UK CHESS CHALLENGE

[Mike Truran]

......or more fully, "There are many ways to be unlucky through the UK Chess Challenge" (quote to me from one of the organisers).

I'm fairly new to the world of being a chess parent, so I thought I would share with the forum what happened at the recent Ascot Megafinal. It may be that my expectations about how the UK Chess Challenge is run have been unrealistic, so views from other parents would be appreciated.

1. On arrival, my son, and along with another member of his school, was put in with an older age group on the grounds that there were insufficient players in his section. To my mind, this led to the younger age group being seriously disadvantaged by being combined with an older age group, in particular given that there was no relaxation of the four points/Supremo qualification rule. Is this common practice in the UK Chess Challenge, and if so do people find it a reasonable way of operating?

2. My son, on being offered a draw in the last round, was told by a controller that he would qualify with a draw, accepted the draw and was then told that he had not qualified after all. I also understand that this same controller apparently said that he would not be allowing Article 10.2 claims because he didn't understand the rule. Is it common practice in the UK Chess Challenge to have controllers who do not have a full knowledge either of the rules of the competition or of the laws of chess?

I appreciate that the UK Chess Challenge is a huge event, and that with the best will in the world it can't always run perfectly. If my son's experience was unusual rather than the norm, it would set my mind at rest to know that that was the case.

[David Shepherd]

I did think the Surrey megafinal was a bit harsh too where there was a combined U15-U18 section that was strong and not that large. The top two players were U18's who both have rapidplay grades over 200, which made the 4 point qualification very tough for anyone who played both of them. The final results were that, apart from the top players in each age group, all the players to go through were U18's. I was left wondering if the qualification target should be relaxed slightly in age groups of multiple years - particularly those covering a 4 year span.

I am not sure that an U15 having to get the same score as an U18 is very sensible/motivational for the U15's, particularly given there are so few players at secondary school age anyway,

[Peter Turner]

Combining age groups can be a problem but I believe allowed in the rules where some age groups are small. .

[Mike Truran]

Indeed. My point was that doing that has the potential to disadvantage the younger age group (and clearly did in David's and my experience). As I tried to explain to Mike Basman (without success), 'understanding' a rule isn't the same thing as thinking it's a good or reasonable rule.

Having a controller who seemed not to know the rules either just made matters a whole lot worse.

[Alex Holowczak]

I was at the Warwickshire Megafinal, and I'll give you my experience of how it went.

1. On arrival, my son, and along with another member of his school, was put in with an older age group on the grounds that there were insufficient players in his section. To my mind, this led to the younger age group being seriously disadvantaged by being combined with an older age group, in particular given that there was no relaxation of the four points/Supremo qualification rule. Is this common practice in the UK Chess Challenge, and if so do people find it a reasonable way of operating?

This is a common thing. In Warwickshire, there was a combined U14-18 section with 13 players. There was no other way of doing it; no one age group justified its own section. There was a combined U12-13 section too, with 5 Under 12 boys in it. Again, not enough to justify a section given there are 6 rounds.

With regard to the sections, they were a bit of a nightmare. The organiser instructed his arbiters to pair within age groups and sexes where possible. I think this was the right approach. For example, in the U12-13 section, there were 5 Under 12s. So I looked up the APA pairings on my phone (before the start of play, obviously), and they had an APA for the first 5 rounds. The bye would play someone in the rest of the section, as if they were in the Swiss normally. In Round 6, they played as part of the Swiss. Not an ideal solution either, but I think the best given the circumstances.

In the Under 14-18, there was no good way of doing it at all, so I just paired it as a normal, seeded Swiss (given > 60% of the field had grades). This caused problems too. Players turned up who had already qualified as winners because there was only one entrant (namely, two girls and two boys, nearly one-third of the field). This meant some chose to lose to their friends to help them qualify in competitive sections, and some chose to play "fairly". There was a rather ugly moment where the only girl in one section was asked continually to lose her game (both players were on 3/5), but she refused, with ever-increasing frustration, because she hadn't let anyone else she played beat her, and it would be unfair on them to let him win now. This left her upset because of the situation she'd been put in, and her opponent upset because he didn't get through. The whole thing became, in my opinion, a bit of a farce. But what could you do about it?

2. My son, on being offered a draw in the last round, was told by a controller that he would qualify with a draw, accepted the draw and was then told that he had not qualified after all. I also understand that this same controller apparently said that he would not be allowing Article 10.2 claims because he didn't understand the rule. Is it common practice in the UK Chess Challenge to have controllers who do not have a full knowledge either of the rules of the competition or of the laws of chess?

The organiser of the Warwickshire Megafinal only had 1 qualified arbiter on his staff, with 1 person who had controlled sections of congresses before. I controlled the two sections above, on the basis that if there were any chess disputes, I could deal with them according to the rules. (They had clocks, so had 10.2s.) The other person with experience of running adult tournaments was put on the Under 11 section, the next age group down. There were general people involved with junior chess running the other sections. In my opinion, the organiser distributed his resources correctly. I can't comment on how this particular Megafinal did it, because I don't know what the resources available were. In my experience, the Warwickshire organiser's number of arbiters available would be considered a luxury at most Megafinals. It's entirely likely that the organiser had no one appropriate to put on these sections.

If my son's experience was unusual rather than the norm, it would set my mind at rest to know that that was the case.

It is an unfair competition, that has an awful lot of luck involved, as you've said. If you choose to enter it, you have to accept this. The year I got to the Terafinal, I was lucky all the way through, mainly due to unseeded pairings because none of us had grades!

[John McKenna]

While not wishing to distract from the main thrust of this debate I'd just say that in my opinion juniors should not be encouraged to plead the 10.2 rule (the offside rule of chess, in my opinion) as it is they who probably do not fully understand it. The adult in control confessed a weakness that - in my experience of the rule - is not uncommon but rarely admitted. I have seen arbiters interpret this rule in various ways rather than applying it strictly. The last thing someone wants is to be flooded with 10.2s because kids have been told to put their hands up (like claiming offside in football) when they have less than 2 mins. because they might get a draw instead of losing on time.

[Mike Truran]

That's fair enough. But it's one thing not to allow such claims for the good reasons you give, and another thing to say you're not going to allow them because because you don't know how the rule works. It does seem a somewhat naive thing to say publicly in front of juniors.

[John Upham]

One other factor to be aware of is that undecided (by the players) games are adjudicated purely on a material basis (or so I am led to believe).

If piece is sacrificed that leads to mate (a Greek gift for example) then the "victim" should accept the piece and then not make any further moves. The "helpers" (I won't refer to them as arbiters) will operate a material count decision to decide the outcome.


I was asked to help at the Hampshire Megafinal but had duties at Hinckley Island.

[John Upham]

Is it common practice in the UK Chess Challenge to have controllers who do not have a full knowledge either of the rules of the competition or of the laws of chess?

From observation I would say most definitely "Yes"!

[John McKenna]

As usual, something has to give in junior events. Even John Upham when asked to go to the front decided to return to HQ, and I don't blame him.

[Roger de Coverly]

The last thing someone wants is to be flooded with 10.2s because kids have been told to put their hands up (like claiming offside in football) when they have less than 2 mins. because they might get a draw instead of losing on time.

Senior arbiters who would award a draw for sub optimal moves in K+R v K do nothing to discourage this attitude. If they spot a triple repetition or count fifty moves, that's OK, but not otherwise and out of place in training material for arbiters.

[Alex Holowczak]

One other factor to be aware of is that undecided (by the players) games are adjudicated purely on a material basis (or so I am led to believe).

This is what the rules of the competition state. The competition is run in a way that means it can be run by a parent at the initial stage, rather than by arbiters. If you want your product to appeal to a mass market, this seems like a sensible way of doing things.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is what the rules of the competition state. The competition is run in a way that means it can be run by a parent at the initial stage, rather than by arbiters. If you want your product to appeal to a mass market, this seems like a sensible way of doing things.

If you have enough Smart Phones to hand, download one of the several Chess Clock apps and use them. You could even use increments so as not to have 10.2 issues. Obviously not an option when the UK Chess Challenge was first set up around fifteen years ago.

[Alex Holowczak]

This is what the rules of the competition state. The competition is run in a way that means it can be run by a parent at the initial stage, rather than by arbiters. If you want your product to appeal to a mass market, this seems like a sensible way of doing things.

If you have enough Smart Phones to hand, download one of the several Chess Clock apps and use them. You could even use increments so as not to have 10.2 issues. Obviously not an option when the UK Chess Challenge was first set up around fifteen years ago.

I'd love people bashing the screen of my smartphone in a time scramble...

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd love people bashing the screen of my smartphone in a time scramble...

They are touch sensitive, they don't work if you bash them. The Chronos clock, popular in North America, also has touch sensitive buttons. You can't hit them with pieces either.