Quickplay finishes

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
David Williams
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm

Quickplay finishes

Postby David Williams » Thu Aug 18, 2016 4:09 pm

No change in the draft new FIDE Rules. Currently we have

Appendix G. Quickplay Finishes
G.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.
G.2 Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this Appendix shall apply or not.
G.3 This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay games without increment and not to blitz games.
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.
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. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means
If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.
G.6 The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:
A player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis:
that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In (1) the player must write down the final position and his opponent must verify it.
In (2) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to the designated arbiter.


So, I'm the team captain in my local league, and an opposition player asks for an increment under G.4. I respond "Sorry it's not possible - at least not without me going and finding the instructions for the clocks, and I'm too busy playing my own game." "So it is possible, you'd better get on with it." says he. "Well," I say "with no arbiter present G.4 doesn't apply. Look at G.6." "No," he says, "there's nothing to suggest that G.6 is anything other than the alternative to G.5, which definitely needs an arbiter present. It's only clarifying the old 10.2." "Ah", I say, "but G.4 does say that you only get the increment if the arbiter agrees, so by implication it only applies with an arbiter present." "That's clutching at straws," he responds "and in any case you're acting as an arbiter here to a limited extent. I can't see what grounds an arbiter could have for refusing a request other than because it was not possible, and we've just agreed that isn't the case here."

At this point time runs out and we are ejected from the premises. Later, over a pint, we do find one point on which we can agree, which is that G.5 can never apply to a game played with digital clocks. The only reasons that G.4 might not apply are because of G.2 or G.3, or (depending on your viewpoint) because of the lack of an arbiter, and all of these reasons make G.5 inapplicable as well.

I've had an opinion from two distinguished contributors to this forum, one of whom believes G.4 does apply with no arbiter present, and one who believes it doesn't. Personally I think it would be a whole lot simpler if G.4 specifically stated that it did not apply with no arbiter present, rather than leaving it to be deduced from subtleties of the wording.

Ray Sayers

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Ray Sayers » Thu Aug 18, 2016 4:31 pm

What the hell happened to people just playing the game? I haven't played much in recent years but I was hoping to play this season. It sounds like I need to cart around an encyclopedia or an Arbiter.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Ian Thompson » Thu Aug 18, 2016 4:53 pm

David Williams wrote:I've had an opinion from two distinguished contributors to this forum, one of whom believes G.4 does apply with no arbiter present, and one who believes it doesn't.

As G.4 requires the arbiter to do things I think it's implicit that it only applies when there is an arbiter present to do those things. G.6 explains what happens when there is no arbiter.

David Williams wrote:I can't see what grounds an arbiter could have for refusing a request other than because it was not possible, and we've just agreed that isn't the case here.

Depends what you mean by "not possible". Not having a suitable clock is clearly "not possible"; changing the time control to one that potentially extended the length of the game beyond a finishing time it was essential to meet (e.g. closing time of the venue) could reasonably be said to make it "not possible". It's entirely at the discretion of the arbiter whether to allow the request or not, so he could refuse it because he thinks he might have more important things to deal with in other games, or because he wants the game over as quickly as possible so he can go and have his dinner. :)

NickFaulks
Posts: 2985
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby NickFaulks » Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:09 pm

The conclusion I draw is that to go into a quickplay finish using a digital clock with zero increment is daft - but that has been known for years.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Ian Thompson » Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:34 pm

NickFaulks wrote:The conclusion I draw is that to go into a quickplay finish using a digital clock with zero increment is daft - but that has been known for years.

I thought this rule was brought in to pander to the Americans, who have a rule that says that the TD (arbiter) can change a non-incremental time control to one with increments, substituting the clock if necessary, to avoid the TD having to make a decision under whatever the American equivalent of a G.5 claim is.

Brian Valentine
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:30 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Brian Valentine » Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:54 pm

In a few days time the ECF competition rules become effective:http://www.englishchess.org.uk/grading/ecf-competition-rules/.
Leagues should have considered the advice given there for variations in FIDE rules and incorporated something appropriate. In which case these situations should not arise?!

Not stopping such discussions over a pint though, if the games don't deserve post match analysis.

NickFaulks
Posts: 2985
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby NickFaulks » Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:17 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:I thought this rule was brought in to pander to the Americans

Not sure about pandering, since anything which avoids the appalling G5 sounds good to me. In any case, the Americans have the sense to make a 5 second delay standard whenever digital clocks are used.
Last edited by NickFaulks on Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nick Grey
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Nick Grey » Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:56 pm

Any changes to ECF rules on this matter? County Competition?
Thought I'll ask now as a Surrey meeting next week.
Awful way to not get a quickplay finish in my last game last season especially as local rules for SCCU stage is clear on the matter.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15515
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:29 pm

Brian Valentine wrote:In a few days time the ECF competition rules become effective


Is anyone intending to enforce these? In other words the ECF declines to grade games because of a supposed infraction.

David Williams
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby David Williams » Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:01 pm

Brian Valentine wrote:In a few days time the ECF competition rules become effective:http://www.englishchess.org.uk/grading/ecf-competition-rules/

5a) The ECF encourages organisers to use incremental time-controls wherever possible.

5b) Most other time-controls involve the use of a time period where the number of moves is not specified. The use of Appendix G, parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 should be announced when an arbiter is present. The use of Appendix G, parts 1, 2, 3 and 6 is appropriate for competitions without an arbiter being present. Appendix G, part 5 requires skills of both players and arbiters and its possible use must be specifically announced if it is to apply.


So, in the absence of any guidance to the contrary, G.4 applies in all circumstances. Or never?

Nick Grey
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Nick Grey » Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:12 pm

Roger - as ECF never checks leagues or congresses or internal for compliance with rules I suspect that they cannot decline to grade. Also not all in a competition if only a few infractions. In some respects again this has come too late for those having AGMs for agreeing local rules for coming season.

Of course if wanting to play a longer session or continue they can play on the street but may have an issue for whoever is responsible for the equipment.

Brian -
Got no instruction not to grade games.

As for my first post on this thread - ECF took no point of my vision disability even though I was clear that clock was faulty & flag not fallen, nor our match captain, nor one of the opposing players, allowing a player happening to be a match captain to not follow the rules in own game.

Yes we got a decision & yes it went to appeal & we lost.

Not very helpful to me at the time & has negatively impacted on my mental health. Been advised not to play, nor organise chess to concentrate on work. Continuing with a few correspondence games but even now then I can be very forgetful & lose on time.

Technically not very helpful in not publishing particularly with reference to ecf competition rules leaving some uncertainty for new players, experienced players, captains, organisers, & arbiters, & appeals panels over a game of chess.

Brian Valentine
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:30 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Brian Valentine » Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:11 am

David Williams wrote:
Brian Valentine wrote:In a few days time the ECF competition rules become effective:http://www.englishchess.org.uk/grading/ecf-competition-rules/

5a) The ECF encourages organisers to use incremental time-controls wherever possible.

5b) Most other time-controls involve the use of a time period where the number of moves is not specified. The use of Appendix G, parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 should be announced when an arbiter is present. The use of Appendix G, parts 1, 2, 3 and 6 is appropriate for competitions without an arbiter being present. Appendix G, part 5 requires skills of both players and arbiters and its possible use must be specifically announced if it is to apply.


So, in the absence of any guidance to the contrary, G.4 applies in all circumstances. Or never?


While recognising that I opened this particular strand and having an opinion on how to read the section you quote, it is not my responsibility. I think that if you need guidance then the "Ask the Director" route is the way to go.

Brian
Manager of ECF Grading

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15515
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Roger de Coverly » Fri Aug 19, 2016 11:24 am

David Williams wrote:So, in the absence of any guidance to the contrary, G.4 applies in all circumstances. Or never?



The Berkshire League rules say that Appendix G applies if not using increments, but not G4. If you attempt a form of words to activate G4, you run into the problem that they are worded as "arbiter decides". That's tricky to apply when there isn't one present. The simpler solution is to adopt 80 10 or similar at the start of play if digital clocks are present and usable. Even there it's run into a need for local variations down to 65 10 where early finishes have been needed by venue closing times or team composition.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 1954
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Kevin Thurlow » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:21 pm

I think in Surrey there was some discussion on the issue. I can't be bothered to look but I think the "Board" or an AGM, EGM or SGM decided it would be too complicated to change settings so banned G4 throughout the league.

I thought this was daft, but I think we only have a couple of players at Redhill who know how to set clocks, so in practice, we would probably get disturbed in our own time-scrambles. This might well apply elsewhere.

Surrey does make the rules as complicated as possible.

NickFaulks
Posts: 2985
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby NickFaulks » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:26 pm

How does all this work in the various Surrey competitions, which are governed by the rule

"Where digital clocks are offered, either player may insist on the use of an analogue clock"?

edit : hadn't seen previous post.


Return to “Chess Questions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest