British Chess Championships 2010

[John Saunders]

It struck me that a long time had elapsed between Mickey Adams' first British Championship win and his latest so I had a look at the stats to see who had the biggest gap between first and last championship wins. Before looking, I had guessed the record-holder might be HE Atkins, or perhaps Hugh Alexander or Bob Wade. However, somewhat to my surprise, I find that Mickey is now the record-holder... Adams 1989 to 2010 - 21 years; Atkins 1905 to 1925 - 20 years; Alexander 1938 to 1956 - 18 years; Bob Wade 1952 to 1970 - 18 years. For some reason I had completely forgotten about Yates, but his span was 1913 to 1931 - 18 years. If anyone thought Penrose (as ten-time winner) might be a contender, his championships were achieved between 1958 and 1969. On reflection, perhaps it is not so surprising that Mickey should be the record-holder since he was only 17 when he first won the title.

[Alan Walton]

John

Didn't adams share the title with Sadler in the late 90s

[John Saunders]

Yes, but I'm only talking about first and last, not the in-betweens. Perhaps if I had said "span" and not "gap" it might have been clearer.

[Alan Walton]

John,

OK apologies, I remember doing the demo board for his game against Chris Beaumont I think in 1989

[JustinHorton]

Fantastically, having been drawn together in round ten - though the game did not actually take place - Rayner and French have now been drawn together in round eleven of the Major Open. Can this be right?

[Alex Holowczak]

Fantastically, having been drawn together in round ten - though the game did not actually take place - Rayner and French have now been drawn together in round eleven of the Major Open. Can this be right?

I can confirm it is right, but I shall leave it up to the arbiters to explain why, if they choose to do so.

[David Sedgwick]

Fantastically, having been drawn together in round ten - though the game did not actually take place - Rayner and French have now been drawn together in round eleven of the Major Open. Can this be right?

It can be right. As to whether or not it is right, that's not something about which I would wish to opine until I know the circumstances. At present I know nothing at all about what did or didn't happen.

Not surprisingly, the British Swiss Pairing Rules don't cover this precise situation. The nearest we have is Rule 39, which states:

"If two players are paired together but one or both defaults, although the two players are still eligible to be paired together subsequently, this should be avoided, providing priorities (a) score, and (b) colour balance, are not violated."

In this instance, so far as I can discern, there were alternative pairings available without altering any colours or changing the number of floats. This would suggest that they should not have been paired again in Round 11 if either had either defaulted in Round 10.

However, since one of them was given a full point and the other half a point, I presume that wasn't actually the case.

Edit: I've just seen Alex H's post. Obviously the matter was carefully considered and I never for a moment imagined otherwise.

[Alistair Campbell]

Fantastically, having been drawn together in round ten - though the game did not actually take place - Rayner and French have now been drawn together in round eleven of the Major Open. Can this be right?

I can confirm it is right, but I shall leave it up to the arbiters to explain why, if they choose to do so.

Back in the early 80s there was an event in Edinburgh which took the form of a Swiss played on midweek evenings throughout the winter. It may even have been the Lothians championship, before that became a weekender early in the new year.

Anyway, I recall that in one round Arne Hessenbruch was due to play Mark Condie (probably on the top board). Arne forgot to turn up, and was defaulted. The next week he was again (correctly) paired with Mark (and lost again). I think Danny Kopec indicated in his column in the Sunday Standard that the arbiters had the foresight to have a copy of the pairing rules available for inspection for the second meeting. Geoff Chandler will no doubt have a better recollection than I.

So there is a precedent (of sorts).

[Alex Holowczak]

Edit: I've just seen Alex H's post. Obviously the matter was carefully considered and I never for a moment imagined otherwise.

It was definitely carefully considered. I don't know the full facts of what happened in their scheduled game today; only what I've been told second-hand. It's one of those situations where it's better to wait for the official version of events.

[Roger de Coverly]

It was definitely carefully considered. I don't know the full facts of what happened in their scheduled game today; only what I've been told second-hand. It's one of those situations where it's better to wait for the official version of events.

Francis turned up at about 2.45 (and a bit) and was defaulted.

As one of the other players in contention for the places and prize money, I consider it totally unfair on the other players to award one and a half points for this game.

[isaac wallis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the present moment the only reference to Adams's victory on the official website I can find is on a caption to a photograph. This is not impressive.

[Eoin Devane]

It was definitely carefully considered. I don't know the full facts of what happened in their scheduled game today; only what I've been told second-hand. It's one of those situations where it's better to wait for the official version of events.

Francis turned up at about 2.45 (and a bit) and was defaulted.

As one of the other players in contention for the places and prize money, I consider it totally unfair on the other players to award one and a half points for this game.

Without knowing the full circumstances, I have to say that I completely agree. If he was deemed to have arrived after the deffault time then how can he be awarded half a point?

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Well, apparently we have to wait for the "Official Version of Events". Suffice to say that if two players above you in a Swiss share 1.5 points rather than 1.0, it makes it more difficult for you to overtake them.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I'm really pleased that Peter Wells is playing Michael Adams in the last round. Peter is my favourite English GM - I grew up in the same county as him and one of my main insentives as a junior was to try to keep my grade (as published every month or so by Terry Hollington and Pat McAvoy) within 100 points of Peter's!

[David Sedgwick]

Francis turned up at about 2.45 (and a bit) and was defaulted.

As one of the other players in contention for the places and prize money, I consider it totally unfair on the other players to award one and a half points for this game.

Without knowing the full circumstances, I have to say that I completely agree. If he was deemed to have arrived after the deffault time then how can he be awarded half a point?

Situations do arise where every possible decision would be unfair on somebody. In such circumstances arbiters (and, if necessary, Appeal Committees) have to make the least bad choice.