English League (and most county) chess is invariably played under conditions of "no arbiter present".Brian Towers wrote:You've just given one of the many good reasons why you need an arbiter.
Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
-
- Posts: 21315
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
-
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
Common sense has to come into the equation in cases like this. One would hope that team captains would intervene.Andrew Zigmond wrote: 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).
-
- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
Now, that is a little bit sad and rather backs up Michael White's comment:Gareth T Ellis wrote: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."
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?E Michael White wrote:If onlyAndrew Bak wrote:Having a thorough knowledge of the laws of chess and enforcing those rules.Roger de Coverly wrote:.................. 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?
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:
So, G.5 only applies if G.4 doesn't apply. What does G.4 say?FIDE Laws of Chess wrote: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.
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.FIDE Laws of Chess wrote: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 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.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.
-
- Posts: 3048
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
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?MartinCarpenter wrote:Cute idea that one, but its hardly known in the wider community.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.
-
- Posts: 21315
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
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.MartinCarpenter wrote: 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.
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.
-
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
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.Brian Towers wrote: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.FIDE Laws of Chess wrote: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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3048
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
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!Roger de Coverly wrote:I don't think any digital clock will do this without being hacked in a minor way.MartinCarpenter wrote: 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.
G4 does strike me as the right sort of idea in principle.
-
- Posts: 1025
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
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.)
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.)
-
- Posts: 1025
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
I meant "Appendix G", not "Appendix B".
-
- Posts: 21315
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
In a list of local exceptions, Berkshire wording isReg Clucas wrote: For MCF purposes no arbiter is present in the venue ...... so Appendix G4 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.Appendix G. Quickplay finishes
We accept Appendix G with the exception of G4 which does not apply
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.
-
- Posts: 10362
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
Brilliantly draftedReg Clucas wrote:[
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."
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
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.Mike Gunn wrote: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:
-
- Posts: 21315
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Increment Time Controls in Leagues ?
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.Reg Clucas wrote: Agreed, but if that discussion has not taken place then does Appendix G apply or not?