Finals day 2 July

[Mick Norris]

they will put something out as it has happed before when Lancashire Under 100 Team got thought in the final vs Essex but there was a disputed and Essex went thought to the final!!

Strange that Lancs get involved in lots of disputes

[NickFaulks]

However I do not consider it appropriate in this instance.

So we're NOT going to be given any clue as to the presumed new evidence which caused the Appeal Committee to reverse the match result? That is disappointing.

[Sean Hewitt]

However I do not consider it appropriate in this instance.

So we're NOT going to be given any clue as to the presumed new evidence which caused the Appeal Committee to reverse the match result? That is disappointing.

I thought the appeals committee had upheld the originally reported match result?

[NickFaulks]

However I do not consider it appropriate in this instance.

So we're NOT going to be given any clue as to the presumed new evidence which caused the Appeal Committee to reverse the match result? That is disappointing.

I thought the appeals committee had upheld the originally reported match result?

Originally reported by one side, disputed by the other, so the ECF had to make a decision. It's from that point that matters become murky, and will evidently stay that way.

[Alex Holowczak]

I am not publishing the verdict of the Appeals Committee. So far as I am concerned, the information has been distributed to those involved, and if they want to bring it into the public domain, that's up to them. To the best of my recollection, I haven't published other disputes/appeals in the recent past, and I don't see why this one is so different.

By the way. I think there have been about 7 or 8 disputes requiring appeals in the last 5 years (two so far this season), and it is by far the most disputatious competition I'm involved in the organisation of. John Reyes seems to suggest there is another one on its way. There are good, reasonable people captaining teams in the County Championship, and I don't understand why there should be so many appeals and disputes every year.

[Michael Flatt]

I am not publishing the verdict of the Appeals Committee.

Are you able to share this information with the newly appointed SCCU County Match Controller?

[NickFaulks]

So far as I am concerned, the information has been distributed to those involved

If so, that is quite reasonable and I trust that they will in due course pass it on to the players, who were also involved.

[IM Jack Rudd]

By the way. I think there have been about 7 or 8 disputes requiring appeals in the last 5 years (two so far this season), and it is by far the most disputatious competition I'm involved in the organisation of. John Reyes seems to suggest there is another one on its way. There are good, reasonable people captaining teams in the County Championship, and I don't understand why there should be so many appeals and disputes every year.

It's probably a structural issue. A lot of the disputes are about things that wouldn't arise in anything else you are involved in the organization of, because in those other events, you get to see the problem before it arises. Take team selections, for example: in the 4NCL, team selections have to come to the arbiting team before they are released, so a team can't head out with a dodgy board order unless the arbiters have approved it. Or ineligible players: if you're running a weekender, you get to check all the entries beforehand, so if an ungraded player is playing in a rating-limited section, it's because you've said he can beforehand.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would have thought it possible to make a statement to the effect that:-

During the match between Lancs and Surrey u180 a dispute arose about ..............

As a consequence Lancs claimed (and reported) a drawn game. This was disputed by Surrey and the Controller ruled in favour of Lancs/Surrey. This was challenged by Lancs/Surrey and an Appeal Committee agreed with/overturned the earlier decision.

The key point to my mind was what the original dispute was about, rather than how the controller and Appeal Tribunal ruled.

[Mick Norris]

Something unpleasant seems to have occurred in the U180 dispute, but I don't know what.

The result is Surrey 7.5 Lancashire 8.5 as originally reported.

But that's not the full story, is it? I was there, and regard that result as ludicrous.

Well Nick, that's chess isn't it?

We are beginning to see the unravelling of the lies from Boris ect, but that didn't stop you voting Leave

We live with the reality of what Kirsan and FIDE do, but that doesn't stop you apologising for them

We have J'adoubeamura cheating in the Candidates, joining many predecessors in touch move, getting outside help, using computers etc and still nothing happens

We have years of at best dubious practices in English chess, and yet you and nearly everyone else do nothing

And now, it has happened to you, and you protest

[NickFaulks]

Well Nick, that's chess isn't it?

I can honestly say that I cannot envisage such a decision being taken in, say, an Olympiad, without a detailed explanation.

[Mike Truran]

A detailed explanation has been given. It just hasn't been given to you.

See Alex's post above.

[NickFaulks]

A detailed explanation has been given. It just hasn't been given to you.

See Alex's post above.

Fair enough, FIDE would have published it, because they've learned the hard way that not doing so only leads to trouble.

[PeterFarr]

A detailed explanation has been given. It just hasn't been given to you.

See Alex's post above.

Fair enough, FIDE would have published it, because they've learned the hard way that not doing so only leads to trouble.

Absolutely. The legendary openness and transparency of FIDE is a model for us all.

[NickFaulks]

Absolutely. The legendary openness and transparency of FIDE is a model for us all.

Nonetheless, what I said is true, and if you could have produced a counterexample instead of the usual invective you would have done. If a FIDE Appeals Committee had taken this decision it would have been published. Deny that if you like.