Adjournments and Adjudication
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
To place this discussion in some sort of context, here is an extract from what I said at the 125th anniversary celebration of the Surrey County Chess Association (as quoted in the 2008 Surrey yearbook).
"Only three
teams competed for the inaugural Surrey Trophy, Croydon, “Endeavourâ€
and South Norwood, the winners being Croydon. The first match was
played on 4 February 1884 at Oliphant’s Café when South Norwood
defeated “Endeavour†by 5½ to 3½. The final match was played at
Norwood when Croydon defeated South Norwood by the same score.
These are the only two matches reported in the Chess Player’s Chronicle
so I presume that at least one more match (with Croydon defeating
“Endeavourâ€) also took place.
The report of the first match states that it started at 7 p.m., three games
had concluded by 9 p.m. and the remaining games were adjudicated (on the
spot) at 10.30 p.m. Chess clocks had just been used for the first time in an
international tournament (London, 1883) and it seems unlikely that they
would have been in use in club chess. The Chess Player’s Chronicle
discusses the widespread problem of players refraining from moving 20 or
30 minutes before the finishing time “in the hope the adjudicator might find
some method of escapeâ€. Adjudication was just as unpopular in 1883 as it
is now. An editorial on the subject in the Chess Player’s Chronicle finished
with the words “The adjudicator’s task is a very unthankful one at the best,
and we are convinced that those who have filled the office will be among
the foremost to advocate its abolition, while we are sure that a general
desire on the part of match players to avoid appeals for adjudication will go
far to put an end to the evil.â€
"Only three
teams competed for the inaugural Surrey Trophy, Croydon, “Endeavourâ€
and South Norwood, the winners being Croydon. The first match was
played on 4 February 1884 at Oliphant’s Café when South Norwood
defeated “Endeavour†by 5½ to 3½. The final match was played at
Norwood when Croydon defeated South Norwood by the same score.
These are the only two matches reported in the Chess Player’s Chronicle
so I presume that at least one more match (with Croydon defeating
“Endeavourâ€) also took place.
The report of the first match states that it started at 7 p.m., three games
had concluded by 9 p.m. and the remaining games were adjudicated (on the
spot) at 10.30 p.m. Chess clocks had just been used for the first time in an
international tournament (London, 1883) and it seems unlikely that they
would have been in use in club chess. The Chess Player’s Chronicle
discusses the widespread problem of players refraining from moving 20 or
30 minutes before the finishing time “in the hope the adjudicator might find
some method of escapeâ€. Adjudication was just as unpopular in 1883 as it
is now. An editorial on the subject in the Chess Player’s Chronicle finished
with the words “The adjudicator’s task is a very unthankful one at the best,
and we are convinced that those who have filled the office will be among
the foremost to advocate its abolition, while we are sure that a general
desire on the part of match players to avoid appeals for adjudication will go
far to put an end to the evil.â€
-
- Posts: 21291
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Not being a Border League person, I have no idea (or interest for that matter).matt_ward wrote:o what do you think the proposal at the next AGM will be Roger, regarding adjudications or the Drunken Knights situation regarding alcohol.
Historically though, clubs and leagues in the whole UK persisted with adjudications long after play to a finish was the norm in tournaments. Maximum pace of play for grading probably didn't help. For example 60 moves in 90 minutes has only become legal for ECF grading in the last 10 years.Andy Howie wrote:We have not had leagues up here for a while that allow adjudications. It finally nailed at our last AGM where it was passed that Adjudicated games would not be graded.
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Hayes (Middx)
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Roger,Roger de Coverly wrote:Historically though, clubs and leagues in the whole UK persisted with adjudications long after play to a finish was the norm in tournaments.
The Ulster Chess Union, historically nine counties, of which six are within the United Kingdom, has never in my experience adopted or allowed the use of adjudication.
Regards,
Paul
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:32 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Very sweeping statement and essentially inaccurate. SNCL has never had adjudiucations nor has Central League in Scotland. Lanarkshire and Glasgow last had them 15 years ago (trying to establish when it was changed). Edinburgh league was at least 10 years agoRoger de Coverly wrote:Historically though, clubs and leagues in the whole UK persisted with adjudications long after play to a finish was the norm in tournaments.
May be a problem with our colleagues down south rather than us rebellious Scots
- John Saunders
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
- Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Long, long ago, in the mists of time, my school used to play regular matches against another local school. A very decent bunch of chaps they were, and I don't recall any nasty incidents between us. But there was this one thing... neither school had enough clocks for all boards and a couple of their players could be very slow in making their moves. In my first game against them, my opponent and I reached move 12 when time was called. Hardly anything had happened by then and the game was agreed drawn. Note that I do not lump all the blame on my opponent for being slow to move as it is possible that I had some long thinks too. I really cannot remember but I think he was a fair bit slower than me.Roger de Coverly wrote: Equivalents to adjudication and adjournment are not unknown in the physical sports. For example the Duckworth-Lewis method in cricket and points victories in boxing are an equivalent of adjudication. In football and other team games, the half-time (adjournment) break gives the manager the chance to change both the strategy and in some cases the entire team.
Supporters of adjudication and adjournment consider a three hour club session an inadequate period of time to play a full game of chess. Adjudication supporters would like to just play half a game and have someone else notionally play the rest. Adjournment supporters want to play half the game this week and the other half at some unspecified future date. Both camps are slowly losing out to those who find three hours enough for a reasonable game.
In a later match another one of the opposition players really was taking the mickey, having ludicrously long thinks and boring his opponent to distraction. Our master-in-charge of chess happened to be present - generally a very mild-mannered man, and still alive today (I met him last year and he was in rude health). But he was incensed by the opposition player's slowness and didn't hesitate to intervene. "Come on, laddie, can't you make your mind up? It's time you made a move" or words to that effect. Of course, as forum members will be sure to point out, this itself was contrary to the laws of the game, but in those days schoolmasters outranked the BCF, FIDE, Moses and indeed God Himself when it came to laying down the law. Once again, nothing came of it other than the told-off player did actually move a bit quicker as a result. Perhaps I might add that, for the first game at least, the opposition match captain was Roger de Coverly...
Sorry, Roger, that anecdote was retailed for the sole purpose of teasing you. I do not harbour any resentment about it. However, I do resent your bracketing of adjudication and adjournment, which you have done many times on this forum. It is extremely boring as well as misleading. Need I say that the two things are very different? No, because we have debated the point in other threads until the cows come home (one recent one - http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 1&start=60 - got lost under a welter of stuff by and about Matt "We can't all be literate" Ward). I don't think adjudication has any active supporters here so you are arguing with thin air, but do not tar adjournment with the same brush. The only useful addition to human knowledge here has been Mike Gunn's posting of that interesting 1883 item which demonstrates that the argument has been going on for nearly 130 years. Perhaps the time has come to call a halt.
Personal Twitter @johnchess
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
What is the need for malicious intent by you John, whatever I do you seem to pick faults I didn't realise you would be so egregious towards me. Very upsetting really that no one can have freedom of speech in this world.
Matt
Matt
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Hayes (Middx)
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
273016K wrote:I didn't realise you would be so egregious towards me
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:32 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Matt,matt_ward wrote:Very upsetting really that no one can have freedom of speech in this world
There are very few countries where free speech is a right. Strangely, although we take it for granted in the country, there is no statute in law giving us this right
Free speech is not a right in the country, more an expected behaviour
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
So your saying then that no one should have a view then basically, well wouldn't it be a boring world if no one voiced what they thought.
Matt.
Matt.
-
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Andy - I think you may be referring to adjournments. The Edinburgh league still had them in 1999, but that may have been the last time. (Although curiously, I did see a result reported this season that had one game adjourned. I've no idea why - drunkenness at the board? ) Edit - my memory was faulty - one game was awaiting "adjudication" - I assume there was some sort of rules dispute, now happily resolved.Andy Howie wrote:Very sweeping statement and essentially inaccurate. SNCL has never had adjudiucations nor has Central League in Scotland. Lanarkshire and Glasgow last had them 15 years ago (trying to establish when it was changed). Edinburgh league was at least 10 years agoRoger de Coverly wrote:Historically though, clubs and leagues in the whole UK persisted with adjudications long after play to a finish was the norm in tournaments.
I haven't been aware of an official Chess Scotland sanctioned adjudication for over 30 years, but I'm not an expert, and there are several leagues about which I know next to nothing.
-
- Posts: 21291
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
The last adjudication in a chess congress was probably in 1977 or 1978. Adjournments were commonplace until the 1990s. Virtually all leagues were still using adjudications in, say, 1980.Andy Howie wrote:Very sweeping statement and essentially inaccurate. SNCL has never had adjudiucations nor has Central League in Scotland. Lanarkshire and Glasgow last had them 15 years ago (trying to establish when it was changed). Edinburgh league was at least 10 years ago
May be a problem with our colleagues down south rather than us rebellious Scots
-
- Posts: 21291
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
You don't think that we would have been far better players at a much younger age if all those games had been played at G/75 or G/90? Club chess had this obsession with not venturing beyond move 36. Even the Cambridge College league had adjudications notwithstanding the absence of travel issues.John Saunders wrote: Sorry, Roger, that anecdote was retailed for the sole purpose of teasing you. I do not harbour any resentment about it.
I don't have major objections to adjournments, or pausing the game for analysis as Bronstein put it. Many players in the more rural areas do though which is why it's mostly been abolished. The practical difficulty is that those without transport need to be able to play a game in one session.
- John Saunders
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
- Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Well, it's a hypothetical question and a matter of opinion but, no, I don't think that at all. I've a strong feeling that QPF play leads to superficiality. Few of us can play good chess at that pace and I cannot see how it can be truly said to develop your game. A solid diet of adjudicated chess didn't do our fellow members of Cambridge University CC any harm, did it? It was the strongest club in the country at the time and a good few of them went on to great things. The 1970 vintage CUCC elite would almost certainly have flattened any other Cambridge chess generation, before or since - and in those days there was no such thing as a QPF.Roger de Coverly wrote: You don't think that we would have been far better players at a much younger age if all those games had been played at G/75 or G/90? Club chess had this obsession with not venturing beyond move 36. Even the Cambridge College league had adjudications notwithstanding the absence of travel issues.
Fair enough - we've discussed the practical difficulties of second sessions on another thread. Dare I say it - perhaps this is a factor in why metropolitan-based chess tends to be a bit stronger than the rural variety.Roger de Coverly wrote: I don't have major objections to adjournments, or pausing the game for analysis as Bronstein put it. Many players in the more rural areas do though which is why it's mostly been abolished. The practical difficulty is that those without transport need to be able to play a game in one session.
Personal Twitter @johnchess
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)
-
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:30 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
John,
I agree that QPF endings are at best superficial, but I'm with Roger on whether it restricts developing ones game.
In the 70s I would have relied on picking up Fine's BCE at the end of the evening and finding the right diagram without ever needing to understand the ending. I remember a successful adjudication appeal in a game against Russell Granat where he had 2 rooks and I a queen with equal pawns. My analysis comprised of 3 moves and quoting Fine on the subject. However down at the club I could not defend the position in skittles. Recently, to meet the demands of QPF, I have learnt N+B+K v K and QvR specifically in case I need to play "superficially". While my openings remain dated, my endings have a more solid foundation.
I agree that QPF endings are at best superficial, but I'm with Roger on whether it restricts developing ones game.
In the 70s I would have relied on picking up Fine's BCE at the end of the evening and finding the right diagram without ever needing to understand the ending. I remember a successful adjudication appeal in a game against Russell Granat where he had 2 rooks and I a queen with equal pawns. My analysis comprised of 3 moves and quoting Fine on the subject. However down at the club I could not defend the position in skittles. Recently, to meet the demands of QPF, I have learnt N+B+K v K and QvR specifically in case I need to play "superficially". While my openings remain dated, my endings have a more solid foundation.
- John Saunders
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
- Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
The two endings you quote are both trivial to learn and rarely occur in practice anyway. I've never had either in 40 years of competitive chess. I am sure a lot of people think they are 'developing' their chess when they play QPFs but I'm sorry, I don't. Please don't misinterpret this as 'sticking up for adjudication' - it isn't. But the point remains that QPF isn't the universal panacea that its zealots seem to think. It's the chess equivalent of premature ejaculation - over too quickly, unsatisfying and does nothing for your technique. OK, so adjudication is like coitus interruptus - equally unsatisfying, ends abruptly and leaves you feeling frustrated. Adjournment is significantly better - at least you have the second date to look forward to when you can take the time to hone your technique and consummate the game in pleasurable fashion. I am surprised so many people prefer a 'quickie' to the real thing.Brian Valentine wrote:John,
I agree that QPF endings are at best superficial, but I'm with Roger on whether it restricts developing ones game.
In the 70s I would have relied on picking up Fine's BCE at the end of the evening and finding the right diagram without ever needing to understand the ending. I remember a successful adjudication appeal in a game against Russell Granat where he had 2 rooks and I a queen with equal pawns. My analysis comprised of 3 moves and quoting Fine on the subject. However down at the club I could not defend the position in skittles. Recently, to meet the demands of QPF, I have learnt N+B+K v K and QvR specifically in case I need to play "superficially". While my openings remain dated, my endings have a more solid foundation.
Personal Twitter @johnchess
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)