Default Times

[Ben Purton]

Also there is no "women rule" the rule is "one player from each sex"

[Richard Bates]

There is nothing wrong with the original concept. When the 4NCL was just 12-24 teams it made perfect sense as a means of encouraging female participation, because there wasn't sufficient strength in the women's game to earn places in the league on merit. The result was that there were also generally just about enough women players available that it did not result regularly in large mismatches. Now that the League has expanded significantly many of the best women players have quite understandably taken the decision that if they can find a place on their own merits then they jolly well will, and who can blame them?

The rather bizarre result is that it is not unusual for the bottom board in division 1 to be occupied by people who would probably be more suited to bottom board in division 3, even though there is no requirement for division 3 teams to offer a place for them there!

I would welcome someone putting an alternative argument - I just think it's got to require recognition that the situation today is not what is was several years ago as opportunities increase for players to get in on their own merits.

[Alex Holowczak]

Now that the League has expanded significantly many of the best women players have quite understandably taken the decision that if they can find a place on their own merits then they jolly well will, and who can blame them?

In which case, what need is there for the rule to still exist?

[Neill Cooper]

How about a diversity rule. Each team must have either "at least one player from each sex" OR "at least one player under 18 and one player over 18". That way the 8th player can be either female or a junior.

[Richard Bates]

How about a diversity rule. Each team must have either "at least one player from each sex" OR "at least one player under 18 and one player over 18". That way the 8th player can be either female or a junior.

It's a fudge which doesn't really address the issue. If you believe that the mixed gender rule encourages women players then you should keep the rule. If you don't then you shouldn't. A change which would lead to teams recruiting "easier to find" juniors would just undermine the entire purpose.

Is there any real evidence that a junior board is necessary to encourage the development of junior chess? I doubt it. But if there is then force every team to have a junior as well as a man/woman.

[Sean Hewitt]

Taken from ChessBase

Chinese Championship – decision by default

09.06.2009 – The 2009 Chinese Championship was won by Ding Liren, an untitled 16-year-old, rated 2458, the youngest national champion ever. But Ding's victory was overshadowed by the last-round default of his opponent, who was not seated at the board when the clocks were started. The only female contender, 15-year-old GM Hou Yifan, also lost a game by default when she arrived five seconds late for the start.

This is what transpired: GM Wang Hao, rated just under 2700, had won most of his games and was clearly in the lead for practically the entire tournament. Following him at a distance of 1.5 points was teenager Ding Liren, with two rounds to play. The two faced each other in round ten, and Ding won.

In the final round Wang had 8.0/10 and Liren at 7.5 points. Wang needing to win to take the championship, since if Liren won and he drew the younger player had the better tiebreak standing. So tensions were high. The round started and Ding Liren's opponent, Zhou Jianchao, was not at the board. These days with FIDE's new "zero tolerance" rule that means instant forfeit. And thus the Chinese Championship was decided.

[Ian Thompson]

Chinese Championship – decision by default

The ChessBase report also says:

Incidentally the youngest player and the only female in the event, Hou Yifan, was also forfeited in round eight, against tailender Liang Chong. Hou was in the hall, we are told, had filled out her scoresheet and was waiting for the game to start. But when it did, at 14:00:00h, she was not actually sitting on her chair in front of the board. 0-1.

This is more interesting when looking at the application of the rules. If you assume that the Chinese intended to use the default rules as they will be from 1 July, then I would say they were wrong to default her. (Of course, they may not have been doing this. They may have had their own rules where it was right to default her.)

The new rules say "Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game." If she had filled in her scoresheet before 14:00 then it is clear that she had arrived at the chessboard before the start of the session. There is no requirement in the rules to be at the board when the clocks are started.

[benedgell]

I couldnt take my eyes off the other article I noticed on chessbase today: chess kamasutra book. Hopefully lots of pictures....

[Stewart Reuben]

Correspondents have overlooked one aspect of the rule that requires at least one member of each sex in a team. This does not just encourage female participation in chess. It also encourages male participation and thus is a good marketing strategy for our game and specifically the 4NCL.
That is not to say the rule should not be reconsidered in the light of changing circumstances. If all the players were in one venue, it would matter much less if the female players were mainly in the lower divisions. That is what happens with the chess Olympiads. That is socially great and yet very few women play in the open teams.
Stewart Reuben

[Alex Holowczak]

Correspondents have overlooked one aspect of the rule that requires at least one member of each sex in a team. This does not just encourage female participation in chess. It also encourages male participation and thus is a good marketing strategy for our game and specifically the 4NCL.

Tell me about it. Looking at the 2008 British Chess Championship online last year, you'd be forgiven for thinking that chess was exclusively played by teenage girls. I made that point to a few non-playing friends and showed them the site, and I can assure you that none of them ended up being more interested in chess. They ended up being interested in the girls who played chess... but they couldn't care less about the actual game.

This shows what I mean. A big fuss is made about the girl beating the Grandmaster, which is fair enough. For the boys though, one gets mentioned by name, and the other two aren't mentioned at all. At least go to the effort to make a big fuss about them winning too. I can't imagine them declining the opportunity to have their name listed as beating a Grandmaster, their name will be all over that site in the tournament rounds.

[Roger de Coverly]

In the final round Wang had 8.0/10 and Liren at 7.5 points. Wang needing to win to take the championship, since if Liren won and he drew the younger player had the better tiebreak standing. So tensions were high. The round started and Ding Liren's opponent, Zhou Jianchao, was not at the board. These days with FIDE's new "zero tolerance" rule that means instant forfeit. And thus the Chinese Championship was decided.

Is it not clear that the zero time rule just makes cheating or the accusation of cheating ( game fixing) really easy? Nearly 40 years ago it is alleged that Matulovic took a dive in the last round of an interzonal against Taimanov but he was required to play. There was also the suggestion that Keres was not allowed to stand in Botvinnik's way in 1948. How much easier to deny collusion if you just get delayed for a few seconds on the way to the board.

[Roger de Coverly]

Is it not clear that the zero time rule just makes cheating or the accusation of cheating ( game fixing) really easy?

Chessbase have a piece on this

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5503

Perhaps we should refer to the tournaments that implement this rule as being "Matulovic-friendly". It's no longer necessary to waste an afternoon either pretending to play chess or arranging mobile phone calls or alarms. Even better it conserves rating points.

[Stewart Reuben]

There is no doubt that throwing a game by turning up 5 seconds late is more appealing to a cheat than throwing the game. This way he does not lose rating points and it is a much more convincing way of throwing the game than playing dreadfully.

I have been going through the new applications for titles. There are a few examples where applications have been made on the basis of just 8 games as the ninth was won by default. The winner of the point has lost out.

Stewart Reuben

[Richard Bates]

More evidence against those who hold the view that chess is somehow unique in allowing players to turn up late for matches...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8120598.stm

"She is unlikely to find it as easy against Hantuchova as she did against Vinci, with her biggest hiccup being her late arrival that kept her opponent waiting on court for almost 10 minutes past the intended start time of midday.

Williams said the delay was not deliberate, explaining: "I thought someone was coming to get me. I was warming up and waiting but nobody did.

"I didn't know what to do, so in the end I just walked out there on my own." "