PDA

View Full Version : Players turning up late sf. FIDE World Cup 2007



Garvinator
30-11-2007, 12:59 AM
In the latest article on Chessbase from Nigel Short, he makes a couple of interesting points about players arriving late and especially that they are given one hour from the scheduled start of play.

So I wonder what the rest of the bb pundits think, is one hour for a classical game too long a time for late arrivals. Should the late arrival allowance be reduced, increased etc etc?

Basil
30-11-2007, 01:36 AM
I think given that one must (reasonably ?) / does allow a player to be 5 minutes or 10 minutes late, then the issue of degree of lateness becomes moot.

A player either arrives in time to make his moves or not. He is quite entitled to play 1.e4 and then go and stare at the walls until he has a minute left on his clock if he wishes.

I don't agree with any arbitrary line in he sand, however I'm not fussed that they do exist. I hope everyone is very happy discussing this one ad nauseam ;)

Carry on! - should be fascinating reading :lol:

Ian Rout
30-11-2007, 08:57 AM
I think given that one must (reasonably ?) / does allow a player to be 5 minutes or 10 minutes late, then the issue of degree of lateness becomes moot.

A player either arrives in time to make his moves or not. He is quite entitled to play 1.e4 and then go and stare at the walls until he has a minute left on his clock if he wishes.

I don't agree with any arbitrary line in he sand, however I'm not fussed that they do exist. I hope everyone is very happy discussing this one ad nauseam ;)

Carry on! - should be fascinating reading :lol:
I don't see why you must allow a player to be late. You could easily prescribe that any player not present at the start of play is defaulted. That isn't to say that you should, but you certainly could.

The one hour cut-off could be seen as arbitrary, and there is no real reason why it shouldn't be 61 or 59 minutes instead. However the point of it is so that the opponent doesn't have to waste an unreasonable amount of time sitting round for a game that never happens, especially in a club or weekend tournament - in most cases someone who hasn't shown after this time isn't going to appear.

Arguably an hour is too long, if a player after say thirty minutes hasn't arrived and hasn't rung the arbiter to say they are on the way stuck in traffic or whatever, the opponent should be allowed to go home, go shopping, have lunch etc.

The difference between a player playing a move and going walking and a player not showing at all is that the opponent doesn't know if they will have to play. So having sat down keyed up for the game the opponent has to build up all over again when the player really does show up.

Basil
30-11-2007, 12:08 PM
Hi Ian


I don't see why you must allow a player to be late. You could easily prescribe that any player not present at the start of play is defaulted. That isn't to say that you should, but you certainly could.
I entirely agree. Just clarifying I was intending to convey that protocol ATM dictated such.


The one hour cut-off could be seen as arbitrary, and there is no real reason why it shouldn't be 61 or 59 minutes instead. However the point of it is so that the opponent doesn't have to waste an unreasonable amount of time sitting round for a game that never happens, especially in a club or weekend tournament - in most cases someone who hasn't shown after this time isn't going to appear.

Arguably an hour is too long, if a player after say thirty minutes hasn't arrived and hasn't rung the arbiter to say they are on the way stuck in traffic or whatever, the opponent should be allowed to go home, go shopping, have lunch etc.
Agreed.


The difference between a player playing a move and going walking and a player not showing at all is that the opponent doesn't know if they will have to play. So having sat down keyed up for the game the opponent has to build up all over again when the player really does show up.
Agree as well. I did have a draft version of that idea on my screen but I canned. I'm glad you took the time.

Ian Rout
30-11-2007, 12:18 PM
Having said all that, if you lose a 25/10 game (or whatever the increment is) with a 24 minute lead then you've probbaly done something wrong.

A good strategy might be to sit there contemplating the board for twenty minutes or so. By that time your opponent has either wound down completely or their nerves are totally shot from waiting, and you have both a psychological and time advantage.

Brian_Jones
30-11-2007, 02:31 PM
Many many years ago, I saw Nigel Short lose in the last round of the British Rapid Play Championship in Leeds. Jim Plaskett overslept, was woken and came down to the playing hall with just under five minutes left on his clock.
Nigel had 30 minutes but played dreadfully and Jim won easily by playing at his normal breakneck speed! :)

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2007, 02:31 PM
Having said all that, if you lose a 25/10 game (or whatever the increment is) with a 24 minute lead then you've probbaly done something wrong.

Indeed. A disadvantage like that essentially means the opponent is "on the rack". Their time situation is such that they should be able to hold a simple position, and will be able to win a straightforwardly won one, but if the position is strategically complex there is no way they should be able to hold it - they should just make worse and worse moves and end up losing.

Here's the game:

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. h3 g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Bc4
Bd7 9. O-O Rc8 10. Bb3 Na5 11. Qd3 Nxb3 12. axb3 a6 13. f4 Qc7 14. f5 Bc6 15.
Rf2 O-O 16. Nxc6 Qxc6 17. Re1 e6 18. Bf4 Rcd8 19. Rd2 exf5 20. exf5 Qc5+ 21. Kh2
Qxf5 22. Qxf5 gxf5 23. Rxd6 Rxd6 24. Bxd6 Rd8 25. Bf4 b5 26. Rd1 Rc8 27. b4 h5
28. Kg3 Rc4 29. Bd6 Kh7 30. Ra1 Rxc3+ 31. bxc3 Ne4+ 32. Kf4 Nxd6 33. Rxa6 Nc4
34. Ra7 Kg6 35. Rb7 Be5+ 36. Kf3 Nd6 37. Rb6 Kf6 38. Ke2 Ke6 39. Kd3 h4 40. Rb8
Kd5 41. Rb6 Bg3 42. Rb8 Kc6 43. Rf8 Be5 44. Ra8 Kd5 45. Ra5 Ke6 46. Ra6 f4 47.
Rc6 Kf5 48. Rc5 f6 49. Rd5 f3 50. gxf3 Kf4 51. Ke2 Kg3 52. c4 bxc4 53. b5 Kxh3
54. f4 Bxf4 55. Kf3 Be5 56. b6 c3 57. Rc5 Kh2 58. Rc7 Nf5 59. Rc8 Nd4+ 60. Ke4
Nxc2 61. b7 Nb4 62. Rxc3 Kg2 63. Rc8 Na6 64. Rg8+ Bg3 65. Ra8 Nc5+ 66. Kf5 Nxb7
67. Ra2+ Bf2 68. Kxf6 h3 69. Ra8 Bh4+ 70. Kf5 h2 71. Ra1 Nc5 72. Rd1 Nd3 0-1

Miguel
30-11-2007, 05:48 PM
In the latest article on Chessbase from Nigel Short, he makes a couple of interesting points about players arriving late and especially that they are given one hour from the scheduled start of play.
Does anyone know what the forfeit rules are in other board games (checkers, go, Othello, Scrabble, etc.)?

Axiom
30-11-2007, 08:28 PM
Perhaps it would help chess's sport credibility, to employ no late starting.
Javelin throwers and other athletes MUST move on time.

But it could be argued that chess competition is not sufficiently professional to adopt such measures, but if youre late for your local amatuer tennis club quarter final,how much grace are you given ?

Brian_Jones
01-12-2007, 06:56 AM
Perhaps it would help chess's sport credibility, to employ no late starting. But it could be argued that chess competition is not sufficiently professional to adopt such measures.....

I agree and we have to change things to move on!

Denis_Jessop
02-12-2007, 04:28 PM
I agree and we have to change things to move on!

I don't see that allowing players an hour's grace at the start of a game has any bearing on chess' credibility as a sport.

Moreover, there's no point in moving on unless we know where we are intending to go (unless one is a 19thC Romantic of the eternal wanderer persuasion like Franz Schubert :) ).

DJ

Basil
02-12-2007, 04:37 PM
Moreover, there's no point in moving on unless we know where we are intending to go.
I could just bottle some of your gems. :clap: Now if only you could use your brains for good and not evil :) :P

Axiom
02-12-2007, 05:18 PM
I don't see that allowing players an hour's grace at the start of a game has any bearing on chess' credibility as a sport.
You dont?
Not even as a proactive starting point?
Please, which steps would you then take?



Moreover, there's no point in moving on unless we know where we are intending to go (unless one is a 19thC Romantic of the eternal wanderer persuasion like Franz Schubert :) ).

DJ i thought we were intending to go towards chess' credibility as a sport ?

Axiom
02-12-2007, 05:24 PM
I could just bottle some of your gems. :clap: Now if only you could use your brains for good and not evil :) :P
Now, if you could only use your brains. :P

Desmond
02-12-2007, 05:26 PM
What's wrong with the current rule? What would be gained by changing it?

Basil
02-12-2007, 05:29 PM
Now, if you could only use your brains. :P
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Jessop's got more brains than the pair of us put together. It's what he does with them that concerns me!

I had better make the point crystal that I am joking in case any voyeuristic twonk is going to turn this into something.

Axiom
02-12-2007, 05:38 PM
What's wrong with the current rule? What would be gained by changing it?
A sense of pride ,respect and increased credibility in our sport, by having participants arriving on time for their competition ?

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2007, 05:41 PM
A sense of pride ,respect and increased credibility in our sport, by having participants arriving on time for their competition ?

How much difference would it make, though? There's exceptions, but generally people don't arrive very late because they can, but because of factors beyond their control. In this case the player was extremely lucky not to simply lose on time.

Why does Nigel Short deserve to be protected from his own inability to win a rapid game where he starts with 25 minutes and his opponent starts with one?

Axiom
02-12-2007, 06:00 PM
How much difference would it make, though? There's exceptions, but generally people don't arrive very late because they can, but because of factors beyond their control. In this case the player was extremely lucky not to simply lose on time. ok, do we aspire to the accepted protocols of a retirement home cribbage game or to that of more professional sports?


Why does Nigel Short deserve to be protected from his own inability to win a rapid game where he starts with 25 minutes and his opponent starts with one?
Nigel Short need not be protected from anyone .
This is about fixing the small things that make better the big picture of Chess.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2007, 07:37 PM
ok, do we aspire to the accepted protocols of a retirement home cribbage game or to that of more professional sports?

The difference is that in many "professional sports", one side being late means the game cannot go on. But in cases where it can, there are often provisions for the late player to start.

In motorsport, a car that is not quite ready at the scheduled start time for the race may be started from the pit lane.

In cycling, Floyd Landis was several seconds late to the start of the 2006 Tour de France prologue, yet was not disqualified. It just meant that he started with that time on his clock.


Nigel Short need not be protected from anyone .
This is about fixing the small things that make better the big picture of Chess.

I'm not convinced that it does.

As it is, the latecomer is punished with time off their clock. Unless they are doing it deliberately, that should be punishment enough.

Brian_Jones
03-12-2007, 06:51 AM
ok, do we aspire to the accepted protocols of a retirement home cribbage game or to that of more professional sports?...........This is about fixing the small things that make better the big picture of Chess.

Don't know who you are Mr Axiom, but on this subject you make a lot of sense! :eek:

Denis_Jessop
05-12-2007, 12:07 PM
The difference is that in many "professional sports", one side being late means the game cannot go on. But in cases where it can, there are often provisions for the late player to start.

In motorsport, a car that is not quite ready at the scheduled start time for the race may be started from the pit lane.

In cycling, Floyd Landis was several seconds late to the start of the 2006 Tour de France prologue, yet was not disqualified. It just meant that he started with that time on his clock.



I'm not convinced that it does.

As it is, the latecomer is punished with time off their clock. Unless they are doing it deliberately, that should be punishment enough.

Also in many sports like a cycling time trial each competitor has a nominated start time or there is a nominated order as in golf where you are penalised if you don't hit off within i think 2 minutes (or is it 1?) of your nominated tee-off time. Actually there is a more striking example than Landis in cycling. The year after he won the TdF, Pedro Delgado turned up about 2 1/2 minutes late for the prologue. He was allowed to start but was timed from his allocated starting time.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
05-12-2007, 12:08 PM
Don't know who you are Mr Axiom, but on this subject you make a lot of sense! :eek:

Sorry Brian, but I think he just sounds like a drongo:whistle:

DJ

Brian_Jones
05-12-2007, 01:05 PM
Sorry Brian, but I think he just sounds like a drongo:whistle:

DJ

Sorry Denis, but you are a spectator these days so you don't have to put up with the late starts and other crap that us players have to suffer. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2007, 06:48 PM
Don't know who you are Mr Axiom, but on this subject you make a lot of sense! :eek:

Feel free to answer my counter-points in #90 if you wish to contribute something substantial to the debate.

(That goes for Axiom as well.)

Brian_Jones
06-12-2007, 07:38 AM
Feel free to answer my counter-points in #90 if you wish to contribute something substantial to the debate.

(That goes for Axiom as well.)

I am not sure I understand your counterpoints? :D

In my view, chess tournaments should start on time with the organisers doing their bit and the players being courteous to one another by fronting up on time.

Too much bad organisation and too many rude players are tolerated in Australia.

We should demand higher standards.

For example, I now withdraw my entry and walk out if an event starts more than 30 minutes later than the advertised start time!

No games should be allowed to be rearranged (particularly at another location with no DOP present!).

If a player is late then he/she should forfeit and lose the rating points! (I appreciate this is controversial and possibly should be moved to another thread?)

PS Johnny Bolens turns up late deliberately!

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2007, 10:37 AM
I am not sure I understand your counterpoints? :D

Can't really help you there. I am pointing out that there are many professional sports that allow late starting, with the late starter appropriately penalised by those sports' equivalent of loss of time on the clock.

Not allowing people to start their game late with time off the clock is not "professional" but simply needlessly harsh.

I do not consider an opponent who fails to start the game on time against me discourteous at all. In fact I would be happy if more of my opponents placed themselves at a disadvantage on the clock by so doing!

The only thing that is discourteous is forfeiting without due notice.


For example, I now withdraw my entry and walk out if an event starts more than 30 minutes later than the advertised start time!

That is not an equivalent issue since that makes the games run overtime, whereas late arrival by one player generally does not.


No games should be allowed to be rearranged (particularly at another location with no DOP present!).

In small clubs it is sometimes the only way to get all the games played. Flexibility is sometimes necessary.


If a player is late then he/she should forfeit and lose the rating points! (I appreciate this is controversial and possibly should be moved to another thread?)

More ridiculous than controversial. :D


PS Johnny Bolens turns up late deliberately!

An arbiter who believes a player is deliberately turning up late to try to gain advantage is free to penalise them under the disrepute rule.

Axiom
06-12-2007, 05:29 PM
More relevant is how other combative sports deal with late starting.
A one on one 'fight' as chess can be seen as, oft likened too, boxing, creates significant pre bout tension.
Although i appreciate time lost off the clock is some compensation for having to restart the pre-fight adrenaline pump, but in my view such is the respect- nature of a one on one combative sport, it neccesitates according rule adjustments.
It is appropriate respect from one warrior to another.
Players could be advised to be at their board 10 minutes prior to commencement, and if more than 10 minutes late , automatic forfeit.
This would help to generate the respect that the combative chess contest deserves.

Miguel
06-12-2007, 10:00 PM
It seems other board games also have "grace periods" for late players (although I don't know if they developed their tournament rules independently, or used chess as a template):

Playing Rules for Illinois State Checker Association (http://usacheckers.com/tournamentguide.php#appendixb)

Players running more than fifteen minutes late will be required to forfeit the first game. Players arriving an hour and fifteen minutes late will be required to forfeit both games.

American Go Association: The Official AGA Tournament Guide (http://www.usgo.org/resources/downloads/AGATDGuide.pdf)

Games will start at the time designated by the TD. Absent players' clocks will be started by the TD. If both players are absent, upon the return of either, time remaining in the round will be split equally between them, and the clock started. If clocks are not used, an absent player shall forfeit if more than thirty minutes elapse after the announced start of play.

National SCRABBLE® Association: NSA Official Tournament Rules (http://www.scrabble-assoc.com/build/rules/rules2.html#rd19)

If a player is late for a game, the Director may start his/her clock, no earlier than three minutes after the start of the round. When the player's clock has run down all 25 minutes, the game is over, and the missing player forfeits the game with a loss and -50pt. spread. If the player arrives any time earlier s/he may stop the clock, get situated, count tiles, determine who's first and then proceed with the game with whatever time remains on his/her clock. S/he may also decide to forfeit the game at that point.

Denis_Jessop
07-12-2007, 03:32 PM
Sorry Denis, but you are a spectator these days so you don't have to put up with the late starts and other crap that us players have to suffer. :hand:

But I have also been an arbiter especially in Club events and, anyway my current status has nothing to do with my ability or qualification to express an opinion. You make it sound as if there has been some very recent change of behaviour that only those now playing know about :hmm: .

Moreover the late arrival of players, possibly invoking the "one hour late" rule has nothing to do with the late starting of events which is caused by all sorts of things but mainly, in round 1, by late acceptance of entries. This is an organisational problem, not a rules problem.

DJ

frog
11-12-2007, 10:59 AM
Hi All,

In our Lidums Australian Allegro Championships held at Glenelg on Boxing day every year with about $1,500 in prizemonies for an afternoon event , we routinely start about 15 minutes or so late. We try not to do the above but players arriving at last minute on mass seems to have become a habit one which we could do without.

We would rather have 90 - 100 players playing rather than 80 - 90 so we stretch the timeframe for entries. For most other SA events SACA is usually very strict about entries.

Some day at our Allegro we will start on time but if we did we would alienate some of our players so which way do we go???!!!

Regards to ALL

Garvinator
11-12-2007, 11:15 AM
Some day at our Allegro we will start on time but if we did we would alienate some of our players so which way do we go???!!!
I almost always take the stance that more players are alienated by late starts than are alienated because the tournament started on time. Late comers also have the option of ringing before the first round and saying that they will be there and to please put them in the first round draw.

So I do not have any sympathy for late comers who do not do turn up on time or ring to say they will be late.

On all advertising have it clearly in large red font that entries close 15 mins before the first round starting time and then do the draw straight after.

Also being an allegro, late players only have to wait 15-30 mins for the second round game, instead of the 2 hrs 30 mins of a weekender.

A third option is to pair 'late comers' with each other in the first round and deduct their late arrival from their clock.

Just state this on the entry form and no person has a right to complain that they were not informed or that it was advertised.

Also, when a tournament regularly starts late tournament after tournament, it creates a culture where players just expect that the tournament will start late and so players turn up late with the expectation that they do not have to turn up on time.

Phil Bourke
11-12-2007, 05:45 PM
Excellent points Garvin. Every tournament organiser should read these and take special notes. There is nothing worse than standing around for 30 mins waiting to begin the first round. I have no problem whatsoever with an individual running late for any genuine reason, but an organiser that advertises a set starting time and then fails to deliver that for less than exceptional causes really sets a bad tone. Couldn't agree more about the start on time a few times and the tardy ones will soon smarten themselves up about being on time. Organiser's scheduling rounds too close so that upon arrival for the commencement of the next round, one finds that everyone is waiting on one or two games to finish so that they can even do the draw for the next round, is just about an equivalent crime. Pick times (Starting or Game) that prevent this.

Garvinator
16-12-2007, 02:13 AM
Excellent points Garvin. Every tournament organiser should read these and take special notes. There is nothing worse than standing around for 30 mins waiting to begin the first round. I have no problem whatsoever with an individual running late for any genuine reason, but an organiser that advertises a set starting time and then fails to deliver that for less than exceptional causes really sets a bad tone. Couldn't agree more about the start on time a few times and the tardy ones will soon smarten themselves up about being on time. Organiser's scheduling rounds too close so that upon arrival for the commencement of the next round, one finds that everyone is waiting on one or two games to finish so that they can even do the draw for the next round, is just about an equivalent crime. Pick times (Starting or Game) that prevent this.
I have plenty more of where this came from ;)

CameronD
16-12-2007, 08:03 AM
I have plenty more of where this came from ;)

Dont get him started

Denis_Jessop
16-12-2007, 11:08 AM
When Garvin started this thread the emphasis was on the rules allowing a player to arrive up to one hour late before forfeiting the game.

As I mentioned in a later post, the delay in beginning the first round, which is the bane both of organisers and players, is a different problem and has nothing to do with the "one hour late" rule. Late starting of first rounds (which is a bad thing) is an organisational problem that can be alleviated to some extent - perhaps entirely - by closing entries early and then being absolutely firm about not admitting late entries (or admitting them but excluding them from round 1) and not pairing players in the first round who haven't checked in a specified time before the advertised starting time. I see that the Doeberl Cup organisers are doing something along these lines next year so we'll see how it goes. It may seem harsh but once players know that that's what will happen, they'll soon realise that they have to act early or miss out.

DJ

sleepless
16-12-2007, 12:10 PM
"...and not pairing players in the first round who haven't checked in a specified time before the advertised starting time. I see that the Doeberl Cup organisers are doing something along these lines next year..."

Travel issues may cause entered and paid interstate players to arrive between close of check-in and start time. In this case I would guess that the organisers would discriminate between invited GMs and ordinary entrants.

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2007, 01:17 PM
In my experience, starting round 1 on time (or at least within five minutes of such) is not rocket science and it surprises me to hear word from elsewhere of it so often not being done.

I agree with Garvin above - include a cutoff time for entries on the day and do a provisional draw once entries are closed. If latecomers have not at least contacted the organisers prior to the event to advise their intention to enter then simply not allowing them to play is one option; another is admitting them for round 2 on 0/1 or if extenuating circumstances exist .5/1.

Often tournament organisers encounter unexpected difficulties setting up. This especially concerns computer equipment. It is a good idea for all organisers to be present way in advance of the start time of the tournament. For small weekenders I aim to be at the venue one hour ahead of scheduled start. That way if things go wrong there is often a work-around; eg we have sometimes had organisers drive home to get equipment and still get back in time to start the event.

Check-in requirements for players who have entered and paid are unnecessary. Just pair them and if they don't make it in time they forfeit.

Garvinator
16-12-2007, 02:20 PM
Check-in requirements for players who have entered and paid are unnecessary. Just pair them and if they don't make it in time they forfeit.My concern in this situation is not with the person who forfeits, but with the person who did not get a game through no fault of their own.