English Chess Forum

NickFaulks wrote:

Stewart Reuben wrote: If you use adjudication it is NOT in the Laws of Chess, nor a permitted variant. So you are not playing chess.

I don't think that many people would accept that logic, particularly in England.

There has long been a school of thought within FIDE that games with adjournment are not chess. If these ceased to be permitted under the Laws it would mean that they could not be submitted for rating, which they aren't anyway, and would otherwise make not a blind bit of difference.

I fought the former argument - that games ending with adjudication shouldn't be ECF graded - and lost.

Stewart Reuben wrote:If you use adjudication it is NOT in the Laws of Chess, nor a permitted variant. So you are not playing chess.

So when FIDE told the IOC there were 605 million chess-players in the world this actually excluded all those people who play a game similar to chess, but don't make sure their mobile phones are switched off and out in the shed while they do it? Goodness knows how many they could have claimed if they'd included all the casual players of this game similar to chess.

And that's not the worst David. There are even players who offer draws after pressing their clocks - or (more amazingly) play without clocks - or touch a piece and then move a diferent one or let their opponents take back moves or even call the rook a castle.

Mick Norris wrote:We have discussed this before on here, but the Stockport League uses 80 10 as an alternative to g90

The Manchester League is now using 80 15, although some clubs are sticking to the old time controls even if they have digitals (like my club Bury)

Just to elaborate on this, the incremental time control in these leagues (and the SE Lancs Summer League which also has the 80/10 option) is at the home team's discretion. As Mick says, not all clubs have yet taken it up, but it is gradually becoming more accepted.

In my experience there has never been an instance of a game overrunning excessively. This is often cited as a reason not to use increments, but it really isn't an issue. The potential problems associated with 'sudden death' finishes are far worse.

Thank you everybody for the replies. It's been helpful! My motion will include a clause that there is no increment where there are no digital clocks or a tight time frame. I agree with Nick regarding 5 second increments but I've gone for a 10 second increment because it seems a more popular choice and is also the preference of my seconder.

David Buckley wrote: My motion will include a clause that there is no increment where there are no digital clocks or a tight time frame.

You may need to add the concept that no digital clocks are available if no-one present knows how to set them.

These rules never cease to amaze me. Are two captains incapable of agreeing in this situation that the digital clocks are deemed to be not present?

Michael Farthing wrote: Are two captains incapable of agreeing in this situation that the digital clocks are deemed to be not present?

Given reported past disputes around the country involving digital clocks, it's better to have a rule in place that is quite clear on choice of equipment.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Michael Farthing wrote: Are two captains incapable of agreeing in this situation that the digital clocks are deemed to be not present?

Given reported past disputes around the country involving digital clocks, it's better to have a rule in place that is quite clear on choice of equipment.

So if no one can set the clocks, you need a rule telling to say they shouldn't use them?

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Michael Farthing wrote: Are two captains incapable of agreeing in this situation that the digital clocks are deemed to be not present?

Given reported past disputes around the country involving digital clocks, it's better to have a rule in place that is quite clear on choice of equipment.

So if no one can set the clocks, you need a rule telling to say they shouldn't use them?

Not as daft as it sounds as there's a few clubs in my local leagues who have them but rely on maybe one or two club members to set them.

Alex Holowczak wrote: So if no one can set the clocks, you need a rule telling to say they shouldn't use them?

You have a rule which says that the home club can treat them as not being present.

This is how the Berkshire League rules are worded. Note the the default rate of play (80 10 or 90 0) depends on their presence and availability.

The default rate of play depends on whether digital clocks are deemed available. They have to be present, made available by the home team and have someone from either team knowing how to set them. The home team has choice of equipment.

Which can be abbreviated to "the home team has choice of equipment"

The motion went from through nem-con. A pleasant surprise that as a very similar motion a few years ago in the same (Bristol) league failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority. In the mean time we have had increments in our local tournaments. I guess that the increased exposure may have softened the opposition.

David Buckley wrote:The motion went from through nem-con.

Which increment option did the Bristol(?) league adopt?

We adopted 80+10. One ore two venues don't have much leeway for matches overrunning so their home matches will continue to be played using a flat 90.