Adjournments and Adjudication
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Given most players won't venture much beyond League chess, their endgame play will always be rushed, and they might always make mistakes. It may not help them develop their game, but if the peak of their play is Division Four of the local league, and they always have QP, and play in Congresses with QP, they'll not know any different. These players are unlikely to develop into board 1s for a Division One 4NCL team.
Endgames tend to be the last bit of the game a chess player learns. I regularly play against people who can play equally against me in the middle game, but capitulate in the endgame. This is true if they have 20 minutes to play it or 3 days. In some cases, they simply don't know what to do.
This is why learning how to play the endgame properly (albeit, generically) beforehand is better than stopping half-way through, working out/getting other people to tell them what to do, and carrying on.
Regarding KBN v K, playing on the night, I reckon most league players in lower divisions don't know it. Adjourn/adjudicate, and the game will be lost.
Endgames tend to be the last bit of the game a chess player learns. I regularly play against people who can play equally against me in the middle game, but capitulate in the endgame. This is true if they have 20 minutes to play it or 3 days. In some cases, they simply don't know what to do.
This is why learning how to play the endgame properly (albeit, generically) beforehand is better than stopping half-way through, working out/getting other people to tell them what to do, and carrying on.
Regarding KBN v K, playing on the night, I reckon most league players in lower divisions don't know it. Adjourn/adjudicate, and the game will be lost.
- John Saunders
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
- Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
From my experience, the players that Alex accurately describes are often the ones who prefer adjudication to other forms of game finish and play a significant part in its retention. They don't want to have their endgame shortcomings exposed to scrutiny and would rather someone else decide for them. They are generally insecure about their game and prefer a leisurely half-game to a frantic complete game. They are frightened of the new and may even cling to descriptive notation and other vestiges of a bygone age.
This can be very frustrating for the rest of us who see self-improvement as a vital factor in playing but we have to be respectful and cater for their needs as they are chessplayers too. I suspect that very few of the above category come here to talk chess with us, or even 'lurk' and read what we write. They are only interested in playing 'a bit of chess', perhaps because they have busy jobs or other interests, and that is precisely what they get - a bit of chess (opening, middlegame but no endgame).
Where I suspect we forum posters disagree is as regards what to do about these conflicting demands. Some would legislate adjudication out of existence at the federal level (we recently learnt here that they did this in Scotland) but this might have a knock-on effect in losing a significant number of players who didn't take to having 'their chess' radically altered by federal decree. I think that is heavy-handed. The ECF doesn't need new enemies and clubs can't afford to lose any more players. I think it is better to leave well alone and let individual leagues decide their own policy democratically.
Alex and others think that the opposite applies - that prospective players are lost to leagues because they don't like adjournment or adjudication. They are probably right too. It's a dilemma and not easily quantified or resolved. It may ultimately be decided by anno domini - as older players drop off the perch, perhaps the pro-QPF lobby will become the majority and vote in their preferred game finish at club/league AGMs. But let's not close the door on adjournment where appropriate.
This can be very frustrating for the rest of us who see self-improvement as a vital factor in playing but we have to be respectful and cater for their needs as they are chessplayers too. I suspect that very few of the above category come here to talk chess with us, or even 'lurk' and read what we write. They are only interested in playing 'a bit of chess', perhaps because they have busy jobs or other interests, and that is precisely what they get - a bit of chess (opening, middlegame but no endgame).
Where I suspect we forum posters disagree is as regards what to do about these conflicting demands. Some would legislate adjudication out of existence at the federal level (we recently learnt here that they did this in Scotland) but this might have a knock-on effect in losing a significant number of players who didn't take to having 'their chess' radically altered by federal decree. I think that is heavy-handed. The ECF doesn't need new enemies and clubs can't afford to lose any more players. I think it is better to leave well alone and let individual leagues decide their own policy democratically.
Alex and others think that the opposite applies - that prospective players are lost to leagues because they don't like adjournment or adjudication. They are probably right too. It's a dilemma and not easily quantified or resolved. It may ultimately be decided by anno domini - as older players drop off the perch, perhaps the pro-QPF lobby will become the majority and vote in their preferred game finish at club/league AGMs. But let's not close the door on adjournment where appropriate.
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: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Correct, the Birmingham League passed a rule legalising it.John Saunders wrote:They are frightened of the new and may even cling to descriptive notation and other vestiges of a bygone age.
-
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Cumbria
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
I find that interesting - I play chess to enjoy the game, and whilst I would like to improve it is not a driving factor for me.John Saunders wrote:This can be very frustrating for the rest of us who see self-improvement as a vital factor in playing
-
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
I fear I may have misled with previous remarks. To clarify (having actually checked the Chess Scotland Rules )John Saunders wrote:Some would legislate adjudication out of existence at the federal level (we recently learnt here that they did this in Scotland) but this might have a knock-on effect in losing a significant number of players who didn't take to having 'their chess' radically altered by federal decree. I think that is heavy-handed.
Adjudications are permitted for telephone matches in the (Scottish) national club cup competitions - which are run more or less on a knock-out basis. This is a restriction from the position of 30 years ago (before Quick-play finishes were the norm). Adjudications are also permitted in some officially sanctioned Schools competitions, such as the Scotsman trophy. (Adult) telephone matches are pretty rare. I can't comment on Schools competitions.
Chess Scotland would be reluctant to dictate to its affiliated organisations (such as regional leagues) how they run their business, so I guess if any league or club wanted to have adjudications or adjournments they could. I agree that to legislate against this particular freedom would be inappropriate and heavy handed. There are 10 chess leagues affiliated to Chess Scotland - 6 of those I know do not have adjournments/adjuducations. I'll investigate the other four.
However, to re-iterate, the vast majority of adult chess in Scotland is now played at a single sessions with QP finishes or under incremental time controls.
- John Saunders
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
- Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Alistair, I didn't have anything you have written in mind. I was thinking of this comment from Andy Howie...
If Andy was referring to the AGM of Chess Scotland (and not that of an affiliate), then the ban on rating adjudicated games effectively puts an end to adjudication itself since players generally want their games rated. Perhaps you could double-check?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.
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: 379
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Sorry - didn't spot that quote - I wouldn't dare argue with Andy I'm sure that he is correct on the AGM, and that your conclusion is also valid. I'll query any potential conflict with the rules of the Richardson Cup, although one might assume that an adjudicated game, whilst not outlawed per se would not be graded.John Saunders wrote:Alistair, I didn't have anything you have written in mind. I was thinking of this comment from Andy Howie...
If Andy was referring to the AGM of Chess Scotland (and not that of an affiliate), then the ban on rating adjudicated games effectively puts an end to adjudication itself since players generally want their games rated. Perhaps you could double-check?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: 5802
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
I found myself with BN v K in a Cup match (compulsory QPF) in Surrey this year, and about 3 minutes left to do it. Luckily the opponent was also short of time and managed to nullify my errors, so I won. (The noise from digital clocks and resulting applause rather upset board one in the other match...) At least I would have had a good excuse if I'd messed it up. It would have been drawn on adjudication as the position was quite level after a "normal" number of moves.
The real downside with adjournments is the inordinate time spent trying to persuade opponents to play on, and the number of times that the game terminates withing a few moves of resumption. And of course the number of times the opponent doesn't bother to turn up for the second session...
The real downside with adjournments is the inordinate time spent trying to persuade opponents to play on, and the number of times that the game terminates withing a few moves of resumption. And of course the number of times the opponent doesn't bother to turn up for the second session...
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
When I first started playing I used descriptive, I then changed over to algebraic, but when FIDE made it mandatory I was very tempted to revert back!John Saunders wrote:They are frightened of the new and may even cling to descriptive notation and other vestiges of a bygone age.
I only play one league that has adjournments and have no complaints, if it was good enough for Smyslov ...
Gary
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:32 pm
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
Would not dare argue with Andy, I'm printing that one outAlistair Campbell wrote:Sorry - didn't spot that quote - I wouldn't dare argue with Andy I'm sure that he is correct on the AGM, and that your conclusion is also valid. I'll query any potential conflict with the rules of the Richardson Cup, although one might assume that an adjudicated game, whilst not outlawed per se would not be graded.
Yes was last years Chess Scotland AGM AOCB
beenJunior Board Proposal 1 ‘That games that are decided by adjudication should not be allowed to be graded’
Proposer: Jacqui Thomas
Seconded: Andy Howie
After some discussion, The motion was carried on a show of hands, by an overwhelming majority
The practice has not been outlawed however we will not grade a game that has been adjudicated.
-
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:54 pm
- Location: Surrey
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
All this is true… but another downside of adjournments is that they take up another evening in what may be a crowded schedule. If you're playing lots of league games and you also have other commitments such as a family, then you'll be reluctant to give up another evening for an adjournment. Also, there's the hassle of travelling a second time to an inconvenient venue in the further reaches of the Surrey League, or the Border League, or wherever.Kevin Thurlow wrote:
The real downside with adjournments is the inordinate time spent trying to persuade opponents to play on, and the number of times that the game terminates withing a few moves of resumption. And of course the number of times the opponent doesn't bother to turn up for the second session...
In the Civil Service League, adjudication is the default option and is chosen by most players. Some choose a quickplay finish. No-one chooses adjournment these days – it must be years and years since anyone did.
- IM Jack Rudd
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
I remember the AGM at which the Somerset league abolished adjudications. Everyone was vaguely surprised that they were still techically allowed by the league rules.
- John Saunders
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
- Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
JamesJames Toon wrote:All this is true… but another downside of adjournments is that they take up another evening in what may be a crowded schedule. If you're playing lots of league games and you also have other commitments such as a family, then you'll be reluctant to give up another evening for an adjournment. Also, there's the hassle of travelling a second time to an inconvenient venue in the further reaches of the Surrey League, or the Border League, or wherever.Kevin Thurlow wrote:
The real downside with adjournments is the inordinate time spent trying to persuade opponents to play on, and the number of times that the game terminates withing a few moves of resumption. And of course the number of times the opponent doesn't bother to turn up for the second session...
In the Civil Service League, adjudication is the default option and is chosen by most players. Some choose a quickplay finish. No-one chooses adjournment these days – it must be years and years since anyone did.
I think the reason nobody chooses adjournment in the Civil Service League is because most people who play in that league are unaware that it is still allowed under the league rules. I for one was completely unaware that it was allowed until I looked up the rules just now - it came as a surprise, despite three decades of playing in that league. However, it is only allowed when both players want to do it and it sounds like the decision on game finish is (or can be) made after the first session has finished (there is no stipulation about "agreed in advance" as there is for a QPF). This is a key point and is probably the real reason why it never happens. You very rarely get a situation where both players want to play an adjournment once they can see the final position after the first session. If the position is clear-cut, someone will resign or a draw will be agreed. But normally only one player will want to play on. It will often be the player with the better position but then the player with the worse position will be more likely to put their faith in the adjudicator to give them a draw. Of course, if a player is significantly worse (but not absolutely lost), they may want to play on - but then the opponent with the much better game may expect the adjudicator to win the game for them! So it is the inadequate nature of the rule that has put a stop to adjournment in that particular league. You are much more likely to get an adjournment in leagues which demand that players mutually agree the method of game finish at the beginning of the game. And, of course, where geography and the inadequacy of transport don't militate against players wanting to do it.
Re your other points: we've already discussed the issue of the practical inconvenience of adjournments so you are not saying anything new. It is obviously a major factor.
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: 1298
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Cumbria
- Contact:
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
One correction - in the Surrey league an adjourned game is played on at the other club - so if the first match was away, the second is at home.James Toon wrote:All this is true… but another downside of adjournments is that they take up another evening in what may be a crowded schedule. If you're playing lots of league games and you also have other commitments such as a family, then you'll be reluctant to give up another evening for an adjournment. Also, there's the hassle of travelling a second time to an inconvenient venue in the further reaches of the Surrey League, or the Border League, or wherever.Kevin Thurlow wrote:
The real downside with adjournments is the inordinate time spent trying to persuade opponents to play on, and the number of times that the game terminates withing a few moves of resumption. And of course the number of times the opponent doesn't bother to turn up for the second session...
In the Civil Service League, adjudication is the default option and is chosen by most players. Some choose a quickplay finish. No-one chooses adjournment these days – it must be years and years since anyone did.
My preferred finish is always Quickplay (I want to finish the game on the night), but I accept the Surrey '3 way' compromise: before the start of the game, the away player offers two out of QPF, adjournment or adjudication. The home player then takes his preference of the two offered. So when playing away I always offer QPF or adjournment. I think all my away games have been agreed QPF!
-
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: Adjournments and Adjudication
From what I have been reading, is that many leagues don't seem to have clear rules about adjournments and adjudications
In the Manchester League a few years ago we clarified our rules to the following
1) QP finish is the default position
2) If all players agree then adjournments are allowed (individual boards cannot differ to the rest of match)
3) If a adjournment occurs the "visiting/away" player has to offer 3 dates within 14 days, if a player doesn't offer these dates he loses, and if a player doesn't accept one of these dates he loses
4) Adjudication can only be claimed if 60 moves have been completed
With the QP being the default position, it is now non-existant the adjournments occur
Alan
In the Manchester League a few years ago we clarified our rules to the following
1) QP finish is the default position
2) If all players agree then adjournments are allowed (individual boards cannot differ to the rest of match)
3) If a adjournment occurs the "visiting/away" player has to offer 3 dates within 14 days, if a player doesn't offer these dates he loses, and if a player doesn't accept one of these dates he loses
4) Adjudication can only be claimed if 60 moves have been completed
With the QP being the default position, it is now non-existant the adjournments occur
Alan