International Round Up 27/10/09

[LozCooper]

International Round Up 27/10/09

The European Team Championship takes place from 22nd until the 30th October as a nine round swiss, which has 38 teams in the open event and 28 teams in the women’s event. Matches are played over 4 boards and each team has a squad of five to select from.
Grandmasters Mickey Adams, Luke McShane, Stuart Conquest, Simon Williams and Stephen Gordon represent England in the open. The women’s team comprises IM Jovanka Houska, WIMs Ingrid Lauterbach and Natasha Regan and WFMs Meri Grigoryan and Sabrina Chevannes. Lawrence Cooper is captain of the open team and Andrew Greet is captain and coach of the women’s team.

Open Round 1:

England 3 Monaco 1 (England white on odds)

1 Luke McShane v GM Igor Efimov 2433 0-1
2 Stuart Conquest v FM Patrick Van Hoolandt 2229 1-0
3 Simon Williams v Karl Johan Ribbegren 2158 1-0
4 Stephen Gordon v Willy Iclicki 2052 1-0

Women Round 1:

England 1.5 Bulgaria 2.5 (England white on odds)

1 Jovanka Houska v GM Antoaneta Stefanova 2527 0.5-0.5
2 Ingrid Lauterbach v WIM Adriana Nikolova 2334 1-0
3 Natasha Regan v WGM Margarita Voiska 2335 0-1
4 Meri Grigoryan v WFM Iva Videnova 2307 0-1

Simon’s promising opening soon became a big attack and he won material as his opponent’s kingside began to fall apart. Luke suffered a surprise loss as a blocked position exploded into life in Luke’s time trouble and his opponent emerged from the tactics with a material advantage. Stuart and Stephen both won long games. Stuart’s was more tactical but resulted in an unclear ending where he outplayed his opponent in the complications. Stephen had a quiet middle game but outplayed his opponent winning a pawn in the ending and mopping up afterwards.

Jovanka had a solid draw on board 1 whilst Ingrid’s hippo set-up bamboozled her higher rated opponent. Natasha had a promising attacking position in the middle game but blundered an exchange after which her attacking chances disappeared. Meri lost a long and complicated game where she missed the chance to force a draw.

Open Round 2:

England 1.5 Azerbaijan 2.5

1 Michael Adams v GM Teimour Radjabov 2757 0-1
2 Luke McShane v GM Vugar Gashimov 2740 0.5-0.5
3 Stuart Conquest v GM Gadir Guseinov 2667 1-0
4 Simon Williams v GM Shakhriyar Mamedyarov 2721 0-1

Women Round 2:

Finland 2 England 2

1 Sari Rautanen 1993 v Jovanka Houska 0.5-0.5
2 Laura Savola 2090 v Ingrid Lauterbach 1-0
3 WFM Heini Pusska 2020 v Natasha Regan 0.5-0.5
4 WFM Paivi Walta 1893 v Sabrina Chevannes 0-1

Despite being heavily outrated the men put up a creditable performance against the second seeds. Simon was taken by surprise in the opening and although he had some compensation in a Benko type position it was probably insufficient and white broke through in the centre to win convincingly. Mickey had a catastrophic opening but fought back well to reach an ending a pawn down that offered some hope until a cheapo finished him off. Luke played the Breyer for the first time and managed a solid draw with black but Stuart was the real success story winning a messy game where his piece sac for two pawns created an imbalance and he won back an exchange and eventually had too many pawns in a rook versus bishop and knight ending.

The women will probably be disappointed with their 2-2 draw. Jovanka equalised easily and seemed to be outplaying her opponent until a pawn blunder after which her opponent’s draw offer was accepted. Ingrid lost a long game where her opponent played very enterprising chess in a queen less middle game, sacrificing an exchange and winning it back and then converting the ending. Natasha managed to unbalance her game but not necessarily to her advantage and eventually drew. Sabrina won a tough game where she outplayed her opponent but time shortage meant the result was in some doubt until the end.

European Team Championships:

Open Round 3:

Bulgaria 1.5 England 2.5

1 Veselin Topolov v Michael Adams 1-0
2 Ivan Cheparinov v Luke McShane 0-1
3 Aleksander Delchev v Stuart Conquest 0-1
4 Valentin Iotov v Stephen Gordon 0.5-0.5

Women Round 3:

England 1 Greece 3

1 Jovanka Houska v IM Yelena Dembo 2482 0-1
2 Ingrid Lauterbach v WGM Anna-Maria Botsari 2286 1-0
3 Meri Grigoryan v WGM Marina Makropoulou 2288 0-1
4 Sabrina Chevannes v WIM Ekaterini Fakhiridou 2253 0-1

Round 3 produced a “What happened next” moment as within seconds of the start and with all players having survived the zero default time (and the majority having played their first move) a noise that bore an uncanny resemblance to a mobile phone was emitted. A second bleep narrowed the culprit down to the Bulgarians boards 3 and 4 and the third bleep merely confirmed this. Despite the best attempts of the Bulgarians to innocently look under the table and remain poker faced a second and third arbiter had now descended on the scene. What followed was somewhat farcical. Despite the best efforts of the Bulgarian board three to “prove” there was no phone in his pocket or coat the arbiters seized the coats of the boards three and four and a thorough search found the offending item. Mr Delchev’s mobile was now the centre of attention. The chief arbiter convinced herself that this was indeed the mobile responsible and Mr Delchev was promptly defaulted and had to reluctantly sign the scoresheet leaving England 1-0 up with only one black game left to negotiate.
Eventually focus switched back to the mundane matter of chess pieces being moved and Luke swept aside his higher rated opponent in just 19 moves with a kingside demolition. After the shock of his first round defeat Luke had bounced back in spectacular style. Stephen was close to winning in the middle and endgame but in the end played safe and assured England of a surprise match victory. Sadly Mickey lost in time trouble in what is probably the hardest possible pairing in chess, black against Topolov. A great victory for the team and one hopes the momentum can be carried forward into the match against France.

The ladies had a tough pairing. Outrated on all four boards but much drama unfolded and England were certainly unlucky to be on the end of the receiving of a 3-1 defeat. Jovanka was probably always struggling and slipped to defeat but Ingrid won in a game I have yet to fully understand. She had a cramped position from the opening but an interesting double edged piece sacrifice unbalanced proceedings and the next time I looked her opponent had lost a rook after which Ingrid mopped up. Sabrina had a complicated game where her opponent had a queen against two rooks. The rooks lacked scope though and the active queen proved to be stronger and she gradually accumulated pawns in Sabrina’s time trouble. Meri turned down a draw and overpressed in an ending after swapping queens possibly prematurely. This must be one of the most traumatic ways to lose but I think all of the English delegation respected the fact that she did everything to try and win to save the match and were all gutted when her attempts backfired.

European Team Championships:

Open Round 4:

England 1 France 3

1 Michael Adams v GM Etienne Bacrot 2709 0.5-0.5
2 Luke McShane v GM Laurent Fressinet 2658 0-1
3 Stuart Conquest v GM Matthieu Cornette 2577 0.5-0.5
4 Simon Williams v GM Sebastien Feller 2570 0-1

Women Round 4:

Montenegro 2 England 2

1 WGM Jovana Vojinovic 2359 v Jovanka Houska 0.5-0.5
2 WFM Aleksandra Milovic 2173 v Ingrid Lauterbach 1-0
3 WFM Maria Stojanovic 2172 v Natasha Regan 0-1
4 WFM Lidija Blagojevic 2046 v Meri Grigoryan 0.5-0.5

After the euphoria of the victory against Bulgaria the open team was brought down to earth with a bump. As captain I take responsibility for this and have to confess my team selection regarding colours wasn’t the best. Mickey got off the mark in a Berlin Defence where his pawn sacrifice was neutralised and repetition ensued. Luke was hit by a lot of theory and lost the exchange and was unable to gain sufficient counterplay. Simon always looked a little worse in a Dutch and his position gradually fell apart whilst Stuart produced a miraculous save when his opponent allowed him to escape to an ending with g+h pawns versus N+g pawn which turned out to be completely drawn.

Jovanka’s opponent’s double fianchetto opening led to a quiet position and mass exchanges on the c file. Ingrid made an incorrect recapture in the opening and thereafter stood worse and went progressively downhill. Meri recovered from her tragic demise yesterday with a shortish draw. This left Natasha needing a win to save the match which she accomplished in a tense finish after winning queen and pawn for rook and bishop in the late middle game.

European Team Championships:

Open Round 5:

Romania 2 England 2

1 GM Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu 2664 v Michael Adams 0.5-0.5
2 GM Constantin Lupulescu 2599 v Luke McShane 0.5-0.5
3 GM Vladislav Nevednichy 2601 v Stuart Conquest 0.5-0.5
4 GM Gergely-Andras-Gyula Szabo 2526 v Stephen Gordon 0.5-0.5

Women Round 5:

Norway 0.5 England 3.5

1 Marianne Wold Haug 2005 v Jovanka Houska 0-1
2 WFM Sylvia Johnsen 2040 v Ingrid Lauterbach 0-1
3 Ellen Oen Carlsen 1904 v Natasha Regan 0.5-0.5
4 Ellisiv Reppen 1915 v Sabrina Chevannes 0-1

England had to fight extremely hard to save the match against Romania. Mickey equalised comfortably and the game finished in an early draw. Luke’s small edge disappeared after a blunder led to him having to shed pawns to force a draw in a rook and opposite coloured bishop ending. Stephen had a complicated game that at first glance looked promising but soon became an unpleasant ending that his opponent might have tried to make more of. This left Stuart with the task of holding an unpleasant middle game that became a rook ending a pawn down. He held the ending relatively easily although it was a long and tiring game and once again he deserves great credit.

The women had a comfortable victory. Jovanka was coasting to victory although blundering a piece when on the verge of victory left her having to win a 4 pawn v bishop and pawn ending. Thankfully she was able to win it to save her from what would have been a very painful experience and lost rating points. Ingrid comfortably outplayed her opponent who desperately sacrificed a piece to no avail. Natasha had a hard fought and complicated draw and Sabrina’s opening pawn grab was successful although her opponent missed a chance to get back into the game after missing or declining the possibility of winning back a sacrificed exchange which would have led to a roughly equal ending. As it was, Sabrina carefully converted her extra exchange to move onto a plus score.

Rounds 6-9, along with a round up of last week’s and this week’s other international news will appear in next week’s round-up.

Lawrence Cooper
Director of International Chess

[Jonathan Rogers]

Hi Loz. Thanks for this.

You say that the team selection v France was perhaps not the best regarding colours, but I don't quite follow this. You can't switch the players' board order, can you, and the colours are fixed by the pairings - so all you can do as captain is decide whom to drop each round, although you might well take that decision with the resulting colours in mind.

The only likely way to have given the players different colours v France, it seems to me, would have been to drop Adams. Then McShane and Williams, who in the event lost with Black on boards 2 and 4 would each have had White instead on boards 1 and 3, whilst the in-form Conquest and solid Gordon may have held as Black. Is that what you mean?


P.S Anyone else notice the amusing typo above (in the reports of one of the womens' matches?)?

[John Saunders]

What followed was somewhat farcical. Despite the best efforts of the Bulgarian board three to “prove” there was no phone in his pocket or coat the arbiters seized the coats of the boards three and four and a thorough search found the offending item . Mr Delchev’s mobile was now the centre of attention. The chief arbiter convinced herself that this was indeed the mobile responsible and Mr Delchev was promptly defaulted and had to reluctantly sign the scoresheet leaving England 1-0 up with only one black game left to negotiate.

Two things strike me here: (1) is 'lying to the arbiter' some sort of additional offence? And (2) what legal right does an arbiter have to take possession of and inspect players' personal property without their permission, or even ask someone to turn out their pockets? I would expect that, in a litigious country (e.g. the USA or, increasingly so, the UK), the arbiter might well be sued for doing this - particularly, in this instance, by the Bulgarian board four who was innocent of the phone offence. If a player digs their heels in, saying "I haven't got a phone - and I'm not giving you permission to inspect my clothing or possessions", what should an arbiter do? It might add to the awkwardness if the suspected phone owner is a minor.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Oh, surely by sitting down to play, you give implied consent to an arbiter taking reasonable steps to enforce the rules. That can be interpreted to include searches of non-intimate clothing in the presence of the persons concerned where this would seem necessary to enforce the rules. In this case, the arbiter was certainly in the right area (she only searched two players) and it isn't as though she tried to strip search either of them. (Ha! that would be your difficult case, I guess).

[Alex Holowczak]

What followed was somewhat farcical. Despite the best efforts of the Bulgarian board three to “prove” there was no phone in his pocket or coat the arbiters seized the coats of the boards three and four and a thorough search found the offending item

Delchev's attempt to conceal it must have been better than this.

[John Saunders]

Oh, surely by sitting down to play, you give implied consent to an arbiter taking reasonable steps to enforce the rules. That can be interpreted to include searches of non-intimate clothing in the presence of the persons concerned where this would seem necessary to enforce the rules. In this case, the arbiter was certainly in the right area (she only searched two players) and it isn't as though she tried to strip search either of them. (Ha! that would be your difficult case, I guess).

I wouldn't be quite so confident of that interpretation in court faced with a tricky lawyer. I'm not criticising the arbiter in this case as she showed a rare degree of assertiveness in enforcing the letter of the law. Good for her. But when I sit down to play chess, I most certainly do not give implied permission to anyone to make me go through my pockets or otherwise humiliate me in public.

Let's take another test case... famous stroppy GM sits down to play an Olympiad game. A mobile phone is heard to ring. Eyes turn to the stroppy GM and the arbiter descends on him. Despite his protest that he does not have a phone on him, he is asked to turn out his pockets and eventually, very reluctantly, does so. A huge crowd has gathered, causing great disruption to other boards and matches, and includes various people with camcorders (who in due course publish their videos on Youtube). Nothing is found and nothing can be proved (alternative scenario - a phone is found but it is switched off). It suddenly occurs to those concerned that it could just as easily have been a spectator's phone as they were quite close to the board. Stroppy GM is absolutely furious and stomps out in high dudgeon. He withdraws from the event, sues the arbiter, organisers and FIDE for damage to his good name. What result? I wouldn't like to predict.

I think the mobile phone rule is as unjust to arbiters as it is to players. It expects them to take an unquantifiable legal risk in such circumstances. Even the police can't just stop people in the street and ask to go through their pockets for no reason - why should chess arbiters have that right? I suspect that the only way it might be made legal in the eyes of the law would be to put something in the entry form or a professional player's contract to say "In entering this event, I agree to be bound by the rules, and submit to showing the contents of my pockets on request..." etc, etc. Otherwise I think any arbiter seizing and searching a player's clothing or possessions without permission could well put themselves in legal jeopardy. Even then it might not hold water.

[Ian Thompson]

I wouldn't be quite so confident of that interpretation in court faced with a tricky lawyer. I'm not criticising the arbiter in this case as she showed a rare degree of assertiveness in enforcing the letter of the law. Good for her. But when I sit down to play chess, I most certainly do not give implied permission to anyone to make me go through my pockets or otherwise humiliate me in public.

I think you are right that an arbiter does not have the right to search a player. They can only ask a player for permission to do so. If that permission is refused, does the arbiter then have the right to default the player for refusing to do so? Is the onus on the arbiter to prove that the player had a phone which rang, or on the player to prove that he did not? If the onus is on the arbiter, does that make the rule unenforceable if the player refuses to cooperate?

[Rob Thompson]

P.S Anyone else notice the amusing typo above (in the reports of one of the womens' matches?)?

Yes, i did, though it seems to have been passed over by everyone else

[Jonathan Rogers]

My earlier post has been misread. I certainly did not suggest that an arbiter can conduct a body search in public! I assumed instead that Delcev's jacket had already been removed and that it was searched in his presence. That is hardly humiliating unless you are very sensitive, always assuming that there was good reason to suspect your involvement in infringing the rule in the first place. I think that, as long as the mobile phone rule exists, one might deem any player to consent to such low level intrusion.

But I do agree with JS that these complications are a further argument against having the mobile phone rule at all.

[Peter Rhodes]

what legal right does an arbiter have to take possession of and inspect players' personal property without their permission, or even ask someone to turn out their pockets?

I am just guessing that the term "seize" is used with some poetic license in the same sense that they might seize a blood sample from an athelete running the 100meters. I guess if the guy refuses to turn out his pockets - or generally comply with the arbitors reasonable requests then he is just assumed guilty.

I would like to have seen some video footage of a tug-of-war between the players and the arbitors wrestling over a coat

[John Saunders]

No, I think I read your post right, Jonathan, and I'm glad we agree on the difficulties of the mobile phone rule.

Where I disagree with you is that I would consider it to be very humiliating to be asked to turn out my pockets or bags in front of all the other people in the room in the case I previously mooted (i.e. where it wasn't my phone which had rung or, equally, if I merely thought it wasn't). If I were an arbiter, I would hate having to conduct such an investigation (just as well I'm not an arbiter, I suppose!).

On this point I do have some personal experience! A few years ago at the 4NCL in West Bromwich, a mobile phone rang in my vicinity. At which point I committed the biggest blunder of my chess career... I took out my phone and looked at it. This caused an entire roomful of people to concentrate their gaze on me. In one nanosecond I had been charged and found guilty by a jury of my peers. A desperate, imploring look back at the faces, trying to get across the message "it wasn't my phone, honest!" did no good at all. Luckily there was no arbiter present, so sentence of death by ring tone was not carried out and the game continued. Strange that my opponent did not attempt to enforce the rule, you might think... well, actually, not so strange as, a minute or so after the phone ring, he got up from the board and, as he left the room, was seen to be fumbling in his coat pocket. I later learnt that he had admitted he was the guilty party to his team mates. Incidentally, though my phone had not rung, it had actually been switched on so I wasn't entirely innocent (to borrow Nigel Short's joke when he also noticed his phone had been switched on during a game: "good thing I haven't got any friends"). But those looks on the faces of the other players were quite humiliating enough, I can assure you, without having some officious arbiter asking me to turn out my pockets.

A suggestion: repeal the mobile phone legislation (i.e. remove 12.2b removed from the laws), then leave it for competitions and leagues to make any specific provision they think reasonable for interpretation under 12.1 (bringing the game into disrepute). For example, on an entry form, the organisers could specify a number of things which they considered to be breaches of 12.1 (including mobile phone rings), accompanied by whatever penalty regime they were intending to impose. Or an individual federation could agree on a list of things which are to be interpreted as infractions of this law for games under their jurisdiction. Having 12.2b hard-coded into the rules is bad news for everybody, arbiters included. I think we should press for an early return to arbiter/organiser discretion on such issues.

[John Saunders]

And another thing... the chief arbiter in Novi Sad showed herself to be very capable when it came to searching Delchev's mobile phone for messages and calls received. But, given some of our native arbiters' difficulties in setting digital clocks, they would surely struggle when it came to extracting the relevant data from modern mobile phones.

[Roger de Coverly]

A suggestion: repeal the mobile phone legislation (i.e. remove 12.2b removed from the laws), then leave it for competitions and leagues to make any specific provision they think reasonable for interpretation under 12.1 (bringing the game into disrepute).

Something struck me about the new generation of "touch phones" (iphone and similar). It would probably be be possible to write an application which worked like the Monroi gadget, namely to display a board to accept move input and then transmit the game to a remote server for internet coverage. It's not going to happen though and Monroi and DGT will retain their monopolies on game transmission methods.