2011 AGM

A forum for the Midland Counties Chess Union.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby Alex Holowczak » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:28 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:
So we went for 35 moves/100 minutes + 20 minutes + 10 second increments. On the basis of our experience to date this seems to be working out okay.



Did you ever resolve whether
(a) you add the extra 20 minutes when the clock has counted 35
or
(b) you add the extra 20 minutes the first time one of the clocks hits zero?


At the risk of the thread veering off-topic, you can program the DGT 2010 to do either using mode 21. I think if you're using increments it makes sense to add the 20 minutes when the clock gets to move 35. It's essential that in this mode, players need to be made absolutely aware that if an illegal move is made, the clock's move counter needs to be reset. The practical example of this sort problem is starting with the wrong lever up, and thus being half a move out with the move counter.

I think a principle of: Move counter on with increments and move counter off without increments is a reasonable enough conclusion for the MCCU.

raycollett
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby raycollett » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:55 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:I'm going to take a digital clock with me too, in case anyone wants to play around with it and try programming the proposed time controls.

Thanks. That is a very good idea. Although being category A player I've not so far played with an incremental time control, but I have played with digital clocks and I find I miss the tic toc! With diminishing hearing, I prefer a predictable background noise rather than silence punctuated unpredictably.
Last edited by raycollett on Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 2802
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby David Sedgwick » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:04 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:So we went for 35 moves/100 minutes + 20 minutes + 10 second increments. On the basis of our experience to date this seems to be working out okay.

Did you ever resolve whether
(a) you add the extra 20 minutes when the clock has counted 35
or
(b) you add the extra 20 minutes the first time one of the clocks hits zero?

At the risk of the thread veering off-topic, you can program the DGT 2010 to do either using mode 21. I think if you're using increments it makes sense to add the 20 minutes when the clock gets to move 35. It's essential that in this mode, players need to be made absolutely aware that if an illegal move is made, the clock's move counter needs to be reset. The practical example of this sort problem is starting with the wrong lever up, and thus being half a move out with the move counter.

I think a principle of: Move counter on with increments and move counter off without increments is a reasonable enough conclusion for the MCCU.

To answer Roger's question, in the SCCU we go for option (b) with DGT 2010s, the opposite of what Alex suggests. Our approach is consistent with the principle that the game with increments should be as similar as possible to the game without (although in this respect both are different from the game with the mechanical clock).

This is an area where there doesn't seem to be any generally accepted standard. If different Unions start doing different things, it may cause problems when we get to the National Stages.

However, as a staunch defender of Union autonomy, I can hardly complain about that.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15905
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby Roger de Coverly » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:34 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:At the risk of the thread veering off-topic, you can program the DGT 2010 to do either using mode 21.


Not off topic at all. If you have two possible settings, the rules should say which one you use.

I've almost come to the conclusion that rules which say x in y plus z , whether with or without increment don't work with digital clocks (for relatively short values of y and z) because of this problem as to whether you use the move counter or not. It isn't helped by the clock not displaying the move count and some arbiters insisting that this was needed as a design feature.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby Alex Holowczak » Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:13 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:It isn't helped by the clock not displaying the move count


Yes it does. Hold the "+" in, and it tells you how many times the clock has been pressed. This is different from how many moves have been made, but it can be a useful aid.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 15905
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby Roger de Coverly » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:57 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:Yes it does. Hold the "+" in, and it tells you how many times the clock has been pressed.


It's not on the standard display though and you don't really want players randomly pressing obscure buttons on the clock during play. Useful features for arbiters though - they would have the probable move count even before the players have reconstructed the game.

DGT driven displays as used as demo boards at the British and Hastings show a move count. There was a Company which would rent specialist electronic display boards to Congresses twenty five years ago. Stewart Reuben changed the Laws of Chess to make it clear that players were allowed to see the move count displayed. You can see it, but to make a claim (a win on time) your score sheet needs to support the claim.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby Alex Holowczak » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:05 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:It's not on the standard display though and you don't really want players randomly pressing obscure buttons on the clock during play.


Well, you only want to know what move number you're on. Your scoresheet gives you that information anyway. The bigger problem - I gather - is knowing which time period you're in. This feature doesn't help that in any way. I guess it would be simple just to have a number on the screen (e.g. 1, 2, 3) that tells you. So if the time control was 40/120 + 20/60 + G/30, and you saw a 2, but were on move 64, you'd know you have half an hour still to come.

If you play using a Go mode, you can hold the "-" button in to reset the overtime period. If that button had the feature to add on the time for the next time period - so that players could do so by mutual agreement - then that might be a step forward.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6373
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby Mick Norris » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:33 pm

Back on topic, can we agree a common proposal before we go to the meeting?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby Alex Holowczak » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:45 pm

Mick Norris wrote:Back on topic, can we agree a common proposal before we go to the meeting?


Mick, I'm going to go for the proposal I mentioned earlier:

Open sections: 40/110 + 30 + 10 secs/move from move 1
Other sections: 110 + 10 secs/move from move 1

David Pardoe
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby David Pardoe » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:19 pm

I can`t help wondering whether some of these matters could be better dealt with by a technical support committee, consulting on the web.
The digital clocks comments seem sound enough, but the average player might be a bit put off/perplexed by the bells & whistles, and could be forgiven for thinking the old analogue clocks have an appealing simplicity.
The first maker to actually fit a clear and adjustable move counter to these gadgets might corner a valuable market.....and if they could `tick`, then all the better. :D
BRING BACK THE BCF

David Pardoe
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby David Pardoe » Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:05 am

Also interesting was the CEO`s report, which talked of increasing difficulties that county captains had experienced trying to raise teams.
Mention was made about a possible move back to the previous grading bands ie, U175, U150, U125 etc....due to various difficulties. I think this would be a good move, and hope that ECF delegates will push for this.
However, I`d like to see a more fundamental change to the Counties National Finals stages, reducing from present arrangements to just one grand `jamboree style` Finals.
This would save vast amounts of money and time, cutting travel costs, venue costs, etc..by condensing the current 3 stage Finals format into just one single grand finals...maybe played over two days at the Barcelo Hotel at Hinckley Island, similar to the 4NCL Finals. The venue is excellent, central, and with great facilities, if a suitable date could be found....
This would allow the counties competitions to be extended to say late May, which might ease fixture problems that many counties suffer, particularly over the winter months.
No doubt the meeting will discuss various ideas....
BRING BACK THE BCF

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 7921
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby Alex Holowczak » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:13 pm

Just returned from the meeting.

Cyril's proposed incremental time control was squashed. I didn't appreciate the reply of "How long have you been an arbiter?" when I made him aware of the fact his time control was a nonsense. I can't remember the full wording of what was decided, but the gist was that you can use whatever time control you like as long as both teams agreed to the time control, be it incremental or otherwise.

We decided to keep the levy at £10/levy point, but give a rebate of £6/levy point based on making a profit last year, and having £5k in the bank that was doing nothing.

We decided to have an MCCU coaching system that involved training the coaches formally, unlike the ECF equivalent.

It was revealed that Lincolnshire were now in favour of the membership proposal that has recently been put, haven't previously been against it. Lincs is an example of a small county, and the sort who'd normally lose out, so this is a good thing in terms of getting to 75%.

There was discussion about two grading lists per year that was culled when I pointed out the decision had already been made.

raycollett
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby raycollett » Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:55 pm

David Pardoe wrote: I`d like to see a more fundamental change to the Counties National Finals stages, reducing from present arrangements to just one grand `jamboree style` Finals.


There are a few difficulties with this proposal and perhaps the greatest issue would be finding a large enough venue with sufficient accommodation for nearly 700 players and enough organisers to run such an an event. It could be done, but it would require much planning.

Sean Hewitt

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby Sean Hewitt » Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:01 am

Alex Holowczak wrote: I didn't appreciate the reply of "How long have you been an arbiter?" when I made him aware of the fact his time control was a nonsense.

We've all been there I'm afraid.

Alex Holowczak wrote:I can't remember the full wording of what was decided, but the gist was that you can use whatever time control you like as long as both teams agreed to the time control, be it incremental or otherwise.

That's disappointing. It means that very few matches (I suspect) will get played with incremental time controls. Would have been far better to agree an incremental time control that the home team can use if it wishes.

raycollett
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:54 pm

Re: 2011 AGM

Postby raycollett » Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:26 am

Sean Hewitt wrote: better to agree an incremental time control that the home team can use if it wishes.


Sean, in your experience of using incremental time controls, what proportion of games go over 120 moves? [I'm thinking of situations where the hall must be vacated by a set time.]


Return to “MCCU”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest