>CALENDAR> >ARTICLES> >HOME>   >CLUB INFO> >LINKS> >BLOGS>

A History of the Kenilworth Chess Club

by Michael David Wojcio

1972-1980 | 1980-1990 | The Club Championship | Exhibitions | The Future

PART THREE - THE CLUB CHAMPIONSHIP

Our Longest Running Tradition

To maintain a stable membership, a club needs to build traditions. Rich Falcetano, who lived in Kenilworth, was instrumental in starting the ladder tournaments at the club again and getting me elected as president, but his biggest contribution was starting the Kenilworth Club Championship in 1991. It has been our longest-running tradition. Since its inception in 1991-1992, the Club Championship has been won the most by Scott Massey, who won it 12 times! In fact, he has only lost the championship two times--to expert Rene Ray (who moved to Florida) in 1996 and to FIDE Master Steve Stokyo in 2005. The Under-1800 player who has won the most is Greg Tomkovich, who has achieved this honor three times.

You can see a complete write-up about the 2005 Kenilworth Chess Club Championship at our website. Here are some games from past championships.

In the first two games, National Master and perennial champion Scott Massey demonstrates some flawless technique. In both cases, he is even able to checkmate his opponents in the endgame despite reduced material.

In the following game, Greg and Ed Selling exchange blows in a tough King's Indian Defense until Ed exposes his King for a nice concluding attack.

The following is a typical Mike Wojcio game: both sides look lost for quite a while...

The Great Controversy

If you want to talk about one of the most memorable things to happen at the Kenilworth Chess Club, we would harken back to 1995 and the controversial game between Scott Massey and Jason Cohen. Now that was really something! Jason’s father, Bill, was directing the tournament and everything came down to Scott and Jason's game. It was a hard fought battle that lasted well into the ending. Suddenly, Jason, in serious time trouble with less than a minute on his clock, claimed a draw by Rule 14H of the USCF Rules of Play (based on “insufficient losing chances in sudden death”). Because they were not using a time-delay clock, the rule could be claimed. It states: “In a sudden death time control, a player on the move with two minutes or less of remaining time may stop the clock and ask the director to declare the game a draw on the grounds that the player has insufficient losing chances” (14H1, p. 49). The tournament director is supposed to make a ruling, or, if he is unable to do so, to allow the game to go on and have the claim examined at a later time. Instead of making a ruling that night, however, Bill Cohen decided to make the ruling at a later time. This decision ended up delaying the game for three weeks, allowing Jason plenty of time to analyze the position--time he would not have had if the position had been played out immediately. After all, Jason had less than a minute on his clock. Scott, meanwhile, had at least seven minutes left.

Pictures of Bill Cohen and his son Jason, circa 1990.

 

There are many things wrong with the "insufficient losing chances" rule, and I'm sure I'm not the first to point that out. I see there is an article by Eric C. Johnson that addresses some issues with the rule, for example. The most obvious problem is that it is difficult for TDs to apply the rule except in the most obvious cases (such as where material is even and there are no pawns left). But if you would locate a copy of the 5th Edition of the USCF's Official Rules of Chess and read over the specific language of Rule 14H (which goes on for about five pages), you'll see that the rule is just too complicated not to be confusing to players and TDs alike. The language goes on for so long that it even become self-contradictory. It says at one point that "When ruling, the director should not consider the ratings of those playing" (14H2) but later it says "The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both players having ample time" (14H2). If that contradiction were not bad enough, the rules then go on to state (in language that had to have been written in a committee) "The exact losing chances of any position cannot be calculated, but a director wishing a more precise standard may consider little to mean less than 10 percent" (14H2d). If there has ever been a more self-contradictory sentence written in the annals of chess, I'd like to see it. The rules say that you cannot apply percentages to losing chances and then suggest that directors call it a draw if they think the chances are 10 percent that someone might win. How can you arrive at "10 percent" if percentages do not apply?

If that were not bad enough, the rules then state that if the Director denies that there are "insufficient losing chances" he should deduct a time penalty from the person making the claim. Why? Because if the claim is incorrect, then the player should be interpreted as having made an illegal draw offer before he had moved, since draw offers are supposed to be made upon completing a move and at no other time. Yet the rules also state that the claim of a draw based on "insufficient losing chances" should be made by "a player on the move with 2 minutes or less of remaining time may stop the clock and ask the tournament director to declare a draw." That certainly creates a bit of a Catch-22 situation. After all, if by the rules you can only request a draw due to "insufficient losing chances" when it is your turn to move, but you can only offer a draw after you have moved, why should you be punished as having offered a draw out of turn if your claim is overruled? And why should a time penalty be exacted when you already have less than two minutes on your clock? The rule is absurd.

But let's return to the controversy. Here is the position in which Jason stopped the clock:

The Adjourned Position in Cohen-Massey, 1995

In my opinion, there were obvious losing chances since in a Rook ending with passed pawns it’s rather complicated. Plus Jason would likely have had to play perfectly to draw the game. Scott was later of the opinion that the game is drawn with best play by Black, but the drawing method is far from obvious.

I called up Bill Goichberg and I told him the circumstances. He told me that the game should be resumed. During the controversy Bill Cohen did not accept Bill Goichhberg’s ruling. However, Bill told me a few days later that he would agree to a ruling by Glenn Petersen, and Glenn ruled that the game should continue.

So the game was resumed, with Jason having 45 seconds and Scott 7 minutes on their clocks. Of course, both players had plenty of time to analyze the position, but clearly Scott had done the more thorough job. White had his King on c4, pawn on f3, and Rook on h6, while Black had his Rook at h2, pawn on h4, and King on f4. Black had just played Ke5-f4 when Jason stopped the clock and made his claim. So that is where the position resumed, with Scott to move.

Updated June 08, 2005