British Chess Championships 2010

[Liam Rabbitte]

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.

I do not normally speak on the forum, however having read the recent posts i feel i need to put the record straight. With regard to my game against Simon Warman; yes it was played. There were 2 clock malfunctions after move 39. The arbiter corrected the clock with the agreement of both players and the game continued. 3 moves after the 40th move, my opponent resigned and we shook hands on a white win and signed the scoresheet accordingly. The first i knew of the 1 -0.5 bye scenario was when I came to check the pairings for the next day. I was told my opponent had been upset at how long the arbiter took to correct the clock and this apparently had affected his concentration. I do not know why this was not brought up before shaking hands on the result. I myself was not happy as I feel I won the game fairly. On questioning the arbiter I was assured I would receive the rating points for this win.

[Roger de Coverly]

. I was told my opponent had been upset at how long the arbiter took to correct the clock and this apparently had affected his concentration.

Lots of things can affect concentration and you have to live with them. In the first round, I found the squawking seagulls distracting and I quite welcomed the "white noise" from the fans from the second round onwards.

Arbiters seem to becoming partial to this one and half points nonsense!

You might be advised to check the FIDE site after the Major Open results have been added. If they do the rating file as a download from Swiss Master, your result will have disappeared.

[Alex Holowczak]

I have a feeling that a lot of people who claim they are distracted in chess are talking absolute cobblers.

"I crashed the car because these seagulls suddenly started squawking."

They only usually complain when they have 1 minute left and need to make 15 moves, having spent most of the last 2 hours talking outside.

[Stewart Reuben]

You will have to accept from me that Simon Warman and his concentration is a very special case indeed.
I am sure Liam, that nothing has reflected ill on you, or for that matter Simon.

Stewart Reuben

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I have a feeling that a lot of people who claim they are distracted in chess are talking absolute cobblers.

"I crashed the car because these seagulls suddenly started squawking."

They only usually complain when they have 1 minute left and need to make 15 moves, having spent most of the last 2 hours talking outside.

We should invoke the shade of Fischer and start a new thread on genuine (and faux) distractions encountered in chess venues and while playing chess games. I would start the thread, but I might type too much.

[Stewart Reuben]

I remember Bob Wade commenting many years ago about players who have mental rather than physical problems and the lack of regard in society for that. Bobby Fischer was clearly one such case. A good arbiter takes into account all the problems the players in his event may have and also that possibly a person is just making an excuse.

Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

A good arbiter takes into account all the problems the players in his event may have and also that possibly a person is just making an excuse.

Stewart Reuben

That's a very slippery slope. Many of us play chess because it remains a level playing field untainted by special pleading. Once you start awarding bonus half points for various disadvantages, where will it stop?

Concessions are made (rightly) for players with disabilities. In my opinion these should never include breaking the normal scoring systems.

[E Michael White]

Problems with the clock, requiring its adjustment, should be regarded as external interruption ie. outside the control of the players and dealt with under rule 13.5, where the arbiter adds extra time to both players. Around 2 minutes each should suffice for players to regain their bearings. Perhaps Liam could say whether this was done.

Arbiters, who fail to foresee the problems and don’t deal with external distraction properly, should really be sent for retraining, as under the rules it is no one's responsibility other than the arbiter.

[Alex Holowczak]

Arbiters, who fail to foresee the problems and don’t deal with external distraction properly, should really be sent for retraining

I would argue that no extra time for an external distraction was necessary. Since the clock adjustments would have taken time, this can be used to think about the position. The players are, in effect, gaining time that way. If it takes one minute to sort this out, then both players have had this extra time already. So there's no real need for it.

[Martin Benjamin]

Two subjects:

(1) On a positive note, could I offer my thanks to all those who gave of their time to organise and run the event? It was my first British since Brighton 1977, and despite the frustration of missing out on joint first in both my events (the second rapidplay and the Week 2 PM Open) through committing late blunders in the final moments of the last round, it was a pleasure to be able to take part. My children especially enjoyed the jigsaws in the analysis room, and they even developed an unusual enthusiasm for playing chess at our holiday home this week!

(2) As for the French-Rayner and Rabbitte-Warman games, I know there has been a great deal of comment already, but I would like to state my agreement with those who are dismayed by the decisions taken. Arbiters have an unenviable task and act in good faith, but I can not think of any circumstances which justify awarding one player a win and the other a draw. Either Francis Rayner should have lost on default or should have been allowed to play half an hour down on the clock. If Angus French then refused to play in the latter case, he should be defaulted or be left to lose on time. Awarding an extra half point is self evidently unfair to the rest of those fighting for the top places, and I feel sympathy for Roger de Coverly and others. As for the other game, I don't think one can allow someone to resign and then later appeal about distraction, even for reasons which have medical evidence in support. If Simon had felt distracted, he should have made representation at the time and then perhaps (and only perhaps) he could have been granted additional thinking time. After the game, it really is too late.

In the PM Open Week 2, the final top places were affected by a death by mobile phone game in the last round. (I was playing on the next board, and I did not hear any sound from the phone, certainly not in comparison to the distraction of a permanent spectator right beside my board). There was a relatively amicable but lengthy discussion about it between the players, and eventually I broke off from my game (I was already getting short of time) to suggest they call the arbiter over - all of which affected my concentration. Can I now make a claim? Would my opponent counter that his concentration was affected too? In my view, my opponent won over the board, I shook hands and congratulated him, we analysed the game in the analysis room in friendly fashion and that should be that.

[Alex Holowczak]

(2) As for the French-Rayner and Rabbitte-Warman games, I know there has been a great deal of comment already, but I would like to state my agreement with those who are dismayed by the decisions taken. Arbiters have an unenviable task and act in good faith, but I can not think of any circumstances which justify awarding one player a win and the other a draw.

It probably wasn't the arbiter's decision. It more than likely went to an Appeals Committee. I'm not sure of the facts, but it might not necessarily be the people who were controlling your section who made the decision!

In the PM Open Week 2, the final top places were affected by a death by mobile phone game in the last round. (I was playing on the next board, and I did not hear any sound from the phone, certainly not in comparison to the distraction of a permanent spectator right beside my board). There was a relatively amicable but lengthy discussion about it between the players, and eventually I broke off from my game (I was already getting short of time) to suggest they call the arbiter over - all of which affected my concentration. Can I now make a claim? Would my opponent counter that his concentration was affected too? In my view, my opponent won over the board, I shook hands and congratulated him, we analysed the game in the analysis room in friendly fashion and that should be that.

The players should not have spoken about it at the board. If an arbiter had heard it (which I assume they didn't over the fans/seagulls), then they would have taken them to one side to not distract you. Congratulations on your sportsmanship though, and by getting on with it. If everyone started making distraction claims, the arbiters would have no chance.

[Richard Bates]

I do not normally speak on the forum, however having read the recent posts i feel i need to put the record straight. With regard to my game against Simon Warman; yes it was played. There were 2 clock malfunctions after move 39.

Just out of interest, was this actually a "malfunction" or a problem relating to the inbuilt move ticker? (or a malfunction relating to the inbuilt move ticker).

Just in order to assist those of us who don't think the inbuilt ticker should be employed! RdC has previously argued that not having digital clocks add time at move 40 (adding it instead to both clocks at moment of one reaching 0:00) is potentially confusing. Personally i can say that on a couple of occasions i was temporarily disoriented by the white clock changing on completion of white's fortieth move with black still having a move to make.

[JustinHorton]

If Angus French then refused to play in the latter case

Do you have any reason at all to suggest that he did?

[Alex Holowczak]

If Angus French then refused to play in the latter case

Do you have any reason at all to suggest that he did?

The arbiters asked him to play the game. This decision was appealed. If he had any intention of playing, there would have been no appeal, and no one would be talking about this whole saga.

[Paul Habershon]

I've just put up a blog post on yesterday's play at Canterbury, featuring an entertaining bishop endgame between Paul Byway and Paul Habershon which decided the British Senior Championship title.

http://johnchess.blogspot.com/

Yes it was not a pleasant consultation with Fritz (solidly -+ right up to Bg1??) after I misplayed this crucial ending. I totally missed the idea of checking the WK away from h4. Even worse, I deprived Ken Norman (as well as myself) of a share of the title. However, chess would not be chess without its agonies!

It was good to see some more new 'famous' names (e.g. Rumens, Cafferty) entering the British Seniors this year. Come on, Keene, Hartston, Whiteley et al. Enter and win it before you are too old.