British Chess Championships 2010

[Adam Raoof]

Neither. If he was happy to play, he wouldn't have appealed, but he didn't refuse to. He was given time to write an appeal, and of course he can't both do that and play the game!

So, if he was not refusing to play, why did he not play, and appeal after?

[Richard Bates]

So, as I understand it, it would seem that Rayner was deemed to have arrived after the default time and was consequently defaulted. This suggests that there was a breakdown in communication between whoever spoke to him on the phone and assured him that he would not be defaulted and whoever sanctioned the default. This, in my view, is the primary problem here.

Seems unlikely, since Angus French was the instigator of the appeal.

[Richard Bates]

Neither. If he was happy to play, he wouldn't have appealed, but he didn't refuse to. He was given time to write an appeal, and of course he can't both do that and play the game!

So, if he was not refusing to play, why did he not play, and appeal after?

Because appeals must be submitted within the hour.

[Ian Kingston]

Will the full details of the circumstances that led to the problem, as well as the deliberations and reasoning of the Appeals Committee, be published?

[JustinHorton]

Hodgson's record 10/11 was achieved in 1991. He drew in rounds 4 and 5, against Mestel and Hebden respectively. Like Yates, he achieved a two-point margin of victory (and he clinched the title with one round to go).

Ta. So two points is the record Adams may or may not beat, or equal, today. (I'll miss it, as it happens, as I actually have to go and do something constructive with my time this afternoon.)

I can't confirm your tentative assertion. I have not checked all years.

I've checked 1951-1960, having De Felice for the relevant years, and the biggest margin in those years was a point and a half.

Meanwhile, over at the Chess History section in a moment, a query about 1958...

[Eoin Devane]

So, as I understand it, it would seem that Rayner was deemed to have arrived after the default time and was consequently defaulted. This suggests that there was a breakdown in communication between whoever spoke to him on the phone and assured him that he would not be defaulted and whoever sanctioned the default. This, in my view, is the primary problem here.

Seems unlikely, since Angus French was the instigator of the appeal.

Okay, so the issue is then presumably one of the arbiters deciding to waive the default time for Rayner and French not being happy with this. But the competition rules allow the arbiter to do this, so in my view the game ought to have taken place. I admit, though, that I sympathise with French's position as it does seem a strange decision to waive the default time.

[Alex McFarlane]

The facts as I know them in the Raynor-French rd 10 non-match.

The Raynor clock showed 1.09 when he arrived and immediately moved. It then showed 1.10.

French claimed the game. On hearing that Raynor had phoned in seeking a delay the arbiter asked for play to resume. French appealed this decision.

The Appeals Committee decided to uphold the arbiter's decision BUT decided that it was unreasonable to expect the players to play on since it was now after 5pm. The AC stated that the game should not take place with Raynor scoring 1/2 and French 1.

Whether they agree with that decision or not, the control team are required to implement it.

The procedure for appeals will now be reviewed in light of this case.

[Eoin Devane]

One issue here seems to be this clause requiring any appeal to be submitted within one hour of the arbiter's decision. Assuming that one would view the arbiter's decision as being made at the start of the game in this instance, it is this rule that did not allow the game to take place and the appeal to be submitted. If so, then it strikes me that this rule ought to be revised to, say, one hour after the completion of the game in the event that the decision is taken during a game.

[JustinHorton]

But the competition rules allow the arbiter to do this

They do, but they do not say the arbiter is obliged to do so and hence the reason for requesting a delay must of necessity be a consideration.

[Eoin Devane]

French claimed the game. On hearing that Raynor had phoned in seeking a delay the arbiter asked for play to resume. French appealed this decision.

I would have thought that both French and the arbiter should have been informed of Rayner's request as soon as he phoned it in.

[Roger de Coverly]

Will the full details of the circumstances that led to the problem, as well as the deliberations and reasoning of the Appeals Committee, be published?

We seem to be getting the following time-line

2.15 pm clocks started
2.45 pm and a bit French stops clocks and claims win
2.45 pm and a bit more Rayner arrives
(speculation) arbiter re-pairs Rayner - French (or overturns default win)
(speculation) French refuses using the Short precedent
(speculation) French defaulted or given HPB
(speculation) French appeals
Appeal committee awards Rayner HPB and French FPB
pairings for next round published
world (or ECForum at least) reacts against awarding one and half points for one game to prize contenders.

[JustinHorton]

French claimed the game. On hearing that Raynor had phoned in seeking a delay the arbiter asked for play to resume. French appealed this decision.

I would have thought that both French and the arbiter should have been informed of Rayner's request as soon as he phoned it in.

Yes. Obviously. For all sorts of reasons, the potential for avoiding the mess that actually occurred being one of them.

Incidentally, the next person who writes "appealed" instead of "appealed against", I'm sending their contact details to Lynne Truss.

[Wilf Arnold]

Someone getting 4 blacks in a row, appeals committees, errors in the website, dodgy sensory boards.

I don't know, I leave it to you guys for one year and look what happens.

I'm off for another beer.

Prost!

[Jonathan Bryant]

So, if he was not refusing to play, why did he not play, and appeal after?

I suspect the answer to this is because he had very good reason to believe that he had already won the game. If Angus had been told from the beginning that the default time would be waived it would be a different matter ... but he wasn't.

Waiving the default time is one thing (and not something I particularly would support but I'm sure there are others who disagree). Waiving the default time and not telling the other player that his opponent has been given permission to arrive late? That's something else entirely. Would you - or anybody else - agree that this is justifiable?

[JustinHorton]

Will the full details of the circumstances that led to the problem, as well as the deliberations and reasoning of the Appeals Committee, be published?

We seem to be getting the following time-line

2.15 pm clocks started
2.45 pm and a bit French stops clocks and claims win
2.45 pm and a bit more Rayner arrives
(speculation) arbiter re-pairs Rayner - French (or overturns default win)
(speculation) French refuses using the Short precedent
(speculation) French defaulted or given HPB
(speculation) French appeals
Appeal committee awards Rayner HPB and French FPB
pairings for next round published
world (or ECForum at least) reacts against awarding one and half points for one game to prize contenders.

I think the first three lots of speculation are probably wrong, but the rest seems to be as I understand it.