The British itself!

[JustinHorton]

Incidentally, one point which I don't believe has ever been raised before in relation to the incident is that - if memory serves - there was more than one repairing that round, and Nigel's was not the first: another repairing had already taken place and the game was under way.

[David Sedgwick]

I'll let you fight it out with the arbiters. There was definitely a meeting where FIDE arbiters sided with Nigel against the BCF that re-pairings were not permitted in events run under strict FIDE rules and that a no show was a win by default.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt68.pdf

Somewhere in the past and current FIDE Rules it states that if your opponent doesn't show up by the default time, then you win without playing. English events still use re-pairing but if FIDE-rated, the players are required to agree.

I should be interested to know more about the first sentence. It would at most be a recommendation, and I can't even find that.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article. Please see Rule 10.

The second is certainly something that the ECF has made up.

Not at all. Please read the Chess Cafe article.

[Chris Rice]

I was looking at the S&B blog and thought Justin's column on his game against John Jarmany was fascinating.

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.a ... -head.html

28...Nc6 was a nasty, nasty move and I think we've all been in that position where we thought we were winning and then suddenly the opponent plays something unexpected, we don't handle it well and throw the game away. I could paper my living room wall with those games.

However, the point of the story was that Justin was in time trouble and his opponent spoke to him to ask him to record his moves. This threw Justin off to start with, he was not sure rules had been broken or not but he thought they might have been and combined with the double whammy of 28...Nc6 and its game over.

I'm not sure events would have been any different if his opponent hadn't spoken as 28 Re7 looked like such a killer move and I think the response, 28...Nc6 probably born out of desperation was very hard to see.

All sorts of unexpected things though happen in time trouble as players tend to get nervous, agitated and excited and you're not sure whether they are rule breaking ones or not. Looking back I think I might have stopped the clock before or after 28...Nc6 and sought an arbiter to clarify whether he was or was not rule breaking at the time. The extra benefit of doing it after 28...Nc6 would be to give me a few minutes to calm down after an unexpected move. Of course this may constitute unsportsmanlike behaviour itself but then it depends on whether you believe you have been more sinned against than sinning I guess. Tricky.

[NickFaulks]

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article. Please see Rule 10.

The second is certainly something that the ECF has made up.

Not at all. Please read the Chess Cafe article.

"10 The pairings once published shall not be changed unless two players have to play the second time."

I hadn't looked there, and I've no idea what that means. I shall ask. Did Short and his new opponent "have to play the second time"? In any case, I believe these are only recommendations. You may say that Port Erin should have followed the recommendations, but in that case they would not have published regulations stating clearly that they were going to do something else.

As to Geurt's comment on Chess Cafe

"Nobody disagreed when I mentioned that re-pairing is possible
within 15 minutes after the start of the round, but only with the approval of
the players involved"

Fair enough, the ECF can certainly quote that, but I've no idea where he got it from. It never found its way into any regulations ( unless I've missed that too ).

[Roger de Coverly]

"10 The pairings once published shall not be changed unless two players have to play the second time."

It's rather poor English, but I would take it to mean that you only change published pairings if the arbiter or the arbiter's program has really screwed up and repeated a pairing from an earlier round. That was the interpretation back in 2003 and as understood by British arbiters, the interpretation today. Non-British events would just award the default without even considering the possibility of re-pairing. Have you not heard the stories of junior events starting several hours late while arbiters tried to find out who was present and who wasn't?

The ECF hasn't ever bothered to fight its corner, by insisting, for example on a change of written rules that you should be able to force players to play in the event of round 1 no-shows.

[Andrew Zigmond]

What happened is that Bullen and M.Brown, whose opponents had not shown up on the Saturday, were offered the re-pairing if they both wanted it. Bullen did, Brown didn't. Thus the two one-point byes.

I think this post of Jack's is the crux of the issue. Some players in these circumstances would prefer a win by default and I have always taken Nigel Short's point that repairings are not ideal for a player of his standing where preparation is vital and lack of could have a bearing on his livelihood. However some players, particularly those at the lower levels, would prefer to get a game of chess if possible. The organisers of the British appear to be flexible on this issue and that makes sense to me.

Got about an hour and a half before I set off for Aberystwyth. As my chess activity of the last few weeks has been mainly poring over the rules for the county championships I'm itching to actually get in front of a board again.

[NickFaulks]

It's rather poor English, but I would take it to mean that you only change published pairings if the arbiter or the arbiter's program has really screwed up and repeated a pairing from an earlier round.

I've checked with the Commission, now renamed Systems of Pairings and Programs, and you are quite correct.

I still believe that tournaments are at liberty to announce different regulations, and players who choose to enter must abide by them. I don't see how this can affect admissibilty for FIDE rating. Title norms might be another story.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Something I hadn't noticed until the absence from Wednesday's pairings of the Streatham blogger ....

I though there weren’t supposed to be byes in the British Championship tournament.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I was looking at the S&B blog and thought Justin's column on his game against John Jarmany was fascinating.

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.a ... -head.html

I was surprised that Justin thought it was forbidden to talk to an opponent, rather than it being forbidden to distract your opponent. Not all talking to your opponent is distraction and you need to be able to talk in several obvious cirumstances, while in some circumstances stopping the clocks arguably counts as distraction. If his opponent had stopped the clocks to query the writing down of moves, would that have been any better? Anyway, Justin, probably best to try and put it behind you. All the best with the rest of your games.

(PS. What was the best move for White in that position?)

[Chris Rice]

Article 11.5 of the Laws says "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area."

So talking is ok as long as its offering a draw once for example. But for the rest it looks like it's down to what is considered "an unreasonable claim" and "noise" I guess. The Appeal Committee would have ultimately decided this one assumes if the 50 quid had been deposited.

[Peter D Williams]

It was very interesting to be able to watch all boards in the championship yesterday.

Well i do hope your all enjoying this lovely weather and finding ways to keep cool.

[Roger de Coverly]

But for the rest it looks like it's down to what is considered "an unreasonable claim" and "noise" I guess.

The opponent jumped the gun a bit. The story as recounted is that ejh was only threatening to not write the moves down, in that he appeared to have adopted the legal and possibly time saving practice of writing moves in pairs. So Black's last move hadn't been recorded, but that's only a problem if moves aren't recorded once White moves.

(PS. What was the best move for White in that position?)

Rd7 is certainly a blunder. It can be turned into a sacrifice of Rook for many pawns by 1. Qxd5 Nxe7 2. Qxf7 Qg7 3. Qb3 leaving White able to struggle on. Rg1 was suggested by an engine, but lots of moves should retain White's advantage.

Why do players regard 4 minutes for 12 moves with increment as time trouble? It's really ten minutes provided you can move at a measured pace.

[Barry Sandercock]

Nf5 is also a winning move in the Justin game.

[David Sedgwick]

I still believe that tournaments are at liberty to announce different regulations, and players who choose to enter must abide by them. I don't see how this can affect admissibilty for FIDE rating. Title norms might be another story.

I can't be bothered to search for any other old documentation, but I think that subsequent correspondence with Geurt Gijssen established that it was essentially title tournaments about which he was concerned, rather than all FIDE rated events.

Some FIDE rated tournaments in England do have regulations which specify that re-pairing may take place. Thank you for confirming that that is not a problem.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Nf5 is also a winning move in the Justin game.

Ack, I shouldn't have asked. Now I'll have to work out why...