Very long games in weekend tournaments

[NickFaulks]

Peter has been doing similar things in evening league games too.

I was an early victim. I was required to find a large number of non-losing moves at ten seconds a go, not helped by the running and bad tempered triangular argument taking place across the board between the venue controller, the caretaker and my opponent.

[Gary Slegg]

I'm disappointed by some of the comments made above. I played in the Coulsdon tournament and saw what happened. Firstly, when Peter started his King tour he only had about 9 minutes left, whereas his opponent had about 45. Peter therefore understandably wanted to 'bank' time to help in the analysis of what is clearly a very complicated position (I think he might have lost the previous round on time, or came very close to doing so). Secondly, the computer has Peter about 6 points up at this point, so his opponent could have resigned, but chose to play on. Thirdly, many 'super GMs' will repeat positions to bank time. Admittedly this game was an extreme example of that, but the principle remains the same. Finally, what difference does it make that his opponent is soon to be 9 years old. If his opponent wants special treatment because of his age (which, incidentally, I don't think he did) then he should stick to junior tournaments IMHO.

[Roger Lancaster]

I'm surprised by the fact that people think this is a new problem while, in fact, it's exactly the opposite - it's a problem which has been eased with the appearance of digital clocks. With analogue clocks, the problem was far greater. It isn't so long ago that top-level games were played with each player having 2.5 hours for the first 40 moves then (usually with an intervening adjournment) pro rata thereafter, typical 16 moves per hour. For most weekend events, the only sensible solution was one based on all moves being made within a fixed time.

[Peter Ackley]

I have to admit I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand I can see the benefit of banking time (we've all done it; maybe not this extremely) and there's no explicit law that's being broken. On the other hand if it is being undertaken more to make an overall point about the laws of chess than in response to the game being played I'm less sympathetic.

My concern, looking at the bigger picture, is that evening leagues may start to see this behaviour as becoming more prevalent and become less likely to implement increments, choosing instead to remain with blitz finishes or, indeed, adjournments and adjudications. Also if more and more people start doing this we could see issues with tournaments and players within them. I'm not sure that every organiser, venue or player would be amused by such behaviour. The game in question delayed the Saturday afternoon round; I suspect people would have been less impressed if it had been the Sunday afternoon round.

In league games, though, there can be a way out. 10+ years ago I was driver and a game went on needlessly (it was a dragged out clearly lost endgame, where the player in my car was using every second of his time). On this occasion I let the player know that I was leaving in five minutes - it was up to them if they were in my car or not. I wouldn't wait for someone doing king-tours of the board.

One thing I will comment on (from Mr Slegg's post) is that each opponent should be treated as an individual and the respect that you yourself would expect to be treated with. Whilst juniors might not warrant special treatment per se they deserve to be respected as juniors. In the last few years I have had opponents drag on games to mate. On one occasion I also did a king tour of the board before going to the bar (within the playing venue). On the second I mated my opponent with six knights (ensuring the arbiter on each occasion fetched me another knight). In each game my opponent was an experienced player and I had plenty of time available to me. I would not do that to a 9-year old junior. Likewise with repeated draw offers - adult: speak to the opponent, junior: speak to the arbiter.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I've spent some time trying to get my head round (as the modern youth argot has it) the concept of "bringing the game of chess into disrepute". No, not managed yet.

I think Gary makes fair points - do we know if the junior were annoyed by the game? He might well have thought nothing of it - as junior chess frequently features games which can go on a long time (although I take Peter A's points). The junior might well have told all his friends he had an incredibly long game - I was quite proud of a 133-move game, even when I lost it.

I don't think Peter L did anything wrong, except chess-wise letting the position get so blocked. But some people might get agitated or worse. A few years ago, I was awaiting the start of a league match when one of the home players in another match punched me in the back, and said, "We're about to start - you'll have to stop talking." I pointed out I hadn't been talking, but took no further action - he's much richer than me, so the police would have taken his side, and I was so focused on our upcoming match I couldn't be bothered to break a chair over his head. Then at 4NCL this year, I noticed a titled player return to his board and just barge an unfortunate woman out of the way. She bounced off the wall, but didn't seem bothered. I do wonder how people who do that sort of thing would react to Peter L's time-gaining. I don't want him to be violently assaulted by his opponents, but maybe they would get banned...

Maybe evening leagues and weekend tournaments need delay-mode timing instead.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I was so focused on our upcoming match I couldn't be bothered to break a chair over his head.

Talking of long games, I have always been quite proud of this example (so much so I mention it every few years...):

149 moves, 4 sessions, 3 sealed moves...

(More details here.)

[Daniel Gormally]

I have discussed this game and the response to it in a video I made on my Youtube channel!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joti4L_qOek