Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?

[Roger de Coverly]

You've just given one of the many good reasons why you need an arbiter.

English League (and most county) chess is invariably played under conditions of "no arbiter present".

[David Williams]

Although there have been many variations on adjournments and adjudications, interim time controls, quickplay finishes and the like, mostly they seem to revolve around a consensus that a three hour playing session is appropriate for league chess on midweek evenings. One assumes that most people would prefer to play for longer, but there are time constraints that make it impractical.

No matter what the actual increment is, leagues seem to be adopting systems that give 90 minutes for 60 moves, with assurances that even very long games will not last too much longer than three hours. But the vast majority of games do not go that far, and of those that do in many cases the later moves require little thought. For any game of less than 60 moves you actually have a shorter playing session than you had previously. I know the first couple of times I played with increments I started off somehow thinking that time scrambles were a thing of the past, and ended up very short of time.

[Reg Clucas]

You'll always get players who don't realise that they can't win with bishop and rook's pawn against king when the bishop is the wrong colour or adults facing juniors who choose to play on with king and rook against king and rook to see if their opponent will fall into a trap (I've been there).

Common sense has to come into the equation in cases like this. One would hope that team captains would intervene.

[Brian Towers]

Re: Chess Arbiters Association AGM
Postby Gareth T Ellis » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:34 pm

"It was noted that most leagues were still using mechanical clocks and that 10/2 was alive in local league use."

Now, that is a little bit sad and rather backs up Michael White's comment:

.................. what value does an Arbiter actually add that deserves payment over and above someone willing to volunteer to be present and not play to ensure the event takes place?

Having a thorough knowledge of the laws of chess and enforcing those rules.

If only

The current FIDE laws of chess don't have a "10/2" and haven't since July 2014. Surely the CAA are aware of this?

Note that 10.2 has been replaced by G.5. This is a significant move from the main body to an appendix to indicate that failure to use digital clocks with increments is deprecated.

But note also the opening line of G.5:

G.5 If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls.

So, G.5 only applies if G.4 doesn't apply. What does G.4 say?

G.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.

This would suggest that the default option when using digital clocks which are capable of having increments but increments not being used with one of the players worried that he might end up losing on time a position which he should draw would be to reset the clocks to introduce a 5 second increment and give his opponent an additional 2 minutes.

This has to be a massive improvement over the previous situation particularly when there is no arbiter since to claim that your opponent isn't trying to win in the absence of an arbiter requires an uptodate scoresheet when you probably stopped recording 3 minutes earlier.

[MartinCarpenter]

Cute idea that one, but its hardly known in the wider community.

Also though, the chances of most evening league matches having someone who can reliably set a digital clock to remaining time for player 1, remaining time for player 2 and stick a 5 second increment on? Rather low I fear

Should really be a simple two press option to do it via the UI but I presume you'd have to program it in mostly manually. York has some digital clocks but we don't use them for the Yorkshire league as they won't add the 15 on automatically post move 42 and doing so manually is so much more painful than with anologue clocks.

[Brian Towers]

Cute idea that one, but its hardly known in the wider community.

According to a German chess-playing friend the German Chess Federation is planning on requiring every chess club to have somebody who has been on a one-day course to learn the FIDE laws of chess. But you're right. How many English chess clubs have at least one member who actually knows the rules?

[Roger de Coverly]

York has some digital clocks but we don't use them for the Yorkshire league as they won't add the 15 on automatically post move 42 and doing so manually is so much more painful than with anologue clocks.

I don't think any digital clock will do this without being hacked in a minor way. You would have to change the rules to say that with digital clocks, the extra fifteen minutes is added at the expiry of the first time. Many clubs adopting digital clocks have ignored the point that they are not following the letter of local league rules. With digital clocks, it's simpler to play G/90, G/105 or G/120 without bothering with an intermediate control.

Without having tried it, I would suspect that if you told the clock it had an increment, but the increment was zero, you could persuade it to count up to 42 and then add the time.

[Reg Clucas]

G.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.

This would suggest that the default option when using digital clocks which are capable of having increments but increments not being used with one of the players worried that he might end up losing on time a position which he should draw would be to reset the clocks to introduce a 5 second increment and give his opponent an additional 2 minutes.

Appendix G is not worded very well, but I don't think we can regard the 5" increment as the default option (unfortunately). The key words here are "...if the arbiter agrees to the request...". If there is no arbiter then presumably Appendix G6 applies instead.

The other puzzling wording in Appendix G is G2 - "Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this Appendix shall apply or
not." What is the default position if no such announcement is made?

The Manchester League rules do take account of this, as follows - "Games in the Manchester League are subject to the FIDE Rules Appendix G, unless an incremental time limit is being used. For MCF purposes no arbiter is present in the venue ...... so Appendix G4 does not apply." I haven't played in any other competition (league or congress) where any such announcement has been made.

[MartinCarpenter]

York has some digital clocks but we don't use them for the Yorkshire league as they won't add the 15 on automatically post move 42 and doing so manually is so much more painful than with anologue clocks.

I don't think any digital clock will do this without being hacked in a minor way.

Ah, well, they won't do the adding 15 minutes when someone runs out either The phrasing of our rules would allow that, but you'd have to be a real pedant to have a problem!

G4 does strike me as the right sort of idea in principle.

[Mike Gunn]

If Appendix G does not apply then you just lose if your flag falls first (and your opponent has mating material).

Every league should have had a discussion about their approach to Appendix B before the start of the current season:

1. Apply Appendix G (or not)

2. Apply G4 (possible even if an arbiter is not present) or G5/G6?

(G5 is the old 10.2 and G6 is the old Appendix D, of course.)

[Mike Gunn]

I meant "Appendix G", not "Appendix B".

[Roger de Coverly]

For MCF purposes no arbiter is present in the venue ...... so Appendix G4 does not apply."

In a list of local exceptions, Berkshire wording is

Appendix G. Quickplay finishes
We accept Appendix G with the exception of G4 which does not apply

I did make an attempt to draft a rule allowing clock substitution, but as the League allows 80 10 by mutual agreement, that seemed a much simpler solution than trying to word an amendment to make clock substitution optional.

Congresses that are using non-incremental finishes have usually stated whether or not G4 would apply. Scarborough in 2014 would have applied G4. Perhaps by coincidence, or perhaps not, there weren't any explicit Appendix G claims.

[Mick Norris]

[
The Manchester League rules do take account of this, as follows - "Games in the Manchester League are subject to the FIDE Rules Appendix G, unless an incremental time limit is being used. For MCF purposes no arbiter is present in the venue ...... so Appendix G4 does not apply."

Brilliantly drafted

[Reg Clucas]

If Appendix G does not apply then you just lose if your flag falls first (and your opponent has mating material).

Every league should have had a discussion about their approach to Appendix G before the start of the current season:

Agreed, but if that discussion has not taken place then does Appendix G apply or not? You could answer 'yes' or 'no' to that question with equal validity, since no default position is specified in the rules.

[Roger de Coverly]

Agreed, but if that discussion has not taken place then does Appendix G apply or not?

Not all leagues allow quickplay finishes. But those that do, would have adopted 10.2 or some earlier variation thereof. It would seem reasonable to the average player, that even if FIDE monkey with the presentation, that the original intent remains. It's a new point as to whether a clock substitution should be available, but the absence of an arbiter rules it out as a default position.