Southend

The very latest International round up of English news.
User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Southend

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:08 pm

Andrew Bak wrote:For those not on twitter:
@GMGawain wrote:Will update the website about it tomorrow. Basically the arbiter didn't know the 10.2 rule which cost me £920.
Ah, for the love of increment...
Wonder if it was a draw claim declined (and disputed) or accepted (and disputed)? Are the results online and what was the result of that final game? I guess we may hear more about the conduct of the players as well as that of the arbiter, but hopefully it won't get too acrimonious. It would be nice if the ECF was able to help settle matters like this, as it can't be nice for said arbiter to have one of the country's top GMs saying things like this on Twitter (even if justified). It can't be easy for said GMs either, especially when this is money that pays the bills. And to be fair, forumites commenting on the matter is unlikely to help!

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3894
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Southend

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:10 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
Andrew Bak wrote:For those not on twitter:
@GMGawain wrote:Will update the website about it tomorrow. Basically the arbiter didn't know the 10.2 rule which cost me £920.
Ah, for the love of increment...
Wonder if it was a draw claim declined (and disputed) or accepted (and disputed)? Are the results online and what was the result of that final game? I guess we may hear more about the conduct of the players as well as that of the arbiter, but hopefully it won't get too acrimonious. It would be nice if the ECF was able to help settle matters like this, as it can't be nice for said arbiter to have one of the country's top GMs saying things like this on Twitter (even if justified). It can't be easy for said GMs either, especially when this is money that pays the bills. And to be fair, commentary on the matter here is unlikely to help!
The game was Jones v Cherniaev, it was a draw, and the material balance was R+N for Jones versus R+P for Cherniaev. That's as much as I've gleaned from various conversations on Facebook.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Southend

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:14 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:The game was Jones v Cherniaev, it was a draw, and the material balance was R+N for Jones versus R+P for Cherniaev. That's as much as I've gleaned from various conversations on Facebook.
Oh, that explains a lot. Is there history between Jones and Cherniaev or is this the first time they've played? Surely not. Presumably Jones is disputing the award of a draw and was "making progress". Probably best to wait for the game score if that is ever published.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Southend

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:17 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Probably best to wait for the game score if that is ever published.
With this sort of position, I'd say that the game score is vital in drawing an accurate conclusion.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Southend

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:24 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Is there history between Jones and Cherniaev ...?
Does there have to be?

Matthew Turner
Posts: 2694
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Southend

Post by Matthew Turner » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:25 pm

Gawain's latest update

"Will update the website about it tomorrow. Basically the arbiter didn't know the 10.2 rule which cost me £920"

So, I guess we'll find out (Gawain's side of the story) tomorrow

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2350
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Southend

Post by Adam Raoof » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:27 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:The game was Jones v Cherniaev, it was a draw, and the material balance was R+N for Jones versus R+P for Cherniaev. That's as much as I've gleaned from various conversations on Facebook.
Blimey

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Southend

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:27 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Is there history between Jones and Cherniaev ...?
Does there have to be?
No, but I get the impression some GMs are more likely to have a history. I also got the impression they hadn't met before. Which reminds me, I never saw any updates on that tournament in Dublin. Yeah, bit of a random topic change, I know!

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Southend

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:36 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:No, but I get the impression some GMs are more likely to have a history.
True enough, although some GMs don't seem to need a history with any given person for it to kick off.

(which is to say nothing about the rights and wrongs of the arbiter's decision in this particular case)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17995
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Southend

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:24 am

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Presumably Jones is disputing the award of a draw and was "making progress". Probably best to wait for the game score if that is ever published.
Given enough time, are there any "normal" positions where R + N is winning against R + P?
With 6 piece endings available on the Shredder website and others, an objective answer is possible.


If you rank "can the position be won" above " is progress being made" , the award of a draw is logical.

Howard Grist
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:14 pm
Location: Southend-on-Sea
Contact:

Re: Southend

Post by Howard Grist » Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:37 am

I wasn't present at this event, but the score sheets have landed on my desk. They don't help much. Both players gave up scoring around move 75. The arbiter's incomplete notes allow me to extend this to move 88, but the material remaining then is still R+B+N v R+N+2P.
Former ECF Grading System Programmer

Richard James
Posts: 956
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Twickenham
Contact:

Re: Southend

Post by Richard James » Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:16 am



Just the most recent of many examples involving strong players I found on Big Database 2013.

Sounds to me (as an unqualified arbiter) that it should have been given a win.

A couple of years ago, at a Richmond Rapidplay, a player in a lower section was awarded a win on time under 10.2 with Rook and Bishop against Rook. His opponent protested and said that he'd never play in Richmond Rapidplays again. It probably didn't help his cause that the arbiter who made the decision had once been married to Keith Arkell.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17995
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Southend

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:42 am

Howard Grist wrote: The arbiter's incomplete notes allow me to extend this to move 88, but the material remaining then is still R+B+N v R+N+2P.
The final recorded position is a complete mess, so you might expect an arbiter to ask for play to continue. With a lack of any obvious case as to who was winning, a win might be expected to be awarded to the player whose flag didn't fall. But later if the position clarified to a 6 man ending, a draw could reasonably be awarded if the position is actually drawn. But that in turn relies on the arbiter ranking "able to win" above "trying to win".
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Southend

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:57 am

I'm rather surprised Alex H hasn't commented on this as yet. Is he being held somewhere against his will and/or being forced to play an adjournment perhaps?

Anyhoo, my limited understanding of such matters is that - viz Roger/Chris's comments - the objective evaluation of the position isn't especially important in such decisions. Hence the KRB v KR decision at Richmond cited above.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8794
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Southend

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:08 am

Jonathan Bryant wrote:I'm rather surprised Alex H hasn't commented on this as yet. Is he being held somewhere against his will and/or being forced to play an adjournment perhaps?
He's alive and well, but is maintaining a diplomatic silence in case this lands in his inbox in his official capacity. It would be wrong of me to comment on this without knowing all of the facts first, and without reference to the Chief Arbiter.

Post Reply