London Junior Chess Championships (LJCC ) 28th-30th December

[LozCooper]

London Junior Chess Championships (LJCC ) 28th-30th December

http://www.ljcc.co.uk
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u1821.htm
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u16.htm
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u12maj.htm
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u12min.htm
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u8.htm

The FIDE rated open ended in a seven way tie on 4.5/6 between Philip Bonafont, Paul Georghiou, Akash Jain, Karel Mitura, Magdalena Miturova, Nasir Rizvi and Saravanan Sathyanandha.

The under 16 section was won by Marcus Harvey with 5.5/6 ahead of Peter Batchelor with 5 and Oskar Hackner with 4.5. Highest placed girls were Radha Jain and Maria Wang who both scored 4.

The under 12 major was shared between William Claridge Hansen, Michael Fletcher, Conor Murphy and Anna Wang who all scored 7/9 whilst the under 12 minor was won by Daniel Jackson on 7.5/9 ahead of John Croasdale and Matthew McLachlan on 7.

The under 8 section was won by Sacha Brozel on 6.5/9 ahead of Oliver Howell on 6.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Two questions regarding Oliver Howell:
1) Is he related to David?
2) What's the story behind his one point bye in the final round of the U8?
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u8.htm

The U12 major was very strong. I played the person who had the bye in round 6 just to give him a game. He had 0.5/5 but played very well against me.
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u12maj.htm

[ChrisHowell]

Two questions regarding Oliver Howell:
1) Is he related to David?
2) What's the story behind his one point bye in the final round of the U8?
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u8.htm

The U12 major was very strong. I played the person who had the bye in round 6 just to give him a game. He had 0.5/5 but played very well against me.
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u12maj.htm

My family - Chris, Sue (current British no. 1 rated female correspondence player), Matthew and Oliver are not related as far as we can tell to either David or James, although both boys are very impressed that there are already two English GMs called Howell!

Oliver was given a win on appeal in the last round as his opponent, despite several warnings, was illegally writing his moves down before playing them. When he wrote a losing move (mate in 2 which Oli immediately spotted) down, then rubbed it out, and played another move, Oliver stopped the clock and called the Arbiter, who made what he later admitted was the wrong decision not to enforce a previous declaration that the boy concerned must play any move he wrote down before playing it which Oli knew of. Oli played on as asked (in a won position) but got upset, blundered, and lost. The appeal committee quite understandably gave him a point retrospectively. Personally I think that should count for grading too and not be a "bye" as the game would have been immediately settled over the board if the consistent decision had been made then and there. I believe the other boy was given a half-point in the end.

[Sean Hewitt]

Two questions regarding Oliver Howell:
1) Is he related to David?
2) What's the story behind his one point bye in the final round of the U8?
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u8.htm

The U12 major was very strong. I played the person who had the bye in round 6 just to give him a game. He had 0.5/5 but played very well against me.
http://www.ljcc.co.uk/2010%20tables/2010u12maj.htm

My family - Chris, Sue (current British no. 1 rated female correspondence player), Matthew and Oliver are not related as far as we can tell to either David or James, although both boys are very impressed that there are already two English GMs called Howell!

Oliver was given a win on appeal in the last round as his opponent, despite several warnings, was illegally writing his moves down before playing them. When he wrote a losing move (mate in 2 which Oli immediately spotted) down, then rubbed it out, and played another move, Oliver stopped the clock and called the Arbiter, who made what he later admitted was the wrong decision not to enforce a previous declaration that the boy concerned must play any move he wrote down before playing it which Oli knew of. Oli played on as asked (in a won position) but got upset, blundered, and lost. The appeal committee quite understandably gave him a point retrospectively. Personally I think that should count for grading too and not be a "bye" as the game would have been immediately settled over the board if the consistent decision had been made then and there. I believe the other boy was given a half-point in the end.

A point and a half given awarded for a game? Deja vu anyone?

Very valid point made about the grading position. I wonder what they'll do in that regard?

[Matthew Turner]

Chris and others,
I appreciate that the situation was upsetting for Oliver, but really we have ended with a bizarre outcome. An U8 finishes a tournament with a win to finish in second place. Then later on he is given a half-point bye because he infringed the rules on writing down his moves in a competition where writing down the moves isn't even mandatory.
I don't know Samuel McConnell, but I hope he comes through this experience and continues to enjoy his chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

Then later on he is given a half-point bye because he infringed the rules on writing down his moves in a competition where writing down the moves isn't even mandatory.

While not obliged to write the moves down due to the time limit, he was doing so in a way that could be construed as making notes, which is breaking a different rule from the writing the moves down rules. Clearly he was distracting his opponent, and given the explanation about the mate above, he was indeed using it to make notes.

For me the most surprising element is that this incident happened in round 7. Why didn't it happen in rounds 1 to 6? I can't believe he suddenly changed to cause this problem before round 7. Perhaps none of the other people he played knew the rule...

[David Shepherd]

Mathew - I think it was just one of those things - both players came out the room very upset even before any appeal. Samuel was I believe upset partly as he had been prevented from recording after the incident (in itself a very odd penalty). Oliver came out saying he had been told he had won the game then told that he hadn't.

I think the point at issue was not that he was writing down the move before he played it, but that he wrote down a losing move, rubbed it out and wrote down another move despite being previously warned that once he wrote down the move he had to play it.

I think it was a bad experience for both of them and one of those things that turned in to a no win situation. I think there was no suggestion of intended cheating just an unfortunate incident for all concerned particularly after the game had been allowed to continue.

As you say, I just hope neither player has been put off the game as both did well to finish high up in the tournament.

[Matthew Turner]

David,
You are right no cheating, just very, very, poor arbitting.

[John R Moore]

In my former years, I used to referee at a high level in a very different and violent sport compared to chess, we were always made aware that "rules are tools". But it seems to me all the arbiters I have come across never seem to make a postive decision and hope the "problem" will go away. As very often they just stand there and watch and then choose to ignore what they have observed