British Chess Championships 2010

[Ian Thompson]

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?

It would also be interesting to know what led to the Round 7 game between Warman and Rabbitte not being played, but the players also receiving 1.5 points between them. Similar circumstances to the Rayner-French game, or completely different?

[Richard Bates]

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.

Will any guidance be put together on circumstances when players could expect "arbiter's discretion" to be used in applying default time penalties? The impression had been given that Rayner had sought and received assurance that the default penalty would be waived, but this post suggests that the arbiter wasn't aware of this. Or was one arbiter involved in the approval of the claim for default, with the other in the assurance that the default wouldn't be applied?

I have far more sympathy with arbiter's discretion being applied if the opponent is kept fully informed. A situation where it is applied after the player believes they are due a win is far less so. The further implication is that I assume the original arbiter's decision was informed by Rayner being basically at the board at the moment of default. What would have been the decision if he had been, say, five minutes later and French had quit the venue??

[JustinHorton]

There are at least three important things about which I'm very unclear.

a. Who took the call from Francis Rayner?
b. What specifically did they tell him and on what basis?
c. Why did they not then immediately contact Angus French?

[TomChivers]

The problem stems from arbiters having this discretionary power in the first place. The precedent set yesterday and upheld by the Appeals Committee puts all arbiters at the British now in the position of having to allow the default time of 30 minutes to be extended if a player reports problems with a cash-point machine. If arbiters are to be allowed this discretion, it should be specified what it is for (e.g., extreme cases, such as transport problems affecting a significant number of the participants.) But even simpler - don't allow it in the first place. It puts arbiters in an unpleasant position of having to upset at least one player in any such case. Who wants power like that?

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

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

I hope the views of other players would be considered that awarding a point and a half to players in contention for prize money and British championship places is one of the worst options. Starting at 5 pm and using the morning move rate or using the normal rate with a potential adjournment at late-o-clock would have been better.

[Alex Holowczak]

There are at least three important things about which I'm very unclear.

a. Who took the call from Francis Rayner?
b. What specifically did they tell him and on what basis?
c. Why did they not then immediately contact Angus French?

One other fact remains unknown: What was Rayner's reason for lateness?

[Richard Bates]

The problem stems from arbiters having this discretionary power in the first place. The precedent set yesterday and upheld by the Appeals Committee puts all arbiters at the British now in the position of having to allow the default time of 30 minutes to be extended if a player reports problems with a cash-point machine. If arbiters are to be allowed this discretion, it should be specified what it is for (e.g., extreme cases, such as transport problems affecting a significant number of the participants.) But even simpler - don't allow it in the first place. It puts arbiters in an unpleasant position of having to upset at least one player in any such case. Who wants power like that?

Get rid of default times. That'll do it Flag falls, game over.

[JustinHorton]

There are at least three important things about which I'm very unclear.

a. Who took the call from Francis Rayner?
b. What specifically did they tell him and on what basis?
c. Why did they not then immediately contact Angus French?

One other fact remains unknown: What was Rayner's reason for lateness?

I believe he missed his train because a cashpoint wasn't working.

[JustinHorton]

Flag falls, game over.

Flag? Flag?

[Richard Bates]

Flag falls, game over.

Flag? Flag?

When the clock reaches 6o'clock

[TomChivers]

Out of curiosity: had those commenting on this thread been on the Appeals Committee, what would they have argued there?

[Roger de Coverly]

Out of curiosity: had those commenting on this thread been on the Appeals Committee, what would they have argued there?

I would have said in the interests of other competitors that awarding one and a half points was the worse solution (assuming you accepted that the game should have been played). Even at 5pm a 4 hour session would have been possible or else a potential adjournment. I would have been open to persuasion that delaying the pairings was also potentially unfair on the other participants.

[Eoin Devane]

Out of curiosity: had those commenting on this thread been on the Appeals Committee, what would they have argued there?

I think we need more information, for example what exactly was Rayner told on the phone, and by whom was he told that? Did said individual tell him that he would not be defaulted, or that he would try to ensure that he wasn't defaulted? And did this individual have the authority to make such assurances?

But instinctively I agree with Roger that awarding a total of 1 1/2 points for one game to players in contention for prizes is not a great resolution, as it seems unfair to a sizeable number of players.

[Ian Kingston]

Out of curiosity: had those commenting on this thread been on the Appeals Committee, what would they have argued there?

I have no idea. Despite dozens of comments we do not yet know the facts of the situation.

[Peter Shaw]

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?

It would also be interesting to know what led to the Round 7 game between Warman and Rabbitte not being played, but the players also receiving 1.5 points between them. Similar circumstances to the Rayner-French game, or completely different?

Completely different as that game was played. I think there was some kind of clock malfunction round about move 40. The game was continued after the clock had been corrected, Rabbitte had a probably winning position at this point. I would be interested in knowing the full story.