European Union Youth Chess Championships

[Richard Bates]

However, on another occasion, I saw a player stood chatting on the concourse outside the building after the official start time and only went into the playing hall to start the game several minutes after the clocks had started - that is what I think should be prevented.

Why? What material difference does it make to anyone? At any time in any round a large percentage of players are not present at their board. If that doesn't make a difference, why should it make a difference if they are there at the start?

Of course there is arguably actually a materially relevant reason for forcing players to stay at their board DURING the game - it severely restricts the potential for cheating.

Yes, chess has the time-fault penalty for late arrivals, but it is the player who self-imposes that "punishment" rather than receiving it from the authorities.

What do you mean "punishment"? Do you dispute that a player with less time has a disadvantage, 'self-imposed' or otherwise? Surely any penalty, even a draconian one like defaulting, is 'self-imposed', so i'm not sure why that is relevant? (although of course the extent that one arriving late at the board is always "self-imposed" is disputed).

You also ignore a major objection for many (similarly the mobile phone law) - the fact that they might "BENEFIT" from the default law. Most people play chess because they actually want to... play chess. When they first introduced the law at the Olympiad one guy in a minor team won THREE games by default. Pay large amount of money to play in an Olympiad, and didn't even get to play a third of the rounds!

[Alan Burke]

Yes, it makes no material diffrence to the game if one player is not at the board for the start of the game, but why should someone want to deliberately delay the start of a game if not for their own perceived advantage in some way ?

I will repeat that occasional delays are inevitable and I have no problem with those, but I would have no sympathy for those who deliberately delay the start of a game. Yes, it might have always been the case that the rules allow flexible start times, but does that always need to be so ?

With regard to the previous situation I mentioned about the player still outside the playing hall at Sheffield after the official start time - suppose that player had the black pieces and his opponent, at the board, played his first move as white. Is it too far-fetched to suggest that it could be possible for someone in the playing hall to then relay that move to the player outside who could then go onto some form of search engine and study what his opponent might then do against various counter moves before actually going inside the playing arena.

[Roger de Coverly]

I will repeat that occasional delays are inevitable and I have no problem with those, but I would have no sympathy for those who deliberately delay the start of a game. Yes, it might have always been the case that the rules allow flexible start times, but does that always need to be so ?

It isn't possible in a UK tournament to deliberately delay the start of the game. If one player is present, the clock has started and the game commences. If neither player is present, the arbiter will start the clock.

Is it too far-fetched to suggest that it could be possible for someone in the playing hall to then relay that move to the player outside who could then go onto some form of search engine and study what his opponent might then do against various counter moves before actually going inside the playing arena.

I think tournament players are sufficiently skilled that facing even the most unusual of the twenty possible opening moves would not necessitate cheating. There is a danger, and always has been, that players consult external sources during play.

[Richard Bates]

Yes, it makes no material diffrence to the game if one player is not at the board for the start of the game, but why should someone want to deliberately delay the start of a game if not for their own perceived advantage in some way ?

I will repeat that occasional delays are inevitable and I have no problem with those, but I would have no sympathy for those who deliberately delay the start of a game. Yes, it might have always been the case that the rules allow flexible start times, but does that always need to be so ?

With regard to the previous situation I mentioned about the player still outside the playing hall at Sheffield after the official start time - suppose that player had the black pieces and his opponent, at the board, played his first move as white. Is it too far-fetched to suggest that it could be possible for someone in the playing hall to then relay that move to the player outside who could then go onto some form of search engine and study what his opponent might then do against various counter moves before actually going inside the playing arena.

Whilst leaving myself in danger of being accused of quoting Joey Barton on last night's 606, "have you ever played the game at any level?"

Which bit of "the game starts when the clocks are started, not when the first move is made" is difficult to comprehend? Where is the "delay" to which you keep referring?

Incidentally there is a sensible solution to the suggestion of a black player scurrying away to prepare upon discovering the devastating reality of their opponent's first move - allow the white player to press the clock without making a move. It would screw up the move counters on digital clocks, but no great loss.

[Alan Burke]

Richard Bates ... My view is that both players should be at the board for the scheduled start of play. OK, if you disagree with that, that's fine and I respect your opinion, but why can't you just have a discussion on the subject without making it personal with your comment of "have you ever played the game at any level?" Actually, the answer to that is 'yes'.

[Paul Cooksey]

My view is that both players should be at the board for the scheduled start of play.

Again, why? It is not clear to me what benefit this rule gives.

[IM Jack Rudd]

My view is that both players should be at the board for the scheduled start of play.

This is not the relevant point, though. I also think that both players should be at the board for the scheduled start of play; the question is what should happen if they aren't. In most circumstances, I feel the loss of the clock time is an adequate penalty for late arrival.

[Alan Burke]

Paul .. If, for no other reason, I think it is respectful to both the game and your opponent for a player to be ready for play at the scheduled start time. As I keep saying, I can appreciate when unforseen circumstances might delay a player's arrival, but why would a player want to DELIBERATELY arrive late ?

Jack ... I agree with the loss of time for occasional late arrivials, but if a player constantly and deliberately arrives late, I think a stronger deterent should be applied (Again, I am refering to major events and not matches played at club or local league level).

[IM Jack Rudd]

Jack ... I agree with the loss of time for occasional late arrivials, but if a player constantly and deliberately arrives late, I think a stronger deterent should be applied (Again, I am refering to major events and not matches played at club or local league level).

But who benefits from the stronger deterrent? Players don't want to lose by default, most players don't want to win by default (especially if this screws up a norm chance), spectators don't want to see games decided by default. I suppose the game-inputters might welcome it, but that's about it.

[Richard Bates]

Paul .. If, for no other reason, I think it is respectful to both the game and your opponent for a player to be ready for play at the scheduled start time. As I keep saying, I can appreciate when unforseen circumstances might delay a player's arrival, but why would a player want to DELIBERATELY arrive late ?

I doubt many people deliberately arrive late. They just don't deliberately arrive early or on time.

[David Shepherd]

Loss of time is a penalty for ariving late, but in some circumstances a player could arrive late as they have been doing some last minute prep in a tournament where there are multiple rounds per day, this would seem to give the player arriving late a slight advantage.

For most tournaments in my opinion it is sensible that no penalty other than loss of normal time on the clock should be imposed combined with a reasonable default time (e.g. 30 minutes) - no one wants to have to wait around for hours not knowing if an opponent will arrive.

For larger tournaments where for example people have paid money to watch an additional penalty could be imposed - for example if a player arrives late they lose 25% of their time. In no circumstances do I consider default for ariving a few minutes late appropriate, particularly where people have paid their hard earned cash to travel to play.

In my opinion the current default rules are just nonsense, and it would be far more sensible to impose additional time penalties for being late where considered appropriate rather than automatic default.

[Ian Kingston]

Paul .. If, for no other reason, I think it is respectful to both the game and your opponent for a player to be ready for play at the scheduled start time. As I keep saying, I can appreciate when unforseen circumstances might delay a player's arrival, but why would a player want to DELIBERATELY arrive late ?

I doubt many people deliberately arrive late. They just don't deliberately arrive early or on time.

I think you're right - some people are just poor time-keepers in general and are habitually late for everything. I know at least one person who bases his travel plans on having perfectly clear roads with no hold-ups, hitting every traffic light on green, and being able to drive at or above the speed limit throughout. Despite the fact that such circumstances are rare, he continues to be surprised when he doesn't arrive on time. I don't know what you can do about people like that.

If there are any players who deliberately arrive late (perhaps for to gain some kind of Fischer-esque psychological edge), people soon get to know about it and the presumed advantage disappears.

[Richard Bates]

If there are any players who deliberately arrive late (perhaps for to gain some kind of Fischer-esque psychological edge), people soon get to know about it and the presumed advantage disappears.

IMO thinking about the psychological angle arguably makes a stronger case AGAINST shorter default times!

In my experience one only gets psychologically affected by lateness when the lateness starts opening up the possibility of winning by default. I think there is a sometimes quoted example of Nigel Short losing a rapidplay game when his opponent turned up with only a couple of minutes left on the clock. And of course the Fischer-esque approach (in a match context) went to the extreme of not turning up at all!

Of course with the traditional 1hr default time one may be affected by an opponent testing it, but there would rarely be a suspicion that it was being done deliberately - one would have to be turned into a psychological wreck to justify the giving up of 50+ minutes on the clock. Shorter default times, and especially the zero default change this completely - an individual can confidently turn up with seconds to spare whilst not having to suffer any penalty at all!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Shorter default times, and especially the zero default change this completely - an individual can confidently turn up with seconds to spare whilst not having to suffer any penalty at all!

Some people would indeed be reduced to a wreck under zero default time controls while waiting for their opponent to turn up, as they would have the prospect of a "win" dangled in front of them, and then have that yanked away from them in the last few seconds. Worse, they might start thinking that they were at the wrong board! Imagine the angst if there were two boards with the same number on them, or the boards were poorly labelled and you found you were waiting by the board next to the one you were meant to be at? If the board numbering is inconsistent and poorly done, this can easily happen.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Ah, reminds me of an experience at the Blackpool congress back in the 1990s......

Final round - I open 1e4 and wait for my opponent (who shall remain nameless, but they know who they are!) to turn up.......

And wait.......and wait........and wait........

The hour passes, and I see the controller to see if there is anybody else to play. As it would happen, there is absolutely nobody to be repaired with - not even in another section! Ah well, will have to be content with a win by default, I suppose - only had 1.5/4, so could be worse.......

But about 15 minutes later, my opponent comes dashing into the playing hall (he had apparently "lost track of time" in the pub, or something ) I could stick to my guns and claim a win by default - but we all want to play when we can, don't we?? And with my overwhelming time advantage, should polish him off anyway......

And indeed, I duly achieve a massively superior - then winning - position. So I decide to "finish him off" by moving quickly in his now pretty extreme time shortage.

End up totally blowing it, just about managing to draw in the end