Atherton B V Wigan A

Result on Board 5 is in dispute

I have received a complaint from Andy Elmer, Board 5 for Wigan, that during the course of the game Mr David Brodie shouted towards the players "thats an illegal move". This is contrary to the rules of chess - in respect to outside assistance.

It is understood that where there is no Arbiter present the two captains then stand as Arbiter. 

The two captains (Arbiters) present were Stephen Deakin who, at the time was playing Andy Elmer, the second was myself who was stood next to the board and with David Brodie to my immediate left.

It is my understanding that where players of either side (or members of the public) notice something untoward they should ONLY bring it to the attention of the arbiter (or those acting as arbiter) and it is wholly incorrect to shout out and to bring it to the attention of the players. This is classed as "outside help" and contrary to the rules of chess.

During the course of the day Andy Elmer has discussed  the incident with myself.

As his captain Andy Elmer has registered, via myself as his captain, a request that the game be awarded in his favour 

Paul Keevil

Atherton v Wigan - 3rd December 2024

I oppose the claim made by Mr Keevil on behalf of his player Mr Elmer.  In my submission, the arguments put forward are spurious, frivolous and without merit. 

The facts are as follows:  towards the end of the game, my opponent, Mr Elmer made an illegal move.  This is a fact and was accepted by Mr Elmer at the board, when I pointed out to him that he had moved his king two squares.  I pointed to the start square and the finish square of the move.  Mr Elmer accepted this without any quibble, returned his king to its original square and made another move.  The game played on to its conclusion.

We were the last game to finish and a small group had formed to watch its conclusion.  Who was watching I cannot say as I was concentrating on the chess.  When Mr Elmer made his illegal move there was an immediate reaction from the onlookers.  I cannot say who said what, if anything.  My recollection is that there was a minor collective gasp, and there were a few low quay mutterings.  At this point I looked up and saw my opposing captain, Mr Keevil, watching the game, and he quite correctly asked for the onlookers to remain quiet for the rest of the game.  And that was that.  The game played out to its conclusion and the result was accepted by Mr Elmer and myself.  There was no mention on the night of claiming a victory because of foul play.  I received a phone call three days later from a fellow-member at Atherton saying the result was disputed, as something had been posted on LMS, otherwise I wouldn't have known anything about it.

Reflecting on the above I would comment that it seems a strange proposition from Mr Elmer and Mr Keevil that because Mr Elmer made an illegal move, he should be awarded the game!!!  Are they seriously suggesting that the illegal move should have stayed on the board?  Mr Keevil confirms he was acting as arbiter on the night (in his capacity as team captain) and he was watching the game.  In his own statement of case, Mr Keevil says that Mr Brodie told him, or said out loud, that an illegal move had been made.  Equipped with that knowledge, surely Mr Keevil accepts that it was fair and proper for the illegal move to be identified and rectified by him as an arbiter?  And if that is the case, then, on Mr Keevil's version of events,  I didn't obtain any advantage at all by Mr Brodie saying out loud that an illegal move had been made.

In conclusion, It is agreed by all parties that an illegal move was made.  The illegal move was identified over the board and was corrected.  The game played on.  In such circumstances, I submit that to award the game to Mr Elmer would be a perverse outcome.  There is no case to answer, this dispute is without foundation or merit and should be summarily dismissed.  

Stephen Deakin