Best excuses

[John Saunders]

Yes, the London League is unique. I'm glad to see Richard backs up my 'convenience, not computers' theory for why adjournments disappeared from pro chess. I played in the LL for many years though I have never regularly worked in central London, which meant that it was more expensive for me than for many other players (doubly so when I had to play an adjournment). In the Surrey League my decision on whether to adjourn or adjudicate depended on the distance I had to travel for a second session. It was often possible to negotiate and 'split the difference', i.e. play at a neutral venue which suited both parties. But, with the price of petrol being what it now is and my meagre income compared to when I had a mainstream management job, I don't think I would be prepared to make a second car journey to complete a game these days. I'm not sure what monetary value I would put on a grading point but it wouldn't be much. Adjournment is unquestionably best for your chess but perhaps not for your pocket.

I wonder how many club championships still use adjournments for completing games. Or county championships (where central venues are often the norm for play - maybe this is just a metropolitan thing, I'm not sure). Then, presumably, the geographical/transport inconvenience argument should not apply to the same degree. Granted it means two trips rather than one, but you would have thought that the big plus factors in favour of adjournments (that it is serious chess and vastly better for your development as a player) might override the negative (inconvenience) argument. But perhaps a lot of players don't really care about getting better as players. They probably think they care, buying books, reading mags, etc, but when it comes down to it, the convenience factor perhaps overrides their ambition. Hence, QPF or adjudication is preferred in a spirit of "let's get this damned thing over and done with". I'm not knocking that as it is perfectly understandable in many circumstances but I think it is important that adjournment is retained as an option for certain competitions where geography and other such factors are not so much of an issue. Perhaps Alex is right that QPF should be the overriding option for inter-club competitions (and others where major distances have to be covered to play) but I would have have thought that internal club competitions (or those using a central venue) should in general give priority to adjournment over QPF.

[Alex Holowczak]

Perhaps Alex is right that QPF should be the overriding option for inter-club competitions (and others where major distances have to be covered to play) but I would have have thought that internal club competitions (or those using a central venue) should in general give priority to adjournment over QPF.

Bizarrely, our internal club competition is QP! The person who organises it is strongly pro-AD, too.

[John Saunders]

Perhaps Alex is right that QPF should be the overriding option for inter-club competitions (and others where major distances have to be covered to play) but I would have have thought that internal club competitions (or those using a central venue) should in general give priority to adjournment over QPF.

Bizarrely, our internal club competition is QP! The person who organises it is strongly pro-AD, too.

Well, perhaps that is understandable too. The perennial problem with internal club competitions is ensuring that all the games get played. I suppose there might be an argument that having extra sessions makes this more difficult. This may be less to do with the ambitions of the competitors to become better players than the ambition of the controller to get the competition finished. Once again, convenience wins out.