English Chess Forum

Barry Miles 1945 - 2024

I am sorry to have to tell you that Barry has died, aged 79.

Keen player and very supportive member of South Norwood, also active at Coulsdon.

Very considerate and helpful, it was always a pleasure to meet Barry.

It's terribly sad to hear this news.

Barry was one of the first people I came across when I first got into chess about 15 years ago.

What a nice man.

On behalf of everyone at Battersea Chess Club, condolences to his family, friends and South Norwood Chess Club.

A real loss to chess.

Sad news.

Sorry to hear the news that Barry has passed away. I remember him as a genial and talkative chap.

On behalf of Streatham and Brixton Chess Club I express our sadness at the news of Barry's passing. Over so many seasons he was a friendly and courteous opponent (win, draw, or lose) in our matches with South Norwood CC - for whom he was a stalwart member. It is a great loss to the local chess community.
Our condolences to his club, and family.
Martin Smith
President.
S&BCC.

Barry was always supportive of County Chess, last playing for my Surrey U1650 team in January this year. He was always a tough competitor and in recent years (perhaps affected by illness) his rating was a bit down and up, but he won one of the lower rated sections at Paignton two years in a row recently. I will miss him.

Barry playing at the Basingstoke 4NCL congress in 2018

Condolences from Kingston Chess Club to Barry's friends, family and the clubs for which he played. He was a great servant of chess and, as others have said, a thoroughly nice man. If my memory serves, he played for South Norwood at Kingston earlier in the season despite looking very unwell, demonstrating his tremendous commitment to and love of the game.

On a personal note, I recall playing a game against Barry for Surbiton against South Norwood at least 10 years ago. It was an all-moves-in-one-hour game. Barry had Black and outplayed me in a Queen's Gambit Declined, creating a bind on the queenside which caused me no end of trouble. Eventually I liquidated down to an equal king and pawn endgame, but I was in imminent danger of losing on time, so claimed the position was a theoretical draw. The position was drawn, but with no arbiter present Barry could have insisted I played on, in which case I would almost certainly have made an error or simply lost on time. But he didn't: he calmly accepted my view that the position was drawn and shook hands on it. A very gentlemanly player who clearly played because he loved it, and didn't worry overmuch about ratings or winning at all costs. Exactly the sort of player we cannot afford to lose, which makes his death doubly sad.

Stephen Moss, Secretary, Kingston Chess Club

SMoss wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2024 6:56 pm

Eventually I liquidated down to an equal king and pawn endgame, but I was in imminent danger of losing on time, so claimed the position was a theoretical draw. The position was drawn, but with no arbiter present Barry could have insisted I played on, in which case I would almost certainly have made an error or simply lost on time. But he didn't: he calmly accepted my view that the position was drawn and shook hands on it.

Surrey are a law unto themselves in terms of local rules, but if they followed the FIDE conventions, play ceases with your claim. The current version is shown below from https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023 but the wording has been much the same since QP finishes first became mainstream.

I

II.6 The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:

III.6.1 A player may claim a draw when he/she has less than two minutes left on his/her clock and before his/her flag falls. This concludes the game. He/She may claim on the basis:

III.6.1.1 that his/her opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or

III.6.1.2 that his/her opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means. In III.6.1.1 the player must write down the final position and his/her opponent must verify it. In III.6.1.2 the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.

III.6.2 The claim shall be referred to the designated arbiter.

Back in the 90s at a junior tournament I asked David Welch for guidance on the awarding of a draw following a 10.2 claim. David's response was that you should consider whether the player not making the claim would be playing on if the clocks were to be removed from the game. Sound advice which has stood me in good stead for many years and I can well imagine Barry taking the same point of view.

I hadn't seen Barry for 15-20 years but I remember him well when he used to play for Eastcote (now Hatch End) in the Hillingdon League. As people say a great sportsman and ambassador for the game.

Peter Ackley wrote: ↑

Wed May 29, 2024 10:10 am

David's response was that you should consider whether the player not making the claim would be playing on if the clocks were to be removed from the game.

I'm not sure that's right, though. Giving an opportunity to make a mistake to an opponent who is short of time is definitely a part of the game.

A better question, which might have been less obvious thirty years ago, is whether they would be bothering to play on were a three second increment in place.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed May 29, 2024 2:36 pm

I'm not sure that's right, though. Giving an opportunity to make a mistake to an opponent who is short of time is definitely a part of the game.

On the contrary if I believed that my opponent had the opportunity to make a mistake then I would be playing on even if time was not an issue. I've played on in many drawn endgames because I believed that there was a chance of eliciting an error from my opponent whilst I was equally confident they could not elicit one from me.

To provide context to the original quote it was a junior tournament and I had something like 2B+5 vs 2B+4. Neither side had any weaknesses or past pawns. I had 2mins, my opponent 20mins. I was trying to get pawns moving but my opponent had a blockade and was shuffling around quickly. I offered a draw, which was declined. So I claimed a draw and the arbiter correctly said "play on".

We played on until my flag fell. At which point I had something like 2B+4 vs 1B+1. I had passed pawns, an extra piece - hell I was about to queen a pawn and mate was not far off. The arbiter awarded the draw at that point. My opponent argued against the claim, stating they had mating material. They were then asked if the clock was taken away would they still be playing on. They responded in that case they would have resigned. Kinda answered the question as to whether they were playing for a win at that point.

Many years later saw the same thing at the Frome congress. NvP (rooks pawn). Player with the N declined the draw stating that they were trying to win by making the opponent put his K in front of the pawn in a help-mate. Arbiter let the game continue - player with the P put his K in the opposite corner. Player with the N put his K in front of the pawn (without taking it) and chased the K around with the N. When the flag fall happened the player with the N claimed the win, which was denied as he had made no progress whatsover. They argued again, only to be asked if the player with the P had 10mins would they have played on. Their answer was no. Argument over at that point.

Four or five years ago someone told me they were playing Barry in a tournament game but fell ill. Barry quickly realised something was amiss, agreed a draw and arranged for medical assistance. He was a decent and likeable man who played chess in the right way - I played him two or three times over the years at Coulsdon with little success.

To my mind, the comments about the laws of chess completely miss the point and spirit of the post by Stephen Moss and don't belong in this section of the forum.

Gordon Morse wrote: ↑

Wed May 29, 2024 7:34 pm

Four or five years ago someone told me they were playing Barry in a tournament game but fell ill. Barry quickly realised something was amiss, agreed a draw and arranged for medical assistance. He was a decent and likeable man who played chess in the right way - I played him two or three times over the years at Coulsdon with little success.

I can vouch for the veracity of this incident, which I believe was at one the weekend tournaments held at Imperial College, as I was playing on a nearby board at the time. While I encountered Barry quite a lot at various congresses, I only ever played him twice.

RIP.

Very sad to hear this. I have not seen Barry in many years but always found him really friendly and helpful. He used to give me lifts often from wherever we were playing to the train station or somewhere that I needed to get to. I first played Barry in 2011. It was only my second ever tournament other than the British which was my first 2. Barry was my first real decent result of my life. Was only a draw but at the time he was much higher rated than me. Ad he said after the game you really deserved that haha. I remember feeling so good wen he said that. Over the next few years 2 more draws followed. We just couldn’t beat each other. Although I did beat him a few times in blitz and rapid.

But it wasn’t until our last meeting that I finally beat him in classical. By then he was much lower rated than me. But he was always so friendly and a great character. And by his ecf page it seems he was playing just weeks before he passed. And he won both games. Well done Barry and sad I won’t see you again. Also I echo what the earlier poster said about respecting this thread. Discussing rules on someone’s RIp thread is not in good taste and comments should be removed.