English Chess Forum

The election is not a 'major drama'. Quite the opposite. I doubt that any of the 4 winners will get more than 50 votes. I believe the real reason the votes won't be published is that the ECF will be embarrassed to admit that fewer than 100 people bothered to vote from an electorate of several thousa...

... it has been decided not to publish the number of votes given to individual candidates. We believe that this will help to encourage participation. I will vote for the first 4 candidates who announce they will insist that the number of votes for each person is published. I believe this will help ...

As it turned out.

If the arbiter thought he saw a violation of article 4 then he had to intervene.

It appears to be an honest error by the arbiter who didn't hear the player say 'I adjust'.

Arbiters manual:'

"If an arbiter observes a violation of Article 4, he/she must always intervene immediately.
Arbiter should not wait for a claim to be submitted by a player."

The Arbiters manual, section 7.5.1, says

If an arbiter observes an illegal move he/she must always intervene immediately.
He/She should not wait for a claim to be submitted by a player.

I've seen it.

That doesn't give the information I asked for.

Can you please provide information about the facilities, parking, contact info etc. The site points to the chess centre rather than the venue.

While I applaud their enthusiam, I hope their 1st proposal is rejected. They don't appear to appreciate that each match is an event in its own right. Last Tuesday the team that was bottom of our division 1, with zero points from 5 matches, beat the team above them 3-2. Not only do they get 2 points ...

Ok. I'll try to keep this as brief as possible. Rule C2 was introduced in 2006 to prevent someone appearing for two teams on the same evening. I don't know if that was as a result of someone doing that. Rule C4 (player eligibility) is the 2nd most changed rule in our league, after the time control r...

Yes. I have also read sections A, B, D and the Appendix, many times. The word 'player' appears in 11 of the rules plus the Appendix and if all the rules are read the meaning of the word 'player' is absolutely clear - someone who is in a team in a match - not just someone who plays a game against an ...

That's fine as long as there is another eligible player available, which often wasn't the case when I captained my club's lowest team two season's ago. It would not have worked for Peter's team either as there was nobody else there who was eligible, unless they got someone from the bar to allow thei...

I can hardly believe that this has never happened before in the Notts league, even if board order rules were never specified before 2017. It was never an issue before the board order rule in 2017. If a team turned up a player short, the other team was free to decide which of its players didn't get ...

They are also weakening their team against opponents who have arrived a player short, hence making the match more competitive. Er... 'more competitive' is stretching it a tiny bit. Mansfield had three 2100 players, one 2000 player and an 1850. All tough, battle hardened, who take no prisoners, as o...

Before 2017 the Notts League did not have a board order rule so teams could list their players in any order. This is another example of when a rule is changed not all the possible consequenses have been thought of. To be able to claim a win by default on a board a team must name an eligible player. ...