|
The 4NCL Management Board has considered the
issues raised by the above, and our conclusions
are as follows:
Alexander Cherniaev
Eligibility
The Board accepts that rule 3.4 is defective
in that it is silent on the question of how
players with a FID registration should be
treated for ECF membership purposes, and that on
a plain reading of the rule AC, as a
FID-registered player, was caught by the rule’s
requirement and should therefore have been
registered as a Gold member before being
selected to play. However, rule 3.4 does not
specify what penalty, if any, there should be
for any breach, nor is any penalty mentioned
elsewhere in the rules.
Under rule 14.3 ‘the Management Board may
apply penalties as it sees fit for any flagrant
or premeditated breaches of the spirit as well
as the letter of the rules’. On the previous
(rare) occasions when a player has not been
registered as an ECF Gold member in time, the
4NCL’s custom and practice has been that there
should be no penalty if the player is registered
as soon as possible after the error is notified.
In this case, Barnet Knights registered AC as a
Gold member as soon as the matter was brought to
the Barnet Knights captain’s attention by the
Chief Arbiter.
Accordingly, by precedent, there was no
impediment to AC playing in the 4NCL given that
his membership status was addressed in a timely
manner.
The wording of rule 3.4 has been amended to
clarify that in the future any player who is a
member of FIDE through another member federation
or through FIDE itself need not be a Gold member
of the ECF.
Barnet Knights
Complaint
The Barnet Knights captain made a formal
complaint to the Management Board on 5 May,
claiming that RE’s behaviour during his game
with AC breached rule 14.3.
The Management Board’s
conclusions are as follows:
-
There are two relevant 4NCL rules which need
to be considered when deciding whether the
letter or spirit of a rule was breached
under rule 14.3: Rule 11.2 (‘A team will
incur one game point penalty per default in
addition to scoring zero on each defaulting
board for each player, having been named on
a team list, who fails to appear for the
match in question within one hour after the
start of play or arrives but is not prepared
to play, or if a default is not notified
until after the deadline’); and rule 12.1
(‘The FIDE Laws of Chess will apply to all
games and the 4NCL Anti-Cheating Policy will
apply to the event’).
-
As regards rule 11.2, the Management Board
has decided that it can be argued that the
letter of rule 11.2 was not breached
inasmuch as under article 5.1 of the FIDE
Rating Regulations a game is considered to
have been played if a move is played by each
side. Regarding whether the spirit of rule
11.2 was breached, the Management Board’s is
of the view that, as a matter of common
sense, ‘is prepared to play’: (a) does not
mean ‘is prepared to play a game only to the
extent that just one move is played by each
player so that it qualifies as a rated game
under the FIDE Rating Regulations’; (b) does
mean ‘is prepared to play a game of chess as
“the man on the Clapham omnibus” would
expect a game of chess to be played’.
Indeed, the purpose of rule 14.3 when it was
drafted (many years ago) was to allow the
Chief Arbiter, the Appeals Committee and the
Management Board suitable discretion in
incidents such as this – and the Management
Board considers that this purpose is
consistent with the preface to the FIDE Laws
of Chess: ‘The Laws assume that arbiters
have the necessary competence, sound
judgement and absolute objectivity. Too
detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of
his freedom of judgement and thus prevent
him from finding a solution to a problem
dictated by fairness, logic and special
factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players
and federations to accept this view’. The
Management Board is accordingly of the view
that RE’s conduct breached the spirit of
rule 11.2, while acknowledging that his
conduct was occasioned by what he considered
to be a matter of principle.
-
As regards rule 12.1, the Management Board
decided that there were three relevant
articles in the FIDE Laws of Chess that
needed to be looked at: Article 11.1 (‘The
players shall take no action that will bring
the game of chess into disrepute’); article
11.5 (‘It is forbidden to distract or annoy
the opponent in any manner whatsoever’); and
article 11.2.3.2 (‘Only with the permission
of the arbiter can… the player having the
move be allowed to leave the playing area’).
-
Article 11.1: The Management Board has
consulted with a number of senior arbiters
and has been unable to find a clear
consensus among them as to whether RE’s
conduct amounted to a breach of the article.
In the circumstances the Management Board is
inclined to accept RE’s comment that he took
a stance of principle against AC and so did
not bring the game into disrepute.
-
Article 11.5: Again, the Management Board
has consulted with a number of senior
arbiters and lawyers. Again, we were unable
to find a clear consensus among them as to
whether RE’s conduct amounted to a breach of
the article. The matter depends on how the
article should be interpreted, namely
whether it should be interpreted as an
absolute interdiction on distraction or
annoyance regardless of purpose, outcome
etc, or whether it should be read in the
context of its presumed underlying intention
of seeking to prevent a player from trying
to gain an unfair advantage over their
opponent through distraction or annoyance.
In the end the Management Board was
persuaded that the latter interpretation
should be accepted – an example given to us
in support of the latter interpretation
which we found it hard to disagree with was
‘So, if I’m playing in the 4NCL and I know
my opponent is desperate to finish early to
watch his football team on TV, I can be in
breach of article 11.5 for deliberately
taking ages over simple moves or for
carrying on playing in a dead drawn
position?’ In that context it would be
difficult to argue that RE was trying to
gain an unfair advantage over his opponent,
whether or not his conduct was distracting
or annoying.
-
Article 11.2.3.2: The Management Board
understands that there is no dispute that RE
left the playing hall when he had the move
(so after AC played 1. …f5). RE has stated
that ‘Mr McFarlane states that I left the
playing hall without the permission of an
arbiter, so contravening law 11.2.3 of the
Laws of Chess. I had taken it from my
explanation of intentions to Mr Carr and his
response of “fine” that I did have such
permission’. We have discussed with Matthew
Carr (‘MC’) his recollection of RE’s and his
conversation. MC has confirmed that he used
the word ‘fine’ to make it clear that he
understood from his conversation with RE
that his intention was to play his first
move, wait for AC’s reply and then either
resign or let his clock run down while
remaining at the board, or at least in the
playing hall; he was quite clear to us that
he did not regard use of the word ‘fine’ as
giving RE permission to leave the playing
hall, given that RE had not requested that
he be allowed to leave the playing hall
during their conversation (or indeed as
condoning RE’s conduct generally). The
Management Board is accordingly of the view
that RE’s conduct breached article 11.2.3.2.
Summary
The Management Board has
concluded that:
-
By precedent, there was no impediment to AC
playing in the game in question given that
his ECF membership status was addressed in a
timely manner.
-
The wording of rule 13.4 as it pertains to
FID-registered players is defective and has
been amended accordingly.
-
The Barnet Knights captain’s formal
complaint that RE’s conduct breached rule
14.3 is upheld to the extent that in the
Management Board’s opinion RE’s conduct
breached the spirit of rule 11.2.
-
The Barnet Knights captain’s formal
complaint that RE’s conduct breached rule
14.3 is upheld to the extent that in the
Management Board’s opinion RE’s conduct
breached article 11.2.3.2 of the FIDE Laws
of Chess.
-
Under rule 11.2 the penalty for a breach is
a game point penalty. Given the
circumstances (see above) the Management
Board considers by a majority decision that
the appropriate sanction is a reprimand
under the discretion afforded to it under
rule 14.3.
-
The appropriate sanction for a breach of
article 11.2.3.2 of the FIDE Laws of Chess
is a reprimand under the discretion afforded
to the Management Board under rule 14.3.
-
The decisions above should not be considered
as precedents should other incidents of a
similar nature occur in future.
4NCL Management Board
|
