OPEN FORUM

Back to SCCU home page Forum: Mobile Phones & the Laws Forum: Grading

Updated 18.4.08
OPEN FORUM

Open Forum is your vehicle for comment and discussion, and it is open. Anything goes, within the bounds of courtesy and common sense and the libel laws, provided it's got something to do with chess in the SCCU. Or England. Or anywhere, really. It will be assumed, unless you say otherwise, that contributions may also be published in the printed SCCU Bulletin. To contribute, email Richard Haddrell rjh@sccu.ndo.co.uk. Please say where you're from. [Most people ignore that. Oh, well.]
    Text is best. Avoid tabs and indents.

Note 28.1.06. This page was becoming unmanageable. Correspondence on Mobile Phones got its own page some time ago, and Grading Issues now has a like privilege.
__________________
Note 29.11.06. Adjudications
More info is coming in (Civil Service League has adjudications, and see Chris Howell below). We said a few screenfuls down that we'd publish a table, and we'd like to. We did, in 2001, and it's here. (Come out with the Back button if you go there. It's a three-click journey out of the Archive if you don't.) How much has changed in five years? Nothing has in Kent. But let us know, and we'll do an updated version. Need not be confined to SCCU events.
     Note 27.7.07. We'll get back to this sometime, hopefully, but it has gone on the back burner. __________________

From Roger de Coverly
18.4.08
John Wheeler reminds us of the days of levy fees and the WECU attempt at nonpublishing grades. Game Fee made things a lot simpler!
      We've been discussing Memberships on the basis that the proposal was to replace a per-play fee with a per-head fee. On the face of it, this has to be a high risk strategy since out of about 13000 active players only about 3500 play more than 20 games. If you scrapped game fee you would lose the financial contribution of leagues and county matches arising from the frequent players and would be attempting to replace it by collecting £20 or so a head from the 9500 less active. I call this a high risk strategy because the less frequent players may not oblige by becoming members and might either go unrated (if even allowed to play) or give up competition chess entirely.
      Reading the report of the recent board meeting on the ECF site makes me now wonder if the board are looking for both a per-game and a per-head fee. They say "the ECF was not well enough resourced to deliver its agreed budget plan and felt that the move towards a universal membership scheme must happen sooner rather than later". In management speak "resourced" is usually code for money so the ECF directors would like to spend more money. They don't actually say that they propose to scrap the game fee system.
      Looking at the grading statistics prompts another observation. The ECF raised about £97,000 (£85,000 after expenditure on direct members) from game fee and memberships in 2007 (ECF yearbook page 7). If you apply the full game fee rate (46p/23p) to the stats for games played on the SCCU grading page you would get an income of about £110,000 a year with any memberships you can sell on top of this. I've long thought that there were too many exemptions in the game fee system and that a simple system may be better where, if your event contains 100 players of 5 rounds, then you just pay £230 to the ECF and that's it. You're also indirectly collecting from the Scots, Welsh and Irish (and Germans, Russians etc.) It could be made compatible with a membership organisation since if you played frequently you could become a voting member for next to nothing. Just imagine it - a federation controlled by the 1900 A-grade players.
Roger de Coverly

From John Wheeler
18.4.08
Richard,
Non-publication of grades for non-payers [see letters below, and preview 27.3.08 of the April Council meeting] was in fact tried by the WECU for one season only, sometime during the 1980s. As an attempt to get players to pay their fees, it was a total failure.
      The owners of the *** grades were not in the least inconvenienced, as they soon found out what their grades were. But their opponents (usually paid-up members) were punished in every match against them, by not knowing the strength of the opposition.
      Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. I hope this will not be the case with the ECF. Membership schemes could be another example - they remind me of the old levy, when it became almost impossible to collect £1 for the BCF from players. Maybe collecting £10 will make it more acceptable? Or will we have to invent Game fee all over again?
Best wishes,
John Wheeler
Cosham

From Neil Graham
17.4.08
As regards Sean Hewitt's post, as an MCCU Under 150 captain I was made aware of the situation at the start of March. I took up the matter with the relevant MCCU official and was assured that he had contacted the ECF and found that an error had been made. I can see no reason why teams in the MCCU would think that there would be only one Under 150 nominee following this. I fully concur with Sean's other point relating to the "provisional" draw and have said as much on the ECF Forum. I have received some communication from the ECF recently relating to this which I might discuss later.
Neil

From Sean Hewitt
15.4.08
Richard,
Given the ridiculous number of changes to the ECFs "provisional" County Championship draw, I wonder what advantage there is in publishing such a draw before it is finalised.
      In the MCCU, one U150 team captain, armed with the knowledge from the ECF website that there was only one MCCU team in the draw, instructed his player to decline a draw offer (that would have drawn the match) and play for a win. The player did as he was told, and subsequently lost (so losing the match 7.5-8.5). Had he accepted the draw, the drawn match would have given his team 2nd place in the MCCU event and they would have qualified for the 2nd place that was missing in the draw.
Sean Hewitt
MCCU Events Director

From Tim Spanton
28.3.08
Roger says a Universal Membership Scheme is the way it's done in France. I don't know about that, but it's certainly the way it is in the US. Indeed, foreigners have to join the USCF to play there, at least in major tournaments (but then a year's membership is relatively cheap and includes a subscription to a quality glossy mag). I guess it all boils down to how we pay for the ECF. A game fee seems fair since you pay per game whereas a membership scheme is a sort of poll tax. Then again, at present I as a player in Fide-rated tournaments have the privilege of paying both the game fee and the poll tax. And I think they're both a bargain!
Tim Spanton
London

From Roger de Coverly
28.3.08
Quote [see preview 27.3.08 of the April Council meeting]: "The Board has become convinced that the future of the ECF depends on a Universal Membership Scheme"
      Doesn't this mean that you would need to be a member of the ECF to have permission to play competition chess? It's that way in France - if French you need to be a member of a "chess club" to play in French tournaments.
      I've long thought that certain elements in the ECF think that there are far too many unruly chess players and would like to use every endeavour to discourage new and infreqent participation. It's a concern that some of the board of the ECF hardly play any competition chess - therefore don't have any personal stake in ensuring its continuation.
      Whether I would personally retire if such a scheme was adopted is unlikely - but I would have every sympathy with a league or congress which closed or went ungraded because it refused to insist on ECF membership for every player.
      Quote [same place]: "Our private information is that it means grades are calculated for everyone, but the grades of non-Members are replaced by *** in the published grading list"
I cannot see that refusing to publish the grades of non-members is any sort of compromise. If the grades didn't leak you could not run swiss pairings or a graded restricted competition.
Roger de Coverly

From Stewart Reuben
26.12.07
To make it absolutely clear to David Shepherd. Richard is quite correct, it is 10.2d to which I object, not 10. I introduced quickplay finishes to the world in 1973. This meant that adjudications were no longer necessary, and many of you already know they are an absolute anathema to me. (That is being polite.)
     It would be better still, with today's equipment, to use the cumulative mode. It may be because of lack of equipment, the organisers have insufficient digital clocks to use this mode on all boards. But they could introduce such a clock late in the game and have an add-on of 5 seconds per move. As far as I know, this is only done in the US. Then there is no need for a quickplay finish. If a player cannot defend a position with 5 seconds per move, he does not deserve a draw. It is nonsense to claim that it is too expensive to buy one digital clock for every 10 games.
Stewart Reuben
Twickenham
rjh: May I expand on one of Stewart's remarks? I think he has answered, in one sentence, a number of David's reservations about Item 10.
"If a player cannot defend a position with 5 seconds per move, he does not deserve a draw."
     Even without added time, this comes close to being a definition of "impossible to win by normal means". You get your draw if the arbiter thinks you can draw it at will more or less without thinking. The moment it's hard enough to require serious thought, your claim fails. Never mind if it's a theoretical draw. Never mind if you're winning, for that matter. Neither is sufficient if it requires serious thought.
     I can't think Stewart would disagree with this.

From David Shepherd
10.12.07
Thanks Stewart. Your comments were very helpful.
     The main problem I see with the rule is that for any given position the arbiter must interpret "win by normal means" - suppose for example a bishop and pawn is added to the rook in your example - at what point does the possibility of a win by normal means become available - I guess there can never be any set answer to that and hence the problem with the rule.
     The rule also seems unfair to me as it may give protection against losing on time to a player who is slightly ahead but used their time badly, but no protection against losing on time to a player who is slightly behind.
     Also I would question "normal means" under what time scale - how often have blunders been made, even by the best players, when they only have about 20 seconds left on the clock. What are the odds of a player blundering in a given position when he is ahead but has 20 seconds left compared to an opponent who is behind but has 5 minutes left?
     Anyway I guess the clear problems in implementing the rule are part of the reason that you were against its introduction.
Best wishes
David
rjh: I think what Stewart opposed was the introduction of (d), taking away the right of appeal.

From Stewart Reuben
9.12.07
David Shepherd asked a question regarding 10.2 of the Laws concerning Quickplay finishes. Let us take a specific example. White has King and Queen and Black has King and Rook. The claimant always has less than 2 minutes left on his clock.
(1) Black claims a draw when first entering into this endgame. It is rejected and White receives an extra 2 minutes.
(2) After some time, the arbiter has been observing the play. Black claims and there is some justification that White has not been trying to win, just moving aimlessly. The most likely decision is to play on, award no penalty and, if later you believe White is indeed making no effort, award the draw.
(3) White is very short of time and claims the draw. Award it immediately. Black certainly has mating material, but it is very unlikely he can win by normal means. Why not play on? Because then White can play to win without risk of losing.
     Are these answers absolute? Indeed not. Another arbiter might rule differently and uniquely there is no right of appeal. Geurt Gijssen the Chaiman and I, the Secretary, of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee, disagreed with 10.2d, but that's democracy for you.
Stewart Reuben

From David Shepherd
23.11.07
Richard
Were any conclusions reached on the two minute rule?¹ - it seem to me that it is there to stop player A running player B out of time in a drawn position.
      However suppose player A has 2 seconds left with queen rook and 2 pawns, player B has 1 minute left with queen rook and 2 pawns and then blunders a rook in the time scramble. Assuming the position is clearly won for player A but he has no time to win it can he claim a draw on the two minute rule as player A cannot win by "normal means"? What is normal means? If the answer is no would it be different if the position on the board were such that player B's king could not escape from repeated checks from player A.
      I believe the rule is meant to avoid wins in drawn positions, but my question essentially is - can it be used to avoid losses on time in won positions. If it cannot what is to stop the winning player giving up his pieces to obtain a drawn position - what would that say for the game. Is it fair that a player who has used their time resource badly has the get out of a draw if they are winning but would otherwise lose on time?
Best wishes
David Shepherd
Ashtead
¹ This is a good way down the page, starting somewhere round here.

From Paul Buswell
27.10.07
Player B wins, surely? Player A had resigned without accepting the draw. I'm not sure Player B is under any obligation to ensure that the opponent 'hears' the draw offer.
Paul Buswell PBusw13724@aol.com
(though not an experienced arbiter)
     By the way, Richard, what is wrong with adjournments if both players, and the event, are happy?
rjh: Nothing. I just don't like them. Mind you I'm not sure how often both players are happy.
     To answer the other one, since no one else has, I don't see what an arbiter or anyone else could do except treat these accidents as "evident defects of the clock" (Laws, 6.11) and do what the players did.

From Martin Benjamin
24.10.07
In recent club matches, the following two events have occurred. I would be interested to hear if the first in particular had been experienced by anyone else. How best should these be resolved? Playing with digital clocks: In one match recently, after about 45 minutes play, a player inadvertently pressed the “mode” button and thereby inadvertently reset the clock completely. In another recent match, in a time scramble with both players down to two minutes or less, the clock display died and then, on inspection when lifted up, came back on as though it had just been switched on (we think the batteries must have become dislodged when one player accidentally moved the clock slightly). In both cases, all the players behaved in sporting fashion and reset the clocks to what they though to be the correct time remaining for each player. However, with less sporting players, this could present a real problem. How should this be solved in most “normal” games (i.e. with no arbiter present)? Even with an arbiter present, in most weekend tournaments, an arbiter could not possibly the follow the time progress of each and every game anyway.
     Adjournment communication:
Player A adjourned a pawn down with a worse position to boot against player B. Rather than facing another evening out and a journey to play on a game he was likely to lose after a couple of hours, Player A later left a message on Player B’s mobile phone to say that he was resigning. However, the match result was no longer in doubt following other adjournments, so rather than “facing another evening out and a journey to grind out a win etc,” as above, Player B sent an offer of a draw to Player A. Shortly afterwards, Player B checked his messages and found his opponent’s resignation! Any views from experienced arbiters? Loss or draw?
Martin Benjamin
London
rjh: loss for both sides, for having an adjournment?

From Kevin Thurlow
17.10.07
Dear Richard
Some people may have been puzzled by the reference to Surrey and Silverstone in today's SCCU report. This year's final was the same day as qualfiying for the British Grand Prix. Despite the fact that qualifying would have been well underway by the time we drove past Silverstone on the M1, and all the spectators would already be there, some Surrey players decided to take a rather circuituous route to avoid the "traffic". They then found traffic on the other route (as announced on the radio) and we had a hatful of defaults, and duly lost both finals. Lancashire and Middlesex all turned up unfortunately. There is a school of thought in some parts of Surrey that the defaults were somehow caused by the ECF. This seems harsh - it may not be sensible for Surrey and Middlesex to go all the way to Leicester to play, but both sides have roughly the same journey. Obviously, anyone can get stuck in traffic and default - it has happened to me, but I didn't try to blame someone else!
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com

Earlier material (lots of it) is in the Archive.