Back to SCCU home page     

---

Updated 22.7.04
OPEN FORUM

Open Forum is your vehicle for comment and discussion, and it is open. Anything goes, within the bounds of courtesy and common sense and the libel laws, provided it's got something to do with chess in the SCCU. Or England. Or anywhere, really. It will be assumed, unless you say otherwise, that contributions may also be published in the printed SCCU Bulletin.
    To contribute, email Richard Haddrell rjh@sccu.ndo.co.uk. Please give your postal address. We like to know where you are. [Nearly everyone ignores that. Oh, well.]
    Text is best. Avoid tabs and indents.
__________________

From Chris Rice
22.7.04
Richard
In regards to the County Finals I've noticed that my good friend and Chief Executive of the British Chess Federation, Roy Heppinstall, is quoted on the BCF website as saying that "the Hinckley Leisure Centre, which was making its debut as a national venue was excellent", and he hoped that other events would be coming to the town in future. Personally I felt that the conditions were pretty poor, there were too many players crammed into too small a space, just take a look at the photos if you have any doubts: http://www.bcf.org.uk/events/bcfnatteam/county2004/index.htm. There were no refreshments either (I could only find a couple of vending machines and I didn't have time to chat to Cyril Johnson about it on the day). The ventilation was so bad (simply because there were too many people) that a fire exit was opened allowing strong gusts of winds to come through and blow all the score sheets up in the air from time to time. I appreciate that this was not Cyril's first choice of venue and with any new venue there are always teething problems which is why I was hesitant to criticise it before, but to describe it as excellent is way over the top. Of course this is only a personal view and others may have different ones.
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
Kent County Captain


From Tim Spanton
8.7.04
Take a tip from newspapers. Never ask lawyers: "Is it legal to do this?" They'll always find a reason why it isn't. Instead ask: "How can I do this legally?" That way they'll see it as a challenge to get something done. Sounds simple, but it works!
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
London


From Gary Cook
7.7.04
Richard
I have read Chris' update [below] with interest.
A few points I am not too sure of -
     1. There are other countries that have their grades on the website, and one of them is Scotland. Have they been contacted to see how they dealt with the DPA issue?
     2. The written grading list is available to the general public, it is not kept in house and is available in general bookshops, so anyone can pick it up and see the personal information, sorry names.
     3. I have just read the Guidelines on Websites, and mostly this seems to be aimed at websites that collect personal data via the website, and the one part that concerns displaying personal data simply says people have to be made aware that personal information is to be put onto the web and they have the chance to opt out. The example given concerns a change from a club handbook to a website with details of names and addresses, whereas the grading list would be a change of a published book only containing the player's name.
    There may be answers to these questions, but this seems a mountain out of a mole's hill.
Gary Cook louise@cernunos.globalnet.co.uk
NCCL Secretary


From Chris Majer
6.7.04
Richard
Given the amount of debate that the legal advice regarding website publication of the grading list has generated, I have decided to compile a list of "frequently asked questions" which hopefully address the points raised by the SCCU website correspondents:

1. Q Who was advice obtained from?
   A Advice was obtained from Croner Consulting. (a company that provides legal advice on employment and health and safety issues for an annual fee). This is the organisation from which the BCF normally seek such advice. The same advice as that proved by Croner was received from the Compliance Section of Data Protection.
2. Q Why does the list constitute personal information?
   A The following is an extract from Guidelines on Website publication: It is more likely that an individual's name will be "personal data" where the name appears together with other information about the named individual such as address, telephone number or information regarding his hobbies.
3. Q Why is publication in other countries and also by FIDE possible, is the law different?
   A What happens in other countries does not seem relevant to the wording of the UK regulations against which we have taken advice. Also relevant is the point identified in the second part of the response to Question 4.
4. Q Why is it permitted to produce the printed list but not the list on the website?
   A There are two differences here. Firstly, the printed list is not made public in the same way. Anyone in the world can access the BCF website. The printed Grading list can only be obtained from the BCF Office or a chess bookseller. Secondly, there is an expectation that a printed BCF grading list will be produced since it has been happening for fifty years. There could be no such expectation for website publication since this is the first time that the BCF had proposed website publication.
5. Q Why is website publication of other information also not prohibited?
   A For the "Yearbook" information the BCF already obtains explicit permission to publish details. Other information is covered by "expectations" as mentioned above. However, we will take advice from the Information Commission on non-grading issues.

Chris Majer chris.majer@mbda.co.uk
BCF Grading Director


From John Hodgson
2.7.04
As a non-lawyer I find it difficult to imagine that it was the intention of the Data Protection Act to cover within its remit statistical data such as a chess rating. How, for example, are chess ratings different to cricket batting and bowling averages which are published electronically? If ratings are deemed to be 'personal data' then can the BCF store the raw data (individual results) electronically (regardless of the means of publication)? Must individual congresses and leagues report results on the internet with the gradings omitted? Perhaps I can give consent for my wins to be stored on the BCF computer, but not my losses? And if, as Keith Selby suggests, other forms of publication are covered then this line of reasoning can be continued, reductio ad absurdum.
     Some mistake, surely?
Regards,
John Hodgson JHHodgson@aol.com


From John Saunders
2.7.04
Dear Richard,
Regarding Keith Selby's letter of 30 June 2004 and Chris Majer's notice about the Grading List on the BCF website: I find it hard to believe that the publication of BCF's Grading List, on the web or in print, could fall within the scope of the Data Protection Act and be deemed to be illegal. It is a journalistic production which is broadly comparable to the publication of tennis ranking lists or cricket's first-class averages; or (given that most of the names in the GL are of amateurs and not professionals) we could analogise with sports stats about amateur sports players in local newspapers.
     The statute has an exemption for the journalistic use of personal data and I can see absolutely no problem or risk in continuing to use such data in reports or referring to people's grades and ratings in magazines, websites etc.
     When people take part in any competitive activity, they are putting themselves in the public eye and implicitly giving permission for their sporting efforts to be reported on. Which they are, on your website and elsewhere. All perfectly legal. And the Grading List is simply a statistical distillation of all those results, so long as it confines itself to core data such as names, clubs and grades. I suspect that the publication of DOBs and/or ages could be another matter, however, and certainly needs looking into.
     Having said all of the above, Chris Majer is sensible to take proper legal advice about this. So long as it really is proper, paid-for legal advice. Is it?
John Saunders
Editor, British Chess Magazine


From Keith Selby
30.6.04
Dear Richard,
I read with interest your BCF report 26.6.04, especially about publication of the Grading List on the BCF website. Although the Data Protection Act came about because of the growing use of computers for keeping and processing data it was amended fairly recently (last year I believe) to include all other ways of holding data as well as electronically. If the reason given for non publication on the website holds then it could not be printed either. The printed list is available to non members as well as members. The Ceefax and Teletex pages (available to all) would not be able to indicate the ratings when reporting results.
     Things are soon beginning to get out of hand and if we allow it to continue the whole structure could collapse. One way the BCF could distribute the listing, and make some money from it, is to charge a fee to download a file. It could be in various formats so as to satisfy the end user. Excel would appear to be favourite but some may prefer DBF. If, for example, a transaction of £5 was needed to download the BCF could increase their funds considerably for very little outlay.
Regards,
Keith Selby keith.selby@talk21.com (SCCA editor)


From Gary Cook
15.6.04
Dear Richard
This is a simple plea for information on the inter-league tournament dedicated to Ralph Barnett. I believe it has been held since 1998. I would like to resurrect it but need some info:
1. Who "owns" the tournament? Ralph Barnett was a Middlesex player so is it the Middlesex League?
2. Where there any rules?
3. Essex won the event in 1998, so do they still have the trophy?
Regards
Gary Cook louise@cernunos.globalnet.co.uk
North Circular CL Secretary

Note 16.6.04. John Philpott john@johnphilpott.freeserve.co.uk of Essex, on seeing this, wrote to Gary straight away with a copy to the Website. We'll summarise, because we don't think it was all meant for publication, but it appears that Middx intend a Ralph Barnett event on Saturday 18th September 2004 (so probably they do lay claim to the competition). They emailed a number of Counties about it three months ago, but appear to have accidentally omitted the NCCL from their list. If anyone else hasn't heard and would like details, we suggest they write to John Philpott who will doubtless point them at the right contacts. We stress that neither he nor his County is responsible for the event.


From Roy Heppinstall
26.5.04
Dear Richard,
It is some time since I have perused the Open Forum in detail, but I have noticed one or two statements on which I feel I ought to comment.
      Firstly in Gary Kenworthy’s communication of 21 February he states that EPSCA has "the 25 move rule, not the 50 move rule". I have been involved in EPSCA for about 9 years now and throughout that time the 50-move rule has been applied. Further, Peter Purland, Chief Arbiter of EPSCA for a much longer time than that informs me that EPSCA has not had a 25 move rule throughout the period of his involvement.
     Secondly, in Chris Howell’s communication of 22nd February he states that "When there is no arbiter, captains may agree to act as joint arbiters or not – if they so agree they must point out flag falls (even their own teams) except obviously in QPFs."
     Law 6.9 states: "A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect." This is not contradicted in the section of the Rules concerning a Quickplay Finish. I would therefore expect an arbiter to point out flag fall in a QPF. Law B6 does state as part of it that "The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall." However this law applies to Rapidplay and Blitz competitions, not to QPFs.
     Chris also states – "There will always be an ultimate right of appeal against any arbiter’s decision after all." This is not correct. Indeed in Article 10 (Quickplay Finish), Law 10.2 (d) states "The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c." In other words no appeal is allowed.
Roy Heppinstall roy.heppinstall@virgin.net


From Jonathan Melsom
4.4.04
A chess playing colleague of mine has suggested that in view of the financial crisis at the BCF serious consideration should be given to endorsing GM foods.
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk


From Jonathan Melsom
12.3.04
Richard
As a participant in the recent match described by Kevin Thurlow as won by the side playing black on the odd boards, I can think of one further reason against instant replay - some players are likely to have visited the bar whilst the match has been in progress. The final draw was actually decided by adjudication, so GLCC certainly got ther money's worth as far as the tiebreak rules were concerned.
     So far as match captaincy is concerned I played a match on Monday where I wrongly advised a player of the match score having failed to notice that one of the games had finished. As the players had left for the bar I had to be advised of the score by a third party. I hope I didn't break any rules?!
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk


From Kevin Thurlow
11.3.04
Dear Richard
You reported some time ago [see Paul Buswell 1.12.03 below, and Jeff Goldberg's answer above it] a National Club match which nearly ended 3-3 with all games drawn, which would have called for an instant replay. The London Civil Service League has the answer to this problem as well! In the KO competitions, replays were required for any drawn match, but a few years ago we changed it. In the event of a drawn match, first tie-break is board count, if that is equal then the bottom board is eliminated, until you get a result, then someone at the committee meeting said "suppose all the games are drawn?" So we hit on the idea that whoever had black on odds would win. A win on top board would normally give a favourable tie-break, so a draw with black on top board was considered worthwhile. Someone objected at the AGM, but once it was pointed out that it would probably never happen, they subsided. So several years go by.... In this year's competitions there have been tie-breaks galore. GLCC (the remnants of the old GLC) won their quarter-final of the Bonar Law Cup, on "bottom board elimination", only to lose the semi-final on (drum roll) the "all draw" rule! Meanwhile, a semi-final in a Cup competition for lower divisions was decided on "Board Count". Most of the other matches have been really close as well.
     So if you don't want instant replays - maybe this is the answer?
cheers
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
rjh: - There's nothing new under the sun. I introduced this as third tie-break many years ago for the KO stage of the Kent Schools League, and it has more recently been adopted by the Kent adult leagues and the BCF Schools Championship. It has been applied exactly once in all three competitions put together. It is specially suited to the Schools League because matches are over an odd number of boards, but it makes perfect sense over an even number. Board count and elimination both favour the side with white on odd, so why not redress the balance on the (very) odd occasion when all games are drawn? Of course the side winning the toss must get choice of colours. I used to tell opposing match captains, when I'd lost it, "You do realise the disadvantage of choosing white on odd, don't you?" But they still always did.


The following "match-captain" thread has got quite long, and will be needing a page to itself soon if it starts getting mixed up with other things as it has lately threatened to do. New readers start at Paul Buswell 16.2.04 here and work upwards. Some of the more recent letters have been abbreviated to avoid repetition of points made earlier, but we couldn't bring ourselves to omit the delightful anecdote in one of them. Your Webmaster apologises for the increased incidence of comments from him.

From Nick Butland
9.3.04
Richard,
In practice, it is rare for sides in the SCCU Open to travel with a non-playing captain. On those few occasions when I have been afforded the luxury to field a full side & been left in tea-making mode, my opposite number has (with one exception) had his own game to think about. Chris’s point about intervening when the first flag falls has, therefore, not been an area into which I would have seen fit to trespass, as conflict of interest would be too difficult to refute.
     I have always regarded the match captain’s duties as consultative rather than interventionist, responding to requests for match score. Although my playing skills are no match for the majority of my side, I would go as far as to assess whether the side was leading on more boards than the opposition. But I could not see any situation in which I would advise a player on a course of action (i.e. play for win or draw) unless he were to request – surely that comes down to trusting one’s players?
Nick Butland nick.butland@acco-uk.co.uk
Aylesbury, Bucks
P.S. Following a draw in our recent match v. Essex at Wanstead House, I am claiming an unusual record. In 2001 I drew on the first floor with Larry Marden; last year I drew with John White up in the second floor attic & this year I drew with him again on the ground floor. Is anyone else unbeaten on more floors of any SCCU venue?


From Kevin Thurlow
9.3.04
Dear Richard
The London Civil Service League offers "Guidance for Match Captains" in its Handbook (and "Guidance for Players"). In the captain part, it says that if the Senior Recorder (i.e League Secretary) is not present, "both captains or deputies are deemed to be arbiters". It then says they sort out draw claims (and outlines penalties for wrong claims), and point out flag fall. However, nobody present may say to a player "offer him a draw"! There are only a few bullet points, to clarify the situation - the aim was not to rewrite the Laws. The "Player" part specifically mentions repeated draw claims. On a memorable occasion some years ago, an opposing player offered a colleague draws on five consecutive moves, which were declined with increasing volume, until our player lost patience and said loudly, "No I don't want a bloody draw - I'm winning easily." His opponent went very red as the other 18 players in the room went to look at the position. And yes, our player won.
     The Guidance arose from a few disputes, so we decided to try and stop future ones. On another occasion, I had a lost position so played quickly to try to provoke a mistake before we stopped for adjudication. The opposing captain looked hard at the position, the clocks and the scoresheet, then said to the opponent, "You don't have to make any more moves." After the inevitable complaint, the Committee ruled that the captain had broken the rules and he mustn't do it again! But the game would be adjudicated... I think the people on the Committee are now either dead or retired. However some may be working in county associations surrounding London under assumed names.
     The FIDE Laws cover captaincy by default in various articles. 12.2 prohibits use of sources of information or advice, 12.5 refers to distraction (like a captain dragging a player from the board to talk to him), 12.7 covers refusal to comply with the Laws, 13.7 says spectators or players of other games are "not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game". I think captains have to be careful - suppose a player asks the captain if he can accept a draw; if the captain says "yes, because we're going to win board 8 and therefore the match", that is not acceptable. (Anyway, board 8 will immediately put a rook en prise!)
     However, one question - suppose you reach the end of a session where the game is to be adjudicated, and a spectator notices that one player has lost on time. Can he point it out? After all the game has finished!
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
rjh: - Or has it? The Laws don't say a lot about adjudications. But I have a copy of the 1980 Laws, containing a relevant 1963(!) Interpretation of the FIDE Rules Commission. Interpretations had the validity of Laws. The Commission's Interpretation was that games which have been submitted for adjudication are "considered to be still in progress for the purposes of Article 9.1 [now 7.4]". I'm told that the 1984 Laws - which omitted the Interpretations - had this written into an Article instead.


From Neill Cooper
8.3.04
(Please note that this is not about match captains!)
Richard
I ran a chess tournament at our church last Saturday afternoon (see http://www.cplusc.co.uk/castles/emmanuel.html), and the Bishop of Croydon kindly agreed to hand out the prizes. Whilst it is not unheard of for Knights (such as Sir George Thomas, Sir Stuart Milner-Barry and I'm sure more recent ones) to frequent chess tournaments, I wondered if a Bishop had done so before?
Neill Cooper
rjh: or a King or Queen, anyone?


From Jeff Goldberg
8.3.04
I'm not qualified to argue with David Welch on the Laws of Chess, but it seems to me unfortunate that his view bears little resemblance to the accepted practice outlined earlier by some very experienced captains, most importantly that captains advise their players based on the match situation but not, as far as possible, based on the individual player's position. It is surely a myth that an experienced player would want a captain's assessment of his own position - invariably players know better than their captain (or at least they think they do).
     However, I disagree with Chris Howell on the advisability of non-playing captains agreeing to act as arbiters. In some non-contentious matters it is taken as read that they do act as arbiters, e.g. starting the clocks on time when neither player is present, but not in more emotive situations like pointing out a flag has dropped. Captains are partisan and trying to be neutral automatically creates a conflict of interests which, naturally, is best avoided. Therefore, in my opinion it is much better, when no independent arbiter is present, that flag-falls to be left to the players.
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com


From Dave Welch
26.2.04
Dear Richard,
An avid reader of your site informed me that I had been quoted by Paul Buswell. I was not happy to be quoted selectively without any reference back to me to allow me to express my full views. Paul B. asked a question and it was impossible to infer from his original e-mail whether any complaint had been made. I enclose my original reply and I still stand by it. I do not believe that the FIDE Handbook section 06 FIDE Tournament Rules IV Team Captain rules apply but, if they do, they must be accepted as a whole. Those who promote pro-active captaincy would do well to read the entire text (7 paragraphs) and not quote selectively from those rules which suit their purposes. I maintain that the FIDE Laws of Chess are paramount and if there is an apparent paradox between FIDE Laws and FIDE Rules, then the FIDE Laws must be respected above the FIDE Rules. I append my original reply to Paul (in full).
Best wishes,
David Welch dwnw08018@blueyonder.co.uk
__________
Original Message
From: Dave Welch
To: Paul Buswell and others
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Laws of Chess - role of the Match Captain.
Dear Paul,
[The role of the match captain] once got in to the FIDE Laws by accident. There has been nothing there for years. Therefore, there is no role for a match captain except to fill in the score sheet and brew the tea. Of course, a player may ask to see the match sheet and then draw his own conclusions. An individual competition may give the captain a greater role, but I would discourage any BCF competition from doing this. It is best for a captain only to perform administrative duties. You would have to prove that you were not trying to influence the results of games - a difficult task under the circumstances. Sometimes both players in a game choose to consult both captains on a point of law. This seems acceptable when no arbiter is present.
Best wishes,
David


From David Fryer
26.2.04
[in response to our footnote of yesterday]
Extract from the Laws of Chess:
     "A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they... do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess"
     Law 12.2 During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or to analyse on another chessboard.
     What could be clearer than that!
David Fryer xfp44@dial.pipex.com


From Matt Hayes
25.2.04
With regards to claiming a win on time, Chris Howell [22.2.04] is indeed correct when he states that a player cannot claim the win after [checkmate has occurred]. FIDE Laws, 6.9: "A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect."
Kind regards,
Matt Hayes PaleReflections@aol.com
Ex-Horsham/Sussex player, now living in California
[rjh: - I'd missed this. Chris was right. I'll have to fall back on my QPF query!]


From David Fryer
25.2.04
If as a team player my match captain tapped me on the shoulder during play and advised me to offer a draw I would find it necessary to immediately declare my game lost and to apologise to my opponent for a clear breach of the laws of chess.
David Fryer xfp44@dial.pipex.com
Match Captain of the East Grinstead team in the National Club Championship
[rjh: - David is too scrupulous, if I may say so. The legal situation on this one doesn't seem to be agreed. But if you want an example where it's clear, I'd wandered into an adjacent room the other day, between moves, and my match captain tapped me on the shoulder and told me my guy had moved. Now that was illegal, and I said as much. He didn't know. But it never occurred to me to resign my game. (No, if I'd been short of time I wouldn't have been in an adjacent room to start with.)]


From Scott Fraser
23.2.04
Reply to Paul Buswell [21.2.04]
In response to your challenge, I think it would be best to draw a line under the events of the day... It was not my intention to call your integrity into question. I accept that you were not giving advice to the players and you were only acting on what you understood was custom and practice in the competition. I apologise if you took any offence from my previous posting.
     The point of my previous contribution was that in the absence of any rules, a less scrupulous person may take advantage. I have taken part in many events as Captain/Manager, 4NCL, Mid Sussex League, EPSCA, NYCA and SCCU, and it has always been my understanding that a Captain/Manager should not talk to players on Chess matters whilst play is in progress. In EPSCA competitions there is a rule that if a player asks the Manager whether they should take a draw, the manager is only allowed to show the match position to the player. I have looked at the Rules section of the 4NCL and Mid Sussex League and both are silent on the conduct of Captains/Managers. Perhaps it is time for published guidelines on a Captain or Manager's conduct.
regards
Scott Fraser scott.fraser@ubs.com


From Gary Kenworthy
23.2.04
hi again,
A lot of good stuff from Chris Howell and Bernard Cafferty. A clear bad call by the Chief Arbiter to Paul Buswell’s request. RJH is correct in calling for domestic guidance to captains as a way forward. Yes, do not wait for FIDE.
     On flag falls: I once was a match captain when the following occurred. Both players short of time. Rook and minor piece ending. Their player picks up a rook, looks at his clock, sees it's about to fall, puts the rook down and offers his hand. His flag falls. So we won, and the match with it.
     Didn't we? So everyone thought, including both players. But no. Where had he put the rook? Quite by accident, and without even intending a move, he had put it on a square where it delivered a legal mate. I had to point out to my team that no, he didn't shake hands in resignation, or lose on time. He'd already "played" a checkmate. No one disputed that the checkmate was unintentional. But, accident or not, it counted. Bizarre things happen in time scrambles.
     [Gary adds some points which might form the basis of rules on the match captain's role. But there seems to be imperfect agreement about it, so maybe we'll defer this one.]
Kind regards
Gary Kenworthy gary.kenworthy@btopenworld.com
Bletchley


From Chris Howell
22.2.04
Richard
For those who don't know me I too am an experienced match captain at European Cup (6 times), 4NCL (3 Div 1 wins), County, club and school level. I am also a BCF Arbiter.
     I don't believe the situation is quite as confused as some imply. My understandings (and I haven't been contradicted in practice in 25 years):
     Where there is no arbiter, captains may agree to act as joint arbiters or not - if they so agree they must point out flag falls (even their own teams) except obviously in QPFs. The default is not unless the competition rules say otherwise. I have never had this agreement turned down in practice between two non-playing captains. There will always be an ultimate right of appeal against any arbiter's decision after all.
     Whatever the arbiting position, captains may and should offer full details of the match situation (both finished and unfinished games) when solicited by players, always out of earshot of any games still in progress where this is relevant. I believe a good match captain should attempt to assess the likely outcome of unfinished games in order to do this - I will ask my players how they think they stand on occasions. I avoid approaching players at the board to give this information but will make myself clearly available when I think they may well want to know. I do not tell my players to take draws unless they ask me - but I do expect them to ask me whether offered a draw or considering offering in a tight match. I have faced the moral dilemma in school and club matches particularly of knowing a player offered a draw has a won or lost position - I have tried to hide this in my replies but may have been unsuccessful on occasions!
     Package draw offers are very rare even in the European Cup and 4NCL - I don't like them and would always decline unless I could consult all my players easily - but this is a personal view.
     And Richard - if a player is checkmated before a win-on-time is actually claimed or pointed out by an arbiter or acting arbiter that player has lost - no grey area here in my opinion.
Best wishes,
Chris Howell C.Howell@tesco.net
Redhill
[rjh: hmmm, to break a 25-year tradition. I'd like to see this last sentence proved. Answer with reference to FIDE Laws. While we're about it, what is obviously different (a few paragraphs further up) about QPFs?
     I suppose I ought to be writing to Open Forum myself if I can't keep quiet, but I'll say it in a footnote. There are no rules about the role of match captains when no arbiter is present, unless the particular league has provided some. FIDE isn't going to do the job for us.]


From Gary Kenworthy
21.2.04
The Role of an Official like a captain and what is "consult" versus "advice" and "interference" – an opinion
     I probably have more match captaincy experience than anybody else in the country, or in the top handful, sometimes captaining as many as sixteen teams a year, and starting in 1972. Some two hundred man-years.
      The Laws deal mainly with individual games and Olympiad type tournaments with arbiters present. Variants are published by leagues and tournaments before entries are accepted, or by mutual agreements at the start of matches; like default times; playing out of order because the grades are jokes etc. EPSCA has the 25 move rule, not the 50 move rule. Everything is not covered in the Laws and language and translation issues are just one area of trying to legislate for all results in conditions failing.
     Some captains absolutely insist on being "consulted" before a draw might be offered or accepted. Heavily used by some, especially in many board matches. Hence major or critical matches have non-playing captains. If they have to be wooden why are they present? There are laws and there are accepted team match practices. I have seen many matches lost because a player does not take a draw. The captain has other sanctions; don’t pick him – that has happened a lot.
     It has long been accepted that the two captains have rights, like those of an acting arbiter. Captains often confirm this at the start of a match; some know they have that power and as Bernard Cafferty points out, do not need to affirm that status. [Conversely, pease note I have been asked a few times to attend say National Club matches by the home captain, even when I have been a captain in the same tournament to act as an independent arbiter. Again the views of Chief Arbiters are not always found in rulebooks.]
     On miscellany: It is very common in international circles for package deals to be made in advance or at adjournment; on condition of all the players agreeing. Package offers often come from the players wanting them. Yes there are scores of laughs and crying at many Olympiads etc.
     The real sticky area is "resign the game". Sometimes Eastern Block rules, your opponent is from country x. That drifts into another shady subject and actually a very smelly hangover. The converse is true in junior/ novice chess where it is common to point out things, like you cannot claim a "not making progress" draw until you have two minutes on your clock – that is not advice, that is pro-active to prevent disputes based on ignorance; it is to prevent distraction of the opponent because he is being told draw every few moves, etc. That’s "clarification" not "advice". Such unsolicited interventions are morally correct- Rulebook?
     What niggles me is that when a captain is "consulted" over the match score, this debate turns into the captain was giving "unsolicited advice". Slanted with that the player did not ask. They are obviously two different things. (Once a captain could tell his player to play for a draw without the player’s view or request.) Folks don’t understand that some words have evolved precise chess meaning. Hence "interference", "information .. of play" or "advice" are illegal. The nearest "unless" is if a wise official, [that includes a match captain- remember], intervenes to stop something getting out of hand. Like an altercation which is already a distraction. Arbiters have been severely censored for not intervening quick enough, the same could be said of captains because they have responsibilities. Defences that they were worried about it being construed as advice have not got my vote at appeals panels. A managed and justifiable intervention is legal...
     Mind you, wording is something that does need improving and more widely disseminating in this protocol. [Ref  General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments   06. FIDE Tournament Rules IV. Team Captain. ] I once was asked, "what’s the score" in a tight match; knowing my player wanted to get off I said, "Draws are acceptable". To which I was given a very perplexed look. I went over to the board to find that my player had a clear forced mate in three!]. When I was a lad and we were playing a County match, my County captain had a clipboard. If I asked him, I have been offered a draw, can I accept? He would show me the clipboard without saying anything. But if I was slow adding up and he was an accountant he might say- "we're two down - sonny!" even in a loud voice and no one would bat an eyelid! Players are allowed to have commonsense. Probably the most common reply from the captain is "It's up to you" a phrase not listed in the handbook! Intents and meanings are at best legalisations not precise lists. Precise signs and lists are for internationals to avoid translation misunderstandings.
     On specifics: Even though I was not present at the East Grinstead v Hastings & St Leonards match it clearly looks that Paul Buswell was in his rights. I register interest and knowledge of the County, Clubs and point out that I was Treasurer and Secretary of the Mid Sussex league when living in East Grinstead!...
Gary Kenworthy gary.kenworthy@btopenworld.com


From Kevin Thurlow
21.2.04
Scott [two letters down] raises some interesting points and it shows the differences between "international" practice and the "domestic" game. For example, in an international tournament players should not speak at all during the game, (except to offer a draw etc). (They don't need to talk to each other during the game, as they're all staying in the same hotel!) Now obviously in an ordinary club, players might exchange a few words with team mates. Maybe you haven't seen each other for a while, so you enquire after their health, and make fun of their football team. (But I support Leeds, so maybe that only happens to me.) There again, I know most of the opposition in the Surrey league, so I might talk to them as well! We only talk to our captain when reporting the result. However, if the opposition had a series of conferences as described, I would suspect cheating.
     As for the time-loss, this is another grey area. The Laws say "the game is lost if the time-limit is exceeded", and at a tournament the arbiter points out flag fall. However, if a captain leans over the board, that is quite clearly interference in the game, and is definitely a distraction. To be blunt, I would regard that as cheating. Although, you couldn't claim a win as you had already lost(!), I think you could have claimed a void game, in the circumstances described. Surrey has a "Rules and Ethics Sub-Committee" (Surrey specialises in unwieldy titles), and in the circumstances described I would put in a complaint and maybe the opposing captain would be banned from the league for a match or two. Having said that, if the match result isn't affected I don't blame Scott for letting it drop. A couple of years ago an opposing player cheated by distracting his opponent, and "hovering" (a wonderful part of the Laws!) when our player had the move, but we still won. So we had a friendly word with the opposing captain a few days later, and asked him to have a quiet word with his player.
     The Laws are of course written for tournaments where arbiters are present, and club matches cause difficulties. Captains could agree beforehand if they will point out flag fall etc.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
ps. Sorry I've gone on a bit!
[rjh: I used to take it as obvious that match captains point out flag-fall in the absence of an arbiter. But I got funny looks when I did it, so I stopped. What is the result if a player gets checkmated, say, and it then turns out that his opponent's clock is a minute past flag-fall?]


From Paul Buswell
21.2.04
Scott Fraser has brought out that my questions concerned matters around an East Grinstead v Hastings & St Leonards match in the BCF National Minor Club on 15 February.
     I challenge him to expand on his statement that (I) "could clearly be heard giving unsolicited advice to players whilst they were sitting at their boards" by repeating what I may have said - if I could clearly be heard then that should present him with no problems. For the record, I refute categorically any suggestion that any player was offered advice on their individual game/position - with my grade that would be meaningless, though I accept that that is not germane. I reiterate that on occasions duriing the afternoon I was following established custom and practice in instructing/informing players on matters around the match situation and draw offers. And when I wished to convey an instruction to a player I called them away from the board if they were at it at the time, bar one occasion when the opponent offered when I was right next to the board in question.
     I am sorry if "All this was very unsettling for players in the East Grinstead team"; if so it would have been far better for them to have raised the matter with their own captain at the time, but nothing at all was said or done to intimate that they had any concerns.
     If any reader wants to see the full history of that afternoon they can e-mail me @ PBusw13724@aol.com, and I will gladly send them a copy of the e-mail I sent after the match to, amongst others, the tournament controller, the BCF Senior [Chief? - rjh] Arbiter, and to the Secretary to the FIDE Rules Commission (Stewart Reuben) and to the Chess Arbiters' Association setting out my actions in full (who requested or received draw instructions and when) and asking for their opinion; my reason for bringing this to their attention being that the East Grinstead captain had publicly stated at the end of the match that I was in breach of the Laws and I needed to scotch this and/or to find out if my 30-years understanding of custom and practice might be incorrect.
     The responses to my enquiry were:
from the BCF Senior Arbiter: "It is best for a captain only to perform administrative duties. You would have to prove that you were not trying to influence the results of games - a difficult task under the circumstances."
from the Secretary to the FIDE Rules Commission: "There is nothing wrong with what you did, with the caveat that I only know your perception of what actually happened. The other match captain could disagree with the facts."
The competition controller responded by referring to the FIDE text already quoted in 'Open Forum' and stating that she was "content that the extract below should be applied to these BCF events".
The Chess Arbiters' Association have not yet responded.
(The quotes are extracts, but exact: there was obviously a lot more said but I hope their authors feel that those are fair extracts to use).
     I interpret the above as showing that at the highest levels of arbiting and rules there is no clear consensus, and I hope that an early resolution can be reached of what is clearly a vexatious matter to some if not many, although I remain confident of the rectitude of my actions.
Paul Buswell PBusw13724@aol.com
[rjh: I don't want this to turn into an argument about what happened or didn't at one particular match, and it might be best if any further correspondence on those lines were conducted in private. The general issues are obviously worth an airing.]


From Scott Fraser
20.2.04
Captain's advice thread.
As an eye witness to the East Grinstead vs Hastings match on Sunday, I have to say that I found the "advice" that Paul Buswell gave his team went over the line into "illegal interference".
     Paul wandered about the room for the duration of the match, seemingly assessing the positions on the boards. He had several conferences with various players out in the corridor during their games, they would also stop talking when someone from East Grinstead passed them, and could clearly be heard giving unsolicited advice to players whilst they were sitting at their boards. All this was very unsettling for players in the East Grinstead team.
     From Paul's posting it is clear he felt he was only giving advice on the basis of the match position, but given that he was fully aware of the positions of each board, we can only really take his word that he wasn't interfering in the game.
     If this level of interference is allowed to continue then an unscrupulous captain could be approached by inexperienced players and be given advice on their position on the board.
     As a player I was "victim" to some "illegal interference" recently in a Mid Sussex League game. My flag had fallen but my opponent had not noticed until the opposing captain decided to lean over the board very animatedly and stare at the clock, prompting my opponent to claim the game on time. When I asked the captain what she was doing, she claimed that she was "checking to see if the clock was still working"! Fortunately the result didn't affect the outcome of the match so I took it no further.
     If the rule is not already there (which I find very hard to believe), it should be made clear that any interference from Captains or Managers is not allowed, and if discovered the match should be defaulted.
regards
Scott Fraser scott.fraser@ubs.com
East Grinstead III captain


From Stephen Hart
19.2.04
In my experience of organising national (BCF) matches it is always advisable to tell juniors in advance who are playing with the black pieces to take the draw, or at least to offer a draw at some convenient point in the game. Juniors seem to have an aversion to draws, and will play on hoping to win when an adult would not do so, thus usually ending up losing. This does not apply to students. This means that juniors are often a liability in these matches. The exception is when they are currently playing about 40 points above their grades, i.e. if they are rapidly improving. One should know about this before the match. It doesn't apply so much when they have the white pieces. There is an amazing statistic that in 26 national matches which I organised in six years only three games were won with black by juniors. I wonder if other counties have had the same experience. My conclusion is that half a point scored in a national match by a junior with black who has not improved significantly in the current season is a good result, in fact almost as good as a win. My U150 [Cambridgeshire] teams lost to Warwickshire in the 1998 final and to Kent in the 1999 quarter-finals, while my U125 team lost to Staffs in the 2002 quarter-finals probably for the above reason. If only I had realised this before! It's too late now, and I won't be running any more county teams, but this knowledge might help somebody else in the future.
Regards,
Stephen Hart HARTS564@aol.com


From Bernard Cafferty
19.2.04
Richard,
Some general comment and historical background may help illuminate the issues over a captain's role once the clocks have been started in domestic matches.
     The view that the two captains, in the absence of an arbiter, act jointly in this role is an old one. I heard it frequently in the 1970s from senior arbiter W Ritson Morry at meetings of the Birmingham & District Chess League committee that dealt with disputes and the application of the rules. Ritson and others like Harry Baines took this for granted, and I do not think they would concur with the current FIDE view that such a role should be agreed before a match. I do not like that view at all. The captains simply have to act in that capacity. It is surely automatic.
     An alternative solution is that pointed out by a senior Dutch arbiter recently on the chesscafe web site - in the Dutch League the home side has to appoint an arbiter, normally from the ranks of their club members.
     The FIDE Laws and subsidiary Rules/intepretations have evolved over time. In the 1970s, in the Fischer-boom years, when new entrants with weak teams took part in the Olympiad, those teams sometimes had non-playing captains (foreign mercenaries in effect) far stronger than their charges.The same applied in women's team events. FIDE came under pressure to issue guidance over consultation with a captain. It did so in 1976. That interpretation, 37 lines long on pp 182-3 in the 1980 Batsford book "The Chess Competitor's Handbook", gave grudging acceptance to a captain sanctioning or even suggesting draws or resignation "by weight of practice". In other words, consultation had been practised before and probably could not be stamped out (practical points about mutually unintelligible languages or a system of signals come to mind).
     The question is whether such a ruling is appropriate at the lower level of our domestic competions. Having seen sides/captains being riled over the application of this practice of consultation, I would be in favour of ruling it out, or stipulating that it is only the player who takes the initiative and the captain replies at once:- "Yes" or "No," or "It's up to you". Anything more should be viewed as illegal interference in the game.
Bernard Cafferty bernard@cafferty1941.fsnet.co.uk
Hastings


From Kevin Thurlow
19.2.04
Nick makes a good point - How about "we're losing 4-3 with only your game left......" I suppose now you'll say you have never been that close? In answer to RJH, the result was amended after the protest.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill


From Nick Butland
18.2.04
Re Kevin's letter... Had I ever been in the position to use the phrase "we're leading", I would have been happy to contribute to this debate.
Nick Butland nick.butland@acco-uk.co.uk
Match Captain (Bucks)


From Jonathan Melsom
17.2.04
Richard
I am a little suprised that the topic raised by Paul Buswell [two letters down] has taken so long to come up in the Forum, as I have always been a little uneasy myself at the application of these FIDE rules.
     As a match captain I always emphasise to players that they should have regard to the overall score when considering offering or accepting a draw, just as they should have similar considerations when choosng between a safe and a riskier line of play. And we all know of times when individual players have been more interested in the individual than the team consequences.... Paul's approach must by his own admission be an attempt on his part to influence that player's approach and evaluation of the potential match score. My players would probably ignore me if I offered such advice, but I'm not sure I would be comfortable with such active engagement. Para 2 of the FIDE rule talks about "intervention in play" - although this is presumably meant to refer to moves on the board, I'm not sure that actively advising players to offer draws isn't an intervention of sorts.
     In most domestic matches the captain is also a player. In those circumstances it is arguable that any dialogue might be construed as advice - it might also be a distraction.
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk


From Kevin Thurlow
17.2.04
Dear Richard
I have always taken the view that match captains can answer questions. So if a player says, "Should I accept a draw?", the captain can (without looking at the position) answer, but preferably do it along the lines of "we're leading 4-3 with only your game left". He cannot loudly announce, "take the draw, Board 7 is going to win"! I would not be happy with a captain instructing a player to offer a draw, as it could be construed as giving advice, especially if he's been studying the position. But if the captain shows his player the score so far, that is just general information. (For a crucial match last year, we used a flipchart to show the score so far, so the information was freely available). If the match captain is graded 190 and he looks at the position of a 120 intently and then says "offer a draw" I think the opposition might complain. And you have to avoid distracting the opponent.
     The FIDE guidelines are written to fit with Olympiad practice. A lovely story from a recent Olympiad (the bottom end). A captain approaches two of his players and says, "Stop playing, we have agreed draws on your boards." However, both players wanted to play on, one because he was winning, one because he was losing and thought it unfair on his opponent! So they played on and the one who was winning didn't, and the other one still lost. But the match was still scored as if both boards were drawn.... Then came the protest from a third team.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
rjh: I hope the protest was upheld. In my copy of the Laws it's the players that agree draws, not the match captains!


From Paul Buswell
16.2.04
Richard:
How do SCCU organisers see the rôle of the match captain?
     At a recent match I was active in telling my players beforehand that they should take my instructions as regards draw offers; and during the match instructed players to offer draws based on my evaluation not of their individual game but on my assessment of the match - which perforce involved an evaluation of the positions on other boards.
     For decades I have understood that this was perfectly acceptable, but my opposite number felt that I was in breach of the Laws of Chess.
     To my surprise I found nothing directly relevant in the Laws, and the competition rules were also silent. (The competition controller has since advised that the FIDE guidelines below may be applied to this competition.)
     Comments are invited.
Paul Buswell PBusw13724@aol.com
     Handbook | C. General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments |
     06. FIDE Tournament Rules | IV. Team Captain
A captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw or to resign a game, unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He must confine himself to give only brief information, based solely on the circumstances pertaining to the match. He may say to a player,"offer a draw", "accept the draw", or "resign the game". For example, if asked by a player whether he should accept an offer of a draw, the captain should answer "yes", "no", or delegate the decision to the player himself.
     The captain should abstain from any intervention during play. He should not give any information to a player concerning the position on the chess board, nor consult any other person as to the state of the game. Players are subject to the same prohibitions.


From David Fryer
6.1.04
What a pleasure it was to play at the 2003/2004 Hastings International Chess Tournament. As a player all you had to worry about was your opponent’s moves. It struck me that given the superb organisation and comfortable venue all the players responded by being incredibly friendly even when under intense competitive pressure. I hope that the perennial fear that reducing finances may threaten the continuation of this tournament are unfounded.
David Fryer david.fryer@dial.pipex.com
East Grinstead, Sussex


From Jeff Goldberg
10.12.03
To answer Paul's question [below], I think that if a player fails to write down the move first then, technically, he has failed in his claim under Laws of Chess 9.2a. Therefore rule 9.5b applies. namely that after the time penalty is applied "Then the game shall continue and the intended move must be made", and he loses his right to claim for that move under rule 9.4.
     So no, the rule is not academic, although it's hard to insist on applying these rules without seeming to be unsporting if an opponent had made his intentions clear. In practice, given that the point of this rule is to avoid any confusion as to which move the player is claiming would lead to the repetition, it would be reasonable to inform the opponent that he must write down the move when he tries to make the claim and only if he refuses to do so should the other player consider asserting that the claim is invalid and apply the above paragraph.
     Paul also says "neither did he make the move on the board". Of course had he done so, again he would have lost his right to claim under rule 9.4.
     In case anyone does not know, the Laws of Chess are available online at http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101.
     Regarding the instant replay if all six games are drawn, the rule is a perfectly good one and if players go home before a decisive game has finished then they are taking that (small) risk.
Jeff Goldberg noonebutjeff@hotmail.com
[rjh: To niggle - what time penalty? One is laid down for claims which are "found to be incorrect". Does it apply to claims which are found to be invalid so not investigated? But, like Jeff, I can't see anyone insisting on this technicality if the claimant has made his intention clear. As for the "instant replay" rule, I assume Jeff's club has a friendly caretaker as well as forbearing players.]


From Paul Buswell
1.12.03
Richard:
Re your question in today's National Club page
     Yes, I have seen six draws - once, about 20-25 years ago: it was a 'Sunday Times' match at the Finals weekend and we had no provision in the rules at all. (An instant replay was held by consent). So this provision was put into the rules...
     As for the Hastings & St.Leonards v Ilford match, the Ilford board 3 finished and left pretty early, but I was surprised that the Ilford board 1 left because at that time it was late in the match and clear that six draws was a real possibility within the next 30/45 minutes... certainly by that stage the Hastings captain was making sure that his players were not leaving the premises!
     One minor point on the Laws... one Hastings player, struggling a pawn down in an endgame and a little short on time, indicated by word and gesture that he intended to play a particular move to produce repetition of position and to claim the draw - but he did not write the move on his scoresheet (nor he did not make the move on the board). The clocks were stopped, the players moved to a different board, played through, it was agreed that the move would produce repetition, and the players shook on it. But... as I understand it the Laws require the intended move to be written down before making the claim. So: was the claim invalid? If so, and after the time adjustment prescribed in the Laws, could the Hastings player then have written the move down and repeated his claim? If so, does this make that aspect of the Laws rather academic?
PB PBusw13724@aol.com


From Chris Rice
26.11.03
Richard
As Kent captain, allow me to apologise to the Sussex team for the "cold and cluttered" conditions at Catford cricket pavilion as described by Bernard Cafferty. In particular to David Graham if the conditions affected his performance. It does not appear that they did unduly as he drew a fine and tough game against Phil Morris. Although the venue has been Lewisham Chess Club's venue for many years, it's normally only used for chess on a Wednesday night, not at the weekend. Not surprising then that the nursery school had forgotten we were coming and had not cleared away their stuff on the Friday but had remembered to turn the heating off. I did what I could with the furniture (not helped by a further problem in that one of the "adult" tables had been lent out for a car boot sale by the bar staff downstairs) in the couple of hours before the match started but completely missed that the heating was off. However, halfway through the match one of the Lewisham regulars did manage to get a couple of the big heaters going so conditions did improve. I guess teething problems are inevitable with any new venue but we shall endeavour to learn from this and get things running a bit more smoothly before we entertain the mighty Essex in January!
     By the way, we are looking to stay at the Catford venue as it has quite a few advantages over the old Charlton venue. Firstly, it is free whereas they have just doubled the rent on the Charlton one (and we got treated like dirt there anyway). Secondly, parking was a nightmare at Charlton most of the time but particularly if the footy team was playing at home. There is no problem with the parking at Catford. There are other advantages but the most important of all is that there is a subsidised bar downstairs!
Chris Rice chris.rice@fsa.gov.uk
Kent Open Team Captain


From Bernard Cafferty
24.11.03
Richard,
The comments by Richard Palliser about the traditional Kent home venue in Charlton have been overtaken by events this season.
     Neither of Kent's Open home matches so far this season were at Charlton House. When I played in the Kent-Sussex match on 15th November, I asked why they had moved from Ch. Hse. and was told that it had become too expensive there.
     I sympathise. It all seems part of a pattern. For example, the Hon. Sec of the Birmingham CC, founded around 1860, wrote to me last week to say that they now had only 18 members (compared to 40+ in the 1960s and 1970s) and were losing about £400 per annum, currently barely covered by boot sales, donations and, for the future, they would have to sell their library of about 600 titles.
     For what it is worth, I would comment, as a first-time visitor, that the upper floor of Catford Cricket Pavilion, now used as a nursey, seemed cold and cluttered. There wasn't room for all 16 boards in the main room, and two small rooms were used for three boards each. The furniture was of a size for the nursery pupils, but not for adults, alas. I sympathised, in particular, with our top board six-footer David Graham who was hemmed in and had to move some of the obstructing furniture before he could get away from his seat to go for a coffee!
Bernard Cafferty bernard@cafferty1941.fsnet.co.uk
Hastings


From Richard Palliser
23.11.03
Richard,
I have been interested to read all the recent correspondence with regards to the suitability of MCS as a venue. Certainly for county matches it was more than acceptable, and a big improvement over Oxfordshire's previous venue in Long Hanborough as I'm sure Chris Howell will testify. The toilets are not next to the playing room, but then neither are they in many venues, such as when one plays away against Kent in Charlton. Perhaps the toilets are a little further than normal, but in a four and a half hour match that isn't a problem, whilst it is hard to see it being a major problem in a rapidplay event with a break every hour! Oxfordshire sadly are no longer in the SCCU Open competition, although our other sides continue to enjoy using MCS for their Chiltern matches. Tim Dickinson must be given many thanks for acquiring such a venue, and one with good parking, and indeed for all his hard work both coaching locally and arbiting at Oxfordshire congresses, just as I'm sure he recognises the efforts put in by David Fryer in Sussex.
     Surely more worrying about the National Club Rapidplay was the difference between that event and the main sections of the National Club Championship? Of the eleven clubs represented at MCS five play no part in the competition proper. One could excuse Cowley and MCS as local entrants, but surely the controller should aim to use the rapidplay to help gain more entries for the main National Club? Certainly Crowthorne, but especially Cardiff and Guildford had to travel a fair way to Oxford and with such commitment one hopes to see them in the main event soon. Likewise surely more could be done to persuade those clubs who still support the Open section to enter the rapidplay; of this year's ten entrants only Bedford and Mushrooms made the journey to Oxford.
Best wishes,
Richard Palliser richard.palliser@worcester.oxford.ac.uk
Oxford
[rjh: - The Archive reveals that Cowley, Crowthorne, Cardiff, Guildford and MCS have all played in the "competition proper" in the last few years.]


From David Fryer
17.11.03
Is Tim Dickinson [four letters down] suggesting that unless a player has organised a chess tournament he or she should not be allowed to criticise? If so then all the improvements I have made over the years to the tournaments I have helped organise (and been criticised for) would not have happened and I would still be running tournaments in my LOFT.
David Fryer david.fryer@dial.pipex.com
East Grinstead, Sussex


From Cyril Johnson
17.11.03
Bruce
[see below]
If the venue were not suitable for those with access problems, it would not have been used. We did use the venue two years ago, and I did inspect it just before that event.
     As to the refreshments, the persons manning the facility were very careful with matters of hygiene, to the extent of asking making the areas near the tables only open to those using their facility. The school refectory is in a separate building,which would require crossing a tarmacked area, not good procedure for health and safety with hot drinks.
     The venue was better than many which have been used, and we should be grateful for the support of the school.
Cyril Johnson cyriljohnson@yahoo.co.uk


From Bruce Birchall
16.11.03
Dear Richard
Tim Dickinson seeks to personalise the issue, by suggesting David Fryer try to organise a venue and then he would know the problems involved, However as David Fryer organised a venue for a BCF event for 85 players on November 8th, the sneer, besides being unhelpful, in also inappropriate.
     If the venue has been used a number of times for chess before, then why hasn't the school been asked to do something about the slamming doors afore now? I was present at the SCCU U14/90 final 18 months ago at MCS and the doors were extremely noisy then. I wedged them open myself, out of concern for people being able to concentrate. The effect was not a draught but a need to hush people from talking in the corridors or coming up the stairs. There had been no site inspection beforehand which would have established the problem existed. One would have hoped a local arbiter on this occasion would have made one, before the venue was booked.
     As regards refreshments, the concern must be whether the Council's Environmental Health Department would find washing hands in a toilet acceptable (how far from the food preparation area was it?) as regards hygiene standards which are defined by law to protect the public. The organisers risk being sued if not, and it is a legitimate concern to raise. I doubt the school prepares its school dinners in the same area the chess organisers used, and the issue, another time, must be can the chess organisers be allowed to use the school canteen to avoid this problem arising? (and how far away is that from the playing area?)
     As regards the lift, it is at the other end of a long corridor from both the entrance and the playing room. I deemed it ccnsiderably more effort to hobble on crutches along that corridor twice, than struggle to get up the stairs, awkward as that is for me. Not an option for a wheelchair user, of course. The question is not just simply: does a venue have a lift? but can a wheelchair user use it comfortably or not? eg
(1) are all the lift buttons at wheelchair-user height? ("Go to Ground Floor" may be in reach but is "go to Top Floor" also within reach?)
(2) is the lift near the entrance to the venue?
(3) is the playing hall near the lift?
(4) is there room in the lift for a wheelchair user to turn round in it, or does s/he have to either enter or exit the llft backwards?
(5) if the person with a mobility problem uses a powered scooter to get about, is the lift big enough for that?
and questions about whether there is level access into the building and whether a mobility-impaired player can park near to the entrance of the building or not also need to be considered. e.g are there Blue Badge Parking bays?
     There might be a disabled toilet in a venue but is it on the same level as the playing area? Is it near the playing area? Is it near the lift? This too needs to be checked by a site inspection prior to booking a venue. And of course, is the playing hall able to be arranged such that a wheelchair-user can get from his/her place to the door of the room without disturbing other players (and can the door be opened by a wheelchair user, unaided?)
     As can be seen in the "Towards a Definition of Accessible Venues" section of my Disability Issues report on the BCF website, I have suggested that ALL facilities should be on the same floor of the building as one another, with no internal steps in between: i.e. playing area, reception, player registration, team and analysis rooms, toilets, refreshments and bookstall, and that anything short of this has the effect of excluding players with impaired mobility. Plainly, this venue failed that test. Why did the Home Chess Directorate, so recently persuaded that venues should be disability-friendly, sanction it?
     If chess is to become more inclusive, it needs organisers to review the premises they have used for years and get a wheelchair user (not necessarily a chess player) to go round any set of premises it is proposed to use for chess to comment on their suitability or otherwise. Or come 1st October 2004, when the final part of the Disability Discrimination Act comes into effect, chess organisers risk being sued under it, if they haven't considered these issues, as the Act says providers of goods and services have an anticipatory duty to think of access issues... i.e. a wheelchair user from East Grinstead does not have to actually enter your event before you think about these issues, the possibility that he might enter it is sufficient for you to have to make suitable arrangements for him.
Bruce Birchall bhbirchall@hotmail.com
rep on Council of BCF Disabled Direct Members


From Chris Howell
16.11.03
Richard,
In reply to Tim Dickinson [below] I can assure him that David Fryer has organised dozens if not hundreds of successful tournaments in the Sussex area, and all of the ones I have personally attended were at excellent, carefully chosen venues - something I can't honestly say of my many Oxfordshire away county matches! His comments are in this particular case badly targeted at one of the best chess organisers I know, although I have considerable sympathy with the general points he makes. And if David F were to organise the 2005 NC Rapidplay, I for one would be much more likely to compete...
Chris Howell C.Howell@tesco.net
Redhill, Surrey


From Tim Dickinson
15.11.03
Richard,
I was surprised to read of David Fryer's complaints [below] re: the use of MCS as the venue for the NC Rapidplay. As the (ex-)Oxfordshire first team captain who held his home matches there, I feel reasonably qualified to respond, although I was not actually present on the day.
     First, the venue has got a lift, and access for a wheelchair user is simple provided they don't mind wheeling themselves over to it. It also has a disabled toilet - did Mr F spot that? The classroom door problem could have been easily rectified had Mr F had a quiet word with the ever-so-friendly arbiter - Priscilla Morris would doubtless have wedged the doors ajar had she known a player objected to the noise. (Of course, someone else would then have complained about the draught ... one can't please everybody!). Yes, the toilets are distant but not quite as far from the playing area as Mr F implies in his note. Perhaps he could tell us how far the toilets are from the playing area in HIS club? On that subject, there were plentiful toilets - there will have been no need to queue for the next free toilet, as may sometimes be the case with other venues. Not having been there on the day, I don't really understand the 'running water' bit - for example, there WERE taps in the toilets, otherwise people wouldn't have been able to wash their hands!
     Simen Agdestein's comment at the recent Monarch Assurance International comes to mind here - "Every grandmaster should try to organise a tournament at some point in his life". Perhaps Mr F would volunteer to organise a venue for the 2005 NC Rapidplay. He will find it a little more taxing than he initially thinks. Maybe it's just the British way - it's easier for someone to find something to criticise than to praise the efforts of the few hardy souls who give their time for free (yes, FREE) to ensure that the tournament runs as smoothly as possible, and is a pleasant day out for all players involved.
Best regards,
Tim Dickinson T.Dickinson@btinternet.com
Banbury, Oxfordshire (well, that's as close as you're likely to get to a postal address. Wonder why you ask for that ... ?)


From David Fryer
14.11.03
Magdalen College School (venue of the National Club Rapidplay 9.11.03)
On reading the controller's report on the BCF web site could anyone please explain the criteria for wanting to return to this venue. In my opinion it has several serious drawbacks - it is on the second floor - the toilets are on the ground floor and on the opposite side of the building - the classrooms doors slam loudly - and the catering had no access to running water.
     Certainly our disabled club member who is a wheelchair user could not get past those barriers but even for an athletic chess player getting to and from the toilets even between rounds is a time trial.
David Fryer xfp44@dial.pipex.com
[rjh: Our own report is in the National Club page. I think it should be said that the venue has a lift.]


From Jonathan Melsom
12.11.03
Richard
Paul McKeown [below] raises a perfectly fair point about funding of other UK chess bodies. However, if the funding is drawn from the DFES budget then it is entirely appropriate that the money should be spent in English schools since education is a devolved responsibility. Scots, Welsh and men of Ulster should pester the Scottish Executive, National Assembly for Wales,and the Northern Ireland Office - whilst the Assembly at Stormont is suspended. I have a feeling that sport is also devolved.
Jonathan Melsom jonathan.melsom@tiscali.co.uk


From Paul McKeown
10.11.03
Dear Richard,
Chess in Schools Initiative [see below]
I would like to thank Bruce for drawing everyone's attention to this. One point though - why should the £9,000 be given to the BCF? Why should part of it not be given to the Welsh Chess Union, Chess Scotland and the Ulster Chess Union? I do wish the BCF would change its name to the English Chess Federation or something similar. To those not in the know it would seem rather more grand than it really is...
Regards,
Paul McKeown paul.mckeown@supanet.com
rjh: I don't know that the Government hasn't given money to those other bodies.


From Bruce Birchall
29.10.03
(Sent to relevant BCF Directors, and copied to the Website for Open Forum)
I have been reading the text of the 28th October House of Lords debate on chess in schools from Hansard.
     [rjh: Bruce gives the text, but it is rather long. You can find it at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/31028-03.htm, as you would have guessed. In summary: the Government has launched a recent initiative to promote chess in schools and colleges, and has arranged with the BCF to run a pilot scheme involving ultimately eight schools of a "wide spectrum of types". Government funding is £9000. Hoped-for benefits include "a handbook showing how chess can be used to raise levels of motivation and achievement, a report on how the schools work together and guidance on using chess in the curriculum and on setting up out-of-school-hours chess clubs".]
     There are a number of points of interest that occur to me:-

1. Baroness Massey's question as to whether this project will lead to more girls playing chess. Will it? Only if it attempts to achieve that!
2. The limited funding (£9,000 in toto) and number of schools (8) in the pilot project. That would pay for a coach for 12 weeks for 2 hours @ £40 an hour for one term at each school and leave just over a grand over for sets and writing a report. How in fact will it be spent? Is a further stage after the pilot project intended and planned?
3. The interest in the case that chess creates transferrable skills being demonstrated by the project.. It would seem an opportunity to collate such research as has been done on this. There is an excellent paper on the Australian Federation's website with a useful bibliopgraphy, which mentions papers by Jane Seymour and David Norwood e.g.
4. The Government apparently doesn't have anyone in charge of chess (across the various departments that now will fund it) and the spokeswoman in the Lords doesn't seem to think it should have, either. Isn't there a junior minister in Charles Clarke's department who has been handed this brief? It would seem surprising if not.
5. The clear hint in the closing statement that chess as a sport is not about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting chess world, despite Tony Banks' promises when he was Minister for Sport.
6. The fact that £450,000 of New Opportunities money has been given to chess over several years. I doubt it was given to the BCF as is stated in the debate but to various applicants in say £10,000 - £30,000 lumps. Do we know who got it, by the way? It makes £9,000 look like very small beer, I have to say.
7. Is there no encouragement being given to Local Education Authorities to start their own chess in schools initiatives? Is it just being left to the BCF to get the ball rolling?
8. The written question that caused the debate mentions "schools and colleges". Does that mean 6th form colleges and FE colleges, or include Higher Education colleges, too? Does the BCF perspective include colleges as well as schools, or not?

I think the BCF now needs to announce how it will spend the £9,000 and what it hopes to achieve with it. Are firm plans in existence yet, or are you still open to suggestions and debate? Where does chess on the internet fit into this project? It is not mentioned in the Lords debate. And where do I and the other 4 Union Junior Organisers fit into this? (And County Junior Organisers and County Girls Team Managers?) And what provision if any will be made for disabled children? - given Gerry Walsh's comment that in mind sports disabled people are potentially playing on a level playing field, and his chairmanship of the Mind Sports Council.
Bruce Birchall bhbirchall@hotmail.com
SCCU Junior Organiser


From Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell
7.9.03
     (1) Negative Grades
If publishing negative grades would be confusing, then simply don't publish any grade less than 1. By all means retain negative grades in the BCF Master list, though their usefulness must be somewhat questionable. I would have thought it was better to treat any negative grade as "ungraded" for the purpose of calculating OTHER players' grades. Is a player with a grade of "-70" really an almost certain pushover for a player graded "-20"? At that level, the games are pretty random.
     (2) FIDE-BCF conversion
Both the FIDE and BCF systems measure relative performance, not absolute. As both systems are measuring the SAME relative performance, it is necessary that the results of both systems have the SAME statistical properties. The FIDE system assumes each player's strength fluctuates from game to game with a standard deviation of 200 FIDE points. In the BCF system, the standard deviation is 25 BCF points. As this is the same statistical property, the scaling factor must be that 1 BCF point = 8 FIDE points.
     Thus, the correct form of the conversion must be BCF = (FIDE - constant)/8. Up to now, the value of the constant has been 600 (hence 200 BCF = 2200 FIDE). However, the value of the constant could be changed without affecting the statistical properties of either system (which depend only on rating differences).
Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell MitchellFJ@bre.co.uk
St Albans


From Jack Rudd
4.9.03
If you want to make it easier to convert grades to FIDE ratings, and distinguish between all the players currently graded 1, perhaps 75 would be a good number to add to all grades. (That would mean the conversion formula would be FIDE = BCF x 8.)
Jack Rudd JackKelshallRudd@aol.com
The Red House, 25-26 Bridgeland Street, Bideford, Devon EX39 2PZ
rjh: Unfortunately, the unpublished grades would still go well below zero. Even the published ones would come close.


From Neill Cooper
27.8.03
Richard
We have quite a few juniors with rapidplay grades, most of which are greater than 1. In due course, however, I can imagine a young junior player with a real rapidplay grade of -70, working hard at his chess and improving so the next year he is -40 and the next year improving to -10. I think that having the same grade of 1 for all 3 years could be very demoralising.
     Hence my suggestion is that long play grades are unaltered - very few junior have negative long play grades, but all rapidplay grades are increased by a fixed amount - I would suggest 1000. Yes, this could mean slight confusion with ELO, but it would clearly distinguish rapidplay and long play grades.
Yours
Neill Cooper sccunsc@cplusc.co.uk
Castles Junior Chess Club http://www.cchess.org.uk/


From Kevin Thurlow
25.8.03
Dear Richard
The first thing to remember about grades (or ratings) is that they give primarily an idea of past performance, rather than a measure of strength. It makes sense to grade as many games as possible. I have to say I do not like the idea of negative grades, but I like even less the publication of grades which have been deliberately falsified. Imagine a player apparently graded 1 - he decides improvement is necessary so he keeps a record of his results. He records a fine victory over another "1", and eagerly puts "51" in his points scored column. Of course what he doesn't realise is that he is really -30 and his opponent -70, so he has actually scored -20..... But publishing negative grades would be confusing, so why not add 100 or 200 to everyone's grade? The numbers themselves do not matter; we know a 180 is supposed to be better than a 160 -it does not matter if the 180 is called Scott Freeman or Kevin Thurlow or Garry Kasparov, as long as the system, makes a reasonable effort to quantify recent performances. After all, 20 years ago, 120s were people who put pieces en prise in the opening -now they produce 15 moves of theory! Stewart Reuben is right to say the last digit in the FIDE rating is meaningless, but so is the third digit in the BCF system. I am not sure about late notification of results elsewhere. Most countries do not seem to have the evening leagues which we have. I believe in Germany, Holland and Norway at least that all leagues are played at weekends, like the 4NCL. These are played at sensible time limits and are spared the inconvenience of adjournment, and the lottery of adjudication. Can anyone think of one good reason why games which have been adjudicated should be graded, or even games which have adjourned, so the winner is the one with a better computer and more talented friends?
     While we are on grades, can we please return to the old calculation for FIDE-BCF conversion. The new conversion notices that some players graded 180 are 2200, but takes no account of players graded 180 who did not get a FIDE rating. So the conversion is skewed. You would not expect perfect agreement anyway, as FIDE ratings are usually based on fewer games, and some players do better against strong opponents (some do worse of course). This should improve as FIDE limits drop yet further, in which case, why not forget BCF grades and use the FIDE system. Or better still, forget about grades and ratings, and just play chess.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill


From Mike Gunn
14.8.03
Richard,
I think you are right in your response to Stewart Reuben - there is no reason why the BCF system could not be used to provide grades on a more frequent basis than annually (if that is thought desirable). I noticed when I received the BCF printout of my results that dates appear against each game. In general it seems that these dates are approximately the dates that the games were played. This information is clearly being stored on the BCF system along with the player names and game results and this means that one could apply the standard BCF method of calculating a player's grade (based on the last 30 games or results over the last year) at any time during the year. Thus (if results officers sent in results promptly and the software is tweaked in the appropriate way) we could, in principle, have BCF grades updated and published monthly (or even daily!) on the BCF website.
     The real advantage that BCF grades have over Elo ratings is that the mathematics of the system is simple and players can check their own grades. The mathematical theory of the Elo system is only fully described in Elo's book which is not widely available. When I queried a formula in Stewart's Chess Organisers' Handbook a couple of years ago, Stewart replied that he couldn't give me a definite answer as someone had stolen his copy of Elo's book. At about the same time I found an apparently authoritative article on the web about ratings but on studying it I discovered that the table of numerical values used to compute ratings given was significantly different to Stewart's (and Elo's) table. The author of the article was unable to explain how this difference had come about. As there is a broad equivalence between the BCF and the Elo system in how they work I would think we would be wise to stick with the (simpler) BCF system.
     As to the issue of negative grades, the simplest solution is to add a certain number of points to everyone's grade on a date to be determined (presumably coinciding with the publication of the grading book). This would not change the underlying way the system operates at all (unlike Scott's suggestion). As Lester Millin says, some players could find this confusing, but we would just have to talk about "old grades" and "new grades" for a couple of years (a bit like what happened to pennies under decimalisation). Personally I would favour the BCF adding 100 points to everyone's grade to mark its centenary. I expect there would still be a small number of negative grades, but at least we would still have something to discuss on this forum.
Mike Gunn mike@wxyz7.fsnet.co.uk
     rjh: - Game dates are stored if the grader provides them. Sometimes league matches come with dates attached, sometimes not. Club internal games rarely do. So "last 30 games" is strictly not doable. Where there are not 30+ games in the latest season, the practice has been to make up the 30 by taking the required number of games at the previous season's average. However, an approximation to "last 30" may be introduced in the near future.
     The system did produce a half-year list in 1999. It's not technically difficult.


From Stewart Reuben
13.8.03
Negative grades [see below] have to be a bad idea. It must be easy to overlook that -5 is not 5. Life would all be much simpler if the BCF were to fall into line with the rest of the world and use 4 figure numbers, usually called Elo Ratings. Then a grade of 0 is roughly equivalent to 600 Elo and -75 is 0 Elo. If the conversion is wrong, then even so a grade of 0 is about 300 Elo. I realise even then there could be players with negative ratings.
     That is not to say the BCF was not right to choose 3 figure numbers. They were correct. The 4th figure has no statistical validity. Also, at the time, printing costs were cheaper with 3 figures rather than 4.
     The whole matter of the methodology of calculation is a completely separate issue. I personally favour the system FIDE use. That is because I strongly believe that if we had more regular grading lists per year, then more chess would be played. The players agree with me and there is a great deal of evidence around the world. You note I did not call it the Elo System. So many changes have been made to his system (some by me) that he would resent the term being used.
Stewart Reuben Stewartreuben@aol.com
     rjh: If the Webmaster may stick his oar in:- I don't understand why an "Elo" system is more suited to frequent publication than the BCF one is. One objection to frequent publication, with English chess, is that so much of it is played in leagues which do not get reported until the end of the season. Is this the case in other countries? If so, what is their practice?


From Lester Millin
8.8.03
At the recent June 21 SCCU AGM, discussion took place regarding "Vice Presidents". I was in favour of the view that there should be 2 categories. Honorary Vice Presidents are elected for services to the SCCU, Vice Presidents could apply to become a VP at a cost of £ ?? made payable to the SCCU.
     My views on grading have always been the same. Tournaments for Juniors under 11 should only be graded as RP grades irrespective of the time limits. This does not mean that young children are unable to get long play grades. It just means that they have to play in under 12 tournaments or above, or in adult graded tournaments. Many of the ideas given in the Bulletin [and on the Website!] - on grading (adding 200), are too confusing.
Best wishes,
Lester Millin lmillin@patrol.i-way.co.uk


From Tim Spanton
1.8.03
Scott's grading ideas [below] are interesting but once you start messing around with a system by making exceptions for this and that reason you end up with anomalies that distort the system even more. The FIDE system is a prime example of this with extra points at one stage being awarded for being female (unless your name was Polgar), and players allowed to choose whether their games in the Olympiad should be rated. Anyway, what's wrong with negative grades? Life isn't all about being told how wonderful you are, and a negative grade would certainly give an incentive to do better.
Tim tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
rjh: One point that's been suggested to me is that young children don't understand the concept of negative numbers. (It's also been suggested that they don't understand "½" until they've done Fractions, but I can't believe they don't know what half a cake is.)


From Scott Freeman
30.7.03
Hi Richard
I have just read your article [see Grading page 28.7.03] on negative grades, etc. I am obviously aware that CCF has probably played a big part in that as we are believers in getting everyone onto the system early in the hope that they will start to show an interest in their annual grade and keep them playing chess. I also don't like the idea of loads of different junior grading systems across the country. The disadvantage to us is that players who could represent us in the Under 14, Under 90 event end up with grades too high to use when in reality, they are of the right standard to play.
     The idea of adding 200 points to everyone's grade makes good sense to me. It will throw everyone out for a year or two but because it is a nice round figure, it will work. The thought of being graded 300 really appeals to me! It will also affect the conversion formula from ELO and send out the mathematicians again! What I would then like to suggest is that where a tournament is specified as a junior event, that the computer adds 30 points on or takes 30 points off for winning and losing (instead of 50 as for adults), and that the 40-point rule become a 25-point rule. Obviously, exceptions could be made for major junior events such as the BCF Schools' final and the British Championships, where the event is of sufficient category that it should receive adult status in terms of the way it is graded.
     My idea is that grades can heavily fluctuate for juniors, either giving them much too high a grade if they never play adult events or else ending up with too low a grade too quickly. Not sure what to do with the idea from now on, but it has to be worth considering.
     I would be interested in people's views.
Kind regards
Scott chess@ccfworld.com


Earlier material (lots of it) is in the Archive.

---

Back to top      Back to SCCU home page