THE MYSTERY OF THE BLACKPOOL MINOR

[John McKenna]

Don't forget that other small minority who withdraw due to their performance. Some fear that more losses/draws in an event they are doing badly in will damage their rating/grade. Others, admittedly in very rare cases, decide that they will be unable to continue an exceptional run in an event so they withdraw to get maximum benefit for their FIDE/ECF quotient.
Finally, there was a player, maybe not the only one, who withdrew after just 1 or 2 rounds, and on occasion before the first round! What's that about?

[Andrew Zigmond]

My earlier comment was rather poorly worded - of course there are other reasons for people withdrawing such as health, other commitments or forecast bad weather. My point was that there are people in lower sections who enter with more than one eye on the prize fund; I have noticed the same names withdrawing after three rounds in various congresses. I'm not condemning it (it's not as if they get two fifths of their entry fee refunded) and I myself took a half point bye in the fourth round at York rather than fork out forty quid for a taxi (sensibly I think).

The debate earlier was whether prize money in lower sections was too little (Andrew Farthing's complainant) and too much (the suggestion that there shouldn't be any at all). I think the answer is it should be as much as possible but nobody should reasonably expect to make a profit out of it.

[Stewart Reuben]

In the Evening Standard London Chess Congresses of the late 1970s there were about 1100 entrants. We used to rely on about 100 no shows by the end of round 4 each year in order to fit everybody in. No shows could have been withdrawals, people very properly announcing their withdrawal, people simply not showing up, etc.
I will ask Bill Goichberg in the US about no-shows for his events. There they have high prize money for weaker players.
Gibraltar, Hastings, the British there are very few no shows as the players have committed themselves to a long event.

[Roger de Coverly]

This dispute seems to have rumbled on and escalated.

According to http://www.joeschesscorner.com/

BREAKING NEWS !!! .... JUDGE FINDS IN FAVOUR OF STEVEN MELIA.....

IN HIS QUEST TO BE PAID FOR WINNING THE MINOR SECTION AT BLACKPOOL CHESS CONGRESS 2012

More to follow later.......

A brief recap - A player with a grade from ten years ago of 135 is allowed to enter an Under 115 event and wins it with 100%.

[Sean Hewitt]

This dispute seems to have rumbled on and escalated.

According to http://www.joeschesscorner.com/

BREAKING NEWS !!! .... JUDGE FINDS IN FAVOUR OF STEVEN MELIA.....

IN HIS QUEST TO BE PAID FOR WINNING THE MINOR SECTION AT BLACKPOOL CHESS CONGRESS 2012

More to follow later.......

A brief recap - A player with a grade from ten years ago of 135 is allowed to enter an Under 115 event and wins it with 100%.

Whose current [unpublished] ECF grade is 172.

[Roger de Coverly]

Whose current [unpublished] ECF grade is 172.

The estimation process can be suspect for a player who scores 100%.

In this case the performance was against players 102, 98, 112,120 and 124, so average opposition of 111. Adding 5*50 for all the wins boosts it to 161. Whether adding another 11 points, presumably triggered by the 40 point rule is justified, is another question. His opponents have been awarded 161, so I'm not sure where 172 comes from.

[Joe Dilworth]

BREAKING NEWS !!! .... JUDGE FINDS IN FAVOUR OF STEVEN MELIA.....

IN HIS QUEST TO BE PAID FOR WINNING THE MINOR SECTION AT BLACKPOOL CHESS CONGRESS 2012
More to follow later.......

it's a pity it had to go to court really !! ......

But the justice system heard the 2hr case in front of them.... and found in Favour of Steven Melia... WINNER OF THE MINOR SECTION......

he like many others entered in to a contract when submitting the entry form.... he informed the event contoller of his situation regarding his previous grade...and the lack of graded games over a number of years... and there decision was to put him in the minor section... and reveiw him after 3 games played..... which was done.... Steven went on to win the section over that weekend.... only to be told later after the prize giving he wouldn't be paid out..... the judge listen to the case and found in favour of steven melia who as now received his cheque plus cost... from Lancashire chess association

[Andrew Camp]

[David Gilbert]

More Enid Blyton than Agatha Christie.........

Turns out it was a case for Horace Rumpole with Uncle Tom conducting the defence.

[JustinHorton]

Unhepfully I can't trace the details but a couple of years ago there was a big internatioal open in, I think, Benidorm, in which one of the women competitors was suspected of playing under a false identity. (This was not the case nor the individual that attracted the ire of Mr Giddins.) If I remember rightly, which I don't guarantee, no action was taken until after the tournament had finished, at which point the prize money she had won was withheld.

I do recall saying, at the time, that I thought this was very iffy, and that if somebody had mananged to play through the whole tournament without the organisers finding reason to disqualify them, then I could see no good grounds for withholding any prizes.

I don't know if the same thought motivated the judge in this case, but it as least possible.

[Roger de Coverly]

Turns out it was a case for Horace Rumpole with Uncle Tom conducting the defence.

If the facts are as stated, I don't really see why Lancs contested the issue. Provided the previous grades were disclosed, it was up to the person taking entries to decide eligibility. If also they didn't have a rule that ungraded players couldn't win first or second prize, once the tournament had started, the ungraded player is on the same footing as everyone else. Whilst you could review the grading estimate after three rounds, this should only impact eligibility for any grading prizes and possibly the seeding order.

[Roger de Coverly]

I do recall saying, at the time, that I thought this was very iffy, and that if somebody had mananged to play through the whole tournament witout the organisers finding reason to disqualify them, then I could see no good grounds for withholding any prizes.

Playing in a serious tournament under a false identity is fraud or cheating. It is reported the Blackpool winner disclosed his identity and playing experience and the organisers accepted his entry. That should have been the end of the matter. If they don't want to award first prize in those circumstances they could have a rule which restricts first and second prizes to players with grades or decline entry to players with historic grades in excess of the tournament maximum.

[Paul Cooksey]

If the facts are as stated, I don't really see why Lancs contested the issue.

Is he from Manchester?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Did this really go to court? The small-claims court presumably.

[Andrew Bak]

Did this really go to court? The small-claims court presumably.

How on earth did something so trivial and baseless as this end up going to court?!

If he was allowed in and he didn't fraudulently represent himself, pay him the prize money and just don't let him in again if you think it's all a bit dodgy.

Or don't let him in the first place.