Very long games in weekend tournaments

[Graham Borrowdale]

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.

So I am guessing you would suggest longer increments for amateur chess, then, Paul ?
To be honest, I think the player of black in this game needs commending for not losing his rag; I think I would have walked away after the first king’s tour.

[Paul McKeown]

To be honest, I think the player of black in this game needs commending for not losing his rag; I think I would have walked away after the first king’s tour.

Totally agree.

As an organiser I would ask the arbiters to do something about this conduct.

As an arbiter, bearing in mind:

• 12.2 The arbiter shall:
• 12.2.2 act in the best interest of the competition
• 12.2.5 supervise the progress of the competition

I would seek permission from the organiser to warn for the first king tour on the grounds that:

• 11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

For the second king tour, I would remove incremented time, as I would suspect it was merely being banked in a deliberate campaign of Sitzfleisch. I would consider defaulting the game after the third king tour (0 – ½).

There was no point to any of White's moves from 27 to 116 apart from testing the patience, nerves and resolve of the opponent. And the same applies to tracts of the game after the 116th as well.

It would be difficult I imagine for FIDE to craft a Law specifically forbidding such conduct, but I wouldn't be unhappy to see them try.

[Pete Heaven]

It's maybe worth mentioning that the player of the black pieces was/will be nine years old this year.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It's maybe worth mentioning that the player of the black pieces was/will be nine years old this year.

That is almost as bad as the time I promoted about 3 pawns to queens against David Howell when he was six (details of this story vary every time I tell it, as I cannot now remember what actually happened). Let's hope that Black (like Messr Howell) goes on to become a strong GM rather than give up the game in disgust.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

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!

Am I the only one that doesn't understand the plan that SF and Martin C came up with here?

[Roger de Coverly]

It would be difficult I imagine for FIDE to craft a Law specifically forbidding such conduct, but I wouldn't be unhappy to see them try.

If you could program the clock, switching off increments at a high number of moves would put the game back in the hands of the arbiter by virtue of being able to invoke the "unable or not trying to win" clause. Or make it a player option to request it. That inverts the existing rule which can allow the substitution of an increment clock for a non-increment one.

[David Williams]

It might be better if there was a delay rather than an increment. Either the clock doesn't start for the first 30 seconds of each move, or 30 seconds is added but the clock reverts to what you had if you move in under 30 seconds. I can think of a few things that make this impractical, but it would mean that you still had at least 30 seconds for every move, but you couldn't gain time on the clock.

[Roger de Coverly]

It might be better if there was a delay rather than an increment. Either the clock doesn't start for the first 30 seconds of each move, or 30 seconds is added but the clock reverts to what you had if you move in under 30 seconds.

The USCF were very keen on this method. For that reason many brands of digital timer feature it as an option. Outside the USA, delay has never become an established standard.

I think the DGT implementation is that if say you had 2 seconds left with a 30 second delay, the clock would show that you had 32 seconds to make your move. Even if you moved within a second, the clock would show 32 seconds for the next move as well If you took 31 seconds, the clock would reset to show 31 seconds remaining.

[MartinCarpenter]

Am I the only one that doesn't understand the plan that SF and Martin C came up with here?

Ok, start from move 160. I can't see how to rearrange black meaningfully by that point so Ka8/b8 it is.

[Event ""] [Site ""] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round ""] [White ""] [Black ""] [Result "*"] [FEN "k1bq2rb/pp1r1p1p/4p1pP/PP1pP1P1/1QpP1RNK/B1P2P2/8/R7 b - - 0 1"] 1...Kb8 2.Qa4 Ka8 3.Bc5 Kb8 4.Qb4 Ka8 ( 4...Qe8 5.Bd6+ Ka8 6.Qc5 Qd8 7.a6 ) 5.Bb6 Qf8 ( 5...Qe8 6.Qc5 ) 6.Qxf8 Rxf8 7.Bc5 Re8 8.b6 a6 9.Nf2 Rde7 10. Ne4 dxe4 11.fxe4 Rd7 12.Raf1 f5 ( 12...Red8 13.Rxf7 Rxf7 14.Rxf7 ) 13.gxf6 Rf7 *

Swapping off Q's that way is not easy to see, or even to realise that it's a good idea! Black's rooks are comically hopeless after it though, and there's no way to get his bishop round to e8.

On move 10 white can actually just go Nf6, swapping off that terrible bishop on h8 and winning f7 by brute force. Ne4 is a fair bit more thematic, perhaps.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thank you, Martin. I am not sure you included the best defence by Black (maybe get the king to e8 somehow?), but I get your points now.

[Joey Stewart]

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?

It feels like after the first debacle with this nonsense of using 30 second increments in inappropriate weekend events led to extreme overplayed games congress organisers seem to have changed nothing and continued to refuse to bow to the laws of common sense.

mr lalic has appears to have taken it upon himself to crusade against this needlessly long increment by proving in very real terms just what a terrible idea it is, repeatedly causing the nightmare scenario for the organisers until something gets changed.

[Roger de Coverly]

mr lalic has appears to have taken it upon himself to crusade against this needlessly long increment by proving in very real terms just what a terrible idea it is, repeatedly causing the nightmare scenario for the organisers until something gets changed.

10 and 15 second increments are not uncommon, but usually in tournaments that aren't FIDE rated.

[IM Jack Rudd]

This sort of game is going to be very rare in practice; you can't do it in a position where there is any counterplay, or in which you don't have the spare pawn moves to avoid the 50-move rule. And the position needs to be good enough that the win is worth seeking, but not so good that the opponent will just resign.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Jack,

I agree, very rare but a ground rule is needed for that just in case moment. I had a brief chat with Peter about this
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2612620 and suggest what ever they (them that make the rules) do they should call it the 'Lalic Law' and he will become a famous person like Sonneborn Berger and Magna Carter.

[Mike Gunn]

Peter has been doing similar things in evening league games too. This year the Surrey League introduced G75 + 10 second increments as the default time limit but with the proviso that there is also (by default) a 3 hour session and unfinished games would be sent for adjudication (thus upholding Surrey's proud claim that we have been adjudicating unfinished games since our foundation in 1883). Of course any game sent for adjudication would have to have lasted at least 90 moves and this rule is due to Peter's presence as an active player in our league.