Talking Points - Shropshire Chess

Request for clarification by Ian Davies.
The following question has been asked by Ian Davies of Shrewsbury Chess Club:-

“Could you please clarify whether or not a player, who has an official ECF grade of 113, can play for 2 different teams in the same division of the Shropshire Chess League.”

The Shropshire Star indicated that this question really concerned the eligibility or otherwise of Geoff Lee, of the Shifnal & Telford club. If this is the case, it would have been more helpful, as well as more courteous, to have been specific in the question to me instead of through the press. However, Ian has said that the question was not intended to refer to Geoff specifically (but presumably to anyone graded 113).

The relevant rule concerning eligibility is Rule 8:-
•  A reserve may be drawn from a lower team, as follows:
a)      Players graded below 75 can play for any of their club's teams in Division 3 without restriction.

b)      Players graded below 90 can play up into a team in Divisions 1 and 2 without restriction, (providing the lower and higher teams are not both in Division 1, in which case the restriction in sub-paragraph d will apply),

c)      Players graded below 110 can play up into a team in Division 1 without restriction (providing the teams are not in the same Division, in which case the restriction in sub-paragraph d will apply),

d)      Where a player is used more than twice for a higher team, then (unless sub-paragraphs a, b or c apply) he / she becomes a member of the senior team on the third occasion for the remainder of the season. Where a reserve wins by default the result will count as an appearance for the senior team,

e)      Penalties for breaches of rule 8d are stipulated at rule 22.

For a player graded 113, sub-paragraphs a, b and c clearly do not apply. The only question is whether he can play for two teams in the same division. Here sub-paragraphs b and c do provide a guide. They both state that applicable players can do so, subject to the ‘three games rule.' This principle must apply by extension to a player graded over 109 unless there a specific rule to the contrary. There is none. The answer to Ian's question is therefore yes, provided that Rule 8d is complied with.

If the query is indeed about Geoff Lee, the following facts are relevant:-

He joined the club at the start of the current season, but only after team nominations had been finalised at the club's AGM in August and probably after they had been posted on the website (I have no record of the date on which I did so, but it was before the first match of the season).

His grade is indeed 113, below that of the lowest graded nominated member of the club's B team – Stefan Tennant (118), but above the highest graded nominated C team player – Roger Brown (108). Neither the B nor the C team captain has made any secret of that fact, as far as I am aware, and I have asked them both.

He has made the following appearances for the Shifnal & Telford club:-

• 8 Oct 08 - C team v Wellington A
• 15 Oct – B v Newport B
• 17 Oct – C v Shrewsbury B
• 28 Oct – B v Ludlow
• 29 Oct – C v Church Stretton B
• 11 Nov – C v Ludlow
• 12 Nov – B v Church Stretton B
• 28 Nov – B v Shrewsbury B
• 7 Jan 09 – B v Shifnal & Telford C
• 8 Jan – A v Church Stretton
• 28 Jan – B v Shrewsbury C
• 5 Feb – B v Newport B
• 12 Feb – B v Wellington A
• 25 Feb – A v Newport A

This list is taken from the results on the Shropshire Chess website. It reveals the following facts:-

• Geoff has played 4 times for Shifnal & Telford C, and is therefore ineligible to play for the D team.
• He has played 8 times for Shifnal & Telford B, and is therefore now ineligible to play for the C team.
• He has played twice for Shifnal & Telford A, and therefore remains eligible to play for the B team.
• His 3 rd appearance for Shifnal & Telford B was on 12 th November, since when he has not played for Shifnal & Telford C. There has therefore been no infringement of Rule 8d.

Since his grade lies between the ranges of the B and C teams, I consider it reasonable that he should have been used as a reserve for either team.

His position in each team for which he has played has been consistent with his grade of 113, although on two occasions he has played above Stefan Tennant. Here Rule 11 applies.

Obviously, since I am the Secretary of Shifnal & Telford as well as League Controller, I have had to be particularly careful in my deliberations. However, in the case of Geoff Lee, try as I might, I cannot see any grounds whatsoever for claiming that any rule has been infringed.

Richard Thompson - League Controller - 7 th March 2009

Subject: Shrewsbury A v Shifnal Telford A
**************************
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 7:52 PM Subject: Shrewsbury A v Shifnal Telford A
Hi Richard
I see that the above match - originally scheduled for 21/11/08 then rearranged for 30/01/09 - has been postponed for a 2nd time!!
This has particular significance as it is crucial in a title race with no less than 4 teams in with a realistic chance of winning. There must be several third parties - such as myself - not directly involved but suspicious that there may be something underhand going on.

Rule 13 states:-

"Matches must be played on the appointed date unless another date is previously agreed by the League Controller and representatives of both clubs. All matches (including postponed matches) must be played by 30 April. "

Clearly both teams would like to field full strength sides - but as two of the county's largest clubs it is inconceivable that no reserves were available - and indeed if that were the case then a default is in order.

In the interests of transparency - so that justice can be seen to be done - perhaps an announcement would be in order to confirm that rules have not been broken. And indeed what was the new date previously agreed by yourself and both clubs. I am sorry that this puts you in an embarrasing position as a member of one of the clubs involved - however the impartiality of the league controller must be above question as I'm sure you will agree.
Regards Keith

Sent 21/02/09
13th March. This was agreed between both captains.  My practice has always been not to interfere with anything that two clubs have agreed between themselves, unless it has involved two teams from the same club.  In such cases, the rule is that the matches should be played first in the respective halves of the season, so as to avoid any chance of manipulation to give one team or the other points to help it go up or stay up or win a championship, as the case may be.  Also, I would insist on all matches being completed before the scheduled end of the season.  But apart from that, I have been fairly relaxed about rearrangements.  In this case, I had no prior knowledge of the circumstances.  You'll understand that my standard has fallen so low that I'm kept far away from the A team these days. Regards Richard

Sent 25/02/09
Hi Richard
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree that it is better that matches be decided over the board rather than via the rulebook.
However it must be embarrassing for captains such as Church Stretton's Steve Rooney who defaulted a match v Telepost this season when he too couldn't raise a team that night. Clearly he didn't know that rule 13 could safely be ignored this season - assuming that you will extend this waiver to everyone. Indeed his team may be relegated for following the rulebook.
Perhaps we should debate at the AGM which rules apply to all teams and which are optional. 
Regards Keith

Disputed game between G. Viszokai (Coddon B) and D. Powell (Wellington B) 22 nd January 2009.

The following claim has been made by Derrick Powell:-

“In the game of G. Viszokai (White) vs. D. Powell (Black) on 22 nd Jan., White had 50 mins remaining when Black, having about 20 secs., stopped the clocks, claiming White could not win and claimed a draw.

“About the last dozen White moves had been indecisive toing and froing and the King had even been backed away from the action.

“Black's Rook decisively controls squares which White's Bishop cannot, and can prevent white pawns queening.

“There are probably many successful variations for Black but P-e5 swaps off one of White's pawns, simplifying for Black.

“Please put this before the Disputes Committee or have it adjudicated.”

The game was accompanied by a position, but no score of the game, showing:-

White: K on e3, B on d3 and Ps on a5, f4 and g5.

Black: K on d6, R on g7 and Ps on e6 and g6.

Black to move.

I subsequently received, via the League President, a scoresheet from George Viszokai, showing the same position, again without the full score, but just the final 5 moves played by each player in descriptive notation:

49…….. K-Q2; 50 B-Q3 R-KN2; 51 P-N4 K-K2; 52 P-N5 PxP; 53 PxP K-Q3; 54 P-R5

George claimed that Black had only 10 secs. left on his clock. I do not consider the disparity to be material to the outcome of this claim.

Firstly, I cannot put this claim before the Disputes Committee. According to the League Rules,

•  Any disputes arising from the interpretation or application of the laws of chess or the league rules will be resolved by the League Controller. Appeals against the League Controller's decisions must be sent in writing to the General Secretary within 14 days. The matter will be referred to a Rules and Disputes Committee, consisting of the President, the General Secretary, the Treasurer and A.N.OTHER. If one or more of these officers is a party to the dispute, the President may appoint replacements acceptable to both parties. The League Controller may be invited to attend and to give advice but will not be able to vote. The Committee's decision will be final.

I therefore must make my decision first, and if either party disagrees with it, he can then appeal to the committee as above, subject to what I have to say at the end.

Nor can I have the position adjudicated. This was abolished as a means of resolving unfinished games by the AGM some years ago.

I am therefore making my decision in accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess. The relevant provisions are considered in Appendix D as follows:-

D. Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue.

D1. Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis

a. that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and / or

b. that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.

Article 10 rules on quickplay finishes with an arbiter present and has no relevance to the present situation.

In my view, this rule is not to be seen as a magic wand allowing a player a miraculous escape from the inevitable consequences of his poor time management and offering him the chance of adjudication with the added bonus of removal of the all-important time factor. Rather, it is an extension of the normal rules applying if a player's flag falls before he has completed the requisite moves: the opponent wins provided he can possibly win by normal means. This usually means, provided he has sufficient material to do so, including pawn-promotion if necessary. To this is now added the proviso that he must be playing normally, not just moving aimlessly to use up time.

So, can White win by normal means? Yes, he can. He has three pawns, any of which, if promoted, will give him sufficient material to give mate. Whether or not Black can prevent this happening is irrelevant. He is out of time, and his stopping the clocks is an acknowledgment of this fact. This is exactly the same as if Black's flag had fallen. Black's claim therefore fails on this ground.

Has White been making an effort to win by normal means? For this claim to succeed, Black was required to submit a scoresheet, completed at the time and verified by White. He did not. He must be deemed to know the rules, particularly if he is invoking them to make his claim. I appreciate that he need not have kept the score during the final 5 minutes, but he should have updated it after the game. Without the verified scoresheet, I am unable to judge definitively whether White has or has not been making an effort to win by normal means. All I have is the last 5 moves as recorded by White, but not verified by Black. However, I have no reason to doubt that they are probably correct. Of those last 5 moves, 3 were pawn advances, including the passed a-pawn into Black's half of the board. If this is the case I cannot see how a claim that White is making no effort to win by normal means can be sustained. Black's claim therefore fails on this ground also.

Black's claim having failed on both these grounds, my decision is therefore that the game is won by White – George Viszokai.

I would normally conclude by advising Derrick that he has the right to appeal to the Rules and Disputes Committee within 14 days. However, Appendix D states that the arbiter's decision is final. The Committee would first have to decide whether they have the power to hear an appeal before considering its substance.
Richard Thompson Controller

Chess Magazines - I'm going to be moving later this year, so I have a large number of chess magazines that I'd like to dispose of. They include Chess (old and new versions) and British Chess Magazine, as well as several foreign magazines (American, French, Russian).Please e-mail me for more info.
Regards Jim Wilkinson ( JP-Wilkinson@qmgs.walsall.sch.uk )

I now live on the outskirts of Whitchurch where I run my antiques and furnishings business.
It is good to see that Shropshire chess is going strong. I was lucky enough to play for Sutton Hill, Telford, GKN Sankeys and Newport chess club, (playing behind Nick Rutter on board 2!!); and have some great memories.
Sometimes I get the chess bug to come back and play as the only games that I get are on the net, but unfortunately I think the nearest club is Shrewsbury, 25 miles away!!
Any way keep up the good work;
Kind regards- Philip Darmanin 03/11/05