Very long games in weekend tournaments

[Roger de Coverly]

I was under the impression that an adjourned game, in a tournament where the advertised time control was increments but no adjournments, would simply be invalid for grading - or if not, that it would be invalidated by the fact that the adjournment was until an unspecified time, like the 31st of June.

If you think either the ECF or FIDE have such a rule, you need to quote it.

The organisers of the Guildford Congress ran into players who weren't giving up. In the twelve years or more since weekend Congresses with 90 30 move rates became established, that may be the first one where excessive overruns have caused enough concern to start a debate about rule changes.

[Chris Goodall]

I don't think they have such a rule. I think they have rules about notifying them in advance what the time control of your tournament is going to be, but they don't specify what kind of irregularity makes it unacceptable for rating. Presumably I would be allowed to simply not submit a game for rating that got accidentally played under a time control that was too short to count as standardplay for the strength of player involved, for example.

[NickFaulks]

I don't think they have such a rule.

Which "they" are you talking about?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I don't think they have such a rule.

Which "they" are you talking about?

The Collective Mind of FIDE.

[NickFaulks]

I don't think they have such a rule.

Which "they" are you talking about?

The Collective Mind of FIDE.

Any serious answer?

[Roger de Coverly]

The forthcoming EACU FIDE rated Congress due to be played in Newmarket on June 2nd to June 4th has another take on this.

Accordimg to http://www.adrianelwin.co.uk/EACUCongre ... gress.html
http://www.adrianelwin.co.uk/EACUCongre ... s2023.html

Rate of Play
40 moves in 90 minutes, followed by 15 minutes to finish the game, with an increment of 15 seconds per move from move 1.

Saturday and Sunday round times are 10 am and 2.30 pm

So why use an intermediate time control instead of 105 minutes plus 15 seconds? I suppose there's the point that forcing players to get to move 40 inside 100 minutes ups the tempo of play a bit. The downside is that unless the clocks are set to add the extra time at the fortieth press, you get the uncertainty after move 40 as to whether the extra time has or has not yet been added.

As regards eligibility, they are using the April ECF and FIDE lists. For the second section, you have to be under 1950 on both lists. For pairings in the Open and under 1950, they will use the higher of FIDE and ECF ratings on 1st June.

[SMoss]

Peter Lalić's latest VERY long game, which I believe caused a delay in the rounds at this weekend's Coulsdon Congress:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2612620

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Peter Lalić's latest VERY long game, which I believe caused a delay in the rounds at this weekend's Coulsdon Congress:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2612620

In case anyone has not played through it yet, this involved Black's Bishop being shuffled from e8 to d7 and back while White moved his king from side to side across the board, with other moves thrown in to avoid draws by threefold repetition, from move 31 to move 117.

The final breakthrough and combination by White is nice, but the game-length feels a tad artificial and I suspect the evaluation favoured White for much of the game and White could (should?) have broken through earlier.

[LawrenceCooper]

Peter Lalić's latest VERY long game, which I believe caused a delay in the rounds at this weekend's Coulsdon Congress:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2612620

In case anyone has not played through it yet, this involved Black's Bishop being shuffled from e8 to d7 and back while White moved his king from side to side across the board, with other moves thrown in to avoid draws by threefold repetition, from move 31 to move 117.

The final breakthrough and combination by White is nice, but the game-length feels a tad artificial and I suspect the evaluation favoured White for much of the game and White could (should?) have broken through earlier.

That said, if black hadn't played 160...Qc7 allowing b6 it wasn't obvious to me how he would break through.

[MartinCarpenter]

Peter Lalić's latest VERY long game, which I believe caused a delay in the rounds at this weekend's Coulsdon Congress:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2612620

In case anyone has not played through it yet, this involved Black's Bishop being shuffled from e8 to d7 and back while White moved his king from side to side across the board, with other moves thrown in to avoid draws by threefold repetition, from move 31 to move 117.

The final breakthrough and combination by White is nice, but the game-length feels a tad artificial and I suspect the evaluation favoured White for much of the game and White could (should?) have broken through earlier.

White's close to winning there in at least a moral sense once the bishop is eternally buried on move 18, I'd have thought? Never going to be fast but enough break through options. I'd probably have resigned a long way before the end as black, except if there was a teams match at stake.

If you look, Peter isn't at all sure if he should be allowed to do this sort of thing himself. From his note underneath the game:

Does FIDE need to change its laws? I asked the same question after T Foster vs P Lalic, 2023, which lasted for six and a half hours and 214 moves.

As long as I avoid a threefold repetition and the 50-move rule, I can metaphorically hold my opponent hostage. His only escape is resignation. What do you think of such a war of attrition?

[MartinCarpenter]

That said, if black hadn't played 160...Qc7 allowing b6 it wasn't obvious to me how he would break through.

I was intrigued enough to ask SF - in between recommending eternal torture, it did seem to find a pretty solid plan.

Q-> a3 with bishop in front, then Bc5 -> b6 to force a queen exchange on f8 else Qc5 wins.

Then insert b6 to force a6 and freeze the black king on a8, then play the white knight round to e4, with one rook on f4, king h4, the other ready to double on the f file if/when black takes that. (or Nd6 if he doesn't.).

Not at all obvious to work that out mind you! Probably some other options that work.

It's actually quite keen on black inserting b5 around move 30 (and white b5 to stop that), which I guess would have at worst have notably curtailed the suffering!

[Thomas Rendle]

It's a pretty extreme example as it's fairly obvious White is artificially keeping the game going for as long as possible. Even after the breakthrough there are some unnecessary moves. One option I'd consider as the organiser would simply not to accept the entry next time if the aim is to "hold the opponent hostage" or force them to resign.

I had a somewhat similar situation against Malcolm Armstrong at the British in 2007, but at least there I was just trying to find the correct setup (the king moves from h2-a2, but not continuously back and forth). As a result the breakthrough starts at move 65, not 161!

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1468829

Edit to add Chessgames claims the opening as an accelerated Panov Attack, Open variation

[Peter Shaw]

It's a pretty extreme example as it's fairly obvious White is artificially keeping the game going for as long as possible. Even after the breakthrough there are some unnecessary moves. One option I'd consider as the organiser would simply not to accept the entry next time if the aim is to "hold the opponent hostage" or force them to resign.

I agree, I am not sure exactly where the line is on 'bringing the game of chess into disrepute', but this has crossed it by a long way IMO. Shuffling around to try out different plans is one thing, but there is clearly no point behind these moves other than to deliberately waste time. Maybe you could argue that 'achieve a dominant position and then bore the opponent to death' is a legitimate strategy, but I'd rather draw than win a game like this. Perhaps that explains why I'm not a stronger player.

The other game was possibly even worse, and since he ended up taking a half point bye in the following round, what exactly was the point? If he'd played that endgame normally he would have stood just as much chance of winning and might have finished by move 80 rather than 217.

[Ian Thompson]

I agree, I am not sure exactly where the line is on 'bringing the game of chess into disrepute', but this has crossed it by a long way IMO. Shuffling around to try out different plans is one thing, but there is clearly no point behind these moves other than to deliberately waste time.

One reason for making pointless moves that is commonly seen, with unnecessary repetitions of moves, is to gain some time on the clock. If the moves were played quickly to do this, whether or not it was necessary to gain over 30 minutes on the clock is another question. You'd be kicking yourself if you decided you'd gain 10 minutes in the clock this way, then you found that wasn't long enough and you should have gained 20 minutes when you had the opportunity.

[Paul Cooksey]

Maybe this is one of those cases when a rule created for professional chess doesn't work for amateur chess.

The 30 second increment seems enough to stop anyone messing around to induce a blunder against a GM. But against an 1800, seems not.