Default Times

[John Saunders]

Personally, I'm in the School of Draco on that issue.

School of Draco? Slytherin, you mean? I've always seen you as more of a Gryffindor man.

And, before anyone upbraids me, yes, I know, he didn't mean that Draco...

[Roger de Coverly]

Stewart Reuben comments at

http://www.bcf.org.uk/national/index.html

What should the ECF do?

[Stewart Reuben]

Concerning the proposal by the President of FIDE that the default time should be zero time without any exceptions. The FIDE Rules Committee that it be zero time with exceptions allowed (I voted against this). The more sensible, what I think is Makro's view, that it be 15 minutes allowing exceptions. Much of the debate here has been good, but the following have been overlooked.
Zero time is totally unworkable for a big event with few arbiters. The arbiters would not be able to see what really happened.
The FIDE Laws will come into effect 1 July 2009. Patently publicity will be less than perfect. Thus people and arbiters will arrive at an event, some knowing the default time is zero and some knowing no such thing. A total disaster.
Personally I believe one hour it too long. I would prefer 30 minutes, but can accept 15 minutes.
It is preferable for English non-FIDE Rated events to play according to the FIDE Laws, as this leads to less confusion.
But don't just post your views here. Send them, in your own words to [email protected] also [email protected]. David Jarrett is even better, you will have to find his address on the FIDE site.

In my opinion, if the President gets his way, there will be a reduction in FIDE Rated chess by 10-20%. There was applause when he made his speech about this matter at the General Assembly. It was over too quickly to observe whether it was by sychophants.
A questionnaire was issued to the players at the Olympiad. That was a first. But all it gave were the options of zero or 15 minutes, without any other.
28 games, about 0.5%, were defaulted in this way. That was at a well-run event with more than adequate publicity and captains around to get their players there on time.
Stewart Reuben

[Richard Bates]

Concerning the proposal by the President of FIDE that the default time should be zero time without any exceptions. The FIDE Rules Committee that it be zero time with exceptions allowed (I voted against this). The more sensible, what I think is Makro's view, that it be 15 minutes allowing exceptions. Much of the debate here has been good, but the following have been overlooked.
Zero time is totally unworkable for a big event with few arbiters. The arbiters would not be able to see what really happened.
The FIDE Laws will come into effect 1 July 2009. Patently publicity will be less than perfect. Thus people and arbiters will arrive at an event, some knowing the default time is zero and some knowing no such thing. A total disaster.
Personally I believe one hour it too long. I would prefer 30 minutes, but can accept 15 minutes.
It is preferable for English non-FIDE Rated events to play according to the FIDE Laws, as this leads to less confusion.
But don't just post your views here. Send them, in your own words to [email protected] also [email protected]. David Jarrett is even better, you will have to find his address on the FIDE site.

In my opinion, if the President gets his way, there will be a reduction in FIDE Rated chess by 10-20%. There was applause when he made his speech about this matter at the General Assembly. It was over too quickly to observe whether it was by sychophants.
A questionnaire was issued to the players at the Olympiad. That was a first. But all it gave were the options of zero or 15 minutes, without any other.
28 games, about 0.5%, were defaulted in this way. That was at a well-run event with more than adequate publicity and captains around to get their players there on time.
Stewart Reuben

I see no reason why the default times should be changed at all. Why is 15 (or 30) minutes preferable to one hour? A player who arrives late suffers from having less time. Why is there any need for any further penalty? (I accept that there may be a case if one is intending to initiate repairing, but that is a side issue). The Kirsan proposal is motivated by ensuring that players are there for the start (presumably for sponsorship reasons, or whatever). Although a totally ludicrous proposal, which is bound to ultimately be revoked when exposed as such, at least there is an underlying motive to it. Any other proposals to shorten the default time seem to have IMO no signicantly justifiable motives behind them at all.

[David Robertson]

I accept that there may be a case if one is intending to initiate repairing

I fail to see what darning socks has to do with the matter

David
Atticus CC

[James Coleman]

How would it work if the person who wins by default doesn't wish to accept the win? Let's say they are going for a norm and they cant afford a default win or perhaps they just want to play the game. What happens then ?

I think it's a terrible idea all round. If you are doing any kind of commuting to the venue you would have to ensure you arrive much too early just to be on the safe side.

[Stewart Reuben]

There is a considerable groundswell favouring reducing the default time from one hour. One hour was introduced because Capa tuned up very, very late against Rubinstein and then beat him. You can write and say don't changed the current one hour Law, if that is your preference. But it will not be the FIDE Law come 1 July.
Can you imagine any spectator sport where a leeway of one hour is allowed? Chess is now such a sport at quite a low level due to the fact that games can be seen on the the Internet all over the world.

In the Olympiad Bill Hook had won 3 games on forfeit. His last round opponent sat down to play at 3pm, the scheduled time. They shook hands. Play did not start on play (why the arbiters were not forfeited I have no idea). Bill's opponent went off to the toilet. He came back to find himself defaulted.
Bill begged to be allowed to play the game. It was on board one for a very low placed team. This was refused. Why Bill did not appeal, I don't know. Ridiculous and also disgusting.
But that is what Ilyumzhinov wants. Being President and often supporting FIDE from his own pocket, he is in a strong position. Write in with your own reasoned comments.

I am dismayed that there is a growing movement to get more an more games decided by forfeit.

David R. Clearly wearing smelly socks is an excellent reason for defaulting somebody.

Stewart Reuben

[Richard Bates]

There is a considerable groundswell favouring reducing the default time from one hour. One hour was introduced because Capa tuned up very, very late against Rubinstein and then beat him. You can write and say don't changed the current one hour Law, if that is your preference. But it will not be the FIDE Law come 1 July.
Can you imagine any spectator sport where a leeway of one hour is allowed? Chess is now such a sport at quite a low level due to the fact that games can be seen on the the Internet all over the world.

Stewart Reuben

Much as i dislike people making (often false) comparisons with other sports to justify positions (laws for chess should be designed by what is good for chess) the answer to this is easy. I can think of many, many sports who would allow such leeway. And far from being a "spectator sport" issue, i would expect that such rules are least likely to be found in sports where the spectator is paramount. Where such leeway isn't allowed, it is far more likely to be on the grounds of administrative convenience or impossibility eg. in individual sports where there is a necessity for everyone to start at the same time. Athletics being an obvious example.

Can you imagine Arsenal against Manchester United being cancelled with Arsenal being declared the winners because Manchester United are held up for an hour on the M1? There would be a riot!

Why would any spectator prefer to have no game to watch, rather than a game that starts late?

Suggesting that significantly "late starts" are a serious barrier to chess as a spectator sport just seems to me to be a claim that doesn't stand up to any close scrutiny.

For a start such late starts are always an exception rather than a rule - strangely enough most players do actually take the view that their chances of victory are reduced by having significantly less than their full allocation of time to play their moves - so in any tournament spectators will have several games to watch whilst one or two games await their first move. And such a scenario occurring in a World Championship match, for example, would just make FIDE a laughing stock to the outside world.

Secondly the logic of the "must shorten default times for the spectators" argument leads to an argument that spectators are inconvenienced by any length of time without moves. What next? Limits on how players use their allocated time? Maximum of 15 minutes for any one move? And of course, ultimately, all chess to be quickplay chess. The traditional 7 hr session to be replaced with mini matches of 4 quickplay games.

There is probably a small body of player opinion which supports shorter default times because they feel insulted, and often unable to cope psychologically, by people turning up late for games. Maybe people who advocate that a player turning up 20 minutes late for a quickplay game creates a disadvantage for the opponent. (in fact your comment, Stewart, about the original introduction of the one hour rule suggests that this is an old argument). I personally think it's pretty silly (and any rules to combat it are easily evaded - eg. play one move and disappear for 45 minutes). If somebody wants to give me an advantage on the clock then let them.

In fact the only reason for FIDE getting involved in the issue of default times at all is for consistency so everybody knows where they stand without having to consult the specific playing conditions of the tournament in advance. It has no bearing on the laws of the conduct of a game of chess itself so I would argue that, other from the point about consistency, should probably be beyond its jurisdiction. (There may have been an argument based on the FIDE rating system being mildly corrupted by the inclusion of games where one player has no time - with one hour being logical as the minimum period for qualification as a rated game - but this is rendered redundant by the introduction, for example, of the mobile phone regulations). Local organisers are best placed to determine what best suits the interests of their players and any spectators that they may attract, but it is probably a fairly strong argument that interests are equally best served by default rules being the same everywhere. Which is why it would be unsurprising if efforts to incorporate "local discretion" into the Kirsan laws to mitigate the effects fail.

Finally why are organisers everywhere conspiring to prevent me from playing chess??? Why should i have to pay good money to play in tournaments only to be forced into claiming victories against my wishes? Is there no way that large national federations can hold proportionate sway within an International organisation, and player interests be properly represented?

[Richard Bates]

Oh and there is another good reason for 1hr default time...

British Summer time.

[JustinHorton]

I personally hate lateness, I consider it discourteous in almost all situations, but I wasn't really joking above about there being practically no chess at all in Spain if the default time was zero.

I thought there was a collection of good arguments in Richard's long post above, and he's certainly right about other sports accepting late starts. Not all, though - I'm pretty sure there would be defaults for cyclists, for instance, who don't start on time, or skiers. It's worth considering different sports to see how their differing circumstances cause them to develop differing rules - but then to reflect that chess has its own individual circumstances which should dictate what we do.

It's fair also to say though that what would happen in professional sport is that teams and individuals would expect to be fined, perhaps heavily, for late arrival, even if it wasn't deemed to be entirely their fault. But I can't think of any examples of whole fixtures being called off due to late arrivaql - the point being that if a cyclist or skier fails to show, the event itself continues essentially unaffected.

To me, this is an example of bad decision-making: something being proposed almost out of the blue and then inadequately discussed. Decisions taken too quickly with inadequate consulation and inadequate information are nearly always reversed, but by that time condfidence in the people taking the decisions is lower (if that be possible) than it was before.

[Sean Hewitt]

In football, the default time is actually half an hour after kick off. At that time everyone goes home and the team that was there usually gets the win, unless the opponents have made contact and informed the opponents / referee of the situation (ala Man Utd stuck on the M1). In that situation the kick off can be delayed if practicable - at local level you have to consider light etc, at higher levels the police may not allow a delayed kick off of more than an hour for crowd safety reasons.

However, hardly any football matches ever kick off late as teams have to be present at the ground one hour before kick off. This is to ensure that we dont have late kick offs, and at this time the teamsheet of who is playing must be handed to the ref and the opposition. So for kick off to be delayed, teams have to be very late indeed! If a team does arrive less than an hour before kick off they face a pretty hefty financial fine!!

The reason I mention this it that football does not have a problem with late starts - it happens very rarely and then usually for very understandable reasons. Chess does have a problem with late starts - its very common, the reason is usually simple discourtesy, and its unfair that the innocent player has to hang around for up to an hour hoping that his opponent might turn up. There needs to be a rule to discourage lateness.

However, forfeiting the late player is a crass over-reaction. Reducing the default time alone does not encourage promptness. I would therefore suggest a default time of half an hour with the late player, rather than simply losing the time elapsed from his alloted time, penalised the full 30 minutes instead whether he is 5 minutes or 25 minutes late. That encourages players to be on time whilst making an allowance for genuine lateness, it's not overly draconian, and it is fair to the innocent player.

Discuss!

[Roger de Coverly]

Can you imagine any spectator sport where a leeway of one hour is allowed? Chess is now such a sport at quite a low level due to the fact that games can be seen on the the Internet all over the world.

The average league or congress game attracts no more than a couple of people watching in real time and is not covered on the internet. I don't therefore think it qualifies as a spectator sport. Playing amateur chess is a leisure activity, travelling for an hour to win or lose by default is not.

I would expect that most domestic leagues and congresses will ignore the FIDE default rule. If they enforce it, they are at risk of not having any participants.

Do the ECF directors have an agreed view on this issue? It would be rational to introduce guidelines for domestic competitions which restored partly or wholly the existing rules. What is the likely position for next year's British? There are a number of factors that players use to decide whether to enter congresses and conditions of play is one of them.

Particularly in the first round, it has been my experience that events outside the UK rarely start at the published time. Is it likely that event organisers will simply postpone the start of play until all participants are present? Ironically this removes the existing penalty for a late arrival.

[Roger de Coverly]

However, hardly any football matches ever kick off late as teams have to be present at the ground one hour before kick off.

Does this apply even at the level of the local pub team? So if they kick off at 11.30 am in the Sunday morning park league, do they have to be present by 10.30 am? I draw this analogy because in the wider sporting context, the importance of most amateur chess play is about the same as park football or a pub evening darts league. In other words, a leisure or social activity but with competition rules.

I would therefore suggest a default time of half an hour with the late player, rather than simply losing the time elapsed from his alloted time, penalised the full 30 minutes instead whether he is 5 minutes or 25 minutes late.

You might want to modify this to say that if you had indicated your presence, say by filling in the scoresheet, that you were free to wander off as during the game. Also allow a couple of minutes, particularly at big events for players to locate their boards in a crowded room.

There again if you are going to be penalised for 30 minutes for a 5 minute late start, then you might as well use the 25 minutes for something else and keep your opponent waiting.

[Sean Hewitt]

Hi Roger,

At local parks (pub team) level the usual time to be present is either 30 mins or 15 mins before kick off (as decided by the competition). In the Sunday morning league I am involved with KO is 10.30am and if you kick off late you are fined £10 + £1 per minute. We dont get many late kick offs! We dont have many spectators either, so I guess this is to ensure that the innocent team, there on time and ready to go have as short a wait to play as possible.

As to your suggestions - its the principle rather than the detail I was trying to get over so I dont really have a problem with how it might get formulated. In my opinion players should be perfectly free to wander around once the game has started (as now) but need to be at the board at the start. I dont think its acceptable to put a pen on your board before play starts and then bugger off for 15 minutes to be honest. We had an incident at our Leicester Congress this year where effectively both players did this. After 25 minutes, a third player turned up at the board and we discovered that the two playing each other not only should not have been, but that they were actually playing in different sections of the event! This would have been less likely to have happened had both been present at the start, shook hands and exchanged names!!

I'm not sure about the need to give a couple of minutes leeway to be honest. If 22 hungover footballers can find pitch number 18 on Victoria Park on a Sunday morning and still kick off on time, why can't chess players be at the venue in time to find their board in the playing hall?! In practice though, a player would have the time it takes the arbiter to discover he is missing to find his board although I did like the earlier suggestion of scheduling the round to start at 10.05 instead of 10.00 which may have the same practical effect.

You point about petulent chess players "making their opponent wait" is very valid, although it's indicitive of the problem. I had thought initially when posting of suggesting a penalty of 30 minutes plus time elapsed for this very reason but thought it too severe. Perhaps 15 minutes penalty plus time elapsed would still incentivise players to be on time, whilst not being over the top?

[Roger de Coverly]

In the Sunday morning league I am involved with KO is 10.30am and if you kick off late you are fined £10 + £1 per minute.

Presumably if one team had 11 players and the other 9 ( but the other 2 still getting their kit on) , you would kick off regardless and the team with late arrivals would be forced to play for a few minutes with men off the pitch.

This is usually how evening chess leagues operate, the match is started when the majority of both teams are present but latecomers take their places with a time penalty.