21-11-2012, 02:44 PM
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.
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.