English Chess Forum

Open Yorks v Middlesex
Minor Lincs v Norfolk
U180 Essex v Lancs
U160 Essex v Middlesex
U140 Worcs v Surrey
U120 Notts v Warks
U100 Essex v Kent/Lancs

Late final extra, read all about it!

The result of the U-180 National Semi-final match: Surrey 7.5-8.5 Lancs - as submitted by "Bill O'Rourke" on the 12th June, the day of the match - has not yet been confirmed by Surrey on the official ECF ('oxfordfusion') results site.

And, the SCCA website has the following comment (in its County fixtures / results) -

"A dispute concerning board 16 could alter the outcome of the match"

http://www.scca.co.uk/comps_cty/county.html

Bd. 16 for Lancs? "ORourke, William"!

http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/index.cfm?Org=4

Not much time if there is a dispute in the outstanding U100 semi final match, is there? Presumably, a neutral arbiter will be present at the match though

John McKenna wrote: And, the SCCA website has the following comment (in its County fixtures / results) -

"A dispute concerning board 16 could alter the outcome of the match"

It's currently scored as a draw, so Surrey may believe they have a claim for a win. Like the U-100 match, their claim has to be resolved very soon. Does anyone want to hint what it might be?

Roger de Coverly wrote:

John McKenna wrote: And, the SCCA website has the following comment (in its County fixtures / results) -

"A dispute concerning board 16 could alter the outcome of the match"

It's currently scored as a draw, so Surrey may believe they have a claim for a win. Like the U-100 match, their claim has to be resolved very soon. Does anyone want to hint what it might be?

As the subject has been raised, I feel that I should state that Surrey have been asked not to report or comment publicly until the matter has been resolved.

David Sedgwick wrote: As the subject has been raised, I feel that I should state that Surrey have been asked not to report or comment publicly until the matter has been resolved.

The established arbiter's fudge of awarding a point and a half would still leave Lancs as the winners, so someone has to make a decision as to why Surrey can overturn the reported result. You surely cannot take that long to decide an Appendix G claim, or the factual matter as to whether Surrey had mating material if the Lancs flag fell in an overwhelming position? Both flags down, but witnesses say the Lancs one fell first?

Roger de Coverly wrote:

David Sedgwick wrote: As the subject has been raised, I feel that I should state that Surrey have been asked not to report or comment publicly until the matter has been resolved.

The established arbiter's fudge of awarding a point and a half would still leave Lancs as the winners, so someone has to make a decision as to why Surrey can overturn the reported result. You surely cannot take that long to decide an Appendix G claim, or the factual matter as to whether Surrey had mating material if the Lancs flag fell in an overwhelming position? Both flags down, but witnesses say the Lancs one fell first?

How about waiting to hear from the official channels, and deciding there are more important things in life to think about?

In the outstanding U100 semi-final, the results site is reporting a walkover for Kent.

Open Yorks v Middlesex
Minor Lincs v Norfolk
U180 Essex v Lancs (subject to dispute ruling, Surrey may be the actual opponents)
U160 Essex v Middlesex
U140 Worcs v Surrey
U120 Notts v Warks
U100 Essex v Kent

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

NickFaulks wrote: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.

Neil Graham wrote:

NickFaulks wrote: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.

John Philpott wrote:In the outstanding U100 semi-final, the results site is reporting a walkover for Kent.

I can confirm that this is the case. Kent advised me around 10PM last night

I can also confirm that Lancashire progress to the final of the U180.

NickFaulks wrote:

Neil Graham wrote:

NickFaulks wrote: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.

Care to elaborate?

Sean Hewitt wrote: Care to elaborate?

I don't know whether the Appeal Committee's view of events is going to be published. If it is, then it's probably better to give them a couple of days to do that.