maribor round 7

[robin moore]

Round 7 in the World youth. Liam Richmond comes out of the hall after his game finishes to tell us that he won a rook on move 19. On move 20 the chief arbiter appeared, said that his Albanian opponent was ill and was declaring the game + - for Scotland. This effectively meant we got the point but Liam would not be credited with any grading points. We sought advice from home and decided to appeal. David Deary and I spoke to the chief arbiter in his office and he produced a medical certificate for Liam's opponent timed at 14.40 which he had received at 14.55 (The game started at 15.00). The Albanian player had missed the previous two rounds through illness. We suspect that the chief arbiter may have assumed that the Albanian boy was not going to turn up but realised two and a half hours into the game that he had. We lodged our appeal and our 100 euros deposit. The three panel appeals commitee included the Fide secretary-general. After some time considering, our appeal was successful and we were given the full result plus our deposit back. Thoughts?

[andyburnett]

Well, the first question is whether you think that the timing of the game being stopped and declared +- has something to do with the rook loss? Did the Albanian player (or a 'team member' perhaps) try to have the game stopped at this precise point or was it just co-incidence?

If it was simply a case of the chief arbiter not getting back to the Albanians in time, and therefore the boy 'had to play' even though he was obviously ill, then I don't think appealing against the decision is quite correct. A pity that Liam wouldn't get rating points, but gaining rating points by beating a sick opponent who didn't want to/ shouldn't have been playing is questionable.

The first scenario I'd be keener to appeal, the second almost definitely not. Of course other scenarios are also possible. ('Gambling' 100 Euros for rating points is also debatable! Thoughts?)

[robin moore]

Andy,

Liam says his opponent definitely did not leave his seat after losing the rook. However, one of his opponents teammates was standing drawing his hand across his forehead and pointing to Liam's opponent indicating he was unwell. This boy (or someone else) may have spoken to the arbiter but there is no way of knowing.
A question that must be asked though is what would have happened if Liam's opponent had won the game in say, a couple of hours play and before the chief arbiter appeared ?

[Alex McFarlane]

Without knowing a lot more detail it is difficult to comment other than in general terms.

It is standard practice to remove players from the draw following a default. Obviously this did not happen so I assume the organisers had some reason to believe that the player was going to turn up before the draw was published. This is where the FIDE regulations about a pairing being fixed can be a bit of a bind. I have delayed doing a draw to await confirmation of a player’s availability following illness. I’ve even made provisional draws and let potential opponents know.

What I don’t understand is why the game actually started. If a medical certificate was received 5 minutes before the start of play then the win should have been awarded by default at that time. The Scottish party should have been informed of this. I cannot comment on the lateness of the doctor’s certificate as I do not know if there was a reason for this but I would have expected such a certificate to be produced by mid-morning. It looks like the player thought he was going to be able to continue but close to play decided that he wasn’t.

It is also impossible for me to know if the loss of the rook was caused by the players deteriorating health or vice versa. In similar circumstances I would expect one of two things to happen, either the player would resign or the opponent would offer a draw. (If the player was ill for the first time then a delay in the game would be the most likely action.) Which of those two options should apply would depend on the position and the player’s health beforehand. You certainly cannot blame an opponent for accepting the win.

I don’t know what procedures were in place but I would have expected the Chief Arbiter to have informed the sector arbiter of the problem. I therefore find it difficult to accept that the sector arbiter was not aware that the player had turned up and that a game had started. The only way the Chief Arbiter would not have known is if the sector arbiter failed to query the situation when the game started. There would have been procedures in place either to prevent zero default wins or to notify of them. These should have indicated the situation to the Chief Arbiter.

With the game having started, without agreement otherwise, the only result that could be given was a win to Scotland. Even if they had been only a few minutes into the game it would be difficult to argue otherwise but after over two hours of play then a game had clearly started. The clock times might have provided an interesting insight into how the game had been played. If the ill player had used only a few minutes or had used most of the time then there is circumstantial evidence that he should never have started the game

An obvious question is why did the opposition Manager allow the game to start? I would definitely like to hear the other two versions of this story (Albanian and arbiter’s). It seems to me that there has been some sort of mix up in allowing this game to proceed.

I’m not casting doubts on Robin’s version of events but there are obviously many things we don’t know and cannot, therefore, give a definitive opinion.

[Derek Howie]

Given that the following facts are not in dispute:

1. Liam (currently non-FIDE-rated) and his FIDE rated opponent played for 2.5 hours and had made 19 moves
2. The arbiter stopped the game after 19 moves and awarded the game to Liam

are there any circumstances, even hypothetically, that Liam would not be awarded the rating points?

[Alex McFarlane]

Hypothetically there are lots of ways. It has been known for a ringer to play and therefore a game had not really taken place.

In this case it is possible that the game shouldn't have started. It is possible that the Chief Arbiter had declared the game a win by default at 14.55. In such circumstances the 'game' would not be an official one and should therefore not count. In light of the content of the medical certificate this is a possible scenario. Of course it does not explain why an actual game was allowed to start. That could have been down to a lack of communication.

I'm sure, given time, I could come up with other reasons but the one given fits all the conditions as I know them.
I'm glad Liam got the points. I'm also glad we're not fighting to get the €100 back.

[Andrew McHarg]

Why does a player need to get a doctor's note to excuse them from playing? Or have I misunderstood?

[Derek Howie]

In this case it is possible that the game shouldn't have started. It is possible that the Chief Arbiter had declared the game a win by default at 14.55. In such circumstances the 'game' would not be an official one and should therefore not count. In light of the content of the medical certificate this is a possible scenario. Of course it does not explain why an actual game was allowed to start. That could have been down to a lack of communication.

Thanks Alex. Given that the game was allowed to go on for 2.5 hours, questions would have had to be asked if that was the case and why their Head of Delegation was not wondering where their ill team member was. One wonders what would have happened if Liam had chucked a queen on move 6. :\

However as you point out, it's all ended up satisfactorily which is great.

Perhaps the biggest mystery of all is where the €100 for the appeal came from.

[Alex McFarlane]

Given that the game was allowed to go on for 2.5 hours, questions would have had to be asked if that was the case and why their Head of Delegation was not wondering where their ill team member was.

I have been told that neither the boys parents not the Head of Delegation knew that the boy had seen a doctor. If that is true then they would have been expecting him to play.

Why does a player need to get a doctor's note to excuse them from playing?

Most major events of this nature have some sort of medical staff in attendance. It is very likely that in those circumstances a default would need a covering note from the doctor, especially if this was to be his third missed game.

I am guessing here, but from what I've heard it may be that the organisers arranged for a doctor to see the player because they were concerned both for the player and those he was in contact with.

[Derek Howie]

I have been told that neither the boys parents not the Head of Delegation knew that the boy had seen a doctor. If that is true then they would have been expecting him to play..

Although not relevant to the point being discussed, you have to wonder who authorised a 10 year old boy to see a doctor which apparently resulted in a medical certificate being produced and neither the parents or the HoD were aware, either before or after the examination. All very strange.