Away player excluded

[John Curtis]

In Bristol we are friendly with other teams, have a chat before the game, and a pint afterwards. Are we doing something wrong?

[Paul McKeown]

I wanted to hear your views the generalities of this incident rather than offering a guessing game to name individuals and clubs.

I suppose trying to be vague would have generated no interest so it was somewhat naïve of me to expect otherwise for which I apologise.

John,

With all the will in the world, I cannot see any use in ventilating the latest petty row - based on people simply not rubbing along - between two parts of what were once the same chess club. My suggestion that the team captains be banned until the end of the season if there should be any repetition was serious. I doubt there would be any further conduct unbecoming.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Righto. Must have been Matt Ward then.

If that is the same Matt Ward who graced this forum a year or so back then my sympathies have suddenly swayed towards the home player who booted him out of the venue.

[Paul McKeown]

If that is the same Matt Ward who graced this forum a year or so back then my sympathies have suddenly swayed towards the home player who booted him out of the venue.

I agree with the sentiment, but aren't people allowed to grow up, too?

[Roger de Coverly]

In Bristol we are friendly with other teams, have a chat before the game, and a pint afterwards. Are we doing something wrong?

In general exactly the same applies in the Berks League. There is however a long running feud between two individuals who used to be part of the same club, both of whom get offended when someone changes from one club to the other. Most of the players and other team captains don't seem too bothered. Certainly the rest of the league don't want to be involved. If we started banning players or captains, we would end up with something like Surrey's relationship with CCF.

[Gavin Strachan]

In the Essex League each club has a cage for settling disputes.

[Paul McKeown]

In Bristol we are friendly with other teams, have a chat before the game, and a pint afterwards. Are we doing something wrong?

In general exactly the same applies in the Berks League. There is however a long running feud between two individuals who used to be part of the same club, both of whom get offended when someone changes from one club to the other. Most of the players and other team captains don't seem too bothered. Certainly the rest of the league don't want to be involved. If we started banning players or captains, we would end up with something like Surrey's relationship with CCF.

Roger,

I admire your restraint, but do you actually expect this seven year long civil war to end before the antagonists are buried with stakes through their hearts?

Staines used to play in the Border League, and it was always a pleasure with strong players, good conditions and only gentlemanly conduct expected (oh, there was one elderly pillar of the community who narked me somewhat once when he demanded a quick play finish at Staines having earlier in the season demanded an adjournment at Hurricane-upon-Hampshire, adjournments that season being played at the home venue; apart from that ). I have been asked on several occasions if Staines would like to rejoin the league, or if I personally would like to play for one of the Border League teams. I feel myself prevented from responding in the affirmative, as the atmosphere in the league is now rather corrosive, according to reports.

[Alex Holowczak]

"I agree with Geoff, this is far from anonymous to those with a little time on their hands. As the League Controller in an adjacent county I would initially award the match 6:0 to the visitors as the spirit of chess has been breached without due reason, being given. I would also consider a fine broadly equivalent to the travel expenses incurred by the player refused access to play. I would then find against the visiting club if any of their officers had sought to encourage the discussion of an internal league matter on a public forum, prior to the exhaustion of due process within league rules , probably leaving us with a match scored as a double default. It would irritate me intensely if my decision making were subject to debate before I had even been invited to make a ruling."

I largely agree. If we have been given an accurate description of events and all available information, I would also want all the visitors compensated for travelling expenses and seek a ban from the league for the Home Secretary, (by which I mean the Secretary of the Home Club!)

I agree with the above.

[Malcolm Clarke]

Although I believe this issue has already been discussed at length, but I remember nearly 20 years ago the Southampton Chess League had a case of a player being required to play an away match at a venue, which the owners of the premises had banned him from attending for a whole year.

As league secretary I was able to agree a solution with the owners, but these problems are not easy to resolve, and I sympathise with those who get caught up in the crossfire.

[Roger de Coverly]

which the owners of the premises had banned him from attending for a whole year.

As league secretary I was able to agree a solution with the owners, but these problems are not easy to resolve, and I sympathise with those who get caught up in the crossfire.

The issue in the Berks League isn't down to the venue. If it was, you could justify the ban and try to find a work around.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

This has reminded me of several situations that have occurred in the leagues I play in. I sometimes consider posting about these situations here, with the details anonymised, but then I think better of it (the point about going public before a dispute is fully settled is well made). I think I may make a little list and mention them after an embargo of about a year. These are situations like:

(i) Clock stops working but neither player notices until it is realised that there is not enough time left to reach the time control before the venue has to be vacated. Eventually a move is sealed early at a mutually agreed point.

(ii) Player A thinks he has won the game and tells his captain and leaves. His opponent (player B) waits until player A's flag has fallen and claims a win. It's a bit more complicated than this, but I swear I'm not making this one up.

(iii) A recent match at Staines... (actually, better not tell that story!)

EDIT: The last example above (which I shouldn't really have used and have apologised to the player concerned) was actually resolved on the night. It was one of many examples (that Staines match was merely the one I had in mind) where things are resolved but where it would be nice to be able to discuss it in abstract terms.

[Roger de Coverly]

(ii) Player A thinks he has won the game and tells his captain and leaves. His opponent (player B) waits until player A's flag has fallen and claims a win. It's a bit more complicated than this, but I swear I'm not making this one up.

I've seen suggestions that it's a trick sometimes used in tournaments in the USA.

If you ever had a club or player indulging in such tactics, you would hope their name would be mud to the rest of the league. You might also have to insist on applying a 4NCL convention in matches involving them, namely that the clocks are stopped, the pieces reset and one or both kings placed in the centre of the board to indicate the result.

[Jonathan Bryant]

(ii) Player A thinks he has won the game and tells his captain and leaves. His opponent (player B) waits until player A's flag has fallen and claims a win. It's a bit more complicated than this, but I swear I'm not making this one up.

I suspect this might be more common than you think.

I once played an opponent who blundered a piece after about eight moves and five minutes' play. He didn't resign, didn't stop the clocks, didn't say anything. Just stood up and walked out of the building.

I can't remember how I resolved this issue - because of course if I left he could return and carry on after another 85 minutes under the rules - but I left shortly afterwards myself. I think I had a word with their captain.

[Roger de Coverly]

I can't remember how I resolved this issue - because of course if I left he could return and carry on after another 85 minutes under the rules - but I left shortly afterwards myself. I think I had a word with their captain.

I don't think I've ever seen it happen with 85 minutes remaining, 5 perhaps. You would want the opposition captain to agree the result as being that their player had resigned. If he or the club had a bad reputation, having it signed in blood would be a precaution.

But all this comes under the heading of unsporting conduct.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I don't think I've ever seen it happen with 85 minutes remaining, 5 perhaps. You would want the opposition captain to agree the result as being that their player had resigned. If he or the club had a bad reputation, having it signed in blood would be a precaution.

But all this comes under the heading of unsporting conduct.

Just to be clear, it was 85 minutes of *his* time remaining. 2 hours 55 minutes of session time remaining. We had played 5 minutes in total.

I agree with your last point, of course.


Game was as follows:-


[Event "London League"] [Date "Many moons ago"] [White "JMGB"] [Black "A. Total-Cock"] [Result "1-0"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 a6 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. Nxe5 Qd4 7. Nf3 Bg4 8. Nxd4 *