English Chess Forum

So why wouldn't Palliser play for a win?

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:08 pm

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:06 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 02, 2019 12:07 pm

I don't see where anyone has said that. What have I missed?

Lorin D'Costa - "[The arbiters] said it was the rules, however they kept dithering on this for quite some time as if they felt bad to make it, and I eventually asked if they could make a final decision as this was dragging on."

Jonathan Rogers - "I exclude the possibility that the arbiters chose to approach him on their own initiative, not being obliged to do so, since they were apparently not interested in looking at the contents of the phone and so did not actually suspect him of "real" cheating."

Jonathan Rogers isn't playing in the event and presumably isn't in Torquay, so with all due respect to Jonathan, I think Lorin's comment is more important.

The quote you've provided from Lorin doesn't say anything about a blind eye being turned to this rule.

He is near a beach, but indeed far from Torquay.

Incidentally the quote above does seem be right - the arbiters did not make a choice to approach Lorin, having a choice in the matter. The situation as I understand it now is that arbiters would always approach a player leaving the playing area with a bag; obviously this may not always happen in practice but if he situation comes to their attention in time (either form their observance or being alerted to it) they will act. Which all seems fine, if so (I am still glad that I asked).

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:48 am

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:37 am

Might it be time for competitors to be asked to sign something saying they are aware of these requirements?

Please lets not add another layer of red tape. I agree with Ian, and think we should be looking for more leniency when it is obvious there is no possibility of cheating.

This is liable to complicate things rather than simplify them, thus frustrating your other goal

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:49 am

So why wouldn't Palliser play for a win?

Beats me, though he may have made a realistic appraisal of Micky's position

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:57 am

This is liable to complicate things rather than simplify them, thus frustrating your other goal

It's not that complicated.

Did they leave the playing area and have an opportunity to cheat? If no, then having a phone in a bag is clearly not cheating.

I would also be happy with an inspection of the phone showing no open apps or inputted games.

To me this is preferable to having a tournament ruined via zero tolerance. Then again I'm a tolerant person.

When it's obvious to all that Lorin was not cheating, yet he has to be defaulted because of an intolerant rule. It's the rule that needs to be changed. Why can't we have some room for judgement?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:37 am

Not even sure if I have this right - are you allowed the phone with you in a bag, switched off? Or has that changed now?

It hasn't changed, because you never were, on the basis that even if the phone was turned off you probably knew how to turn it on.

I am not speaking of any English "local rules", which I long since gave up trying to understand.

Well, not sure of the timings, but Mickey (I checked, and from what I can tell it is spelt this way and not 'Micky') is now clearly winning. The position looked innocous after 9.Rb1 but 14...Bd7 was a big mistake and now the c-pawn is on the b-file, and has become a strong passed pawn on b6. Gordon is the exchange up but the knights on c4 and d5 are monsters and the Black bishop on g7 is useless. Gordon is not going to be able to save this.

Can we please stop saying that Charlie Storey won by default. It was a win by forfeit and therefore counts as a normal win would.

In the situation given it is easy to feel sympathy for players like Lorin. However, imagine you are the opponent. If you are playing someone and you know they have taken their phone out of the playing hall which of the following is your likely reaction?
a) Oh dear they have made an honest mistake, I hope the arbiters don't catch them.
b) I wonder why they have taken their phone. Will they use it to get advice?

I would suggest that the latter is the more likely reaction. The use of phones is becoming an increasingly common way of cheating. The thought that the opponent may be using a phone is an even more increasing worry for players and is a major distraction.

Christopher suggests that players should sign to say they know the Laws. Many entry forms state that entry is acceptance by the player to obey the conditions. The conditions also include the fact that the Laws of Chess will apply.

Storey was correct in going to the arbiter if he had concerns. That is the correct course of action. It is no different from what you might do if a player touches one piece and moves another. Having informed the arbiter of his concern that should have ended the player's involvement. As the circumstances surrounding Storey's later involvement are unclear it would not be right to comment further on it.

How many British titles is this now for Adams? It was his sixth last year, so it will be his seventh this year if he can finish off Gordon.

To add to this, Adams will have won all five of his games with White (though only one against a GM), and drawn three of his four games with Black (against GMs Howell and Tan and IM Haria). The single Black win for Adams was in round 1 against Jack Rudd. Impressive with White. Maybe slightly disappointing that Howell did not keep up with Adams, dropping draws to the same players plus Richard Palliser (who lost to Adams). So Richard Palliser effectively decided the destination of the title.

Thanks Alex. I have corrected my previous post to point this out (the 'forfeit' vs 'default' wording), though my post was later quoted.

Do you think organisers need to use stronger/clearer wording on their entry forms? Should there be written warnings displayed at the board and/or on posters in playing venues rather than verbal announcements at the start of rounds/events?

(It has been a long time since I saw a tournament entry form, so maybe stronger wording is already used?)

Nick Burrows wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:12 pm

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:57 am

This is liable to complicate things rather than simplify them, thus frustrating your other goal

It's not that complicated.

Did they leave the playing area and have an opportunity to cheat?

I put it to you that the determination of your second clause may not be so simple as we might wish.

Also I agree with everything Alex McFarlane says above (with the possible exception of the final sentence, and even then I'd comment that in the absence of a formal complaint, there's not really anywhere to go with it).

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:22 pm

Should there be written warnings displayed at the board and/or on posters in playing venues rather than verbal announcements at the start of rounds/events?

No matter what you do players will not see it.

A number of years ago round 7 of the Scottish started an hour early to allow for the weekend congress to start.

This was on the entry form, in the programme and announced the previous day. In addition on the previous day notices were put at every board and pinned up beside the pairings. In addition a banner was strung across the top of the doors where players exited.

One very tall player had to duck to leave the playing area because of that banner. Despite this he still turned up too late the following day claiming that he did not know of the earlier start. Despite being shown the evidence he still paid an appeal fee to contest his default.

And Mickey is champion.

Adams too good. His only vulnerability has been his inflexible repertoire with Black, but with a preponderance of Whites in this tournament, he has not really been tested. And I thought Gordon got a playable position against him!

Dan Fernandez had another shocker today to finish on 50%. Slightly surprisingly, at least to me, he only dropped 13 Elo points overall.

This takes me back to Mamedyarov - Kurnosov, Aeroflot 2009, one of the earliest important cases. From a well known position, White played dreadfully and was crushed by a series of fairly obvious forcing moves. His opponent left the playing area several times - he says for a cigarette, as was his custom - and Mamedyarov afterwards accused him very publicly of cheating.

This claim was widely derided, but there was one reason why I felt some sympathy for him. Apparently he had approached the Chief Arbiter, asking if a member of the team could check what his opponent was up to while out of the room, and the reply was that they were too busy. The game was on top board, with a big prize at stake, and it was never clear what the arbiters were doing that was more important.

So yes, I am pleased that the arbiters here did not tell Charlie to get lost, whatever their view of the merits of his complaint.