2024 National Stages

[Nick Burrows]

I find it disrespectful to your opponent, to leave him sitting there twiddling his thumbs because you've found something better to do.
How would you feel if your opponent left for 2 hours and came back for a blitz finish? Where is the limit?

[Jonathan Rogers]

"Laws are not made for particular cases but for men in general."

(Boswell, Life of Johnson, Oxford Standard Authors, 3rd ed, 1970, at pp 735).

"To permit a law to be modified at discretion is to leave the community without law. It is to withdraw the direction of that public wisdom by which the deficiencies of private understanding are to be supplied"

(as above, at 496)

"Why, this is very midsummer madness"

Shakespeare, Twelfth Night. iii.4

[Chris Goodall]

in general many will just go along with the latest diktats, and not give so much thought to them.

Because of this, many will only consider the letter of the law.

The implication here, that thinking harder about a law gives you more latitude to break it, is preposterous. No-one thinks about the law as much as a cheat does, and no-one can wax more lyrical about the unfairness of the laws than a cheat can.

If you want to divide laws into primary ones that punish gaining an advantage, and secondary ones that punish actions that enable primary law-breaking, that makes perfect sense. But don't lay the paranoia and mistrust at the door of the poor arbiters trying to enforce the secondary laws. Lay it at the door of the cheats!

[Roger de Coverly]

If you want to divide laws into primary ones that punish gaining an advantage, and secondary ones that punish actions that enable primary law-breaking, that makes perfect sense

For many years, it's been customary to define a playing venue consisting of the playing hall, the toilets, a refreshment area, a smoking area and the routes between them. Players were not expected to leave this area without permission. No one seemed to have any objections. I don't know if there have already been games forfeited if players had been found outside, perhaps previous cases had just been a warning.

Those of us who took exams would have experienced situations where we were shut in a room for three hours or so, without being allowed to leave. My very first proper tournament was in a school hall where I had sat exams a couple of months earlier.

[LawrenceCooper]

When talking with the arbiter afterward, I did admit that perhaps I could have asked before leaving the venue. However, on closer consideration - why should one do even that? We are all adults, and should not have to ask to leave the room - it is humiliating!

There is a big difference between leaving the room, leaving the building and heading off to visit the town centre!

[Kevin Thurlow]

I was going to remain silent, in case it prejudiced any further action, but oh well... I have to say I guessed the reason as soon as I saw who had lost. About 20 years ago, Chris played against Redhill in the Surrey League, and was thinking about his next move when he suddenly got up and headed down the corridor, whilst his opponent wondered what was going on. He soon returned. In 2008, I was playing Chris at Surbiton, one of his team-mates distracted him, and despite the fact it was his move, he again leapt from his chair and left the room. I sympathetically thought he might be en route to the toilet, but I heard the front door close and watched through the window, as he crossed the car park and walked down the road. Now he's lost twice I thought, but obviously Surrey wouldn't have enforced that. Luckily, he came back and we finished the game. I didn't think he was cheating by consulting a computer when he was outside, but some people would think that. I have an idea an arbiter told me that he had warned Chris for leaving the venue in a tournament a couple of years later? It seems to be a bit of a problem, and it's surprising it has taken over 15 years for it to cause a loss.

"I think this may unfortunately apply to many reading this, along with 'rules are rules', and applying the letter of the law. In fact, good arbiters apply the spirit of the law, and in my opinion, from my attending a weekend arbiters course back in 2008 in Crowthorne, a superb example of this approach was that of the late David Welch."

At Guernsey in 2004, Andrew Horton-Kitchlew turned up 45 minutes late for a game, made one move then got back in his car and drove off. I asked Welch if he would default H-K if he came back, but DW scurried away without answering. H-K did come back about an hour later (a bit short of time) and lost. So it is likely Welch would have ignored the Laws/rules, but wrongly. Arbiters are supposed to enforce the Laws/rules and make sensible judgements where the Laws/rules don't cover what happened. They must not ignore Laws/rules just because they feel like it, or to favour a player. I played in the European Team Seniors a few years ago and TWO arbiters allowed one opponent to get away with failing to record the moves. The arbiter at the County Final acted completely correctly.

Juniors tend to appreciate clear-cut rules. If you get detention for smacking someone in the mouth, then the next person to deliver a smack in the mouth doesn't get detention, you will get howls of outrage, "IT'S NOT FAIR!!" Absolutely right.

There is cheating at all levels, we had one idiot that lost on time against two different Redhill players in successive years, and both times claimed it was unfair. Luckily his captain disagreed. People adjust their pieces when the opponent is analysing, hit the clock with the wrong hand, discuss the game with other people, visit a friend in the analysis room who coincidentally has that position on their laptop, touch pieces and move something else, fail to record the game properly... At team level, board one mysteriously defaults, or fails to arrive and is replaced by someone much weaker who just happens to be hanging around.

I do hope that Surrey have apologised to the opposing team and especially the opposing player, who is probably happy to get the point, but may be considering if he really wants to travel for hours to be treated like that.

This topic has shown a remarkable degree of agreement amongst the commenters. Chris might care to reflect on that.

[Peter Ackley]

Not having been present at the match I am basing my following comments on Mr Briscoe's own posts on why he was defaulted.

It concerns me that a coach and an experienced (although relatively inactive) league and tournament player lacks sufficient knowledge or comprehension of the FIDE laws of chess and the reason(s) for which they are worded in the way they are. 11.2.3.1 is unambiguous and is not a new rule (although the designation may have changed over time). I was present for a 4NCL game in 2008 where the black player left the venue to place a bet on a horse race and was defaulted, even though the white player was happy to play on.

Mr Briscoe should not be offered an apology by the arbiter for being defaulted and was not subject to any injustice - the arbiter followed the laws of chess in place at the event, the laws that Mr Briscoe agreed to follow in agreeing to partake in said event. If any apology is needed it is to Mr Briscoe's opponent from Mr Briscoe for having wasted his time and I would suggest that Mr Briscoe uses the money he saved on his free Newark holiday on compensating his opponent who had not unreasonably arrived wanting a game of chess under the laws of chess.

It has been pointed out that potentially Mr Briscoe's decision could also breach 11.1 however I would argue that there is a much greater breach under 11.5 in that Mr Briscoe's opponent could have spent time wondering where his opponent was. As an arbiter I would have defaulted Mr Briscoe under 11.2.3.1 however as a player I would have been more annoyed by the disrespect shown to me. Mr Briscoe's assertions that the decision is "spurious" and "practical insanity" are because Mr Briscoe knows he was not cheating (and I have no doubt that he was not). But what Mr Briscoe selfishly fails to acknowledge is that just because he knows that he would not (a) his opponent may not know, or believe, this and (b) other players if allowed to act in a similar manner may well not be so honest. There are not two sets of rules - one for Mr Briscoe and one for everyone else - and in having one set of rules they must be unambiguous, realistic and also able to be applied consistently.

Mr Briscoe's talk of the "spirit of the law" is alive and well and is acknowledged through 0.2 however Mr Briscoe did not make a well-meaning mistake (for example nipping to a nearby shop for a drink or snack) but instead went on tour de Newark. It does, also, feel a bit rich Mr Briscoe talking about the spirit of the laws when later on he states that his actions would only hurt himself - clearly failing to acknowledge that his opponent was, or had the potential to be, put out.

I do agree that the anti-cheating measures do feel draconian. My watch is analogue, my biro Bic. However as technological improvements are made I accept that, for the small minority who would even consider it, the ability to cheat, and get away with it, gets easier and easier. As Desmond Tutu once said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Mr Briscoe is right in that the number of cases of cheating is significantly lower than the accusations or suspicions of cheating (especially online) however the rules are needed not just to prevent people from cheating but also to prevent people from being worried that their opponent is cheating.

I would also argue that a well-written, and consistently implemented, set of rules do not detract from the fun of playing chess but enhance it in that players arrive at matches knowing the behaviours they need to demonstrate, the behaviours they have the right to expect from their opponent and the actions which should be taken should either party divert from them. The rules don't "foster a culture of mistrust in others", rather they create an environment in which existing mistrust can be lessened. The mistrust would still exist, exponentially magnified, if the related rules did not. Consider what would happen if we did what Mr Briscoe suggests - Mr Briscoe then goes for a long walk around the bookshops of Newark, including those with chess books whilst his opponent checks his emails, surfs the net and has a long conversation on the phone in Norwegian with his friend "Magnus". This would be okay, would it??? Nothing suspicious at all, is there???

Compare this all with the chess clock. Chess historians may well be able to elaborate better however my recollection is that it was brought in because some players were unreasonably dragging out games (didn't one player spend 11 hours over a move)? I agree that quickplay finishes (and even Fischer timings) can, when low on time, lead to a detraction in the quality of play however I accept the use of them as otherwise games would go on and on and a junior could theoretically spend 40 years over a move, only to claim a win on the basis that I'm quite probably dead.

All this being said I will also point out that there is nothing wrong with 1.d4 h5 and I applaud Mr Briscoe's decision to try to bring more creativity into chess as well as to drag his opponent out of his comfort zone and into a battle Mr Briscoe was more prepared for. Having spent a season or two playing 1.g4 and 1.... g5 I achieved many good results both through players being dragged into the unknown and also by players feeling so "unimpressed" that they over-pressed trying to force a win when one did not exist. The downside with 1.g4 (and even more so with 1.... g5) was that opponents who prepared, or who did not let themselves be put off their stride, tended to get more of an advantage from the opening than a mainline opening would have given them.

As Mr Thurlow states it's exceedingly rare that there is agreement (or even broad agreement) between posters in a forum. This should tell Mr Briscoe something.

[ChrisBriscoe]

It is indeed interesting that there is general agreement on this thread against my position. Also, that on a forum where disagreements are commonplace.

I contend that a major reason for this is that most disagreements on this ECF Forum could be centred around minutiae which is conducive to many differences of opinion (ie: Are you a 'little-ender', or a 'big-ender'? - From Jonathan Swift's Gulliver, around 1780), whereas I am, or may seem to be, questioning a fundamental principle that many take for granted, or 'everyone knows is true'. When that is done, it is natural that people will band together to 'defend' a commonly accepted, albeit possibly subconsciously entrenched, position that one should not question, or if one does, he is missing something fundamental in his understanding of basic functionality into how things work, or are meant to work...

What am I questioning? Is it the rules themselves? Is it why to have any rules at all?!? Is it what is behind the rules? Is it how the rules affect the enjoyment of our game? Is it how the development of the way the rules are going is going to affect our game in future? What is the essence behind the rules? What exactly?

I will try to explain (though I have to a major degree done so already), but first, I think some explanation of my conduct is required, which many think constitutes a clear-cut case according to the rules of being defaulted, and worse than that, very disrespectful towards my opponent.

I was away for 50 minutes, that is true - but the game was still in progress. If I had been present, but thought for 50 minutes before moving, the exact same effect would be enacted in the game. Exactly the same - no difference whatsoever.

That's it! My opponent gets a time advantage - he gains, he doesn't lose out. It is not his job to be concerned about how I use my time, unless of course I was cheating.

Now, of course, if under the utter extreme example that everyone took 'breaks' (which they wouldn't) then some temporary rule could come out to limit the time one is away at the board, but that is bordering on fantasy anyway.

Regarding answering, 1. d4 with 1...h5, I do feel that I would owe my opponent some explanation, which I did after the match, even having been defaulted, and we had a pleasant conversation about it. Chris Goodhall is right, his manner is amenable. Indeed, last year when my wife and I went on a cruise, we were lucky enough to visit New York City, and went into a famous chess shop there located near Washington Square Park. I was white and played someone with a reasonable rating, but before I started, I informed him that I was going to play a very odd opening, but no disrespect was intended as I had had some success with it online. We had a good game, and both really enjoyed it. In last year's county final, I bottled out of playing 1...h5, because it was a County Final (!!) So, this year I plucked up the courage and did it. (explanation would follow after the match).

Kevin Thurlow is right, I do get up and walk around during a game (very, very rarely when it is my turn, and then probably only if my opponent made an immediate move when I was intending to get up after I just made mine anyway). The fact that people can conceive that anyone getting up and out is probably cheating is very sad, contributes to a paranoid and mistrusting environment, and the rules only serve to enforce that conception by saying that this is indeed a real problem, it is the purpose behind many of these rules - that is undeniable.

I strongly believe that if these rules were relaxed, the message is sent out that cheating is not really a problem (which it isn't, despite the hysteria), and the result of that is less people worry about it, and thus more people can relax when playing. Of course, suspicious activity like continual bathroom breaks, etc... will be noted as everyone is pretty much aware of this now. There is nothing to be gained by driving this point home in extremis, as the rules currently do now.

Of course, Peter argues the opposite, that the rules sets a guideline of behaviour for players to adhere to, thereby relieving the fear that one's opponent could be cheating. It sounds good, it does sound like progress, and a necessary evil one must endure to protect the integrity of the game. Many adhere to this viewpoint.

Indeed, on the subject of cheating, it seems positive and acceptable, and of course creates a better environment for the chess player to play competitively. That is the crux of Peter's argument, and it seems very strong and convincing...

But the rules are to help create a better environment to play chess - that is its purpose in their broader sense. Combatting possible cheating is only a branch of this whole tapestry of the goal of maintaining a pleasant, open and sporting environment where people can enjoy one of their favourite pastimes.

It is a broader viewpoint.

If we concentrate 90% on one aspect of possible chess play, we will lose focus on the bigger picture and purpose of administering chess clubs, tournaments, events, etc...

It is this that is forgotten, and what we need to re-focus on.

It is that, I wanted to highlight over and above any injustice that was done to me. And the injustice was not done by my opponent, and was not done by the arbiter - who clearly acted in the way he thought was best, and would have the support of many of you in his actions. He followed the rules of chess.

The injustice is caused by the rules themselves, and what causes the rules in the first place?

Common perception, and acting on common perception, as well as those that may manipulate common perception to often introduce rules that will only serve to control and restrict people's freedom. But, I contend, those people are very, very rare, and the vast, vast majority of people, even those in authority who support very harsh rules (all for the supposed greater good) will be acting out of a genuine desire to do the right thing.

Though a lot of the posts on here have been, in my opinion, for the reasons I mention, harsh on me, I believe it is a fact that pretty much all of you are sincere and trying to uphold the truth as you honestly perceive it to be. No more can be asked, and that applies to the arbiter who defaulted me also.

So where is the problem?

The problem *was* injustice. And when injustice is seen and understood by enough people, it gets acted upon and corrected. Consider the blacks in the Southern States in the 50s. But if you spoke out then, and there, many would come up with arguments to support the racism! Perception is important, and to break out of any mind-prison, one has to be open-minded and see other perspectives, and then one will more likely, and more easily arrive at a more broad-minded and mature viewpoint whereby better decisions are made for the benefit of everyone.

A good administrator takes a broad-minded view by considering not just one element but others to fulfil the brief of, in this instance, creating a better environment for the chess player, over and above just clamping down on cheating, or supposed cheating. To consider the latter equal with the former is a terrible assumption, and does not display what the brief of 'creating a better environment for the chess player' is.

In a court of law, a judge listens to the lawyers arguments, and then makes a decision. He applies his wisdom to the law itself, the arguments presented, the spirit behind the law pertaining to the individual cases, and arrives at an individual decision. The institution may be corrupted to some degree, but in essence this is what a judge's job is. In a similar way, this is the job of a referee, umpire, arbiter, etc...

But if the common perception is fear of cheating to a major detriment of the general well being of the game and having a pleasant environment, then we see more clearly where the problem lies. A pleasant environment will automatically result in less cheating as a mere by-product only.

This is a concept that needs to be understood, and often the best way to deal with a problem, or supposed problem, is not to tackle it hard and directly, as that gives it more energy, but to treat it for what it is - not so important in its entirety. (like a loud misbehaving child)

Cheating does cause injustice - it happens, but is often detected, often before it is done officially (which says something), and players lose their reputations. Good example is Rausis. However, bad, harsh rules causes more injustices. Like what happened to me, and many other instances that have happened to so many. Not shaking hands, not being there at the start, dress code, phone going off, etc, etc, etc, the list goes on. Having these rules does *not* make for better conditions for the chess player.

That is the problem that needs to be addressed, and can only be done with a broader view, which is what I am trying to point the finger at in these posts. Not, 'Oh woe is me! How badly was I treated!!!' Not that. Just to say, there is a problem here which needs to be looked at. As my captain said, 'It is madness, this obsession with stopping cheating. I can’t believe that anyone wants to cheat at our level/age etc. it’s a game we play for fun'

It is a good summation.

Finally, chess *is* just a game, a recreation for many, although the people on here just happen to be pretty good at it (!), it still is just a game, it is not as important as our work that we use to maintain ourselves, and the spirit of the game and its enjoyment is to be considered top priority by everyone as well as those who are rule-makers.

Not just to produce savants in the rules of chess.

[Alex McFarlane]

Chris, you are seeing this situation only from a particular point of view. A wider perspective is needed.
Chess is not the only game that punishes people for being absent. In football, for example, if a player leaves the field of play without the referee's permission then that is a yellow card even though the person's team has a clear disadvantage during their absence.
In chess had you gone for your 'walk' before the start of the game there would have been no punishment.
This Law that you have been attacking has been in existence since at least 2008 and possibly before that. This was before mobile phones were considered a real threat to anyone. (Remember, phones were first punished because of the disturbance they caused when going off). It's introduction had nothing to do with phones.
What you are failing to consider is the discourtesy to your opponent that such a prolonged absence caused.

A situation which is being discussed in some of the new FIDE IA Seminars is to consider what an arbiter should do if a player, albeit in a lost position, sits at the board without moving until their flag falls. This is being discussed, not as a breach of the Laws, but because it is rude to the opponent. Your actions were rude to your opponent in much the same way. Discussion at these seminars on 'waiting for the flag to drop' usually results in the feeling that the arbiter cannot intervene until the game is finished. At which point the offending player will be warned that a repetition will see them being punished for bringing the game into disrepute. The discussion then moves on to if the player is walking about the playing hall instead of sitting at the board. This is allowed in the Laws but the arbiter action is less clear. Most agree that the arbiter should ask the player to return to the board, again because it is regarded as being rude to the opponent.
You weren't even in the building. Presumably, no-one had any idea where you were. This is unfair on your opponent. He may suspect that you are getting advice or analysing somewhere else but he may also have genuine concerns about your welfare. Both of those use up a considerable amount of nervous energy and disadvantage your opponent.

You have looked at this from only your point of view. Consider it from your opponents point of view. Also, if walking out were to become standard practice, there would be far more concerns over cheating as the two or three going for a walk could be helping each other. Cheating is a problem in chess but it is relatively minor. A bigger problem now is that opponent's fear that a player may be cheating. You might see this as paranoia on their part but it has been brought on by real cases as you have outlined. Your opponent does not know you and does not know that you are a fair person. They are bound to consider the worse.

In future consider your opponent before yourself.

[Chris Goodall]

Chris, your claim to be acting on behalf of those who simply want to enjoy playing chess?

It is fatally undermined by the fact that you preferred to spend 50 minutes doing anything other than playing chess.

However much joy you got out of spending that time on a tour of Newark instead of staring at the board for 50 minutes, you caused your opponent an equal and opposite amount of misery by leaving him staring at the board for 50 minutes.

Had he beaten you over the board, the achievement would have been tainted by the knowledge that you lost 50 minutes on the clock and thereby put yourself at a significant disadvantage.

You are an academic with an academic's ability to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about unexamined sacred cows. But when the response comes back that we have thought hard about this sacred cow and would like it to please remain sacred, you do not update your model with this new data. You blink and start your argument again from the top.

[Ian Thompson]

This Law that you have been attacking has been in existence since at least 2008 and possibly before that.

It was in the 2001 Laws, which are the earliest ones I have.

You weren't even in the building. Presumably, no-one had any idea where you were. ... he may also have genuine concerns about your welfare.

What would have happened if a fire alarm went off? Everyone goes to the assembly point and a roll call is done. Chris is missing. You know he should have been in the building, so you have to assume he still is in the building.

[Roger de Coverly]

It was in the 2001 Laws, which are the earliest ones I have.

I found 1993 Laws in a Google search
https://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/FideLaws1993.htm

These don't mention playing areas or playing venues.

Article 15: The Conduct Of The Players
15.1 Prohibitions:

(a)
During play, the players are forbidden to make use of hand-written, printed or otherwise recorded matter, or to analyse the game on another chessboard. They are also forbidden to have recourse to the advice of a third party, whether solicited or not.
[The only possible exception is that a player in a team competition may be allowed to ask his captain "Should I accept his offer of a draw?" or "Does the team need me to play for a win?". The captain or acting-captain must limit his reply to an immediate "Yes", "No", or "It's up to you", without supplying his answer after a detailed analysis of the position, and without making his answer emphatic in any way. This captain, like all his players, is not allowed to receive opinions, from any source, on the states of play of any games still in progress] .
(b)
The use of notes made during the game as an aid to memory is also forbidden, aside from the actual recording of the moves and the times on the clocks.
(c)
No analysis is permitted in the playing rooms during play or during resumption sessions.
(d)
It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes the persistent offering of a draw.

15.2
Infractions of the rules indicated in Article 15.1 may incur penalties even to the extent of the loss of the game (see Article 16.5).

At lower levels of play, a chess computer could be helpful even in 1993. At higher levels of play, being able to consult a database or prior analysis would be the risk.

I seem to recall an incident during Linares where Kasparov returned to his room, possibly to fetch some medication. It was pointed out the room would have contained his laptop with lots of useful and secret analysis.

I don't recall when the playing area/venue definitions were introduced. Perhaps it coincided with the spread of indoor or at the board smoking bans, when there was a need to define an outdoor smoking area and a pathway to reach it.

[Mike Gunn]

This rule was present in the 1997 FIDE Laws as recorded in the 1st edition of Stewart Reuben's Organiser's Handbook, so it has been around for 27 years and I'm a bit surprised that Chris was unaware of it (apparently).

It's one of those Laws where the penalty an arbiter applies is discretionary so the default is not automatic. Leaving the game for 50 minutes is certainly discourteous to the opponent but having known Chris for some time as a chess organiser I don't believe he would cheat and another penalty could have been appropriate.

Generally the playing venue would be defined to include a smoking area (which could be just outside the building).

[Chris Goodall]

It's one of those Laws where the penalty an arbiter applies is discretionary so the default is not automatic. Leaving the game for 50 minutes is certainly discourteous to the opponent but having known Chris for some time as a chess organiser I don't believe he would cheat and another penalty could have been appropriate.

Getting a lesser penalty because the arbiter knows you, would bring chess into more disrepute than the original offence and ought to be a black mark on that arbiter's record. The starting point must be loss of the game for an action that amounts to deliberately hiding from the arbiter and captains, and then discretion applied only in circumstances where the chess game is no longer the top priority, like the player rushing to the assistance of someone knocked down by a car.

[Jonathan Rogers]

From the ECF ChessMoves newsletter of July 2031

"As we all know the ECF decided to cease the organisation of the national stages of the county chess championships in 2028, and it is now understood that all the regional associations have decided likewise.

"Unfortunately county chess has been in decline for several years. The unavailability of FIDE rated games, the inability of the format to attract younger players and the relentless cancellation of train services on weekends over the years eventually took their toll. Even the belated concession towards hosting national finals at venues convenient to the teams, instead of insisting that everyone travelled hundreds of miles to play at the same central venue, only delayed the inevitable.

"Additionally, several counties simply folded because they could not find anyone, anywhere, to take on the role of captaincy. One former captain said "you have to put up with a lot. There are the players who won't play unless you guarantee that you win the coin toss so that they wouldn't have to play a fourth consecutive Black. There are those who can only play if a team mate drives 25 miles out of the way to pick him up from their house. Then there is the sandwich brigade who talk a lot about their human rights, and those who insist that their rating is simply wrong and they need to play higher up the board order. But you are so short of players, that you have to actually listen to this nonsense, express some sympathy and try to imagine solutions. But all the time there is this voice in your head, screaming "F**k! F**K! F**K!"

"Another captain, last seen wearing a monk's habit and lying sobbing on motorway layby shortly after one of those matches played in the middle of nowhere, said "I can stand the losing, Laura. I can stand the experience of the whole match boiling down to one board where we need to win and yet our player simply agrees a draw without asking about the match situation. It's all the other f**kwittery that I can't stand".

"The perceived problem of "f**kwittery" had come to the fore in 2024, when in the national open final, one player simply disappeared during play to take a tour around the local village for 50 minutes, taking the view that it was only his time on the clock which was being wasted and that his opponent had no sensible reason to wonder or worry about where he had gone, and was subsequently defaulted. He received little sympathy from the online chess community, although he did receive some support from the local tourist board. "No one else visits our museums. We would be open all day for visiting chess players, only though most of our helpers are only available in the early to mid afternoon. But we could look into hiring a minibus and transporting, say, six of them for a quick tour shortly after the start of their games, which might perhaps suit those who have landed an opening surprise, say with an early ...h5 or something. Then we could return them and collect another lot an hour later, perhaps at the stage where it's not clear whether they should be playing for a win or a draw and they need to wait a bit for developments in other games, even though they will eventually agree a draw in any event. We could throw in free tea and biscuits too, because we know that's an issue for some players".

"Indeed, the county of Nottinghamshire has a proud tradition of players simply disappearing unannounced during play. One resident remembered a tale told by her late grandfather who pulled pints at the historic "Ye Old Trip to Jerusalem". He had tod her "there was this chess tournament in August 1936, at the University like, and just before it started, this strange chap who was chainsmoking and claimed to be the former world chess champion, he turns up and he asks us, since we always had all that green space outside the pub like, could his cow graze there while he played, and in return he would drink himself stupid? So we agreed, and we thought that he would just come and get smashed after play. But he loved that cow, he really did, and he would leave the University during play to come here to visit it. Sometimes he stopped and played a blindfold simul too. But he stopped doing that after he lost to some Cuban fellow - apparently he had got a great position with something called the Dutch Defence, but he celebrated too early like, and it all went wrong after he staggered back".