Default Times

[Roger de Coverly]

The final Laws of Chess have yet to be signed off. This will be done by the Presidential Board next year. Most of the changes provide no problems.

The above is Stewart's comment on the ECF website.

What are the other changes? In particular, are we still allowed to offer and agree draws totally at the players' discretion?

[Sean Hewitt]

What are the other changes?

The only other change I am aware of (although I am sure there are other changes) is to the rating system :-

The ratings will go down to 1200.

Half point will be sufficient to get a part rating, provided it is 1200 or above.

At the end of the event, if an unrated player gets a partial rating, that will then be used to rate his games against rated players.

A new rating list will be published every two months.

k=30 for all players until they reach 2400, and k=20 thereafter.

[Tim Spanton]

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.

I'd like to know which events inside the UK you've attended recently where the first round started on time ...

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd like to know which events inside the UK you've attended recently where the first round started on time ...

Of six UK congresses this calendar year (Kidlington, Barnet, Sutton Easter, Twyford (Bucks/Berks), Liverpool EU and Torquay), all have started on time or within a handful of minutes to allow for controller's announcements. It's the non-UK tournaments where the arbiters are still trying to establish who is in the tournament at the start time

[Tim Spanton]

I'd like to know which events inside the UK you've attended recently where the first round started on time ...

Of six UK congresses this calendar year (Kidlington, Barnet, Sutton Easter, Twyford (Bucks/Berks), Liverpool EU and Torquay), all have started on time or within a handful of minutes to allow for controller's announcements. It's the non-UK tournaments where the arbiters are still trying to establish who is in the tournament at the start time

We clearly go to different congresses. My "UK" ones this year have been Hastings, Paignton and Guernsey (yes, I know Guernsey isn't part of the UK), and I can't remember any of those starting on time in the first round. Then again I also played at Bad Woerishofen, Gausdal, Oberjoch, Luzern and Benidorm, and none of those started on time either. Perhaps it's a not a relaistic expectation in round one ...

[Greg Breed]

I thought Guernsey and Jersey were both part of the UK...

[Sean Hewitt]

I thought Guernsey and Jersey were both part of the UK...

Oh dear - If you were on QI right now then the bells would all be going off, and you would score minus lots of points!!

[Ben Purton]

Bit like old Jonathan Creek he loves the bells!!!

[Stewart Reuben]

The ECF Board has not been asked to provide a concerted view on the subject of default time. I just assumed my views would express everybody's. I did discuss it with our FIDE Delegate, Gerry Walsh. Nothing in this thread has caused me to think other than that zero time with no organiser or arbiter discretion is unacceptable.

The draft Laws of Chess. Rating Regulations and Title Regulations have all yet to be publicised. This is because they all seem subject to change. There would be a real risk of people thinking they had the final version and this not be so at all. I have had correspondence with the French about this, they need to translate the Laws asap.

Sean gave a summary of the rating changes which he got from me. Those changes are not under threat of change. But the USCF dislikes them.

Are we still allowed to offer and agree draws totally at the players' discretion? This was a query. The following Law will apply, unless amended by the PB. I think the only Law under threat of change is the default time one.

Article 9: The drawn game

9.1 a. The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw in less than a specified
number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.

b. If the rules of a competition allow a draw agreement the following apply:

1 A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and
before stopping his clock and starting the opponent's clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid, but Article 12.6 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.
2. The offer of a draw shall be noted by each player on his scoresheet with a symbol (See Appendix E13).
3. A claim of a draw under 9.2, 9.3 or 10.2 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw.

You will note that needing to have such a Law as 9.1a indicates clearly that the Olympiad was not played according to the Laws of Chess.

In my experience English events are started on time much better than foreign events. You have to put aside the first round where all over the world speeches are often made. The proposed default time of zero is not from the scheduled start of the round, but from the actual start. I would forfeit all arbiters who had such a zero forfeit rule and then did not start at the scheduled time.

The reasoning is because they want precise pairings. We prefer to fudge and re-pair (if necessary with clean socks) if one player does not show up. Thus in 1964 in Washington DC the first round was scheduled to start at 8pm. The pairings had been made but then two people withdrew. They announced that they were going to do the draw again. Play started at 10pm and finished at 2am. Nobody seemed to think this strange. In England we would simply have put the two players, now without an opponent, together and got play under way.
I was Chief Arbiter in Rumania this year. The first round started one hour late because of not knowing who the entrants were. I was furious. Nobody else seemed concerned. Even then they still had incorrect pairings. Two people ended up with win byes. That made me even more furious. The organiser told me the pairings are now going to be done the night before and fit the latecomers in as best they can.

Stewart Reuben

[Matthew Turner]

If I understand correctly, the changes to ratings seem quite significant. I can play 100 players graded at 1201, that's 75 ECF in old money and if I win them all I get rewarded with a 2700 plus rating - welcome to an inflationary bubble.
Having said that the rating changes probably make sense because greater flexibility (increasing the K-factor) will be required as the rating range becomes stretched. Still it will be interesting.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I can just see this. FIDE will say "hmmm, Millfield School seem to have a large number of FIDE-rated internal tournaments. I wonder what that is about."

[Matthew Turner]

FIDE are more likely to say more fees - excellent

[Stewart Reuben]

And all those people who have to join the ECF. Yummy.
Would it not be quicker to pop over to Myanmar where they have a lot of people overrated by 400 points? But you will have to do it by the end of the year. FIDE are partially plugging that hole in 2009.

But this is silly. Matthew is good enough to beat 1400 players who, until the July count as just 350 points below him, that is about 2150. He would gain 1 point for each such game as k=10. Next year in July it becomes about 1.6 points as k=20. If he played two games a day for 60 days, he gains 192 points.
The real question is, how much will he be prepared to bribe me and the ECF Rating Officer?

There is a Russian 2600 FM. He is just rather good at always winning against very low rated opponents. His motives are unclear. Of course he cannot afford to play in a title tournament. He hugs his rating to himself rather like a miser.

I first learnt about this method of inflating your rating in New York in 1963. The late Karl Burger would travel to weekend tournaments, pay the entry fee and withdraw after the first round. He wanted to get from 2395 to 2400. Then he drew one. That knocked him back 15 points.

No Rating or grading System works properly if there isn't a proper spread of opponents. That is why Kasparov's Rating was somewhat suspect.

Stewart Reuben

[IM Jack Rudd]

And all those people who have to join the ECF.

They'll claim the school as their address and get a family membership.

[Matthew Turner]

I am slightly confused by something Stewart has said. Surely if I beat a 1400 I gain 1 point with a K-factor of 10. If my K-factor goes up to 20, then surely I would gain 2, where did a figure of 1.6 come from?
People seem to be taking me very literally on my desire to reach 2700, I am really making the point that ratings will change quite rapidly and will go up. I'm glad Stewart thinks I will be able to beat most 1400's, but so would a 2000. They will now gain 2 points a pop for doing so and these points will 'trickle up' throughout the ratings system