Best excuses

[John Saunders]

I mean, you learn what to do before you start a competitive game. First you practice, then implement your knowledge as the situation arises. You don't get David Beckham practising free-kicks just before he's about to take a particularly important one.

If the issue is that there isn't enough time in an evening, then don't play in an evening. Play in something with longer time controls. The 4NCL or County Championship, for example.

This strikes me as incoherent. Learning from study is one thing, but we learn as much (if not more) about chess as we play competitive games - that is what we mean by practice - and the analogy with football simply doesn't work. Players of all games and sports need match practice to get good. If we want to get good (or stay good) at 'long chess' then we must play plenty of it (and that includes during the week - condemn me to weekend chess only, would you?). It is essential if we want to do well in more serious competitions where a slower time limit applies after move 40. The occasional adjournment session provides more experience of this vital part of the game and gives a better idea of one's development as a player. You have all your moves of the second session to study when you get home (which is rarely the case with QPF). Adjournment chess is, by its very nature, more worthwhile, educational chess than the panicky drivel played during QPFs. I realise that there are lots of extraneous reasons why players can't, won't or don't like to play adjournments. But these are all excuses. Which is exactly where we came into this particular thread.

P.S. to Paul - sadly it can't now happen but I would have liked to be there when you told Bobby Fischer that his 1972 match win against Boris Spassky was only correspondence chess.

P.S. to Simon - is Eric Schiller writing in German now?!

[Alex Holowczak]

The occasional adjournment session provides more experience of this vital part of the game and gives a better idea of one's development as a player.

It doesn't provide any experience though if you can't get to the venue for the finish. The game just terminates.

I suspect you are in the minority. If you want to play adjournments, then fine. Just don't make me, who can't play them for sensible logistic reasons, have to. I think it is fairer for quickplay to be the default option of the two. If two players want adjournments, go for it.

[Paul McKeown]

P.S. to Simon - is Eric Schiller writing in German now?!

John,

Surely you can't be to him as referring to said gent as "der Dummheit"?? "Butterball" is the approved form of address, as I understand things...


Best Regards,
Paul.

[Simon Spivack]

P.S. to Simon - is Eric Schiller writing in German now?!

This would fulfil the admirable objectives of raising the standard of chess playing in both America and Liechtenstein.

[Paul McKeown]

P.S. to Simon - is Eric Schiller writing in German now?!

This would fulfil the admirable objectives of raising the standard of chess playing in both America and Liechtenstein.

Strike Liechtenstein of the list, they speak German there.

Strike the USA of the list, they don't speak German there.

[Paul McKeown]

The occasional adjournment session provides more experience of this vital part of the game and gives a better idea of one's development as a player.

If you want to play adjournments, then fine. Just don't make me, who can't play them for sensible logistic reasons, have to. I think it is fairer for quickplay to be the default option of the two. If two players want adjournments, go for it.

John,

I tend to agree with Alex on this one, although, of course I do understand your idealism, too. If I should meet you in the London League (do you play in the LL?), I will be more than happy to accommodate you, as I'm sure I would be able to rely on you to resign if that was reasonable, agree a draw if that was also the case, agree a mutually agreeable venue, date and time, put some decent work into the preparation, turn up on time and have a pint and a chat afterwards if there was time. But, John, to be honest, three quarters (or more) of adjournments that I get are just a waste, sometimes with people that would make the average warthog seem not only intelligent, but hygienic and charming to boot.

Regards,
Paul.

[Paul McKeown]

P.S. to Paul - sadly it can't now happen but I would have liked to be there when you told Bobby Fischer that his 1972 match win against Boris Spassky was only correspondence chess.

John,

I suspect that the great Bobby, let his bishop pair rest in peace, would have thought the idea of cybernetic fuelled adjournment binges as great a scandal as Russkis working as a team.

And Boris would prefer a good woman, or, failing that a session on the tennis court.

Regards,
Paul.

[John Saunders]

Surely, Paul, you haven't bought the most transparent excuse of them all - "they stopped adjournments because of computers." Do you believe that a shedful of computer junk is more powerful than a Moscow Central Chess Club full of Soviet GMs in their prime? Actually, you might be right in that a paranoid Bobby Fischer probably believed it but I don't. It was convenience, not computers, that killed pro-level adjournments. GMs didn't like getting up in the morning and arbiters didn't like delaying their dinner.

[Alex Holowczak]

All of this is moot now anyway, it has been arranged that I don't play in the Birmingham League, and Wolverhampton League next season. I'm restricting myself to the Dudley League, which is Quickplay Finish. This largely came about when a player came over to talk to me about adjournments being good. (It should be noted that he wasted about 10 minutes of his game talking to me about it. He seemed a very sociable person, he wasted about half his own time talking to people, rather than playing chess.) The vast majority of the clubs seem unprepared to promote themselves, and seem rooted in the 1960s.

I didn't appreciate the "You don't know how difficult it is to organise chess tournaments" lecture I received, either.

So unless the rule change proposal to make quickplay finish the default choice in the Birmingham League is adopted (which is very unlikely), that's me pulling out of it next year. I do hope I'm out of earshot if the administrators complain about the lack of young players in the League!

[Matt Mackenzie]

I *can* understand John being sad at the passing of adjournments in master chess..........

But at club level, they are not needed or (by many of us, at any rate) wanted

[Joey Stewart]

As a recent player in the birmingham league i have a few words on the subject of adjournments.
As i was travelling from coventry by train, and frequently getting a lift off my team mates, it was always something i dreaded as this would have put me in the same situation as alex (i.e. Being forced to default or pay a large travel bill) and, therefore, i made sure that none of my opponents ever got near the time by playing extremely fast- so much so that it was almost like a game of blitz (not a high quality battle lasting a long time) apart from one time when he had defended well and so i locked the position right up as i knew it was close to the time and although he did adjourn he phoned soon after to offer a draw.

Now, one thing i have come to realise more then ever before is that i seem to play at a fairly consistent level and do not come up with better moves or plans with longer thinking time so i dont like the idea of taking my advantage away from myself with longer games if i can avoid it.

[John Saunders]

John,

I tend to agree with Alex on this one, although, of course I do understand your idealism, too. If I should meet you in the London League (do you play in the LL?), I will be more than happy to accommodate you, as I'm sure I would be able to rely on you to resign if that was reasonable, agree a draw if that was also the case, agree a mutually agreeable venue, date and time, put some decent work into the preparation, turn up on time and have a pint and a chat afterwards if there was time. But, John, to be honest, three quarters (or more) of adjournments that I get are just a waste, sometimes with people that would make the average warthog seem not only intelligent, but hygienic and charming to boot.

Regards,
Paul.

Perhaps I should plead guilty to the charge of idealism. And Alex is right that it is a moot point - mooter (is that a word?) in my case as, not only have I given up playing second sessions, I've given up playing first sessions too. I've not moved a pawn in anger for about three years now. But when I did play, I was luckier than you, Paul, with most of my adjournment opponents - they nearly all struck me as pleasant fellows. Let me see... a few names off the top of my head... Costas Karayiannis, Daire McMahon, Rawle Allicock, Clive Hill - all seemed most amiable opponents. And not because I won - I wish! Rawle Allicock always beat me to a pulp and Clive Hill beat me from what should have been a much better adjournment position. I've had people not turn up for adjournments and also prevaricate about fixing dates but I don't ever remember a bad experience with anyone at an adjournment. Perhaps absence has made the heart grow fonder. One of these days I may take up playing again and if I do, I'll look forward to playing you in the LL, Paul.

For me it is a simple equation. Adjournments feel like serious chess but QPFs (after not many moves) don't. For that reason the LL has always seemed the best league to play in.

[Alex McFarlane]

When I was a semi serious chess player I hated having an adjourned game. Nothing to do with travelling or anything like that. It was because if I had an adjournment I got no sleep that night as the game kept going through my head. It certainly benefitted my endgame play however and I feel more confident making 10.2 decisions as a result.

My club once had a match in the Glasgow League against a club which had a large proportion of disabled players (if I can use that non-PC phrase) and therefore played all their games at home.
At the end of the night we had 4 out of 8 games adjourned and the opposition insisting we had to return to complete them. I pointed out to my captain that it was technically our home game and that none of their players concerned had a disability so the adjournments should be at our club. The opposition on being informed of this immediately resigned two of the games and agreed a draw in the third!! The fourth was agreed drawn the next day.
It was amazing how the prospect of having to travel 7 miles rather than dragging the opponent an equal distance in the opposite direction so easily affected the outcome of the games!

Another problem of adjournments was the trading off of results that took place at the end of the first session - we'll concede that one if you concede that. Whilst technically not legal it happened all the time.

[Roger de Coverly]

For that reason the LL has always seemed the best league to play in.

There are some features though which make the London League unique.

Is there still a premise that games are played after work and before people go home? This used to mean start times around 6.30 pm and finishing times 9.30.

All the matches have to be played at Central London venues, the club's if it has one, otherwise at the default central venue.

Some/many/most of the players travel at least some their journey by public transport ( a consequence of playing in Central London). This means that it's no more difficult (if more expensive) to come back for the second session.

The central venues thing might seem illogical if you had say West London playing Hammersmith, but in practice the "working in Central London" premise and the fact that neutral venues can make teams nearly as geographical diverse as 4NCL ones makes it work.

In the more rural parts of the country, adjournments are (or perhaps were) a menace for players without their own transport. Many leagues only brought them in as an attempt to thwart the "It's move 36 and I'm not playing any more" merchants.

[Richard Bates]

For that reason the LL has always seemed the best league to play in.

There are some features though which make the London League unique.

Is there still a premise that games are played after work and before people go home? This used to mean start times around 6.30 pm and finishing times 9.30.

All the matches have to be played at Central London venues, the club's if it has one, otherwise at the default central venue.

Some/many/most of the players travel at least some their journey by public transport ( a consequence of playing in Central London). This means that it's no more difficult (if more expensive) to come back for the second session.

The central venues thing might seem illogical if you had say West London playing Hammersmith, but in practice the "working in Central London" premise and the fact that neutral venues can make teams nearly as geographical diverse as 4NCL ones makes it work.

In the more rural parts of the country, adjournments are (or perhaps were) a menace for players without their own transport. Many leagues only brought them in as an attempt to thwart the "It's move 36 and I'm not playing any more" merchants.

I agree. Although many of the chess based arguments against adjournments (only viable pre-computers, "correspondence" chess, games decided at home not at the board etc) are, IMO, bunk, I really do think that outside of the London League (and any other similar League set-ups, if they exist) they are not worth the trouble unless both players are amenable. The other great advantage of the central venue is that adjournments can be arranged when there are 2 or 3 other matches going on - meaning that for all intents and purposes the experience of an adjournment is little different to playing the original session. I can well see that anywhere where public transport is not viable for travel are lifts are usually shared to reduce costs adjournments can only drive away more people than they attract. Equally i wouldn't support them anywhere where you can't have a minimum session of 35/36 moves. 30 moves is just too short.

So I play London League where adjournments aren't something to be feared, and Middlesex League (sometimes) where QPF is the default. If i was in any other League around London which insisted on adjournments i think i would be a militant QPFer!