English Chess Forum

An interesting article called

Calling time on adjournments


https://kingstonchess.com/2021/11/06/ca ... ournments/

has appeared on the shiny new Kingston Chess Club web site.

Very interesting article by John Foley. Having played and captained in both the Surrey League and the Thames Valley League, I recognise and concur with large parts of what he says (though I always found adjournments a challenge to rise to and rather enjoyed them). The bit about it being a complex maze for player and captains is definitely true, and it does become a bit much when multiple adjournments happen in the same game (though I would never have won my longest-ever game without having I think three adjournments).

For those wanting to read earlier threads on this forum about adjournments (how can it have been ten years ago!), see:

- Various matters related to adjournments (2011)
- Adjournments in tablebase endgames (2011)

[For some possibly record-setting stats from adjournments, see this post covering what Loz Cooper posted back there, along with two of my longer adjournments - maybe more relevant is the comment from Richard Bates back then that my adjournments may have prompted me to become a better player by learning about Queen and pawn endgames... (er, yes, he says, hopefully).]

BTW (not to distract from the discussion on adjournments!), a lovely game one post back from that one, here:

https://kingstonchess.com/2021/11/04/jo ... -surbiton/

Gorgeous king hunt in the game notes.

[PS. Maybe retitle the thread to make clear what is it about?]

John Upham wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:49 pm

An interesting article called

Calling time on adjournments

For most English leagues, adjournments are history and have been so for 20 years or longer. You don't need digital clocks either, just an acceptance that with a session length of three hours or less, players have to be sufficiently skilled at speedy play to complete a game within the session.

It's not the fault of English chess that FIDE won't rate games for all playing strengths with a session length of more than two hours and less than four.

I am astonished that there are still some bastions of adjournment based leagues remaining in the country, presumably held ransom to the demands of a very vocal minority of league officials whom no one wants to replace.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 07, 2021 10:41 pm

It's not the fault of English chess that FIDE won't rate games for all playing strengths with a session length of more than two hours and less than four.

You are correct. It is the fault of the hundreds of players of all strengths and federation officials around the world ( with the UK well represented ) who were asked the question and declared their preference for games involving players rated over 2400, the "IM level", to continue to be of at least four hours.

This bureaucracy means that captains are estimated to perform 200 points less than their official rating

"Citation needed"

"I am astonished that there are still some bastions of adjournment based leagues remaining in the country, presumably held ransom to the demands of a very vocal minority of league officials whom no one wants to replace."

Yes - in Surrey, the "President" (Chairman in any other league) of Surrey CCA, Bill Waterton (Kingston!) instructed the AGM that "Adjournment is the only way of finishing the game without involving someone else."
"What about Quickplay finishes?"
"No, all of them end in disputes."
(Uproar) I then pointed out that I had just had a crucial adjournment in the London League and the first thing I did was to give a copy to two of our IMs who helped with the analysis. Waterton looked amazed. "My opponent will be doing the same". (which he confirmed later.)
The following year, Waterton insisted we could not discuss QP again, as it had been discussed the previous year (despite the fact it was on the agenda.)

In the interests of fairness, I must point out that Waterton did many things that were much worse.

Adjudications fell out of favour the year that the League Secretary was reporting results 7 months after the game was played. Admittedly, we got one result 7 weeks after it was played, where an ending that was a book win came back as a draw (against a player from the adjudication secretary's club...)

That's how the hybrid system came into being, and in fairness to the more recent members, even very experienced players never seemed to understand it.
I prefer the incremental time limits, but limitless games cannot operate where the venue has to close at 1030 e.g. If you want an evening league, you have to start early (one Surrey official managed to convince enough people not to start matches before 7.40 pm, as he wanted to get home from work and eat, before playing), or just play rapidplay. You cannot have a serious game of chess in 3 or fewer hours.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 08, 2021 8:48 am

This bureaucracy means that captains are estimated to perform 200 points less than their official rating

"Citation needed"

Indeed. My own experience is that captaincy has a positive motivating effect that probably offsets any of the distractions from fulfilling the role. Provided the team is involved in competitive fixtures, where the individual board may be of consequence. Captaining a team that is either winning easily or is routinely outclassed provides a far less satisfying evening, irrespective of the outcome of my own board, because the contribution matters less.

I guess if the good people of the Thames Valley and Surrey Leagues want to continue with allowing adjournments or adjudications then they can. And presumably (or maybe I presume too much) if players in those leagues want to outlaw them then there must be a mechanism in place for them to do so. It is hard to believe that players, on the whole, would not prefer them to disappear.
I suspect Kevin has answered my question, and too much power is in the hands of certain individuals. During my own 10 years playing in those leagues I don’t recall ever being consulted on the matter. My own fault for not volunteering for office, of course.

John Upham wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:49 pm

https://kingstonchess.com/2021/11/06/ca ... ournments/

John Foley wrote:FIDE properly insists on incremental timing in order to have games recognised for rating purposes.

Utter rubbish. I wish I understood what benefit people like John F see in propogating such falsehoods.

Adjournments are no longer part of the FIDE rules but are included in the guidelines in the appendix

Meaning that they are part of the FIDE Laws.

"Utter rubbish. I wish I understood what benefit people like John F see in propogating such falsehoods."

Force of habit?

I'd like to understand the following:

FIDE Law 1.1 says "The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces alternately
on a square board called a ‘chessboard’

Fair enough of course.

How do adjudications comply with the above?

Adjournments frequently involve consulting other players both human and non-human. How does that comply with Law 1.1?

John Upham wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:33 am

How do adjudications comply with the above?

Adjudications are not contemplated in the FIDE Laws. I don't believe that they ever have been.

Adjournments frequently involve consulting other players both human and non-human. How does that comply with Law 1.1?

All I can say is that 1.1, or something of identical meaning, has been in place since long before quickplay finishes to long play games were dreamed of. Nobody ever saw a problem then.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 08, 2021 10:42 am

Adjudications are not contemplated in the FIDE Laws. I don't believe that they ever have been.

Adjudications are mentioned in reports of matches in the Victorian era, so long before FIDE existed or even before there was a statement of the Laws with any resemblance to the current one,

Adjournments had been part of international play for around the same length of time. Despite suggestions that gentlemen don't consult seconds, such analysis assistance had always been part of tournament and match play.

Botvinnik and perhaps other Soviet players had it down to a fine art. Playing "systems" in the opening, they might get to around move 20 in familiar positions. That meant they only needed to reach move 40 before the game could be paused for analysis, something that could be repeated every twenty or thirty moves afterwards, depending on the length of adjournment sessions.

Adjournments had vanished from league play as far as I was concerned before everyone plausibly had GM level assistance. It was adjudication which I saw as evil, particularly the practice used by some players of reaching the time control, perhaps with both players showing plenty of time remaining. What they then did was sit on the position until time was called at the end of the session. That's particularly annoying when it's a move 30 time control.

It's in the hands of players and clubs who participate in leagues such as Surrey or the Thames Valley. Ultimately writing on blogs and forums wont change anything. What ought to work eventually is attendance at AGMs to attempt to vote such rules out of existence and a willingness to depose from office those officials who continue with support for such practices.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:23 am

What ought to work eventually is attendance at AGMs to attempt to vote such rules out of existence and a willingness to depose from office those officials who continue with support for such practices.

That is if you are right about the mood of club players. You seem reluctant to test that in practice.