2024 National Stages

[ChrisBriscoe]

Hello, it is Chris Briscoe here - I almost never go on this site. I was the Surrey player who 'lost' on board 13. There seems to be a mystery surrounding what happened, so I will try and explain this, and why.

This was a County Championships final between two counties at opposite ends of the Country. Surrey Vs Northumberland. It was played at a half-way venue in Newark, Notts. Both sides had considerable travelling to do to get here. My journey was 2 and 3/4 hours of 150 miles, and I assume similar for the players of Northumberland.

I played a highly unusual first move, but have, as someone else pointed out, played it online several times on the lichess platform this season, surprisingly with better success than I would have expected! Shall I, shan't I try it in a big game? Maybe best not to, but why not? Let's try it - I have had success after all. I just hoped my opponent wouldn't mind, and not think I was playing 'silly games', or anything like that. He thought, played solidly, and the game continued for 9 moves, during which he used up 25 more minutes than me. The time limit for the match was about 2hrs and 20 mins with increment, so we had plenty of time to play the match.

I was 25 minutes up on the clock, so I got up and left the playing hall and wandered outside for fresh air, as I often do in my club games, came back, my opponent was still thinking, and went outside again. Then I decided to walk into Newark Town Centre to look around. I like visiting new places when I can, and felt because of my time advantage, that I could do this with a clear conscience.

I learnt a few things! Newark's Polish history during WWII, the Civil War, and how their Castle was the key to taking the North, etc... I visited the Church (Magdelene, I think), went round the market, and into the Town Hall, where a really nice old gentleman, who was a curator there, took me round some other rooms including the Mayor's chambers, and spoke about the history of the Town. Though feeling the need to get back to my game, this was an unexpected surprise, and worth doing, especially having travelled all that way. The time lost on my clock would be worth it in my view.

In all, I was gone 50 minutes, and in returning was 25 minutes down on my clock, rather than 25 minutes up.

Not the best chess choice I could make, but worth it, if one wants to add a bit of local culture of the place one visits when travelling there to play chess.

When I got to the board, an arbiter came to me, wanted to speak to me outside, and informed me I had lost as I had left the playing venue!

Though not playing much chess nowadays, I mainly teach, I was mildly aware of weird things happening to players like getting defaulted for spurious reasons. It is a gauntlet many chess players have to face - which they shouldn't have to face. Chess should be fun, and should furthermore be encouraged to be fun to play. One should not have to feel that one is perpetually playing in prison like conditions. Cannot leave the venue. Mobile phone ringing. Can't even have a mobile phone. Even, I heard, if you use the wrong toilets in the 4NCL. As I pointed out to the arbiter, in the 70s, they would have made comedic sketches on this.

I have to say, that this is practical insanity. It is a harsh term, but it is apt. Why? Because a problem - that of cheating, or rather possible cheating, or even perceived cheating, has been isolated and magnified to the nth degree to the extent that it is deemed acceptable to make playing conditions more and more unpleasant for the average chessplayer. This is wrong, there is no other reasonable way to view this.

However, many fall into the trap of claiming, 'We must stop cheating', as the answer to any objection on this front. That is as far as their minds will go and no further. Nothing else is worth considering.

I think this may unfortunately apply to many reading this, along with 'rules are rules', and applying the letter of the law. In fact, good arbiters apply the spirit of the law, and in my opinion, from my attending a weekend arbiters course back in 2008 in Crowthorne, a superb example of this approach was that of the late David Welch.

A practical example, from my experience, was in lockdown, when I organised the Surbiton Junior teams to play in online tournaments and friendlies against teams both junior and adult from around the world. It was the highlight of their week at the time! As I couldn't teach in schools then (only 'essential'/key workers allowed), I formed the junior club from the existing OTB one, as well as the best players from my schools. We even had a 40+ board match against juniors from South Korea at one stage! Now, with many games being played, some of my players got pinged by the anti-cheating software. My initial reaction to such software was that it is good to detect cheating, and that still runs true today. However, it became clear to me that many who were pinged were clearly not cheating, were innocent, and furthermore were so traumatised by the accusation as well as having their accounts closed. I made it a point to, as soon as I could, get the child and parent on a zoom call to ask questions, get further information, and often explain to them that many false positives did happen, and that I didn't for one moment believe they were cheating, if I was satisfied with what they said, as I invariable was the vast majority of the time. Many then got other accounts and continued to play. Of course one or maybe two did cheat, and I had to be vigilant and aware to that - but to jump on a bandwagon to say that everyone pinged by anti-cheating software has no sympathy, and is banned from the online junior club they played for, as incredibly many junior captains did do, was an example of this mass psychosis.

The above, though I went on a bit is an example of what I consider to me a level-headed reaction to this issue which is why I mentioned it as a practical example of how not to take one side to the extreme of not considering other views, and being led solely by eith anti-cheating software, or new fide laws as - well - a kind of absolute truth. It is a terrible mistake to make.

Today was obviously a very negative experience, clearly my losing 50 minutes on my clock will only hurt me, what real help could a computer give me in the position I had after move 9? (very minimal at best). So the question of my getting an unfair advantage is absurd.

This is a clear case of where applying the spirit of the law supersedes applying the letter of the law.

Both players had travelled far to play in this big match, so stopping the game after move 9 making them have a wasted journey is just silly. The arbiter was polite, but he couldn't get past the 'rules are rules' mentality which he even quoted to me once.

I emailed my captain after the match, and apologised for 'losing' the game for Surrey, but telling him the circumstances, and he was very good about it, even saying at one stage, "It is madness, this obsession with stopping cheating. I can’t believe that anyone wants to cheat at our level/age etc. it’s a game we play for fun".

I didn't go into the depth I went into here...

But I thought to write this, as I feel it is a cancer we have in the game at the moment, and not just that, but a societal problem that exists. And I am not talking about cheating (though one needs to be aware), I am talking about the quality and conditions for normal chess players who just want to enjoy their hobby.

Nasty rules like I have mentioned fosters a culture of mistrust of others, envy, paranoia, and fear of the consequences of what are very small infractions when looked at from a broader perspective.

It is that which is not properly considered, and which needs to be.
And it is not considered due to the frenzy of stopping the cheaters. It is unbalanced.

Finally, I wish to congratulate both teams, and all 32 players for travelling to the match today. That is the main thing, and the organisation that went into showcasing this event, commentary, etc which can only enhance the game to others.

I only wrote this piece because, due to my experience, I think it important to highlight an area of our game that not only is in need of repair, but, more worryingly hardly considered at all. And they are the hardest to fix - the problems (rules) that are not considered problems - because in name only, they are 'solving' other problems (cheating).

Chris

[Chris Goodall]

What I think you're ignoring here Chris, is that it's precisely because certain behaviour can be made to sound innocuous that the cheaters get ideas in their heads.

If you stand outside the venue and call your wife, that is a loss by default, so leaving the area where you can be observed using your phone must also be a loss by default. There are controversial scenarios and grey areas within the modern Laws of Chess, but that isn't one of them. If you establish a "sight-seeing defence" to this rule, the next cheater will claim to have been sight-seeing.

Although it ought to be irrelevant, because it should not be for the arbiter to judge whether a position is conducive to outside assistance, being only nine moves into a game is not evidence in your favour. On the contrary, move 9 is the perfect time to pop to the bookstore and brush up on the theory of the line you're playing, or to look your opponent up on lichess and find out if he's faced your pet variation before.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is a clear case of where applying the spirit of the law supersedes applying the letter of the law.

I might agree with you if it was just nipping across the road to get something from a shop. Taking fifty minutes out to go sightseeing is verging on bringing the game into disrepute and it was the Open National Final, being broadcast to the world.

Just before Covid, there was a case where a prodigy appeared in local league games, beating most or all of the established stars playing very quickly. It was never established in public at least, the secrets of success, but suspicions were raised when the player had an extremely poor result in a Blitz tournament played under more rigorous scrutiny.

I think FIDE go too far with bans on watches and pens in Olympiads etc. British arbiters more or less have it right, with phones being allowed but switched off and seen to be out of use. Also where possible with the venue, attempts are made to maintain segregation between players and non-players. That probably explains the 4NCL decision on toilets, although with some 4NCL venues, the areas where parents etc. congregate is too close to the players.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think we should be thankful the match was not close. I like sightseeing as much as the next person, but would do it before or after the game.

It did end up wasting your opponent's travelling time, Chris, as he ended up not getting a proper game.

The arbiter did the right thing here. Is it obvious who they are, or was this person part of a team of arbiters? The other question I had is whether the arbiting team acted proactively here (made enquiries as to where you were and found out you had left the playing area and if so, how they ascertained this)? Or whether one of the players raised your absence with the arbiting team?

I love the story of the old gentleman (curator) talking to you about the history of Newark. Putting the chess to one side, that is the sort of thing that keeps local public history going.

[Richard Bates]

I think most people would think that if you wanted you combine the chess with a bit of sightseeing that could have been done via setting off early and allowing time before the game. Hopefully there was an apology after the game to the opponent for the waste of their time.

[ChrisBriscoe]

I think that if one is *used* to certain conditions, one accepts them and foregoes questioning them. He basically settles for it, sees only the logic in its favour, and so there is nothing more that he will, or can, say on the matter.

What I am doing is questioning certain assumptions that many take for granted. I gave an example of that in my previous post regarding on-line cheating, or rather perceived on-line cheating, with my direct experience of being the manager of a junior side during lockdown and dealing with it.

In order to attempt to solve this, it is most important to be aware of different ways of looking at situations - whether one agrees, or not, with them.

This is a key principle to diffusing any kind of unpleasant disagreements than can arise during any sort of event, which can become emotional, and I can report that yesterday any conversations were carried out in a reasonable and respectful manner, and no one was disturbed.

I have heard different views on here from some people, and thanks for the responses - the vast majority hone in on the view of cheating, and how to prevent it. I did think it may be the case that many will find it hard to see views other than this, and mentioned it as well previously.

Now, from my perspective, I look at it differently, and simply...

I used 50 minutes of my time to go into town, do some sightseeing, which I don't regret. I didn't use any computer, nor would I consider or be tempted to do so. In short, I did absolutely nothing wrong, and on returning, my game was defaulted.

That is absolute injustice, which is why I have put an honest account of what happened up here, as I saw others asking and being confused.

That's it.

Now, if an absolute injustice has occurred in an environment where we think the environment is correct, or the best it can be, then we need to look at it, and think if it is indeed so.

As I said before, the tendency is to hone into 'we must prevent cheating', and do that at the expense of almost everything else, thereby creating, maybe inadvertently, a distasteful playing environment, where players become terrified of the consequences of any small infractions. A bad vibe is created. That is my point. I, myself, do not intent to become a victim of this culture when I am playing chess.

Now, many who subscribe to this 'we must prevent cheating, at all costs' mentality, will find many ways to support very nasty rules which appear to 'solve' this problem. First off, the problem (of cheating) will be enhanced to the position of 'it could threaten our game of chess' - to that level. That will induce support for this bad environment that I spoke of. That is how it works.

That is an overview, a broader minded viewpoint - in my opinion.

Regarding cheating, some do it, but very few, and especially as people are becoming more aware of it, and how it can occur, even less. Those who do, get found out before they are officially found out, and their reputations are lost as a result. So, contrary to what some who are frightened by this phenomenon feel, it does not threaten the game of chess, although one must be aware of it...

Again, what I consider a broad-minded view.

Regarding some of the points made on this forum, I will say that first that it is true cheaters can claim actions as innocuous, and they will even get away with it - so far. But when they continue to do it, they will be found out. It happened before all this extra forced vigilance, and is the best, and only sane way round the problem. Calling one's wife outside the venue resulting in a loss is just another example of unnecessary and nasty rules which only really serve to make the playing of high profile games less pleasant. Again, if one just looks at the 'rules', as the only parameter for this discussion, then one will be affected by a kind of mind-blindness, which is no way to go about solving problems. Chess players should know this. Just like in my game, after 9 moves it was not theoretical (I played 1... h5?! on the first move!!), and a discerning arbiter can easily make a call as to whether or not any meaningful advantage could be gleaned by consulting with an engine. But as I said, very few people would even want to do this. We just want to play chess, and not feel inhibited.

When immersing into the nitty-gritty 'rules', one can start to imagine certain scenarios where generally they are correct, but perhaps there is a case of crossing the road which is then a but harsh - possibly, and thus have an in depth discussion into the minutiae of a very moot, and really unimportant point. Many do this, thinking they are getting somewhere, but miss the wider morality and correctness of the situation. Again there are examples of people who have 'played the system', but as I said before - they do get found out! To be honest, is my taking a break for 50 minutes bringing the game into disrepute? Part of me is tempted to agree that it is. However, surely it is the players responsibility on how to use his time, and he is only hurting his own chances at the board by losing so much time - he should not have other restrictions placed on him. Incidentally, I also think clock should be started on time, and if a player is not present, then there should be no default time (an outlandish suggestion?), but if he doesn't appear and loses on time, then he loses the rating points. That saves the opponent from a wasted journey of a default win but no point gain. That was a little beside the point, but gives what I consider a fairer result and outcome which is where in general, the focus needs to be on.

Yes, it was good the match did not decide on it - that is one reason why it is important to be as fair as one can, and yes, my opponent did have a wasted journey as did I (chess-wise, but not sight-seeing wise!). However, I did have an amenable conversation with mu opponent afterward, and even said, 'Look, you have won the game - well done, but shall we just go back in and play the position, so at least we both have a game?' Chess-wise, we would not have lost anything apart from the competitiveness of the subsequent played game contributing to the teams overall score - as it had already been decided. To the arbiters credit, he did offer my proposal to my opponent, he declined, and he did likewise when I spoke to him as well. We were, however friendly with each other though. I think arbiters have better things to do than proactively find players - they have to concentrate on their job in an important match. Yes, moment like that old gentleman showing me round the town hall makes sight-seeing well worth doing, and I'm pleased I did it. It is a shame to go somewhere solely to play chess if you have the opportunity to do something else as well. Though time is often tight.

True, sightseeing can be fitted around a chess event - that is indeed ideal, but practically often not done, or more difficult to do. With me, it was an ad-hoc spur of the moment thing. I was 25 minutes up, so after umming and arring, thought okay, let's do it! When I got to the town hall, though, it was difficult to refuse the kind gentleman's offer, and so I spent longer in town than I was intending to, by quite a way. As I said before, the opponent was offered a game not counting for rating as he already got many points from the decision, my being over 250 fide points above him. Any apology should be offered to me by the arbiter for defaulting me, when I had done nothing wrong. That is the bare bones of it.

However, the arbiter genuinely did feel that he did the right thing by applying that rule, and thus, I think we have a situation where serious injustices can and will take place, not by the players, but by those 'in charge', by not using common sense in the application of rules. Not just that, it is an ongoing problem...

Because him and many will agree with his stance, there is, as I said before, a serious problem, and it does come down to what my captain emailed me, when he said (I repeat), 'It is madness, this obsession with stopping cheating. I can’t believe that anyone wants to cheat at our level/age etc. it’s a game we play for fun'.

And that is the problem. It is what we as a chess playing community need to focus on, and not the minutiae of the little details, which will more or less fade into oblivion when we approach it with a broader minded conception.

Finally, I do have to apologise for bringing this unsavoury topic up, especially when the focus should be on the match, interesting games, the closeness (it was tighter than 10 - 6, I hear!), and the sheer effort of everyone, players and officials in making sure such an important event took place. A lot of credit should go to a lot of people for yesterday.

I only did this because it is a problem which affects our game which is *not* addressed, and that is all.

[John Moore]

Mr Briscoe thinks from what I can see that he has suffered serious injustice. Words almost fail me. He left the venue and his game for fifty minutes - disrespectful to his opponent, his teammates and his team captain. What would happen if his teammates and/or opponents all decided to follow his idea - some down the pub, some for a nice walk in the park. The arbiters would be left there with half a team on each side and players drifting in and out as they pleased and would all be able to resist a bit of a look at their phone whilst they were away.

That won't happen, you say, but according to Mr Briscoe, what's to stop it.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I think going off for a 50 minute walk in the middle of a serious game of chess is incredibly disrespectful to your opponent and to be honest I'm not that impressed with 1. ... h5 either.

[Thomas Rendle]

Absolutely bizarre that Chris feels he's been badly treated. All the the games were online as well, so presumably on live boards. With how easy it would be to cheat the arbiter had absolutely no choice but to default him.

Hopefully Chris reflects upon his actions and apologises to those involved.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I don't care about openings, you still have to beat whatever your opponents essays against you. If people react badly to "unusual" moves like 1----h5 (as some do) then that is a psychological weakness which it is legitimate for the adversary to exploit - and a fully valid part of chess.

I have also been known to leave a playing venue to "get some air", but would definitely draw the line at going on a sightseeing tour.

[Ian Thompson]

I did absolutely nothing wrong

Yes you did. You broke rule 11.2.3.1 - "Only with the permission of the arbiter can a player leave the playing venue."

I assume asking the arbiter for permission would have been easy to do. He could then have made a decision and everything would have been fine (other than, I strongly suspect, you missing out on the sightseeing you wanted to do).

[Roger de Coverly]

I can’t believe that anyone wants to cheat at our level/age etc. it’s a game we play for fun'.

Over the board is still quite rare, probably helped by bans on mobile phone usage and communications with third parties. There have been examples though.

During the pandemic playing online, it may well have been much more endemic. It would have been far easier, just fire up a second device and use it to "watch with commentary" your own game in progress. Rather more difficult to do that in over the board play under the eyes of the opponent and possibly arbiters.

[David Lettington]

Irrespective of whether a player thinks the Laws / tournament rules are fair or not, I think that it's a reasonable expectation that participants should be expected to play by the rules as they exist, and not how they would like them to be written. As such, I can't see how any reasonable person would think that a default was an incorrect decision.

[Chris Goodall]

I too will defend anyone's right to play 1...h5 without it reflecting on their character or being used in a discussion of whether they are a disrespectful sort of person.

But Chris B is deluding himself badly about the extent to which his contempt for the rules is shared by anyone else. The principle that it's only cheating if it advantages you, does not exist and has never existed.

A golf player carrying an extra club in his bag will be penalised even if he doesn't hit a ball with it.
A baseball player bringing a corked bat onto the field will be penalised even if physicists have shown corked bats to be ineffective.
A sprinter found to have taken a diuretic that can speed the passage of performance-enhancing drugs out of the body, will be penalised even if they have never taken any performance-enhancing drugs. And so on.

Chris B can count himself very lucky, firstly that his team captain had just won the counties final by a comfortable margin, secondly that his opponent was my teammate Chris Izod whose conversations after the game are never anything but amenable. Other members of the Jesmond WhatsApp group had stronger words for Chris B's conduct.

[ChrisBriscoe]

I think the concept of rules and their application in chess, as in any other sport can be quite a deep subject matter when one gets to the essence of it, but in general many will just go along with the latest diktats, and not give so much thought to them.

Because of this, many will only consider the letter of the law.

But rules are written for a purpose.

And the purpose behind many of the rules mentioned so far (many being unpleasant) is to combat cheating.

And the definition of cheating *is* to gain an unfair advantage.
Indeed a common interpretation is: "to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage".

That is what these rules are trying to prevent, and it is a noble aim.

There may be rules written to prevent people from the possibility of being in a situation whereby he can more easily cheat, but these are secondary, and need to be seen and treated as such. Otherwise we get paranoia, and mistrust, etc.

Now, every situation is different, and so the onus is on the arbiter/umpire/referee to make a judgement based not only on the rules themselves, but also the situation itself. If he does this, he will arrive at a more mature decision.

There are many considerations, but to rely solely on the letter of the law, without exercising one's judgement, is just plain lazy. However, it is often done. This is a major problem - especially when mixed with the witch hunt of 'flushing out cheaters', and 'to ensure it never happens'. As my captain said, "It is madness, this obsession with stopping cheating...". This *is* a view shared by a lot of people...

Because it is not generally appreciated by others to be an obsession however, they just 'go with the flow', and the problem is not detected. That is why I felt it incumbent on me to mention this, especially as I was on the receiving end in the match, have experience in helping juniors unfairly pinged online during lockdown, and generally have great sympathy with others who have also been very harshly treated in similar circumstances.

One 'plays by the rules', but a simple common sense approach to playing chess should ensure that there needs be no issue if one does just that - especially as there are many minor rules, that keep changing, and it is unreasonable to expect the average chess player to keep on top of them, when all he wants to do is just play chess - in his spare time.

When talking with the arbiter afterward, I did admit that perhaps I could have asked before leaving the venue. However, on closer consideration - why should one do even that? We are all adults, and should not have to ask to leave the room - it is humiliating! When one looks at it in that light, it becomes easier to see it as ridiculous. Yet again, many will just go along with it, accepting this as normal practise. They will accept the official explanation that one could possibly cheat without considering how very rare that is, and how intrusive having to ask permission actually is. They will just accept it, and not go against the grain. (Note: The nature of Chess, unlike Tennis, does allow for this). Sometimes one has to act against vox populi in order to do the right thing. It is unfortunate, but true, and does have to be done.

If not, we run a serious risk of mass acceptance of accepting something undesirable - en masse.

In my case, and reflecting on my actions, the fact is that my game was still in progress even after I went away for 50 minutes (which whilst odd, only served in my losing that time on my clock - which of course I deserved). However, with the game still in progress, the arbiter then interrupted the game, and awarded a win to one player. When the game was still in progress! That is fact. It is wrong, and not correct.

If anyone deserves an apology, it really is me, but as the arbiter genuinely thought he was doing the right thing, (being, in my opinion, blinded by following the letter of the law) it is therefore not proper for me to demand one. If he truthfully thinks that defaulting me was the right thing to do, then he should from his position default me, and no blame should be attached to him.

What I am saying is that these decisions are arrived at by immature consideration already mentioned, and it is this fact that I wanted to draw attention to, and is the purpose of my posts here.