Incremental Time Controls

[Matthew Turner]

Martin,
I don't believe that you can really have a system of increments and adjudications, because there is no natural cut-off points. Are you really going to step in with both players having less than a minute on the clocks and say "Right, let's gets the position written down for adjudication"?

[Roger de Coverly]

Are you really going to step in with both players having less than a minute on the clocks and say "Right, let's gets the position written down for adjudication"?

It wasn't very clear what the whole proposal would say, but it might have been to declare the session over after 180 minutes and all unfinished games to be adjudicated.

It's many years since I played the chess variant known as adjudication chess but one of the "advanced" options was to not play any more moves once the time remaining on your clock exceeded the time remaining to adjudication. I don't think increments would actually prevent this although it might help to increase the move count beyond 36.

One of the other "features" of adjudication chess is that it was best to avoid long lines like the Kings Indian or the Closed Spanish if you are the higher rated player and looking to win the game. Particularly in the 30 move version, you cannot make much progress with 18 moves of near theory and only 12 moves to win the game.

[Matthew Turner]

Roger,
You could have another DGT set to buzz when three hours was up, but this could happen when one player has a second and the other 31 seconds. This doesn't really seem satisfactory and I can see the possibilities for disputes.

[Jonathan Bryant]

.... and most players I talked to found the time control (20 minutes plus 10 second increment) much more satisfactory than a 30 minute rapidplay.

I think I'd be in this camp too ... although I wonder what tournament organisers (Adam Raaof are you there?) would think about this? As I recall it's a fairly tight turn around during most one day rapid plays. One game going on an extra 10-15 minutes could mess things up quite a bit. That said, it's much more easier to cope with than a game going on an extra hour or two.

In short - I'd favour rapid plays with time increments as a player but I'm not sure whether i'd like it as an organiser.

Although the evil of adjudication will still be present, I don't think (pace Sean), that the idea completely defeats the object. We would still have a three hour session with adjudication (far from satisfactory), but we would get at least 40 moves in, and probably nearer 50. Approximately 25% games are being adjudicated (either officially or de facto) at the moment after 36 moves. 40-50 moves would bring this down considerably, and as I said, this is the first step.

I'm afraid you've lost me here though. Firstly I don't see the point of time increment AND adjudication together. Second I don't see how it would work. Could you suggest an actual time control that might fit with your plan?

If you're saying more moves in a game would lead to fewer adjudications then that's certainly true. I play in the Thames Valley League where the standard time control is after just 30 moves. It really isn't enough. I once had a game that finished with just one exchange (my bishop for his knight). At the point of adjudication we had all are other pieces and all 8 pawns left.

If that is what you're saying though i don't see how incremental time helps. Why not just say 42 in 90 (or somesuch)?

[JustinHorton]

... if you go to chess tournaments, people gather to watch time scrambles - Are we sacrificing excitement in order to make arbiters' lives' easier? In my opinion, this is not the way to go.

Justin Horton is, I think, away from his computer for a few days so I'll make a point on his behalf.


Justin has much more experience using incremental time controls than I do. He suggests, I think, that rather than eliminating time scrambles fischer clocks can keep you permanently in them once you run out of your 'base time.

Ah cheers Jonathan - as it happens I'm still here until tomorrow!

For three years I've been playing club and club-standard chess in the Aragón League (and other competitions) with a time limit of ninety minutes plus thirty seconds a move. My experience is:

a) games will tend to take between three and a half hours and four hours to play ;
b) it can go on rather longer and will very occasionally do so (for instance, if it comes down to a pawnless ending where neither player wishes to agree a draw - and especially where neither knows what to do!) but this is rare and four hours is close to a "normal" maximum ;
c) once you're short of time, you're always short of time.

Four hours would be pushing it for a normal UK club night, I think, where you tend to start at 7.30 and need to finish by 11. Maybe you could get round this by playing an hours plus thirty seconds, but that's pretty short (and I don't know if it would meet minimum standards for having games graded). We can do this in Spain because games aren't played in midweek, or not in my part of the world anyway - they're played at weekends and tend to start at 4.00 or 4.30.

London League starts at 7,00, if I recall, and they could maybe get away with ninety plus thirty seconds if they wanted. Other, later-starting leagues would, as I say, struggle.

And if it's time-scrambles you want - well, you'll get them, but not quite the same sort.

[Sean Hewitt]

Although the evil of adjudication will still be present, I don't think (pace Sean), that the idea completely defeats the object. We would still have a three hour session with adjudication (far from satisfactory), but we would get at least 40 moves in, and probably nearer 50. Approximately 25% games are being adjudicated (either officially or de facto) at the moment after 36 moves. 40-50 moves would bring this down considerably, and as I said, this is the first step.

Hi Martine. Whilst I think your goal is laudable, I dont think you can mix increments with adjudications. You have to find a time control that allows you to finish on the night. But given that you say

The London Civil Service League has consistently resisted attempts to move to anything faster than 36 moves in 90 minutes (even 42 in 90 minutes) or to introduce a quickplay finish.

surely they are not going to go for something that is effectively 40/90 anyway?

[James Toon]

Like Martin, I also play in the Civil Service League. I share his dislike of adjudications. Personally I would prefer a quickplay finish but my attempts to introduce this have been rejected by an increasing margin in recent years.

Martin's proposal would combine a Fischer time control with a cut-off after three hours when games would be settled by mutual agreement between the captains or by adjudication. So the only purpose of the Fischer time control is to increase the number of moves that have to be played within the session. That could be achieved more simply by a straightforward n moves in 90 minutes where n is greater than 36 – and clubs would not need special equipment. This has of course been tried; Martin's previous proposal was 42 in 90 and that was also defeated. Maybe one should do this incrementally and try something like 39 in 90 first.

The sad fact is that many players in this league:
(1) enjoy the process of playing chess of an evening; but
(2) don't mind if the result of the game comes later and is determined by someone else;
(3) feel uncomfortable if they have to think quickly; and
(4) sit on their hands in the later stages and refuse to make any more moves because they don't know how to exploit their position.

It's chess, but not as we know it…

[IM Jack Rudd]

In events without increments, the minimum time per player allowed for ECF grading is one hour. I don't know offhand what the rule is with increments, but if it works on the same principles as FIDE's rules, it will be one hour to reach move sixty.

[Mike Gunn]

When increments are used the criterion that the time for all moves must be 1 hour or more is replaced by the criterion that the time for 60 moves must be 1 hour or more. This is in the front of the grading book or buried on the ECF site somewhere, I think.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I can see a few problems with the proposed time limit in the London Civil Service League.
1) There are not a lot of digital clocks around.
2) Most matches are played in secure buildings, and it is not uncommon for security guards to be getting a bit edgy if you have not vacated the premises by 9.30 pm (the finish time). Security is also one reason why adjournments are not popular - you need to supply a list of players in advance for the "home" security staff, and it gets a bit fiddly for just one game to be played. (Also the home player needs to get hold of the key to the equipment cupboard!)
3) People have to get trains home - so an open-ended finish time would not be popular. Although the players work in London, they may live on the South coast, or in Bath, or Peterborough etc...
4) Most players only play in the CS league and they are happy to continue with the traditional ways of finishing games. I have played in the CS League and would much prefer QP finishes (which are an option), but I rarely got them. On the plus side, the adjudication results are available rapidly and are almost invariably correct, or justifable anyway.
5) You would have to call time after 3 hours, which makes Fischer timing look silly.
6) The membership has debated QP finishes and some really rather fanciful (in some cases, totally bizarre) proposals about time limits every year for ages; they are getting increasingly fed up and throwing out the proposals with some alacrity.

Kevin

[Martin Benjamin]

Kevin will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he has played in the CS league all that often in the last few years (I share his dislike of adjudications). I think he would find that even the standard of adjudications has gone downhill. For example, this season a classic good knight (plus extra pawn) v bad bishop ending which seemed clearly winning came back as a draw. Perhaps adjudicators merely stick positions on to software and accept the judgement after a couple of minutes running - the fee does not warrant extensive analysis, and in most cases, a couple of minutes on decent software will bring back the "right" result. But for complex endings, something better is needed. More importantly, the players learn nothing. Most players from one match looked at me in disbelief when I was trying to tell them that a rook v rook plus f and h pawns was (barring exceptionally disadvantageous starting positions) a theoretical draw, albeit very difficult to draw in practice. But had the player with just the rook had to play on, he would almost certainly have lost. Even armed with the knowledge of the theory of how to play such an ending, I am not good enough a player to have much chance of drawing this over the board. And seeing how badly some players (including myself) play endings because of the lack of practice over the board, I just wonder why anyone would accept adjudication at move 36 or even earlier (Thames Valley League at move 30).

But I am preaching to the converted. I know Kevin and most other contributors to this board (including myself) regard adjudications as the worst possible way to to finish the game.

Thanks again to everyone for their comments. I acknowledge my option is not without potential pitfalls, but a guillotine quickplay can also create problems. I still prefer incremental chess, perhaps at a much faster rate than the proposal have put in. Whatever the rights and wrongs, something has to change or evening league chess will slowly dwindle to nothing.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Yup, adjudication is the devil's spawn

Only had one in my life, that was one too many (even if it was a win for me )

I see Leonard Barden posts on here from time to time - wonder if he would agree that the mania for adjudication we had at league, county level etc until the 1970s (at least) was one of the things holding back British chess for so long?

[Kevin Thurlow]

Although I dislike adjudications (but dislike adjournments more), I have done adjudications for a number of leagues. One thing I have noticed is that players do not seem to take a fresh look at the positions before sending them in. The last two I saw, one was quite interesting as both sides claimed a win, but it quickly became clear that both sides had to accept a draw by repetition, and the other, one player had submitted loads of analysis. Pity he missed the best fisrst move... Probably my favourite was where both players claimed a win, and white had Rf1, Kg1, Ph2 and f2, so x.....Qg4+, Kh1, Qf3+, Kg1, Qg4+ etc was a forced draw. However, black had another piece hanging around so it was actually mate in 4! This rapidly went back to the league secretary with a few comments - then white announced he would appeal (but he later thought better of it...) Players always complain about adjudications, but it is obvious that for the most part they don't look at the positions. How many wins are claimed as "I was attacking all night so I must be winning"?

The big drawback with adjudications (and I may have said this before elsewhere) is where the players stop, then all their club colleagues descend like vultures on the board. A Redhill IV player was about to resign, when I passed the board and he asked my opinion, so I said, "Er, doesn't RxP+ win?", which it did, which was bad luck for the opponent!

In Martin's N+P vs B ending, if it's that good, why not appeal?

Kevin

[James Toon]

The practice in my team, at the end of the session, is to look quickly at the board to see if there is a forced win for one side. If not we take it away to the pub and analyse it over the board and with a chess engine. If this suggests a clear result (win, lose or draw), we try to agree it with the other side. In almost all cases we reach a result that way. Very few of our games go off for adjudication.

I think other teams in the Civil Service League follow a similar practice. The number of adjudications is down to about 10 a year, or about 1% of all games played. The number of these declared frivolous (i.e. the sort of positions Kevin comments on) is only about one a year.

This may explain why this league is unable to get worked up about adjudications. Most players seem happy with a system whereby both sides strive to find the objectively best result, usually within a few days of the game.

[Sean Hewitt]

The scenario James describes is typical where adjudications are still in use. However, these "agreed results" are still adjudicated results. Just because the adjudicators were both teams players, and the result was agreed by both teams, does not make this more satisfactory than sending the games to an unknown adjudicator.

The interesting stat is not how many games are sent off for adjudication, but how many games are not finshed on the night. Thats the true measure of the problem!