Default Times

[Jonathan Rogers]

I am not sure how Ian's 4NCL experience would have occurred. I can only imagine that at some point before start time, the opposing captain learnt that his player (Ian's opponent) would not be coming (or would be arriving too late) and so played a reserve, which he was entitled to do if he had already nominated him as such at the time he submitted his team list. But in that case Ian ought to have started with a good time advantage to compensate him for the inconvenience (reserve players generally start half an hour down).

[Ian Thompson]

I am not sure how Ian's 4NCL experience would have occurred. I can only imagine that at some point before start time, the opposing captain learnt that his player (Ian's opponent) would not be coming (or would be arriving too late) and so played a reserve, which he was entitled to do if he had already nominated him as such at the time he submitted his team list. But in that case Ian ought to have started with a good time advantage to compensate him for the inconvenience (reserve players generally start half an hour down).

I assume the other team followed the rules for substituting players. Yes, the substitute started the game with 90 minutes on his clock instead of 2 hours. That's penalising him, rather than compensating me. I would normally know my opponent at least 1 hour, and usually 1.5 hours, before the game begins. In this case, I only got 30 minutes notice, as the arbiters delayed the start of the game until 2:30pm, although that doesn't appear to be in the rules.

[Ben Purton]

Can I just say that only time Ive ever had option to claim default when player was "within 1-2 hours" away. Was when Sam Collins was late, but I didnt claim it....Luckerly we won anyway .

But still Default v Sharks unless perhaps last game of season= 2 hours.

[Richard Bates]

If people didn't waste time preparing for games they wouldn't feel "disadvantaged".

[JustinHorton]

Depends what they did with the time really. Many of them would probably be disadvantaged due to alcohol consumption....

[Stewart Reuben]

Ben perhaps does not realise that when your opponent is more than the stipulated time late, you do not claim a win. You have won and the arbiter awards it. He currently has some latitude, if when the opponent arrives, the excuse is plausible and the player is happy to play. He may have already left by the way.

Richard surprises me. Most people like to prepare for their games. They regard it as an integral part of a serious game of chess. Having prepared for one opponent, it is unpleasant to find oneself meeting another.

Sometimes the administrators make an error an announce the wrong team line-up. (This happened in an appalling number of games in the second round of the 2008 Olympiad). Then it quite normal to delay the start of the game by perhaps 30 minutes as neither player has done anything wrong. This enables the player to recover his equanimity. Perhaps this is what happened with Ian's 4NCL game.

Stewart Reuben

[Jonathan Rogers]

Stewart writes that

"Ben perhaps does not realise that when your opponent is more than the stipulated time late, you do not claim a win. You have won and the arbiter awards it. He currently has some latitude, if when the opponent arrives, the excuse is plausible and the player is happy to play. He may have already left by the way."

No doubt this is correct by the rule book, but does not really accord with practice at the 4NCL. The arbiters would always allow a game to be started late if the players were both to agree. In practice then it is about the innocent player deciding whether to accept it, and he may well ask his captain, as happened in Jones v Collins.

In future, if the recently announced 4NCL rules are brought into force unamended, a captain wil have a real dilemma in this situation. His own player may still be happy to play - he is after all a strong favouirite with an extra hour, assuming he has not been at the bar in the meantime and has been hoping to play; and he may also want/need to play for norm purposes (as in Jones v Collins). So it would seem very hard for a captain to ask him to claim the default. BUT under the new rules, not only would the defaulting team (if there were a default) lose on that board, but it would also have a further half-point deducted from its total number of gampepoints at the end of the match. So, the defaulting team would have to score 4.5/7 on the other boards in order to win the match by 4- 3.5; if it were "just" to make 4/7 it would lose by 3.5 - 4 (incidentally, drawn matches will become impossible, but that is not my concern here). A match captain might just think that this is too big an advantage to throw away by declining to claim a default, at least if the match is important and would ordinarily be expected to be close.

Troubled times ahead, then, and I can only hope that they will not involve my own Club...

(...but I should add that I don't think there is a troublefree solution to defaults in the 4NCL.)

[Ben Purton]

Stewart ...Surely this is at arbiters decression? I remember Playing Jimmy Sherwin like 5 years ago in British Rapidplay, It was like a 105 move game and technically I won With 1 second V his zero. I had started 4 pawns + R V 5 P + R . I concentrated more on time really I guess because I blundered and it was 2 P+R V R in final position. Arbiter called the clock and I said "Draw" and Jimmy took my hand.

Surely a opponent is allowed to decide the result. It was allowed to be called a draw then. Despite my forum attitude, I do know when i don't deserve a victory.

I believe that in 4NCL, captains can agree to extend . It should be this way.

Kind regards

Ben


PS: Yes in Jones game a norm was possible, was it his GM? it could have been IM that long ago. Regardless we dont bother with Defaults.

As shown when Hawkins claimed Coddington cheated by going to bookmakers during his game. Yet Hawkins went to his room during this game, when Coddington returned to be called a cheat he said "if you want it that bad, take it" and resigned.

This is the attitude of most of my team, we don't cheat, we won't claim defaults. We generally don't go to 4NCL solely for chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

Arbiter called the clock and I said "Draw"

Why did the arbiter point out time had run out? I thought he couldn't interfere, i.e. either you or your opponent had to say "You're flag has fallen" or something like that?

[Stewart Reuben]

Oh dear, oh dear.
When a flag falls the game is over when it is pointed out by the arbiter (hopefully) or one of the players (except for blitz where the players must call it).
If the players then want to agree a draw that is up to them, provided the arbiter does not object.
If a player has failed to arrive by the stipulated time, he has lost. If the opposing team wish to waive this for whatever reason, that is up to them, with the cooperation of the arbiter, but not without once he is involved. It would be grossly improper of an arbiter to put a player under pressure, saying, 'Surely you would prefer to play the game rather than win by default?'

There is practically never a claim of a win by forfeit in chess. As there is totally inadequate supervision in the 4NCL, a player may point out to the arbiter somebody has failed to arrive in time. But this is not a claim of a win. The arbiter should always try to ensure that any dispute is with him, not between the players.

I have never heard of this new 4NCL rule. but for sure a drawn match would still be possible where there are two defaults. Also one team has 7 players, defaulting on board 8 and the other has one on board 7. Let the two players play. The teams are then presumably playing a 7 game match. But that should be at the behest of the two captains and then by agreement with the arbiter. I can quite imagine a scenario at the end of the season where a third team, not playing in the match, might object to a waived default, even if it deprived a player of a title norm opportunity. It could affect their promotion or relegation.

Both Hawkins and Coddington transgressed the Laws of Chess. No player is allowed to leave the playing venue, without the permission of the arbiter. Nor is a player allowed to leave the playing area when it is his move, without permission of the arbiter. Note, not the opponent.

From 1 July there are some changes in the Laws of Chess, especially where there is adequate supervision of blitz games.
Also the games where there is zero default time give the arbiter no latitude. There are unlikely to be any such games in Britain. But it will be different in the European Club Cup, World Youth Championships and so on. Also be certain you know what the Laws are when you play abroad.

Stewart Reuben

[Richard Bates]

Richard surprises me. Most people like to prepare for their games. They regard it as an integral part of a serious game of chess. Having prepared for one opponent, it is unpleasant to find oneself meeting another.

Stewart Reuben

Perhaps I should have stuck in a

Still i am a fully paid up supporter of the saying:

"Fail to prepare, ... prepare to have an interesting game!" (with a lot of time trouble thrown in for good measure )

[Richard Bates]

(...but I should add that I don't think there is a troublefree solution to defaults in the 4NCL.)

This is perhaps more a discussion for the 4NCL section, but the solution to defaults in the 4NCL is simple, and it absolutely does not lie in finding ever more ways to punish unwilling miscreants. I am sure that many people are aware of it but that some misplaced political correctness is preventing the obvious from being implemented. I frankly think it was unjust in the extreme that North-West Eagles were effectively relegated this year, through no fault of their own, because of draconian rules which served no realistic purpose other than to raise a bit of extra money for the 4NCL.

The "problem" in the 4NCL is not defaults, it is the women's board, and the burden in places on teams if their usual player becomes unavailable. This has been the case for a number of years as the League has expanded and diluted in strength, and many women players have been able, and therefore preferred, to find their places in lower division teams on merit and therefore increase the chance of playing opponents at their own level (rather than on a token women's board where they could face anyone from 1200 to 2500 strength). Richmond's impression of a Gordon Brown Cabinet this year, was just an extreme consequence of the basic problem.

And this isn't just about defaults - at a bare minimum the rules should allow the option of avoiding penalties by putting in a replacement male player to provide a game (I admit i'm not up on the current version - maybe this is allowed?). The problems caused by the women's board go beyond the causing of large numbers of defaults - they undermine the competitiveness of the League as a whole by giving enormous advantages to teams who are able to recruit (usually by paying) strong women players who can hold their own on higher boards. Such teams also do not face the problems of the "amateur" teams - one never has a problem in replacing an unavailable woman player if you can just scour Europe for an alternative. When even the charmer that is Ben Purton claims that on occasion he has had to ring 25 women before finding someone to come and lose a game of chess, what hope do others have?

[Alex Holowczak]

Oh dear, oh dear.
When a flag falls the game is over when it is pointed out by the arbiter (hopefully) or one of the players (except for blitz where the players must call it).
If the players then want to agree a draw that is up to them, provided the arbiter does not object.

Didn't know that rule. We had numerous problems about that at junior level. Arbiters never claimed the clock. That said, they were teachers, who understandably weren't experts. It was just simpler to let the players get on with it, I suppose. I always thought the arbiter had to keep out unless a specific request was made to him.

The "problem" in the 4NCL is not defaults, it is the women's board

Publicity stunt?

Richmond's impression of a Gordon Brown Cabinet this year, was just an extreme consequence of the basic problem.

I beat Gordon Brown in the 4NCL last year.

[E Michael White]

When a flag falls the game is over when it is pointed out by the arbiter (hopefully) or one of the players (except for blitz where the players must call it).

This is not quite correct.

In addition to Blitz, in Rapidplay tournaments also the arbiter must not indicate when a flag falls.

In a longplay tournament the game is over when the arbiter observes that a flag fell and the required moves had not been made.

[JustinHorton]

I've never seen an argument that was improved by the deployment of the term "political correctness", and this is no exception. It's ludicrous to complain that the undermine the basic competitiveness of the League because they benefit teams who can afford to pay strong women players: the whole league is uncompetitive because teams depend on whether or not they can play professional players of either gender, overwhelmingly men. Why is it that something which - for perfectly good reasons - is accepted and encouraged, suddenly becomes a terrible problem when it applies to women?

Also see: "it's all right if Wood Green pay to win the London League every year while everybody else is amateur, but not if some teams can pay to recruit strong women players while others have to phone around and get whatever they can".