Perriman Cup Final

Customs win the tightest of struggles.

This match followed a similar pattern to the last one. I got a perfectly good position, indeed, a slight advantage, against Michael, but failed to solve the problems he set me and finally succumbed to a back-rank mate. The score remained at 1 - 0 for a long time during which Charles and Nick were both attacking well, Graham's game was confusing, Mike was level and Ellen was losing. Suddenly, just on the time control, Tony Drake missed a queen-winning tactic and Graham levelled the score.

What of the likely results? Mike has some pressure and might win but it will be a long haul. Nick always appeared to be just one piece short of delivering a winning attack, but may still make it. Charles has been pressing for a long time but may have missed his chance. Ellen is still a pawn down and cannot avoid further exchanges. She is most likely to lose.

Given that Graham won on board 6, a 3 - 3 draw means a win for Hadleigh. Winning this match is now quite a challenge, but not totally out of the question.

Well, "it will be a long haul" summed up Mike's game very well ... he won in the third session of play.
McDowell,M - Clow,K [D35] Perriman Final, 2004 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bg5 c6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Nc3 Nbd7 7.e3 Qa5 8.Nd2 Bb4 9.Qc2 0-0 10.Bd3 Re8 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.0-0 Bd7 13.a3 Bd6 14.Bf5 Qc7 15.h3 g6 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Na4 Bc7 18.Nf3 Ne4 19.Nc5 Nxc5 20.Qxc5 Bd6 21.Qc3 Re6 22.Rfc1 Rc8 23.b4 Rc7 24.Nd2 b6 25.Nb3 Bf8 26.Qd3 Be7 27.Rc2 Bd8 28.Rac1 Rd6 29.Nd2 Re6 30.Qb3 a6 31.Qa4 b5 32.Qb3 Rc8 33.Qc3 Bb6 34.Nb3 Kf8 35.Qa1 Rc7 36.a4 Rb7 37.a5 Ba7 38.Rd1 Qe7 39.Qc3 Rc7 40.Qd2 Rd7 41.Nc1 f6 42.Nd3 Rc7 43.Rdc1 Qe8 44.Qd1 Kg7 45.Qf3 Qd7 46.Nf4 Rd6 47.h4 Rc8 48.h5 Qf5 49.hxg6 hxg6 50.Qd1 Qd7 51.Rc3 Qf7 52.Qc2 Bb8 53.g3 g5 54.Nd3 Ba7 55.Qd1 Qe6 56.Qf3 Rh8 57.Qg2 g4 58.Nf4 Qd7 59.Qf1 Qe8 60.Qd3 Rh6 61.Qf5 Qh8 62.Qxg4+ Kf7 63.Rxc6 Rh1+ 64.Kg2 Rxc1 65.Rxc1 Bb8 66.Rc8 Qh7 67.Rxb8 Qe4+ 68.Qf3 Qf5 69.Rb7+ Kg8 70.Qh5 Qe4+ 71.Kh2 1-0

The end of this match came with Charles completing a tricky win against Stan Harwood and Ellen losing to Andy Kochen, this latter result being expected after the adjourned positon. Charles had not seemed at all confident after the move was put in the envelope even though he was two pawns up. They were pretty fragile and, according to Charles, Stan had quite reasonable drawing chances. However, Charles worked very hard on the position in the adjournment and this paid off in the second session. Hadleigh are disputing the board 4 result and when we know the precise grounds for this dispute and its outcome we'll let everyone know.

Many thanks to all the players who have turned out for the team this season. It's been a very interesting season from the Club's point of view as well as being the most exciting Division 1 for as long as I can remember. Apart from the Shell match, every round of the Perriman Cup was won by the narrowest of margins and different stars shone in each round. In round 1, Jim & Graham did the business and Dan played one of the most ridiculous games I have ever seen. In round 2, Rhys delivered the goods. Round 3 was a great team effort and it was a shame that our second team had to be the victims. In the Semi-final, Dan, Charles & Heather were outstanding and I had one of my most enjoyable wins for years. In the Final, Graham snatched the result with a fine piece of opportunism whereas Mike and Charles both ground their opponents down in long endings. Matt, Nick & Ellen have been thoroughly reliable and played some good chess and I can honestly say that this season has come the closest yet to making Captaincy a pleasure!

Well, I spoke too soon.

Howard Norton offered Nick Jellett a draw by telephone while the score stood at 1 - 1. Nick, quite reasonably (and certainly within his rights according to the Laws of Chess) did not respond straight away. In the meantime, Mike won after Ken Clow blundered. We then looked at Nick's position, thought Howard's offer was a reasonable one, and Nick accepted the draw. That was when the problems started.

There then ensued a flurry of emails concerning what was said during this telephone conversation. Firstly:-

On 03/06/2004 at 02:26 Howardnortonhsn@aol.com wrote:

>Dear All,
>The draw offer expired when Nick wished to play on and as we are now 2-1
>down I think I have a duty to my team to play on as agreed.
>Regards,
>Howard

My response:-

Dear All,

A draw offer, once made, cannot be retracted. Here is an extract of the FIDE Laws 
( http://www.bcf.org.uk/organisation/fide/fidelawsofchess.htm ):-

"Article 9: The drawn game
9.1

  1. A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the 
  chessboard and before stopping his clock and starting the opponent's clock. An 
  offer at any other time during play is still valid, but Article 12.5 must be 
  considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer 
  cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it
  orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing
  it, or the game is concluded in some other way."

Also, Appendix A, the Adjourned Game:-

"A4. If a player proposes a draw after his opponent has sealed his move, the offer
is valid until the opponent has accepted it or rejected it as in Article 9.1."

Nick told me this morning that he has never rejected Howard's draw offer, which was
made over the phone, merely that he had arranged a date for possible play-on. This
arrangement has to be made in any case and does not affect any offers which are outstanding.
Indeed, had Nick made the draw offer after sealing the move, Howard would be perfectly 
entitled to go to the second session of play, open the envelope, consider the move until
just before his flag fell and then accept the offer. Because Howard made the offer after 
Nick sealed, Nick is entitled to consider the offer right up to the moment the game is 
resumed by the opening of the envelope. Nick has now accepted the draw so the game is over.

Regards,

Peter

And next (note that I have emboldened some key sentences. Contrast this with what Howard wrote afterwards):-


Dear All,

Quite frankly I can't believe it's coming to this.  I offered Nick a draw over the phone 
following the first session.  He did not accept it therefore it was rejected.  It's black 
or white you either accept or you don't.  In law generally if you make an offer and it is 
rejected you can't claim it's still standing.  As far as I'm concerned my original offer 
over the phone was not accepted therefore we play on.

Howard

After a further exchange of emails, in which the rules once again were spelled ut to him, Howard now sent 
this offering (contrast the emboldened sentences to Howard's previous email):-


Dear All,
When I phoned Nick to agree a date and offer a draw he rejected my  offer.  
He turned me down.  That is quite plain and simple.  At  the time I was quite 
put out by it because with correct play it probably is a  draw.  However, he 
rejected my offer of a draw, he said NO.  Whilst I  sympathise with Nick's 
predicament I am also busy,  I have a number of  time critical deadlines at work 
and after much juggling I managed to ensure some  time to play this game on.  As 
it transpires we are 2-1 down and the fact  the draw was declined allows me 
the opportunity to play on.  I can't  believe Peter you are taking this stance 
and I hope you don't include some  derogatory comment on your website like the 
previous game against Ellen (though  I advise you to be careful here).  At 
the end of the day your player turned  down my offer point blank.  Peter you 
can't now throw your toys out of the  pram and complain.
Howard


The S & DCL then made the following ruling:-

To : 	Nick Jellett		Customs Chess Club
	Peter Walker		Customs I Captain
	Howard Norton		Hadleigh Chess Club
	Ken Clow		Hadleigh I Captain

DISPUTE - Howard Norton v Nick Jellett, Perriman Cup Final

I have now had the chance to discuss the above dispute with the General Secretary, Roger
Mugridge.  A joint decision on the matter has now been made.

We both feel that it is very disappointing that the game could not be settled amicably 
between the players or at least the clubs involved and that it has reached this stage.

The differences of opinion are over what was said in a telephone conversation between 
the two players after the draw offer was made.  We feel that the deciding factor should 
be what was actually said in response to the draw offer.  There are obviously conflicting
versions of what was said, and the fact that there were no witnesses or recording of the 
conversation makes it impossible to establish all the facts to give an accurate ruling.  
We are not prepared to accept that either player is deliberately lying over their account,
but there has clearly been a serious misunderstanding of what was said.  The fact that 
Nick told other people he had not turned the draw offer down does not necessarily mean 
that he did not, he may have believed he did not but not fully understood the consequences 
of what was said.  This is not to say of course that he did turn it down.  One point I did 
note though, that no one mentioned to me that a draw offer was pending or had been made 
when I asked about a resumption date.

There is of course the matter of dates not being offered within the specified time limit 
(seven days).  This is the second time this season that this problem has arisen, the other
time being in the league match versus Hadleigh I.  Although, we do not feel that Hadleigh 
have the right to claim the game on these grounds retrospectively, it is something which 
a lesson should be learned from.  I would suggest that the Customs players are actively 
encouraged to bring diaries with them and arrange play on dates on the night of their 
match to minimise this problem occurring again.

As it cannot be known for certain what was said in the telephone conversation, we feel the 
fairest solution in a difficult situation would be for the game to be resumed by the players 
from the adjourned position.  I believe Howard still has the sealed move envelope unopened.  
This will give Customs the chance to draw the position, which appears to be agreed by both 
parties is fairly level.  It also gives Hadleigh a chance to win the position.  We feel it 
would be unfair to award the game to Hadleigh on the grounds that Nick did not turn up, as 
it would be unfair to award a draw.  There had to be some compromise and we both feel this 
is a fair decision.  The game should be resumed at a neutral venue.  I would suggest it is
played at the Southend Club (Thorpe Bay Bridge Club) on Friday 2 July commencing at 7.45pm.  
If that date is unacceptable to either of you then at least one alternative date should be 
given to me.

I should add that Hadleigh were rather offended at some of the comments made in Peter's 
statements.  Although I can understand that emotions can run high in circumstances such 
as these, perhaps some of the wording could have been made rather more diplomatically.

Finally, although it has been a difficult problem to sort out, I would like to thank all 
parties for their co-operation and quick responses to the enquiries that I asked.

Hopefully, the game can be resumed in a sporting manner and both players can put aside any 
differences of opinion over what was or was not said.

I would be grateful to get your agreement to this decision and confirm that the date mentioned 
is acceptable or hear your alternative dates (Howard and Nick).

I would prefer the embargo on e-mails to remain until a resumption date has been confirmed.

				


				S L Wedlock
				Competitions Officer

Of course, the S & DCL Committee had to make a ruling and tried to find a compromise where none was possible. They simply could not countenance the possibility that someone could be lying (or for that matter genuinely mistaken) and buried their heads in the sand. As a result, none of the email evidence above was considered.

With Customs claiming the draw and Hadleigh claiming a win by default, they ordered that the game be continued. Customs appealed, on the grounds that it gave a player whose draw offer had been accepted the opportunity to play on just because the match situation had changed. The appeal committee unanimously backed the original decision after some quite disgracefully one-sided comments by Tony Drake, S&DCL Chairman and a Hadleigh man, who effectively ruled out the option of referring the dispute to an independent BCF arbiter before he gave up the Chair to a member of a neutral club. Nick, of course, feeling that the S & DCL Committee's decision effectively branded him a liar, refused to play on (he had the full support of the Customs Club in this) so the only logical conclusion is that Hadlegh will be awarded the Perriman Cup. I have left my original report intact because that was what happened according to the Laws of Chess.