The Process of Adjudication

[Martin Benjamin]

Let me first state that this is NOT intended to be a debate about adjudication itself. I am dead set against it, as I suspect are the vast majority of those who peruse these boards. I once started a thread on incremental time limits, which discussed adjudication inter alia ad nauseam, so no need to reopen the topic as far as I am concerned. (I really did not plan to write consecutive Latin phrases in that sentence, but there they are).

Having the misfortune to play most of my chess in two evening leagues which rely on adjudication to determine the result of any game still in progress at the end of the session (unless both players have agreed to a quickplay finish), I often have to consider whether to send a position for adjudication or agree a result with the opposition. If I am captain, it may involve making a decision about someone else's game, which can be awkward. I am not a complete patzer (current ECF 181), but stronger players too share my indecision about certain positions which are finely poised between a win and a draw (or occasionally a win for either side in very unbalanced positions). My team mates who have the latest versions of Rybka and Fritz say that even hours of computer analysis can't sort some of these out. However, I have noticed a strong correlation between the Rybka assessment after 5 minutes or so, and the eventual decision on adjudication.

Are there any adjudicators out there who would be prepared to indicate how long they spend on an adjudication, and to what extent they rely on computer assessment? I am sure they conscientiously look at the position with a human eye too, but some of these positions really are unfathomable. The fee in our leagues is £7.50 paid by the team whose claim fails, so it would be unreasonable to expect an adjudicator to invest a huge amount of time on a position. How then do adjudicators reach a decision when the win/draw is finely balanced? Am I wrong in thinking that they fall back on the computer assessment (+1 or greater for a win, anything less is a draw) as a sort of objective justification for the decision? If not, how else do they determine the result of a really tricky position?

I am not looking to start a witch hunt against adjudicators here. It is not a job I would want to do, particularly at that rate of pay - indeed, I am told that some do it for free, which is noble service. I just want to satisfy my curiosity - and maybe save administrative time by not sending up some positions.

[Roger de Coverly]

Let me first state that this is NOT intended to be a debate about adjudication itself. I am dead set against it, as I suspect are the vast majority of those who peruse these boards.

I'm not sure there's anybody here who would admit to being a current adjudicator. The traditional approach was just to count the material which meant that equalising ideas such as the Marshall or the Benko were best avoided if the game was going to finish prematurely at move 30. As you suggest, you can get a "value" out of Rybka, Fritz or similar - but is there a tariff which says that + 1.00 is draw but + 1.50 is a win?

[Anthony Taglione]

I'm reminded of one evening league game I had where we didn't have our first exchange of material until move 31. Fortunately, both of us were fairly speedy players so the suggestion of stopping for adjudication never came up and we played to a finish.

We used to resolve most of our adjudications by a quick argument over the board with everyone able to voice an opinion. I always felt, however, that a quick-minded strong player was worth the occasional half-point to the team in such circumstances.

I can't offer much by way of direct response to the opening question but adjudication has probably been an issue for as long as there have been team matches. They are sometimes unsatisfactory and, despite what I already typed, one is left feeling that an argument over the board is a more-reliable method of resolving a position.

[Matthew Turner]

If you search the ECF website you will see that the ECF adjudicators are listed as

Peter Clarke, Peter Gibbs, Peter Griffiths, Paul Littlewood, Ken Neat & Jonathan Penrose

Some of these are not particularly strong players, so I would imagine that they would rely fairly heavily on computer analysis.

[Adam Raoof]

I will admit to having been asked to adjudicate a position in the past. The material was uneven and looked like it would resolve itself into an ending. I looked at it for a reasonable time, and even put the position into Fritz, and came to the conclusion that the game was a draw. Then there was an appeal and the player who claimed a win sent in some analysis - it was extremely good analysis, and a neat plan which neither Fritz nor I had considered. I had to admit I was wrong in my assessment of the position.

Incidentally, I suspect that the triumphant player concerned would probably not have come up with the plan over the board, not even at a longer time limit.

I remember one season when I had no fewer than five unfinished games against strong players who, for various reasons, never got to play the game to a finish. All were adjudicated draws. I suspect that had they got to complete the games I may not have got to 50%!

That is why I don't agree with adjudications at all, and I only tolerate adjournments from afar. I am surprised that so many leagues still consider adjournments the norm. Of course I would always defend the right of leagues to organise matches as they think is appropriate for their membership, but I know that one of the reason many players do not get involved in club / league chess is that they simply haven't got the time for adjournments, and regard adjudications as a poor way to conclude a game.

[Adam Raoof]

If you search the ECF website you will see that the ECF adjudicators are listed as
Peter Clarke, Peter Gibbs, Peter Griffiths, Paul Littlewood, Ken Neat & Jonathan Penrose
Some of these are not particularly strong players, so I would imagine that they would rely fairly heavily on computer analysis.

Which one of these fine gentlemen are you referring to?

[Eoin Devane]

That is why I don't agree with adjudications at all, and I only tolerate adjournments from afar. I am surprised that so many leagues still consider adjournments the norm. Of course I would always defend the right of leagues to organise matches as they think is appropriate for their membership, but I know that one of the reason many players do not get involved in club / league chess is that they simply haven't got the time for adjournments, and regard adjudications as a poor way to conclude a game.

I completely agree. Thank goodness the Oxfordshire League has exclusively Quickplay finishes!

[Adam Raoof]

That is why I don't agree with adjudications at all, and I only tolerate adjournments from afar. I am surprised that so many leagues still consider adjournments the norm. Of course I would always defend the right of leagues to organise matches as they think is appropriate for their membership, but I know that one of the reason many players do not get involved in club / league chess is that they simply haven't got the time for adjournments, and regard adjudications as a poor way to conclude a game.

I completely agree. Thank goodness the Oxfordshire League has exclusively Quickplay finishes!

Naturally there are good arguments on both sides - a quickplay finish, as I know to my own cost, is not a perfect way to conclude a game either! Last season I missed a mate in one and drew, and this season I watched a team mate win a game two pawns down because his opponent made an illegal queen move had to leave it en prise. However, I would rather limit the combatants in a game to two opponents, rather than potentially widen it to all of our team mates and Rybka.

[Matthew Turner]

Adam,
I wasn't trying to question the adjudicators' integrity. I imagine that all them would spend a long time on adjudications (certainly more than was warranted by the £7.50 fee).
Peter Gibbs' grade is 169 and Ken Neat's is 188. I am sure that they will be heavily assisted by computer analysis. I do not criticise them for this, if I were doing their job I would be too.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Adam,
I wasn't trying to question the adjudicators' integrity. I imagine that all them would spend a long time on adjudications (certainly more than was warranted by the £7.50 fee).
Peter Gibbs' grade is 169 and Ken Neat's is 188. I am sure that they will be heavily assisted by computer analysis. I do not criticise them for this, if I were doing their job I would be too.

Doesn't mean either are "not strong players" - rather they are strong players who are getting on a bit

Both well over 200 BCF (in old money!) in their day, I believe

[Peter Rhodes]

Adam,
I wasn't trying to question the adjudicators' integrity. I imagine that all them would spend a long time on adjudications (certainly more than was warranted by the £7.50 fee).
Peter Gibbs' grade is 169 and Ken Neat's is 188. I am sure that they will be heavily assisted by computer analysis. I do not criticise them for this, if I were doing their job I would be too.

If my memory serves me correctly, Peter Gibbs was one of the strongest players in Leicestershire (when I was playing at Loughborough University) back in the early 90's. I'm sure his OTB grade doesn't reflect his "chess knowledge".

[Matthew Turner]

Many many years ago I played Peter Gibbs at correspondence chess and I know he is good player and a throughly decent guy. I'm sure Peter will do a very diligent job on adjudications. However, this topic was started by Martin Benjamin who described himself as "not a complete patzer" because he was only graded 181. I think Martin will be surprised that the adjudication might be carried out by someone who is 12 points lower than himself.

[Alex Holowczak]

That is why I don't agree with adjudications at all, and I only tolerate adjournments from afar. I am surprised that so many leagues still consider adjournments the norm. Of course I would always defend the right of leagues to organise matches as they think is appropriate for their membership, but I know that one of the reason many players do not get involved in club / league chess is that they simply haven't got the time for adjournments, and regard adjudications as a poor way to conclude a game.

I completely agree. Thank goodness the Oxfordshire League has exclusively Quickplay finishes!

The Birmingham League does not...

Last week, I was in a game which went on a bit, and three matches had taken adjournments. My captain suggested that I should do. I told him flat that I wasn't accepting an adjournment on principle, we play on as long as it lasts. It was impossible to adjourn anyway, my pawn was about to Queen and he had a strong attack that was either going to mate me, or if it failed, left him mated. It's impossible to adjourn in that position! Fortunately, I was offered a draw, and after ten minutes' thought, accepted. I have yet to put the game on Fritz to see if that was the right decision. (I don't really want to know.)

This came down to rule interpretation though. The perceived wisdom is that you have to take an adjournment if one person insists after the first time control has been reached. Unfortunately, I actually bothered to read the rules, and found this loophole:

Rule 10.1 : If, at the end of a playing session ...

Rule 8.3 : The first session of all games ... shall be a minimum period of 2 1/2 hours.

The rules don't say how long a maximum period of time for the first session is. Nor do they define a playing session as being equivalent to reaching the first time control. Therefore, you can never reach the end of a playing session. Therefore, you never have to take an adjournment.

Anyway, the net result was that my captain was throughly unimpressed, as my team is an adjournment team (in the BL, you choose Adjournment or Quickplay, my team is adjournments - news to me at the start of the season), I should have an adjournment. I heard my captain getting (uncharactersitally) angry to a club official about how "this nonsense with adjournments has to stop". I agree, it does.

Maybe I'll limit myself to the Wolverhampton and Dudley Leagues next year, which are adjournment free.

[Alan Walton]

From a Manchester League point of view

Nowadays the norm is to play a quickplay finish, but adjournments are still permitted if both teams agree, otherwise it is quickplay finish

Adjucations are only permitted if both players have made a minimum of 60 moves, otherwise the game has to be continued to played at another date, the adjucation has to be submitted within 72 hours

Theis 60 move rule normally means that the game will already be in the endgame, thus adjucation is more reliant on good endgame analysis rather than chess engines, and players are allowed to submit their own analysis to back up their claim

Also, both players have to submit a £5 fee and the player who is successful recieves this back

I personally think the 60 move rule offers more flexibility, as it stops players just waiting for the close of play and chancing there arm at adjudication

Alan

[Adam Raoof]

Many many years ago I played Peter Gibbs at correspondence chess and I know he is good player and a throughly decent guy. I'm sure Peter will do a very diligent job on adjudications. However, this topic was started by Martin Benjamin who described himself as "not a complete patzer" because he was only graded 181. I think Martin will be surprised that the adjudication might be carried out by someone who is 12 points lower than himself.

No more surprised than players in international title events would be to find that their arbiters have grades 100 points below theirs