Quickplay finishes

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Graham Borrowdale
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Graham Borrowdale » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:58 pm

NickFaulks wrote: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"?

So what happens if the club does not have any analogue clocks?


While this thread is no doubt interesting to a few, most league players, and I am guessing here, will not have read the Laws of Chess being discussed, and will have no idea that Appendix G exists, and if they do will have no idea what it says. It does seem that many leagues are moving over to increments - I believe my own local league is to consider the idea next month - so hopefully the problematic regulation G4 will disappear.


Ray Sayers wrote: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.

I sympathize with your sentiments, but in general two players in a local league who want to play chess can get by just fine as long as there are not any sticklers around, so keep the faith. I have only seen one G4 request in about 5 years.

Angus French
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Angus French » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:03 pm

David Williams wrote:No change in the draft new FIDE Rules. Currently we have

Appendix G. Quickplay Finishes....

Maybe there's no change in substance but in the new draft *Laws* 'Appendix G' has become 'Guidelines III'.

Angus French
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Angus French » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:08 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote: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.

It was a decision taken at a recent AGM. I'm pretty sure I voted to exclude G4 for reasons of practicality. (I do agree that in general Surrey's rules are overly complex.)

NickFaulks
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby NickFaulks » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:43 pm

Graham Borrowdale wrote:So what happens if the club does not have any analogue clocks?

A Surrey club without analogue clocks? Which century are you living in?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15088
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Roger de Coverly » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:49 pm

Graham Borrowdale wrote:While this thread is no doubt interesting to a few, most league players, and I am guessing here, will not have read the Laws of Chess being discussed, and will have no idea that Appendix G exists, and if they do will have no idea what it says.


As a match captain,I would remind players that when playing without increments, they may have a "get of jail" if they run really short of time but have a good enough position or if their opponent is just shuffling aimlessly. I also remind them that if the position is completely drawn that they should have the grace to agree one rather than trying for a win on time.

The "unable to win" rules have been around for many years and were adopted in the UK before FIDE got around to it. Indeed it was a necessity to have some rule of this type to eliminate adjudication and adjournment from club and Congress chess.

David Williams
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby David Williams » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:14 pm

Brian Valentine wrote:
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.

I did ask him, a while ago. He said G.4 can apply whether or not an arbiter is present (which I have to admit surprised me). He also said that he was surprised that G.4 isn't explicitly mentioned in the Guidelines, that he was going to try to make a few additions in other areas before they came into force, and he would add this to his list.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15088
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Roger de Coverly » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:28 pm

David Williams wrote:He said G.4 can apply whether or not an arbiter is present (which I have to admit surprised me).


You could no doubt arrange a clock substitution by mutual agreement or make it a compulsory option if one player or another demands it. But if you are going to do this, why not play with increments from either the start of the game or a defined move number? Or, if you can find a clock mode that supports it, increments that come into play when a player reaches their last five or two minutes.

Try to write a rule that works with no arbiter present and where the clock substitution is disputed. It is after all part of an Appendix G claim and thus a de jure draw offer.

NickFaulks
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby NickFaulks » Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:45 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:But if you are going to do this, why not play with increments from either the start of the game or a defined move number?

Far too sensible, won't happen.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Ian Thompson » Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:30 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
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.

I can't believe the ECF is going to be demanding to see copies of every events rules, but what would it do if it received a report from someone that an event wasn't compliant so its games weren't eligible for grading? It would lose all credibility if it did grade the games, so I think it would have to refuse to do so.

David Williams
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby David Williams » Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:10 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
David Williams wrote:He said G.4 can apply whether or not an arbiter is present (which I have to admit surprised me).


You could no doubt arrange a clock substitution by mutual agreement or make it a compulsory option if one player or another demands it. But if you are going to do this, why not play with increments from either the start of the game or a defined move number? Or, if you can find a clock mode that supports it, increments that come into play when a player reaches their last five or two minutes.

Try to write a rule that works with no arbiter present and where the clock substitution is disputed. It is after all part of an Appendix G claim and thus a de jure draw offer.

I just want to understand what the rule means now.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Alex Holowczak » Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:37 pm

David Williams wrote:
Brian Valentine wrote:
David Williams wrote: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.

I did ask him, a while ago. He said G.4 can apply whether or not an arbiter is present (which I have to admit surprised me). He also said that he was surprised that G.4 isn't explicitly mentioned in the Guidelines, that he was going to try to make a few additions in other areas before they came into force, and he would add this to his list.


Indeed, and it's still on my list. It'll be updated before 1st September.

Brian Valentine
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:30 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Brian Valentine » Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:41 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
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.

I can't believe the ECF is going to be demanding to see copies of every events rules, but what would it do if it received a report from someone that an event wasn't compliant so its games weren't eligible for grading? It would lose all credibility if it did grade the games, so I think it would have to refuse to do so.


Clearly the team rely on what our graders tell us and a "whistle blower" process. However where we do find indiscretions, we follow the rules given in the grading database help section. Personally I'm much more comfortable with the new situation that does not use FIDE laws as a benchmark, but allows variation consistent with mainstream English practices (i.e. AKA adjudication).

Brian Towers
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Brian Towers » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:52 pm

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

With the obvious caveat that my views can have no connection whatsoever with the ECF I would suggest that their hope and intention is that "Never" is the correct answer because 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. Conversely if such clocks aren't used (because not available) then G4 is not possible.

The only fly in this ointment would be if one of the players brings along his own DGT 2010, or whatever, and produces it when he has less than 2 minutes left which could be the start of a whole new pages long argument ;-)
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Brian Towers
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Brian Towers » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:27 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:I can't believe the ECF is going to be demanding to see copies of every events rules, but what would it do if it received a report from someone that an event wasn't compliant so its games weren't eligible for grading? It would lose all credibility if it did grade the games, so I think it would have to refuse to do so.

No, this is nonsense.

Let me give a concrete example.

I recently played in an ECF graded competition where the arbiter announced before each round that players with mobile phones should switch them off and place them on the table in front of them. This is in direct contravention of FIDE Laws.

The February edition of the FIDE Arbiters Magazine had this to say in its criticism of an arbiter's actions in a particular FIDE rated event. Note that there was no conclusion that this event should not be rated by FIDE:

FIDE Arbiters Magazine #2 wrote:2nd mistake: mobile on the table beside the player

Of course, it is forbidden to have a mobile phone, so how did this even happen?
At this event, and according to the Article 11.3.b (see Anti cheating Guidelines for Arbiters), as most players arrive directly from work, players are allowed to turn their phone off, and then leave it in a bag, such that it cannot be accessed.
However, one player did not bring any such bag for his phone, and was worried about leaving his phone in his jacket on a coat hanger without any supervision. So this player turned his phone off and put it into a pocket in his pants. This is forbidden, and when discovered, should result in loss of gameby this player.
To make matters worse, after a few moves into the game, this player found his phone uncomfortable, and so took it out and placed it on the table beside him. But the arbiter did not notice this (remember, he was also being a player!)
In addition, even by move 44, after the first time control at move 40 had been passed, the arbiter player had also not noticed that the opponent had not been writing his moves since after move 28. At this point, this opponent approached the player-arbiter to claim a win because of the phone on the table. This claim should have been accepted. However, the arbiter-player reviewed the game position, and determined the opponent was clearly losing. The arbiter-player also checked the phone was off, and decided that no cheating had occurred.
The arbiter-player rejected the claim by the opponent. This was incorrect.
According to article 11.3.b. of the Laws of Chess, the player who had his mobile on the table (even if it was switched off) should lose the game immediately and his opponent should win
.


Full disclosure: I took my phone along to all 5 rounds, principally for its GPS capabilities required to get me there and back. In each round I complied with the arbiter's instructions and put my switched off phone on the table in front of me. Fortunately none of my opponents knew the rules and tried claiming the game which they would have been fully entitled to do.

Should I have reported this to ECF? I really don't think so.
Had I done so should the ECF have declined to grade the event? Don't be daft!
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Quickplay finishes

Postby Kevin Thurlow » Sat Sep 03, 2016 10:54 pm

The recent NATO team tournament did not use increments (it never has) and happily we got through all 342 games without a claim under the old 10.2. The Chief Arbiter suggested (and the Deputy Chief Arbiter agreed) they move to increments in future as with the length of the playing session, it would only be a nuisance if players made over 100 moves. Selecting which games will need to be recorded in time scrambles is not always easy. The chairman (from central Europe) immediately objected and said his countrymen regularly played over 120 moves in their games and it would be a considerable nuisance.

So it isn't just England...


Return to “Chess Questions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest