting there. Thus, I had wasted the previous hour thinking about whether to repeat the opening from one of my previous games against my intended opponent, both of which ended in short draws, or play something different. On top of this, my actual opponent had the advantage of knowing he was playing me before I knew I was playing him.

Ian Thompson

[Alex Holowczak]

I think repairing is good, just to give people a game. If I've paid £20 to play 5 games, I'd rather play someone who I wasn't expecting to play than play only 4 games and get given a "win" over someone who never turned up.

[Stewart Reuben]

Concerning re-pairing.
FIDE generally prefer to minimise the amount of chess being played. An excellent idea, it means we need fewer arbiters and there is less work to be done in providing the game scores. I have often thought that chess events would be far more enjoyable without those pesky players.

Many English events have a default time of 30 minutes. It then says, or should say, in the entry form, players will be re-paired after 30 minutes in the absence of any opponent. Players arriving after that time will lose by default, unless a satisfactory opponent can be found. Players do not have to enter tournaments with these rules. Nigel Short claimed this rule, of which he was well aware, only applied to lesser players.

It is very difficult in England to instil in arbiters the idea that players must not only enter in advance, but also register their arrival in advance in order to be in the draw. Hastings is a very good example. The pairings are done the previous evening. This is what people want so they can prepare. But many players do not arrive even in the country until shortly before the first round. That is why you will find many foreign tournaments give the dates of the event including registration the day previous to the first round. That is also why many foreign events have the first round start at least an hour late. Well, thery also think nothing of doing so in later rounds.

It is impossible to reconcile the wishes expressed by Ian Thompson and Alex Holowczak. In Britain we favour maximising the amount of chess played. In the last Olympiad Bill Hook won 4 games out of 11 by default, mainly because of the zero default time rule. FIDE seemed to think they had done a good job. Bill had other views. Also FIDE do not seem to realise that, if a player wins a game by default, everybody else in the competition has been disadvantaged, relative to the player who scored + just for turning up.

Another point. If a player wins by default in a 9 round tournament, he can no longer get a title norm.
I liked the attitude of Stuart Conquest at the Commonwealth Championship in Mumbai. Despite all my efforts, his first round opponent did not turn up. There was a player who wanted a game. Stuart said, 'Well, I suppose I can insist on the full point.' I replied, 'Yes, but I would prefer you to play.' Stuart, a great sportsman, played. Fortunately he won.

In South Africa I found players, particularly from the townships, often did not pitch up (what a wonderful term) during the event. Bu they arrived for the next round expecting to be in the draw.

Different societies, different conduct, makes universal rules very difficult.

Stewart Reuben