Rule 10A

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Rule 10A

Post by David Sedgwick » Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:11 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Presumably the clock records this in case the arbiter is not present... (you can imagine a dispute over whether the clock had ever gone below 5 minutes or not).
It doesn't, unfortunately. So if you arrive at a board and find that a player has stopped recording with (say) 5 minutes and 30 seconds left on the clock, you have to give the player the benefit of the doubt.

As you say, this may be a dispute waiting to happen. However, "I had less than 5 minutes", "No, you didn't", etc. is no worse than "I said "J'adoube" ", "No, you didn't", etc. In fact it's unlikely to be as bad.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:46 am

Hmmm, I can't say I'm a great fan of increments at the moment. I tend to agree with Richard Bates that they may well have advantages, but that the implications haven't been fully worked through yet.

At the Thames Valley AGM recently a motion was put forward by Surbiton's Paul Durrant to the effect that increments may be used, where both players are in agreement. It was passed in the end, with one significant amendment at my proposal, that if the playing session has been exceeded (A: "oh but that can't happen no game ever lasts that long" B: "oh yes it can, although you wouldn't know, as you advise all your players to adjourn as soon as move 30 has been reached") that the game must stop and be sent for adjudication. It was felt that in practise this is likely to happen only for games that exceeded ninety moves and more likely to happen in games that exceeded one hundred and ten moves.

I think this is a reasonable compromise for games in an evening league.

Any thoughts?

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Ian Thompson » Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:55 am

Paul McKeown wrote:At the Thames Valley AGM recently a motion was put forward by Surbiton's Paul Durrant to the effect that increments may be used, where both players are in agreement. It was passed in the end, with one significant amendment at my proposal, that if the playing session has been exceeded (A: "oh but that can't happen no game ever lasts that long" B: "oh yes it can, although you wouldn't know, as you advise all your players to adjourn as soon as move 30 has been reached") that the game must stop and be sent for adjudication. It was felt that in practise this is likely to happen only for games that exceeded ninety moves and more likely to happen in games that exceeded one hundred and ten moves.

I think this is a reasonable compromise for games in an evening league.

Any thoughts?
The Surrey Border League allows 10.2 claims after 190 minutes playing time when using Fischer time controls, which means a minimum of 90 moves will have been played.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:02 am

Paul McKeown wrote: I think this is a reasonable compromise for games in an evening league.

Any thoughts?

The Berks league has also introduced optional increments. After agreeing the principle, the meeting was given the choice of 60 30 and 80 10 and elected the latter. Keith's 155 move game at Canterbury was fresh in the minds of some of the attendees. We did reckon that clubs with rigorous fixed closing times wouldn't be able to offer increment timing but it was pointed out that the same closing time issue had applied in the past to adjournments. There is also a potential issue with being unable to terminate games by 3 fold or 50 moves. This was left open, if such a claim was likely the match captains or third parties could watch and keep score when the players had ceased.

It's all very well combining adjudication with increments but what stops a player with plenty of time just waiting for the adjudication without making any attempt to play? It's well over ten years since I last played in the Thames Valley, but it was my impression that adjudication sitting was then quite commonplace.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:48 am

Paul McKeown wrote:Hmmm, I can't say I'm a great fan of increments at the moment. I tend to agree with Richard Bates that they may well have advantages, but that the implications haven't been fully worked through yet.

At the Thames Valley AGM recently a motion was put forward by Surbiton's Paul Durrant to the effect that increments may be used, where both players are in agreement. It was passed in the end, with one significant amendment at my proposal, that if the playing session has been exceeded (A: "oh but that can't happen no game ever lasts that long" B: "oh yes it can, although you wouldn't know, as you advise all your players to adjourn as soon as move 30 has been reached") that the game must stop and be sent for adjudication. It was felt that in practise this is likely to happen only for games that exceeded ninety moves and more likely to happen in games that exceeded one hundred and ten moves.

I think this is a reasonable compromise for games in an evening league.

Any thoughts?
Depends what the increment is! I think an appropriate increment for an evening league would be 75 mins + 10 secs per move. A 90 move game would take 3 hours, and it would need 180 moves to get up to 3 1/2 hours. Starting at 7:30pm, that doesn't seem too bad.

I've just read the rules for the Thames Valley League on its website. Rules 14-22 cover the time limits you can use, and the ways in which you can force adjudication, adjournment, and presumably the bit about incremental time you mentioned above will find its way in there in due course. I can't understand the rationale of having 9 whole rules just to cover the time control of the game (and associated problems that derive from adjourning). Whatever your opinion on adjournments, quickplay finishes simplify the rules massively! Anyway, where does the incremental option fit within rule 16; would it become the new 16(d), with the current 16(d), 16(e) and 16(f) shunting down, and then another control coming in at 16(h) for the longer playing session? It would seem that the priority goes adjournment, quickplay, incremental (aqi). I think that the long-term future of league chess would have the preference of iq or iqa, depending on whether or not adjournments have become a long-forgotten-about memory by then. I think any experiments with incremental time controls are certainly worth doing, so it's good that another league has offered it as an option.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:23 am

Alex,

I hate adjournments because I think they are the last refuge of someone who is too scared to actually play chess (apart from the occasional old fashioned 190+ player who likes the challenge of analysis without a computer), I think adjudications are the devil's own tool and I really don't think increments are all they are cracked up to be.

Give me a quick play finish with 10.2 any day. It's the only sensible way to play evening leagues. Tried and tested. Simple and effective.

I have no idea whether the league rules on the TVL website are up to date at all, couldn't be a*sed to look.

Regards,
Paul

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:26 am

Oh - and most games involve a 3 hour session, some a very sad 2 hours 30 minutes. Even with 15 minutes "sealing time" on top, you could easily get games with increments that exceed the time available.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:30 am

Roger,

Adjudication sitting - not common in the top division, but there is one notorious club whose captain use to prefer all games to be adjourned, he would circle around chiding any of his more truculent players into declaring for that option at the start of the session. This was an extreme nuisance especially when combined with that club's prediliction for 2.5 hour sessions.

It is unlikely that adjudication sitting with work with 10 second increments - the culprit would be likely to be flagged pretty quickly.

Regards,
Paul

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Ian Thompson » Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:47 am

Paul McKeown wrote:Oh - and most games involve a 3 hour session, some a very sad 2 hours 30 minutes. Even with 15 minutes "sealing time" on top, you could easily get games with increments that exceed the time available.
You seen to be making the same incorrect assumption that many people not keen on increments do. You correctly say that a game with increments could take a long time if there is an usually high number of moves. You then incorrectly assume that 15 minutes is sufficient to seal a move, and compare that with the number of moves that could be played in 15 minutes at a Fischer time control. A player is likely to have far longer than 15 minutes available to seal a move. With the second time control at 60 moves in 150 minutes, they are likely to have about an hour available, more if they have played quickly during the first session. The home team should be allowing the maximum possible time for a move to be sealed. There is no reason why it should be any different at a Fischer time control.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:21 pm

Sorry Ian, but that post was completely opaque. The only part I understood was that you were telling me I was wrong in the language of "Yet another idiot who understands nothing." Sorry, I must be a thick, but it really meant nothing to me.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Ian Thompson » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:42 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:Sorry Ian, but that post was completely opaque. The only part I understood was that you were telling me I was wrong in the language of "Yet another idiot who understands nothing."
Not at all. It just seems to me you're not comparing like with like. I've heard several other people make similar comments in the past.

The TVL time control is 36 moves in 90 minutes, followed by 24 moves in 60 minutes, so someone adjourning is likely to have about 60 minutes on their clock to think about their sealed move if they want to; more if they've played quickly up to the first time control. A typical game being adjourned may last 3.25 hours, but a worst case adjournment game could last close to 4 hours.

When comparing an adjournment time limit with a Fischer time limit, I don't think its a fair comparison to compare the likelihood of a very long Fischer game with a typical adjourned game. You should compare it to a worst case adjourned game. The questions to ask are:

1. Will a Fischer game of average length be completed within the 3.25 hours a typical adjourned game would last?
2. As the home team needs to allow for a player taking almost an hour to seal a move, what is the likelihood of a Fischer game not being completed within 4 hours?

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:The TVL time control is 36 moves in 90 minutes, followed by 24 moves in 60 minutes, so someone adjourning is likely to have about 60 minutes on their clock to think about their sealed move if they want to; more if they've played quickly up to the first time control. A typical game being adjourned may last 3.25 hours, but a worst case adjournment game could last close to 4 hours.
No - the building closes. If they haven't sealed their move by then, they lose????

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:08 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:No - the building closes. If they haven't sealed their move by then, they lose????
There's no rule in chess that says you're forced to seal a move before you've taken as much time as you deem necessary to actually seal it. The only time constraint is your flag falling, not the closing time of the premises.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:15 pm

Alex, don't be facetious. Have you ever argued with a janitor?

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Rule 10A

Post by Ian Thompson » Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:16 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
Ian Thompson wrote:The TVL time control is 36 moves in 90 minutes, followed by 24 moves in 60 minutes, so someone adjourning is likely to have about 60 minutes on their clock to think about their sealed move if they want to; more if they've played quickly up to the first time control. A typical game being adjourned may last 3.25 hours, but a worst case adjournment game could last close to 4 hours.
No - the building closes. If they haven't sealed their move by then, they lose????
I don't see anything in the TVL rules requiring someone to seal in less time than they have on their clock to the next time control. If the building closes before the player has sealed then the home team hasn't provided a suitable venue. If its the home player sealing, then it would be fair that they lose. If its the away player sealing, then I suppose the options are either that the home player loses, or that the away player doesn't have to seal a move, so he's got the whole adjournment session to decide what move to play.

Post Reply