Quickplay finishes

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Reg Clucas
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Reg Clucas » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:08 pm

Brian Towers wrote: if increment-capable digital clocks are available then they will be used and if such clocks are used then increments will be used and so G4 doesn't apply.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Many clubs still refuse to use increments (despite having digital clocks) so invoking G4 is the only recourse a visiting player has to avoid a 'sudden death' finish.

Brian Towers
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Brian Towers » Sun Sep 18, 2016 6:27 pm

Reg Clucas wrote:
Brian Towers wrote: if increment-capable digital clocks are available then they will be used and if such clocks are used then increments will be used and so G4 doesn't apply.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Many clubs still refuse to use increments (despite having digital clocks) so invoking G4 is the only recourse a visiting player has to avoid a 'sudden death' finish.

Very good point. I was being far too flippant (or perhaps too optimistic).

Which brings us back, I suppose, to David Williams point about G4 applying whether there is an arbiter or not. I think this is really important for the reasons you give and it would be very welcome if the ECF could give definitive guidance on this point to preempt arguments in league matches over this.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15593
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Roger de Coverly » Sun Sep 18, 2016 6:40 pm

Brian Towers wrote:I think this is really important for the reasons you give and it would be very welcome if the ECF could give definitive guidance on this point to preempt arguments in league matches over this.


I would have thought it up to leagues to set their own rules. Appendix G gives the arbiter the decision as to whether to substitute the clock or not. I could imagine they might invoke the decision not to substitute the clock if their chess knowledge suggested that one of the players was being stubborn and allowing an increment might result in them having to count to 75 before forcing the game to be concluded. It might of course simply be that the Appendix is drafted to be applicable if no substitute clock was available.

Given G4 involves an arbiter decision, a local league couldn't see how to apply it when no arbiter was present. If increments are required and a digital clock available, it's simplest to apply it from the start of the game. If I thought the clock settings or League meetings would support it, I'd be inclined to suggest a move rate of G/88 with an extra two minutes added at the expiry of the 88, with a 5 or 10 second increment automatically triggered only at that point.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 1972
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Kevin Thurlow » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:43 am

"I would have thought it up to leagues to set their own rules."

Surrey decided G4 would not apply, as many people did not understand how to set the clocks (which is true). Other people felt that the rule could say, that G4 will be used if both teams agree. We have four different time-controls already, making it five wouldn't be a big deal!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15593
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Roger de Coverly » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:01 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote:Other people felt that the rule could say, that G4 will be used if both teams agree.


The Berkshire meeting concluded that to guarantee the availability of a digital clock, it would have to be present at the start of the game. 80 minutes with 10 second increments was already in the rules, so that could be selected and none of Appendix G applied. There's still a worry that if someone wanted to play out Rook and Bishop v Rook, that venue closing times might create a problem.

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

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby David Williams » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:09 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:I would have thought it up to leagues to set their own rules.

I would have thought it was up to FIDE to provide rules that were clear and unambiguous. Next I would have thought the ECF would provide guidance as to UK practice where the FIDE rules allow variations. And I would have thought leagues should only be expected to set rules applicable to their particular situation - e.g. time controls.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Disunited Kingdom

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Michael Farthing » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:17 pm

David Williams wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:I would have thought it up to leagues to set their own rules.

I would have thought it was up to FIDE to provide rules that were clear and unambiguous. Next I would have thought the ECF would provide guidance as to UK practice where the FIDE rules allow variations. And I would have thought leagues should only be expected to set rules applicable to their particular situation - e.g. time controls.


I would have thought none of these things. The ECF is merely a federation of organisations coming together to support each other in furthering the game. Local leagues are perfectly capable of devising tournament rules that meet their needs and that this is the proper place for such things to be done.

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

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby David Williams » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:07 am

You think FIDE should produce rules that are unclear and ambiguous?

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Disunited Kingdom

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Michael Farthing » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:16 am

No, I think, as regards competition rules, they should just leave most of the rules unmade.

Nick Grey
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Nick Grey » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:55 pm

Michael I think some rules have to be spelled out. Basically as I was deprived my rights to continue a game at the time control on a faulty clock, got an award of penalty against a match captain, then over-turned on appeal. It was the last game of chess I have played under ECF or fide rules.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Disunited Kingdom

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Michael Farthing » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:27 am

I do tend to state matters at extremes when putting forward my ideas. However, I would not actually be preparede to retreat very much. This is an issue to be discussed properly probably needs to be face to face as on a forum detailed discussion of the type needed is easily derailed. My fundamental prooach would be to have a set of two or three 'model competition rules' produced by either FIDE or the ECF or both that would be freely available as a basis for competitions to use. They could simply adopt one, adopt one with amendments or produce their own. It's not so far removed from current practice except it makes it far more explicit that on virtually everything the local event can adapt to local needs. {such issues as whether the games or weekends or evenings; the practicality of not having a mobile phone with you; the needs of Ramadan; local custom; the strength of the players and how seriously they are taking the competition).

Things that are fairly inviolate:
(a) The Laws (ie how the pieces move, caltling,en passant, stalemate etc but not the physical rules about achieving these.

(b) [if event graded] Rules that must be satisfied for grading to occur. These should be a minimum and will include such things as the minimum (or maximum) time allowances for a game (with alternatives as appropriate).

It should not be the job of FIDE or the ECF to regulate local events (except those under their own auspices such as County matches) unless a specific event elects this (and presumably also pays for the facility). Having said that, where the organisation of an event does not meet the two conditions set out above, FIDE or ECF could, of course, refuse to grade.


Return to “Chess Questions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest