BUCA Championships

[Justin Hadi]

Wow, Imperial 2 are leading, Alan Luo drawing an FM. Awesome! I would have played but I was at the Universities Pool Tournament which clashed on the same weekend. Keep it up guys...

[Eoin Devane]

Alan Luo drawing an FM.

Alan's on fire. Two draws and a win on top board!

[IM Jack Rudd]

That said, if people approve, I'm prepared to implement a one-warning policy. I.e. first time warning, second time default (but the warning counts for the whole room) - a bit like the false start rule in athletics. Since the games aren't FIDE rated, I think we're allowed to make such a local rule.

Not that I particularly want to open this can of worms up again, but I think you need to read the Laws Of Chess and see where they do and don't allow you to make local rules.

(Incidentally, I would also apply this comment to something that came up in our pre-tournament discussions as well: the Laws Of Chess do not allow you to insist that players from non-English-speaking countries write their moves down in English.)

[Richard Bates]

Regarding the mobile phone incident, the resulting fracas caused far more distraction than the phone going off actually did. It is German's fault, I don't care how long you've been out of the game, it's his responsibility to know the rules.

Usual experience is that mobile phones going off in competitions with an automatic default rule cause far more distraction than in any event where the rule doesn't apply (where it is on a par with loud talking, post-game analysis at the board, drinks dispensers, and just behind my personal bugbear - squeaky slow closing doors!). Which rather undermines the often claimed justification for its existence, wouldn't you think?

That said, if people approve, I'm prepared to implement a one-warning policy. I.e. first time warning, second time default (but the warning counts for the whole room) - a bit like the false start rule in athletics. Since the games aren't FIDE rated, I think we're allowed to make such a local rule.

Not that I particularly want to open this can of worms up again, but I think you need to read the Laws Of Chess and see where they do and don't allow you to make local rules.

(Incidentally, I would also apply this comment to something that came up in our pre-tournament discussions as well: the Laws Of Chess do not allow you to insist that players from non-English-speaking countries write their moves down in English.)

A tournament organiser is entitled to implement any local rule they so wish. They are only practically restricted by the requirements of any rating system to which they wish the games to be submitted, or any umbrella organisation under which they are operating. Otherwise Fisher-random chess tournaments would be a bit difficult! Since the ECF allows deviation from the mobile phone rules, organisers are free to do what they wish in respect of mobile phone rules.

[Mike Truran]

To my mind the key words in the relevant FIDE rule ("Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off") are the first six ("Without the permission of the arbiter"). That seems to me to say that arbiters (or in their absence local league committees, tournament organisers or others responsible for administering rules in the absence of an arbiter) can have what rules they like regarding mobile phones.

I don't understand why the instinct in Britain always seems to be to make the mobile phone rule so draconian and inflexible when the FIDE rule clearly allows derogations. Perhaps it's something in our national character?!

[Sean Hewitt]

Regarding the mobile phone incident, the resulting fracas caused far more distraction than the phone going off actually did. It is German's fault, I don't care how long you've been out of the game, it's his responsibility to know the rules.

Usual experience is that mobile phones going off in competitions with an automatic default rule cause far more distraction than in any event where the rule doesn't apply (where it is on a par with loud talking, post-game analysis at the board, drinks dispensers, and just behind my personal bugbear - squeaky slow closing doors!). Which rather undermines the often claimed justification for its existence, wouldn't you think?

I think that that depends on how you handle it as an arbiter. On the two occasions that this has happened in my events I have immediately taken both players out of the playing hall and discussed the matter outside, either in the arbiters office or elsewhere. I do this for all disputes as this removes the distraction for all other players which is as it should be. I remember an incident at the British Championships where a player blundered a piece and lost because an arbiter was having a "discussion" with two players on the board next to him, which was totally unfair on the player concerned.

To my mind the key words in the relevant FIDE rule ("Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off") are the first six ("Without the permission of the arbiter"). That seems to me to say that arbiters (or in their absence local league committees, tournament organisers or others responsible for administering rules in the absence of an arbiter) can have what rules they like regarding mobile phones.

I don't understand why the instinct in Britain always seems to be to make the mobile phone rule so draconian and inflexible when the FIDE rule clearly allows derogations. Perhaps it's something in our national character?!

I think Mike that the law you quote allows the arbiter to permit the player to have a mobile phone in his possession and to have it switched on. This may be desirable if the player is on call for example. However, it does not allow that phone to make a noise, the penalty for which is loss of the game with no discretion allowed to the arbiter at all. So if the arbiter does give permission for the phone to be on the phone needs to be in silent mode and the player made aware that if it makes a noise he will lose.

[Mike Truran]

Sean, I'm sure you're right. It's just frustrating that such a heavy handed rule is imposed from on high with no latitude at local league level to do anything more sensible. The ECF seems to have no interest in negotiating something appropriate (eg to have it applied to FIDE rated events) with FIDE, who after all would have little of no interest in (or indeed knowledge of) what happens in local leagues in individual countries.

But it's our way in this country to slavishly apply rules handed down from on high, goldplating them as well if that's at all possible. I have no doubt that that the French for example wouldn't give a monkeys about what FIDE say in their various local leagues.

[Eoin Devane]

In the penultimate round everything went much as expected:

Bath 1 4 - 0 Imperial 2,
Warwick 0.5 - 3.5 Edinburgh,
UCL 1 3 - 1 Durham 2,
Aston 0.5 - 3.5 Oxford,
Bath 2 1 - 3 Durham 1,
Queen Mary's 0 - 4 Imperial 1,
UCL 3 1 - 3 UCL 2.

The final round pairings (with match points in brackets) are:

UCL 1 (6) - Bath 1 (7),
Imperial 2 (6) - Edinburgh (7),
Oxford (5) - Warwick (4),
Imperial 1 (4) - Durham 1 (5),
Durham 2 (4) - Bath 2 (2),
UCL 2 (2) - Aston (2),
UCL 3 (1) - BYE,
Queen Mary's withdrew due to another commitment.

[Simon Spivack]

I have no doubt that that the French for example wouldn't give a monkeys about what FIDE say in their various local leagues.

Neither do Londoners.

From http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/rop.htm

1a) At the start of each match Captains should announce that, "All mobile phones must be switched off for the duration of the match". The Penalty for breaking this rule: First ring - warning to the player to switch off; Second ring - loss of game.

The same soil gets furrowed over and over again.

There is nothing to stop a local league introducing whatever rules are desired. The only risk is whether they will be graded. Not many are fussed about whether a locally played game will be graded by FIDE, indeed, some GMs object to games, which by their very nature are difficult to prepare for, being graded by FIDE.

[Mike Truran]

Simon - as you say, the same old ground. But the mobile phone rule is now enshrined in the laws of chess - so by the same logic there would be nothing to stop a local league introducing a rule that, for example, kings can move two squares in any direction. The laws of chess don't just apply to FIDE rated events, they apply to all chess games.

[Sean Hewitt]

From http://www.lcl.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/rop.htm

1. LAWS OF CHESS

Play in all Divisions shall be governed by the FIDÉ Laws of Chess.

1a) At the start of each match Captains should announce that, "All mobile phones must be switched off for the duration of the match". The Penalty for breaking this rule: First ring - warning to the player to switch off; Second ring - loss of game. Such game losses must be reported in writing to the League Secretary.

Simon, the London league appears to contradict itself. First it says that "in all Divisions shall be governed by the FIDÉ Laws of Chess" and then immediately proceeds to a paragraph that is contrary to those laws of chess. Bizarre!

[Mike Truran]

I think I rest my case.

On the basis that little or no sense is to be expected from the ECF on the subject, I have emailed FIDE to ask what their expectation of local non-FIDE rated leagues in individual member countries is. Probably the triumph of hope over experience, but you never know......

[Simon Spivack]

... so by the same logic there would be nothing to stop a local league introducing a rule that, for example, kings can move two squares in any direction.

Indeed, however, there is the practical difficulty that one set of changes will be graded by the ECF, the other won't.

the London league appears to contradict itself. First it says that "in all Divisions shall be governed by the FIDÉ Laws of Chess" and then immediately proceeds to a paragraph that is contrary to those laws of chess. Bizarre!

I won't defend the drafting, however, I am certain the intention was to qualify the FIDE laws.

[LozCooper]

I think I rest my case.

On the basis that little or no sense is to be expected from the ECF on the subject, I have emailed FIDE to ask what their expectation of local non-FIDE rated leagues in individual member countries is. Probably the triumph of hope over experience, but you never know......

The other thing you could do is raise the matter with the ECF FIDE delegate. He was happy to help when I raised the issue of the questionable rating tournaments in Laos (originally spotted by Phil Makepeace on the forum) where three new players appeared on the FIDE rating list in tournaments that probably never took place.

[Alex Holowczak]

Changing tact here:

1st - Bath 1, 9 points (18 game points)
2nd - Edinburgh, 9 points (17 game points)
3rd - Oxford, 7 points

Imperial 1 managed to overtake Imperial 2 on game points in the end. Both finished on 6 points.

Bath won all their games 4-0, apart from against Edinburgh, where they drew 2-2. Imagine how good they'd have been had they had Poobalasingam.

An aside: Anyone know any free Ubuntu-compatible software that can generate PGNs for games of chess? I have Fritz 6 running on this, but that doesn't produce .pgn files, it produces some other dodgy format (.chb?).