ECF Rules for Events Played Under Its Auspices

[Adam Raoof]

OK, this is the original document. It obviously needs updating, and suggestions are welcome for additions / deletions.

My inclination is that we need to move away from supporting adjudications. We need to address the mobile phone rule in a tolerant and compassionate manner. We need to include guidance on using past grades to determine eligibility for grading limited sctions.

We also need to include in this a code of conduct for Junior events played under the auspices of the ECF.

"B.C.F. RULES FOR EVENTS PLAYED UNDER ITS AUSPICES

1 The F.I.D.E Laws of Chess which took effect on 1st March 1989 shall govern play, subject to any exceptions and amendments below. For those events which take place directly under the auspices of F.I.D.E., the F.I.D.E Laws current at the time of the event shall apply in toto.

2 If, after a position has been submitted for adjudication by both players, it is discovered that an illegality occurred earlier in the game, then the final position must stand unless the arbiter rules the game can continue prior to the illegality without excessive disruption of the time-table.

3 The use of the Algebraic System is to be encouraged but players should not be penalised for using the Descriptive System of notation in purely internal events.

4 Games must not be submitted for adjudication until at least 35 moves have been played.

5 Where games are played with a quickplay finish, at least 40 moves must be played before the first time control and at least 10 minutes allowed for the finish.

6 If the competitors agree on a decision before the time fixed for the resumption of a game, it shall be the responsibility of the winner or, in the case of a drawn game, of both competitors to notify the Official in Charge before or at the time fixed for the resumption otherwise both shall be liable to have the game recorded as a loss.

7 The winner of the game shall deliver to the Official in Charge an intelligible record of the moves made in the game, using a recognised system of notation, and indicating clearly the result of the game, which shall be signed by both players. In the case of a drawn game, either both competitors shall deliver such records, or one such record signed by both competitors will be accepted. These records must indicate the tournament and the round of which the game is part. The result of a game shall not be officially recognised until these records have been delivered, unless the Official in Charge agrees to accept other evidence.

8 Where the Swiss System is used, the pairings should be made in accordance with one of the systems described in the Swiss Tournament Rules Section.

9 Players who fail to complete their schedule of games:

(a) In Swiss Tournaments their results stand.

(b) In all-play-all events.

(i) Where a player completes less than half his games for whatever reason, his results are eradicated for the purposes of determining the final standings. However his score remains I the tournament table for grading and record purposes.

(ii) Where a player completes half or more of his games, then the score remains in the tournament table and is counted in the final standings. For the games not played his opponents receive a win and the player himself a loss.

10 Sometimes it is necessary for the Tournament Organisers to break ties other than by matches. This is always undesirable and should not be necessary for cash prizes. The tie-break system to be employed must be announced at the earliest opportunity, preferably prior to the event. The order of preference is as follows:

(a) The result(s) between the player(s) involved in the tie, provided they have all met.

(b) In a Swiss: Sum of Progressive Scores, e.g. Player A has the record 1 2 3 4 5 5. His S.O.P.S = 20. Player B has the record 1 2 3 3 4 5. His S.O.P.S. = 18. Player A is the winner.

(c) Sum of Opponents’ Scores. Where an opponent has lost game(s) by default his score must be increased proportionately. This a player in a 9 round tournament withdraws with 3/6. His score for resolving tie-breaks of his opponents is 4½. The player with the highest S.O.S. is the winner. Sometimes this system is used in deleting the lowest scoring opponent(s) and possibly highest scoring as well.

(d) Sonneborn-Berger Score. The sum of the scores of the opponents the player has defeated + the sum of half the scores of the opponents with whom he drew is calculated. The Highest S.B. score wins. Again the scores of defaulting players must be increased proportionately.

(e) Resolved in favour of the player who had the greatest number of blacks.

11 Any competitor still absent one hour after the time fixed for the commencement of any game and who has not contacted the Tournament Organiser may be assumed to have withdrawn. The organiser shall have the right to fill any vacancy provided it lies within the rules of the particular event.

12 Subject to the approval of the Arbiter a competitor may have a deputy (a) to record the moves made in his game and/or (b) to stop his clock in compliance with the Rules of Chess.

13 If the game is being played without clocks, the Arbiter shall 20 minutes before the time fixed for adjournment inform the player that the game will be adjourned after his move and that he should seal his move. If the player fails to make or seal a move within 20 minutes of being so informed, he shall forfeit the game.

14 Any competitor shall have the right of appeal against the decision of an arbiter. Provided the intention to appeal is communicated in good time considering the particular circumstances of any given event, an Appeal Committee of three should be formed not including the Arbiter who made the original decision. It is recommended that the appeal be accompanied by a £2 deposit returnable if the appeal is upheld.

15 Decisions concerning these rules can only be considered by the B.C.F. for affiliated organisations. The question should be referred to the Chief Arbiter of the Federation (Harry Baines in 1989)."

[IM Jack Rudd]

I don't think I like number 5. I've played in several events whose first time control is something like 35/75 or 36/90, and I wouldn't like to outlaw those. Maybe alter the 40 to 30.

[Roger de Coverly]

5 Where games are played with a quickplay finish, at least 40 moves must be played before the first time control and at least 10 minutes allowed for the finish.

Even 20 years ago, I don't think any one took any notice of that one !

4 Games must not be submitted for adjudication until at least 35 moves have been played.

I don't think anyone took much notice of that one either - 30/75 was/is common.

[Sean Hewitt]

"B.C.F. RULES FOR EVENTS PLAYED UNDER ITS AUSPICES

For a start I'd change the title. If there is no right of appeal to the ECF then an event isn't being held under their auspices. I suspect that very few events are played under the auspices of the ECF.

A more accurate description might be:-

E.C.F. REQUIREMENTS FOR EVENTS TO BE GRADED

[Peter Rhodes]

Can I make a small suggestion for 10(e) which is currently worded :

(e) Resolved in favour of the player who had the greatest number of blacks.

To something along the lines of

(e) Resolved in favour of the player who has the greatest ratio of black to white pieces.


The logic I use is that the text is based on the assumption that black has an in built disadvantage, and hence the player with white has an advantage - and hence the player who played an extra white had an advantage against the player who took a 0.5 point bye and played equal whites and blacks. (e.g. In a 7-round swiss player A players 4 white and 3 black whilst player B player plays 3 of both white and black).

[Richard Bates]

I don't see the problem, in principle, with adjudications. It is an issue for local leagues and their members.

The key point is that with an adjudication both players, in the absence of sufficient time, are agreeing to have the result determined by a neutral third party. Since there is no requirement within the laws for games to otherwise be played to a finish, does an adjudication agreement really compromise the grading system (which is the only real reason for the ECF to get involved), anymore than a quick draw (or even an agreed draw in a complicated middlegame position)? Similarly of course mobile phone defaults, without wanting to divert to that debate.

[Sean Hewitt]

OK, this is the original document. It obviously needs updating, and suggestions are welcome for additions / deletions.

My inclination is that we need to move away from supporting adjudications. We need to address the mobile phone rule in a tolerant and compassionate manner. We need to include guidance on using past grades to determine eligibility for grading limited sctions.

We also need to include in this a code of conduct for Junior events played under the auspices of the ECF.

"B.C.F. RULES FOR EVENTS PLAYED UNDER ITS AUSPICES

1 The F.I.D.E Laws of Chess which took effect on 1st March 1989 shall govern play, subject to any exceptions and amendments below. For those events which take place directly under the auspices of F.I.D.E., the F.I.D.E Laws current at the time of the event shall apply in toto.

2 If, after a position has been submitted for adjudication by both players, it is discovered that an illegality occurred earlier in the game, then the final position must stand unless the arbiter rules the game can continue prior to the illegality without excessive disruption of the time-table.

3 The use of the Algebraic System is to be encouraged but players should not be penalised for using the Descriptive System of notation in purely internal events.

4 Games must not be submitted for adjudication until at least 35 moves have been played.

5 Where games are played with a quickplay finish, at least 40 moves must be played before the first time control and at least 10 minutes allowed for the finish.

6 If the competitors agree on a decision before the time fixed for the resumption of a game, it shall be the responsibility of the winner or, in the case of a drawn game, of both competitors to notify the Official in Charge before or at the time fixed for the resumption otherwise both shall be liable to have the game recorded as a loss.

7 The winner of the game shall deliver to the Official in Charge an intelligible record of the moves made in the game, using a recognised system of notation, and indicating clearly the result of the game, which shall be signed by both players. In the case of a drawn game, either both competitors shall deliver such records, or one such record signed by both competitors will be accepted. These records must indicate the tournament and the round of which the game is part. The result of a game shall not be officially recognised until these records have been delivered, unless the Official in Charge agrees to accept other evidence.

8 Where the Swiss System is used, the pairings should be made in accordance with one of the systems described in the Swiss Tournament Rules Section.

9 Players who fail to complete their schedule of games:

(a) In Swiss Tournaments their results stand.

(b) In all-play-all events.

(i) Where a player completes less than half his games for whatever reason, his results are eradicated for the purposes of determining the final standings. However his score remains I the tournament table for grading and record purposes.

(ii) Where a player completes half or more of his games, then the score remains in the tournament table and is counted in the final standings. For the games not played his opponents receive a win and the player himself a loss.

10 Sometimes it is necessary for the Tournament Organisers to break ties other than by matches. This is always undesirable and should not be necessary for cash prizes. The tie-break system to be employed must be announced at the earliest opportunity, preferably prior to the event. The order of preference is as follows:

(a) The result(s) between the player(s) involved in the tie, provided they have all met.

(b) In a Swiss: Sum of Progressive Scores, e.g. Player A has the record 1 2 3 4 5 5. His S.O.P.S = 20. Player B has the record 1 2 3 3 4 5. His S.O.P.S. = 18. Player A is the winner.

(c) Sum of Opponents’ Scores. Where an opponent has lost game(s) by default his score must be increased proportionately. This a player in a 9 round tournament withdraws with 3/6. His score for resolving tie-breaks of his opponents is 4½. The player with the highest S.O.S. is the winner. Sometimes this system is used in deleting the lowest scoring opponent(s) and possibly highest scoring as well.

(d) Sonneborn-Berger Score. The sum of the scores of the opponents the player has defeated + the sum of half the scores of the opponents with whom he drew is calculated. The Highest S.B. score wins. Again the scores of defaulting players must be increased proportionately.

(e) Resolved in favour of the player who had the greatest number of blacks.

11 Any competitor still absent one hour after the time fixed for the commencement of any game and who has not contacted the Tournament Organiser may be assumed to have withdrawn. The organiser shall have the right to fill any vacancy provided it lies within the rules of the particular event.

12 Subject to the approval of the Arbiter a competitor may have a deputy (a) to record the moves made in his game and/or (b) to stop his clock in compliance with the Rules of Chess.

13 If the game is being played without clocks, the Arbiter shall 20 minutes before the time fixed for adjournment inform the player that the game will be adjourned after his move and that he should seal his move. If the player fails to make or seal a move within 20 minutes of being so informed, he shall forfeit the game.

14 Any competitor shall have the right of appeal against the decision of an arbiter. Provided the intention to appeal is communicated in good time considering the particular circumstances of any given event, an Appeal Committee of three should be formed not including the Arbiter who made the original decision. It is recommended that the appeal be accompanied by a £2 deposit returnable if the appeal is upheld.

15 Decisions concerning these rules can only be considered by the B.C.F. for affiliated organisations. The question should be referred to the Chief Arbiter of the Federation (Harry Baines in 1989)."

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13 are unnecessary.

8, 9, 10 and 14 should be the discretion of the organiser (though I think 14 is good practice).

11 and 12 is covered by the FIDE laws of the game.

In short - the whole thing is a waste of time.

[Angus French]

OK, this is the original document. It obviously needs updating, and suggestions are welcome for additions / deletions.

My inclination is that we need to move away from supporting adjudications. We need to address the mobile phone rule in a tolerant and compassionate manner. We need to include guidance on using past grades to determine eligibility for grading limited sctions.

We also need to include in this a code of conduct for Junior events played under the auspices of the ECF...

Adam,

What is the "original document"? Please would you explain the context and its relevance?

If I may say so, you've aggregated a number of contentious issues and I wonder what you're trying to achieve.

regards,
Angus French

[Adam Raoof]

Adam,

What is the "original document"? Please would you explain the context and its relevance?

If I may say so, you've aggregated a number of contentious issues and I wonder what you're trying to achieve.

regards,
Angus French

It is the extant (should that be ancient?) version of the BCF Rules for Events Played Under Its Auspices, not my work at all. It used to be a relevant document, and I would like suggestions about things that should be included in a modern reworking. It obviously needs rewriting to take account of the contentious issues that you refer to!

[Sean Hewitt]

It obviously needs rewriting to take account of the contentious issues that you refer to!

Adam, with respect it doesn't need rewriting, it needs binning.

If such a document were to come into force that would be the end of e2e4 events. I think the ECF would be better served getting its own events in order rather than trying to tell others how to run theirs!

[Eoin Devane]

I agree with the intent of this, which is, I presume, to give more freedom for event organisers to derogate from the FIDE rules where appropriate, however, looking at the document in its previous form, I do worry that it could end up imposing further impositions on organisers and thereby reducing their freedom. Either way, I think to bring it up to date, it would need a substantial rewrite, as the majority of what's there at the moment seems either irrelevant or unnecessary. Perhaps rather than "Rules", publication of "Guidance for Tournament Organisers" (if this doesn't already exist) might be more appropriate.

[Peter Rhodes]

If such a document were to come into force that would be the end of e2e4 events. I think the ECF would be better served getting its own events in order rather than trying to tell others how to run theirs!

The ECF does many things it shouldn't, and doesn't do many things it should !!

One thing I've always felt that a National Chess Body should be involved in is setting "Best Practice" in a number of areas including tournaments. If one looks at (or has worked in) any successful organisation, they will be familiar that organisations are successful because they employ this strategy.

I am not sure why Adam chose to make this post, and what his intentions are going forwards, but I would recommend he start by looking at the e2e4 events (which are popular and excellently run) and use them as a starting point for setting down best practice.

Under perfect conditions, the baker that makes the tastiest bread will thrive and the baker that doesn't listen to his customers will go out of business. However, the chess congress world is not perfect, and that's why I believe that the ECF has a role to play in ensuring there are some absolute minimum level of certain standards across the board.

Cheers.

[Ian Kingston]

Given that the existing document has fallen into disuse without any apparent adverse effects, I suggest that Adam should follow Sean's suggestion and consider the matter dealt with.

[E Michael White]

Ok here’s my take. At least one later version of this document was produced after 1992 although changes are not significant. If the document is revised, is a separate section or document needed for league chess, which is primarily played without arbiters and will probably need some adjudications until about 2030 ? If point 2 or the whole document is removed the situation for adjudications will be as the FIDE finding, which was that the position has to revert to just before the illegal move unless the adjudication result has been given.

I am inclined to agree with Sean that most of what is in the document is not now needed. In case anyone hasn’t realised the document was originally produced for the purpose of overriding FIDE rules in order to make the running of weekend events easier and stop adjudications holding up the next round. As adjudications are not now used in weekend events, this reason no longer applies but arbiter inconsistency is becoming a problem. I think there is a place for this document, primarily to avoid inconsistent or different approaches from arbiters and also to ensure minimum standards at chess events. These could be used as criteria for inclusion of a point. Two or three examples are:-

Recently Alex McFarlane and Jack Rudd, two well known arbiters, stated on this forum that a player may not move until the opponent has pressed the clock. This is contrary to previous findings of the FIDE rules commission and as stated by Geurt Gijssen there is a long standing right of a player to move, when the opponent’s hand has left the piece that he moved. This point is worthy of inclusion. Within reason I don’t mind which interpretation is decided upon, but obviously I prefer something consistent with FIDE rules. I wouldn’t like Alex’s approach (, shown here ),to be the standard as I could be warned early in the game whereas my oppo might be let off later in time trouble. It seems to me that the same rule should apply throughout the game. Also another arbiter’s idea of time trouble may be significantly different from Alex’s.

Many arbiters allow English Descriptive Notation in an illegal way. Point 3 needs to be extended to say in addition that the opponent of a player using a non algebraic notation must not be disadvantaged and state whether the descriptive annotator can demand the use of the score sheet of the opponent, to support the DA’s claim eg. in a 3 move repetition. During a time scramble some arbiters confirm a 3 move repetition if neither side is recording or records in EDN; it is not clear that this is legal.

Inappropriate senior arbiter rulings should be included and corrected as other arbiters tend to follow their actions. For example:-

John Robinson once ruled (not in a game of mine) that adjusting a piece with a pencil, to avoid disturbing players by saying J’adoube, counted as touching the piece which then had to be moved. Until then, this was a common practice, which avoided unnecessary disturbance. A piece has to be touched with a hand with the intention of moving it for the touch move rule to apply.

Steve Boneface once ruled in a blitz game that a player loses the game, if they pick up a piece but replace it before moving it, on realising it could not be legally moved. This is clearly contrary to FIDE rules.

So my view is that something similar to the previous FIDE rules commission findings is appropriate, which could be displayed on the ECF site and may help improve the standard of arbiting in the ECF. I think leaving many things to the discretion of arbiters is an approach riddled with pitfalls and problems. In addition unclear FIDE rules could be clarified in the ECF version sooner than waiting for the next 4 yearly FIDE rewrite.

This document might also be the appropriate place to include some venue/tournament standards for non FIDE rated events. To be graded and/or included on the ECF calendar certain details should be included on the calendar and entry forms such as whether blitz, rapidplay or longplay rules are used. Alternatively the event title must accurately tie up with the rules used and where the rules do not fit the title the word Quickplay could be used instead to show a non standard event. For standard weekend longplay tournaments I suggest an average of at least 3 square metres per board should be mandatory and arbiters required to keep spectators 1 metre away from games in progress. The corresponding space for FIDE events is already defined as being 5 square metres per board. The entry forms should state the names of the arbiters. The better tournaments already do this and give the entrant the opportunity to avoid an arbiter they consider unsuitable or other inadequate tournament arrangements. Only if all these conditions are met should an event be describable as ECF approved or suitable for grading and inclusion on the calendar.

A myriad of swiss draw methods is used by arbiters, which increase the chances of some players gaining a grade or a norm whilst reducing others’ chances. It may be appropriate to specify which methods are permitted for ECF events, whilst documenting those methods elsewhere.

[John Saunders]

Dear oh dear - what a load of rubbish. I entirely agree with Sean Hewitt's comment.

There is already a more succinct and sensible set of rules regarding games which may or may not be submitted for grading. I dug them out once and included them in a post but I don't intend to do so again. Perhaps somebody else might like to dig them out.