Tournament dispute from several years ago

[Paul McKeown]

And I recall someone being banned from an Irish tournament for something possibly involving fists.

"Possibly" in that case should be replaced by "actually". The ICU banned the particular player from participation in events in Ireland for several years. As far as I am aware, the ICU now considers the matter closed, youthful indiscretions best being considered bygones.

[Louise Sinclair]

There were referrals to an incident in Surrey Chess regarding Kevin Thurlow and mentions of Smith and Williamson make it easy for anyone to know what s being referred to and David Sedgewick would easily pick up on that.

[Paul McKeown]

If anyone wishes to understand truth behind the utter cock spouted here, they are best advised to read the detailed consideration of the matter in the SCCU bulletin for 1994/5. That can be downloaded in Ms Word format from http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/old.htm. Any impartial reader will be able to discern that the matter wasn't dealt with particularly well by the arbiters concerned, but the allegations of violence are impossible to lend credence to.

[Louise Sinclair]

The SCCU bulletin features the report. However at no time was I questioned by the persons involved in the report and neither were several other people involved so I'm at a loss to undersand how a report about a serious incident can be taken seriously when the particpants have not beeen asked about events.

[Carl Hibbard]

I choose to discuss this event because I view it as a disgrace which has impinged on several people.

It is a statement not a discussion and this long after the event I am struggling to see the purpose of bringing it up so unless I can see a reason I will consider closing it down

[Louise Sinclair]

a statement can only be made by one person and a number of people have posted on this thread so it appears to be a discussion

[Jonathan Bryant]

That can be downloaded in Ms Word format from http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/old.htm.

Unfortunately (doubly so, since I seem to be the only person left who hadn't heard of this before) I can't open the document since it comes out as a .docx

[E Michael White]

If anyone wishes to understand truth behind the utter cock spouted here, they are best advised to read the detailed consideration of the matter in the SCCU bulletin for 1994/5. That can be downloaded in Ms Word format from http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/old.htm. Any impartial reader will be able to discern that the matter wasn't dealt with particularly well by the arbiters concerned, but the allegations of violence are impossible to lend credence to.

I have never found Richard Hadrell's postings particularly convincing or accurate, likewise his grading theories. There always seems to be a distinct lack of IMOs present.

Carl

If you can I would prefer you to leave this thread open. I had not heard of this dispute before but it seems to have all the elements of a category1 dispute eg insuffcicient arbiter action and too late, allegations by the arbiter that he/she was verbally abused when by their actions the arbiter probably contributed to the stress levels of the players, arbiters and appeal arbiters generally missing the main points of the laws of chess, appeal committees having too many arbiters and no or not enough experienced players, the appeal committee disregards certain evidence as it pleases and then finds there is insufficient evidence etc.

[Paul McKeown]

That can be downloaded in Ms Word format from http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/old.htm.

Unfortunately (doubly so, since I seem to be the only person left who hadn't heard of this before) I can't open the document since it comes out as a .docx

Jonathan,

For your benefit:

THE WELCH REPORT
The Report finally arrived about the beginning of December, and was considered by the SCCU Executive at a meeting specially convened on the 9th at the Friends House. Sixteen (we think) officers and delegates were joined by WE Waterton (Surrey) and J Rosenberg (Essex) as observers.
Don't know anything about it?
Where have you been? But in a nutshell, at the last Surrey Congress Louise Sinclair complained on the afternoon of Saturday 2nd April that her opponent was cheating by receiving advice. The handling and rejection of her claim, and subsequent delays over her appeal, led to ill feeling and an undignified confrontation at the control table in the course of which Louise Sinclair fell to the floor, allegedly punched by Alec Webster, a senior controller (and BCF Arbiter). Next day Mr Webster had a scuffle on the stairs with Gary Cook, a friend of Ms Sinclair; each claimed to have been attacked. These events and allegations seemed serious enough to warrant an independent inquiry, and the SCCU commissioned David Welch, BCF Chief Arbiter, to undertake one. Mr Welch chose Richard Furness and Alex McFarlane, both Senior Arbiters, to assist him in his inquiry. None of the three, of course, comes from the SCCU.
The Surrey Association set up its own inquiry, chaired by DA Coleman, whose report has been kindly made available to the Executive. It has supplemented our information here and there.
The Report: Summary
You don't want a full copy of the Report. It runs to four densely typed sides of A4 and could easily have been longer if they'd put everything in. But the affair has had wide currency, through rumour and in the press, and it would be wrong not to summarise the findings in some detail. So here goes, and we've added notes where it seemed appropriate. Items in double quotes are direct citations from the Report. Two or three names, including that of Ms Sinclair's opponent, have been edited out.
Methodology.
Given the constraints of time and money, it was not possible to question all the parties involved. "The Committee based all its recommendations and observations on the written statements which were submitted to it." The Bulletin asked, at the Executive meeting, how the Committee had gone about collecting submissions. The reply was that Mr Welch had contacted individuals, requesting whatever statements he thought necessary. It was also clear that some people had made submissions on their
221:10

own initiative. A delegate alleged, at the Executive meeting, that more than one person had offered evidence and not been taken up on it. The allegation was vague and the Bulletin does not know the truth of it.
The Game.
"It is the opinion of the Inquiry that the behaviour of both players left a lot to be desired." (The Coleman Report refers to suggestions of 'gamesmanship' on both sides.) Ms Sinclair spent part of the time standing and leaning over the board, in what might have been considered a distracting or intimidating manner. (We have heard it said, and the Inquiry team may or may not have done, that this was due to back trouble.) "Some people considered Ms Sinclair's mode of attire to have been inappropriate for a chess tournament and this is a possible starting point for the increasing irritation between the two players." (Welch gives no details, makes no judgment, and confines himself to what's quoted here. We didn't think the details relevant either, but Ms Sinclair gives some in her letter.)
Ms Sinclair's opponent frequently left the board between moves and went and chatted to a group of friends, causing Ms Sinclair to suspect cheating. Ms Sinclair complained (in the first instance) to Kevin Thurlow, a BCF Arbiter who was controlling a different event in the same area. Mr Thurlow, being a friend of hers, was unwilling to intervene but Richard Banbury, the controller of Ms Sinclair's event, issued a warning to her opponent. Mr Webster, who was controlling a different event again in a different area, was made aware of the situation but did not, at this stage, become involved.
The opponent continued to chat to friends between moves. An hour or two later Ms Sinclair made specific allegations of cheating to Mr Webster. He found these unproven and instructed Ms Sinclair to continue the game while he went and repeated the warning. Ms Sinclair declined to continue, claiming that her clock should be stopped while the matter was dealt with, and (about 20 minutes later, we believe) her flag fell in a lost position and she was awarded a loss on time. The Report: "Evidence of actual cheating is sketchy... As Ms Sinclair was not involved in that warning there was no need for Mr Webster to stop her clock. Ms Sinclair's subsequent loss on time was entirely her own responsibility."
Notes: As regards the clock, one account at least has it that Ms Sinclair's complaint to Mr Webster took place away from the board while her clock ran. We do not know at what stage she asked for her clock to be stopped, nor what information the Inquiry had. Presumably neither the complaint nor the warning took 20 minutes. As regards the cheating, Mr Thurlow, in a letter dated 3rd May 1994 and copied to all clubs in Surrey, makes first-hand allegations of cheating which are very specific indeed. This letter was also copied to Mr Welch but the Inquiry seems not to have found it conclusive.
The Report criticises the control team for not taking action sooner to defuse the situation by breaking up the group of chatterers. Mr Banbury, not a BCF Arbiter, sought advice; Mr Webster, in a different room, may not immediately have appreciated the potential for disturbance. Despite his friendship with Ms Sinclair "Mr Thurlow could be considered negligent in his duties as an arbiter in doing nothing about such a group... If Mr Webster did anything wrong it was to allow himself to be overloaded with responsibility."
The Appeal.
Ms Sinclair submitted a written appeal. "The appeal by Ms Sinclair was not specific. Against which decision by Mr Webster did she appeal? Was it with regard to [her opponent] or was it with regard to the clock? We believe the Congress Committee was correct to uphold Mr Webster's decisions on both counts, though in reaching its conclusion the Committee should have considered all available evidence. It did not consider Mr Thurlow's statement nor interview Mr Banbury." (Mr Thurlow, by this time, had assumed the unequivocal role of 'Ms Sinclair's friend'.) Mr Waterton, at the Executive meeting, said the Committee had in fact both interviewed Mr Banbury and considered Mr Thurlow's statement.
Ms Sinclair said she would not play in the following round, and did not do so. She was, however, present. It is unclear whether she had withdrawn from the tournament or merely requested a half-point bye pending a decision on her appeal. The Welch Report finds that this should have been clarified. It also criticises the considerable delay in telling Ms Sinclair of the decision.
The alleged Punch.
According to two witnesses (Mr Waterton and David Sedgwick, SCCU President) Ms Sinclair approached the control table and shouted abuse, then lunged at Mr Webster either twice or repeatedly. He put his arms up to defend himself, but did not hit her. She suddenly stepped back and fell over, clearly shamming. This is also Mr Webster's account. Ms Sinclair's account is that she took a swing in Mr Webster's direction, provoked by unacceptable language on his part; whereupon he twisted her arm and punched her on the temple, knocking her out. She later produced a photograph of her injury; this is not mentioned by the Report, possibly because it could only have constituted indirect evidence.
221:11

The Report: "These two observers confirm that Mr Webster was the object of the attack and merely defended himself. All the aggression was by Ms Sinclair... The manner of her approach to the control table on the Sunday evening does not seem to have been designed to do anything but escalate the existing problem."
The Incident on the Stairs.
There were no witnesses to the incident. (Actually the Coleman inquiry appears to have found one, but he was not known to Welch and his evidence does not seem to have been very conclusive.) It emerges that Mr Cook, who had travelled from Southend, had been 'hanging around as if looking for a friend' and actively sought to meet Mr Webster where he did. "Mr Cook implies that a security guard witnessed the incident but there is no statement from this person. We feel it is significant that Security requested Mr Cook to leave the building. They would hardly have done that if they had witnessed an assault on Mr Cook. We are left with the conflicting accounts from the two individuals involved."

THE REPORT'S OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
"The control team was short staffed; at least one more arbiter was needed."
"An event of the stature of the Surrey Easter Congress should have a Chief Arbiter." There was confusion at times over exactly who was responsible for what. "The Appeals Committee should consist of both controllers and players, and be able to meet at short notice." We understand that the Appeals Committee at Sutton consisted of three officials.
There should be a clearly defined procedure for making appeals, with time scales laid down. (Some detailed suggestions are made.)
"The organisers should examine the layout of the venue to ensure they are using it to best advantage. They should especially consider the proximity of players to the refreshment area and to the control tables." This related to complaints of excessive noise which were not, we believe, a part of the Inquiry's formal remit.
"We deplore the publicity given in the Surrey Mirror, the Civil Service Chess Bulletin and Chess Circuit, all of which contain allegations which remain unsubstantiated. The authors of these articles are fortunate that chess is an activity where charges of 'bringing the game into disrepute' are not levelled." The
Bulletin understands that all the articles were written by, or in close collaboration with, Mr Thurlow.

The COLEMAN REPORT addressed other issues as well, but its recommendations are very much in line with Welch. It is somewhat less critical of Mr Thurlow's actions at the congress but concurs with Welch in deploring his subsequent publications. It finds that all Congress officers are fit persons to discharge their duties.
It is understood that the Surrey Congress Committee have taken the various recommendations on board and intend to make some changes.

THE EXECUTIVE'S DEBATE
The Executive discussed the Report for nearly two hours. There were, of course, a few things to clarify, and a number of recommendations to consider. But having commissioned a report we could scarcely sit down to decide whether it had got the answers right, and the Bulletin was unprepared for the zeal with which every point was dissected, often by individuals seeking to dispute the facts or question the completeness of Mr Welch's information.
This attempt to keep a dog and bark left us with only four or five minutes to "discuss" our own response (which was why the Bulletin voted against, and it said so). The points were taken en bloc and agreed by 9 votes to 3 with 3 abstentions. The Bulletin cannot quote them verbatim because they were proposed orally without prior notice. Actually there were five so we've conflated two of them anyway, but the substance is there.
1. The Executive notes the Welch Report and thanks Messrs Welch, Furness and McFarlane, together with Mr D Anderton [who checked the Report for legal purposes].
2. The Executive accepts the Inquiry's recommendations and encourages Surrey to do the same.
3. Copies of the Report will be sent to members of the BCF Management Board.
4. The Executive now considers the matter closed, and gives its best wishes to Surrey for next year's Congress.

OTHER THINGS
As remarked in the Coleman Report, arbiters must quite often face conflicts of interest like Mr Thurlow's. The Executive thought it was normal practice for arbiters to carry out their official duties regardless of personal interest, and expect to be trusted.

The Executive was now in a position to decide where next year's SCCU Individual Championship would be held. Answer: Sutton. It was their turn.

221:12

Sponsorship. We reported briefly last time that the BCF was on the verge of agreeing a sponsorship deal for the Counties Open Championship. This is now confirmed. The sponsors are Badger Computers Ltd and the deal has immediate effect. It will benefit counties reaching the National stage. In the first instance the sponsorship is for one year, with Badger having an option to continue for two further years. Their PR consultants, HNI International, are keen to publicise the Union stages as well.
_______

Dear Sir, 1.1.95
The report commissioned by the SCCU into the Sutton congress 1994 has published several inaccuracies. As one of the persons named in this report I wish to present my case.
My attire was not inappropriate, I was not wearing a transparent blouse. The only complaints were made by my opponent and [two other people whom Ms Sinclair names, stating their connections with congress officials]. Incidentally David Welch admitted that he had no idea what I had worn. Readers may be interested to learn that comments about my clothes were struck out of the Surrey report.
I stood at the board as advised by my osteopath, who was treating me for a back problem. It was not to intimidate my opponent.
Mr Webster flouted the FIDE rules of chess by refusing to stop my clock during the dispute, despite my request for him to do so.
Whilst awaiting a reply to my appeal I did not withdraw from the tournament, neither did the wall chart indicate that I had. My appeal was specific, I complained about the behaviour of my opponent and the handling of the clock.
I will also state that I made it clear that the grading points were of no interest to me and I would have been happy had the game been declared null and void.
Although evidence was published placing Alec Webster in a favourable light, my facial injuries are not mentioned, neither are the photographs of my bruises recorded and the medical evidence I offered is ignored. I note that the statement submitted by David Sedgwick has been spliced. ...I feel concern that the SCCU President should be compromised in this way. I do not believe that this was done with his connivance.
I am worried that I was not questioned about any of the allegations made against me and I feel concern that my opponent also was not given the opportunity to [speak]. The report clearly relied on speculation... Although myself and my opponent were harshly criticised, Mr Webster appeared as an overworked knight in shining armour.
I am in possession of the evidence submitted to the SCCU enquiry and may publish the highlights in the future. Readers will judge for themselves the integrity of this report. Have the facts about the congress been examined or is this just an establishment cover-up?
Yours sincerely,
Louise S Sinclair London E13

Ed: - I have edited Ms Sinclair's opponent out again. My only other action, call it splicing if you will, has been to omit two short phrases just in case anyone thought them libellous. The phrases are represented by rows of dots and their omission does not distort Ms Sinclair's drift.
Mr Coleman, while confirming that reference to Ms Sinclair's clothes was deleted from his Report, remarks that it was not "struck out" by any higher authority.
I asked David Sedgwick whether he felt compromised by the Welch Report, and his response follows.

Dear Richard, 23.1.95
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the part of Ms Louise Sinclair's letter which relates to myself. I should perhaps make clear to readers that I have not seen prior to publication the remainder of Ms Sinclair's letter or your report on the topic.
It is perfectly clear from the Welch Report that the sections of my statement quoted therein are extracts containing key elements of my evidence. I do not regard this as in any way unreasonable or unfair. Some months ago I sent a copy of my statement to you on the understanding that it was not for publication. Now that the Welch and Coleman Inquiries have both reported, I am happy for you to publish my statement in full if you so wish. Alternatively, I am willing to make a copy available to anyone who so requests.
The SCCU Executive committee has resolved to close the matter and I do not envisage making any further comment on the incidents of 1994. The Surrey Congress Committee have asked me to be the Chief Arbiter for the 1995 Congress. I have been pleased to accept the invitation and I shall be working to ensure a successful and enjoyable event.
Yours sincerely,
David Sedgwick SCCU President

[Louise Sinclair]

fell to the floor - inappropriate clothing - very amateur and non forensic. I think the tone of the report downplays the gravity of the situation but does however mention the other violent incident.Re referral to back trouble this is accurate I have a scoliosis which causes me pain if I remain seated for any length of time.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Jonathan,

For your benefit:

...

Thanks Paul. Of all the people mentioned, I only know David Sedgwick - and I find it impossible to imagine that he would be involved in any cover up.

[Gary Cook]

"We feel it is significant that Security requested Mr Cook to leave the building. They would hardly have done that if they had witnessed an assault on Mr Cook. We are left with the conflicting accounts from the two individuals involved."

They did indeed ask me to leave (quite nicely by the way), but only after they let me clean up the blood from the cut above me eye in the gents, (incidently where an editor of an English chess magazine saw my injuries)

So much for security not seeing anything

Gary
Never a crony but now husband!

[Paul McKeown]

Ah the Sinclairs, "glamour model" Louise and Gary, happy, happy memories from my time as CEO.

Yes, quite a dominant character, from all accounts, perhaps had more than one bruising encounter.

[Carl Hibbard]

Carl

If you can I would prefer you to leave this thread open. I had not heard of this dispute before but it seems to have all the elements of a category1 dispute eg insuffcicient arbiter action and too late, allegations by the arbiter that he/she was verbally abused when by their actions the arbiter probably contributed to the stress levels of the players, arbiters and appeal arbiters generally missing the main points of the laws of chess, appeal committees having too many arbiters and no or not enough experienced players, the appeal committee disregards certain evidence as it pleases and then finds there is insufficient evidence etc.

What from 17 years ago do you feel it serves any purpose now?

[Carl Hibbard]

Nobody appears to come out well from the report but as it's X did that and Y did this I see nothing further of use can come from discussing the matter and so I am closing it off

Perhaps it's more fodder for Mr. Giddins but there you go the choice is made