European Team Championship November 2023

[NickFaulks]

"Er, I'm told I'll lose my FIDE-titles if I fail to be at least a Gold Member

Who has been told that?

[Kevin Thurlow]

Everyone? Admittedly some years ago.

[John Moore]

I think that there is some confusion here. Jobava must have been the one making the three fold repetition claim. If David plays Kh6, he is winning although it does appear somewhat risky. Presumably David's complaint is that the arbiter wrongly allowed Jobava's claim.

Coming back to this, it must be possible to get an answer to this? Maybe those who have Twitter accounts can link to anything there that sheds light on this (the full thread is only visible to those with accounts, unless I am still missing some way to follow a thread without being logged in?).

It should be part of the historical record how the game ended. Who made the claim and how the draw was enacted.

From the moves as published, either Jobava or David could have made a claim relating to either of the final two half moves (different procedures in each case). Yes, Kh6 is winning, but David eschewed that move twice and has lost that chance in the final position as Jobava can claim again before the third chance arises.

This is why I am surmising that David was the one making the claim, but it would be nice to know either way.

Yes, but Jobava was forced to repeat the position. If David had decided that Kh6 was too dangerous because of his time shortage, he would just offer the draw and Jobava accepts so there would be no need for a repetition claim. You don't make a repetition claim if your opponent is forced to accept your draw offer. I think that it is likely that David miscounted the repetitions and then Jobava failed to make his claim correctly but that the arbiter still allowed it. But I agree that it would be nice to know for certain.

[NickFaulks]

I have never grasped why you can't just play a move, stop the clock and say "it's the third time this position has happened". I was once shown a complex example of why this wouldn't work, but I didn't understand it.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Consider the (unlikely, I know) situation where you make the move, and then your opponent responds with checkmate before you can stop the clock.

[IM Jack Rudd]

(This is, I'll admit, a ludicrous scenario when it comes to threefold repetition, but it's more realistic when it comes to 50-move-rule claims.)

[Paul Heaton]

Given that the ECF pay appearance fees and expenses for players representing England in Olympiads and Euros, why doesn't the ECF throw in complimentary membership as well?

Len McClusky was pulling down a sizeable pay cheque for being head- or whatever his formal title was- of the Unite Union. But I’d be amazed if him paying his union fees was not a pre-requisite for doing so.

I do not understand how you can ever be selected to represent an organisation you are not a member of.

[Paul Heaton]

Len McClusky was pulling down a sizeable pay cheque for being head- or whatever his formal title was- of the Unite Union. But I’d be amazed if him paying his union fees was not a pre-requisite for doing so.

I do not understand how you can ever be selected to represent an organisation you are not a member of.

Not to labour the point, but I see the ECF requires membership to play in the County Championship or any of the events at the British Championship. So Messrs Vitiugov, McShane and Haria are free to represent the ECF without membership, but not play in ECF competitions. Absurd.

[Ian Thompson]

Consider the (unlikely, I know) situation where you make the move, and then your opponent responds with checkmate before you can stop the clock.

More simply, your opponent makes any move before you've stopped the clock. The threefold repetition of position is no longer on the board. That's not impossible to deal with, but the possibility is avoided by being required to write the move down instead of playing it on the board.

Also, what would you do if the player makes a move, doesn't press the clock, and 5 minutes later stops it and claims a draw? Should that be allowed?

Any change to the procedure for claiming a draw would still need to include writing the move down because the arbiter needs an up-to-date scoresheet to confirm that the claim is correct.

[NickFaulks]

Any change to the procedure for claiming a draw would still need to include writing the move down because the arbiter needs an up-to-date scoresheet to confirm that the claim is correct.

I did not consider it necessary to add that after making a move and stopping the clock, the player should write down the move just played. It seemed obvious.

[Roger de Coverly]

Any change to the procedure for claiming a draw would still need to include writing the move down because the arbiter needs an up-to-date scoresheet to confirm that the claim is correct.

Is there any particular reasom why the normal process of offering a draw cannot be followed? Play the move, claim the draw, press the clock, record the move. Perhaps pause the clock instead whilst the claim is processed.

Personally I would offer the draw the second time the position arises. That's if neither of us are repeating to gain increment time.

[NickFaulks]

Is there any particular reasom why the normal process of offering a draw cannot be followed? Play the move, claim the draw, press the clock, record the move. Perhaps pause the clock instead whilst the claim is processed.

That's what I am saying. The FIDE Laws have somehow turned what should have been a completely straightforward process into a regular source of dispute.

[Mick Norris]

round 3 pairings Luke not playing

Women Akshaya not playing

[NickFaulks]

How can I watch the live games?

[LawrenceCooper]

How can I watch the live games?

I'm watching on chess24:

women: https://chess24.com/en/embed-tournament ... nship-2023
open: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tourn ... 2023/3/7/4

but there's also LiChess:

https://lichess.org/broadcast/european- ... 3/2WMNsrXl
https://lichess.org/broadcast/european- ... 3/AmegLqs5