Adjournments and Adjudication

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
PaulTalbot
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:43 am

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by PaulTalbot » Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:34 pm

I personally don't think that games that have been adjourned and finished on a later date should be allowed to be graded as it cannot be certain that the players involved have not consulted other players or a chess computer regarding the position. How can someone be awarded grading points when they may have been told how to draw or win a position by their club's best player or by a computer?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:19 pm

PaulTalbot wrote:personally don't think that games that have been adjourned and finished on a later date should be allowed to be graded as it cannot be certain that the players involved have not consulted other players
Well that probably destroys all historic ratings, including world championships, before about 1993.
PaulTalbot wrote:How can someone be awarded grading points when they may have been told how to draw or win a position by their club's best player or by a computer?
Grading only ever measures results, not quality of play. Grading of adjourned games or adjudicated games in effect includes a measure of how good the player is at these black arts.

One day, if the ECF directors have the courage, they should put a motion to one of the annual Council meetings which in its weakest possible form would say that the ECF recommends that all competition rules should state that at least one of the players should be able to insist that the game be played to a finish in one session. I'm not sure what the odds are on such a motion either being proposed or passed. :)

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:29 pm

I would be happy to propose it, if I had the right to do so. I am fairly confident it will fail. The Birmingham League would vote against it - and they have 6 votes in their own right.

Interestingly, there might be enough votes coming from places who aren't involved in League chess at all who might also oppose it. E.g. Member congresses.

Such is the structure of the ECF that the rule may get decided by people whom it does not concern. E.g. I have a vote on behalf of BUCA. BUCA doesn't really care about such a motion, because all the events are QP finish anyway. Personally, I would vote for it, but I can't. People would be voting for their own opinions, rather than on behalf of the organisations they're there to represent.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:22 pm

"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."

Another practical difficulty for adjournments in the CS League, is that most venues require the name(s) of the visiting player(s) to be notified in advance (for security reasons), and clubs only meet when there is a match. So unless the visiting player is playing someone who works in the building where the adjournment is being played, AND has the key to the equipment cupboard, it is a bit of a problem... It is difficult enough getting into some venues when there are eight of you turning up!
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

James Toon
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by James Toon » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:32 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Another practical difficulty for adjournments in the CS League, is that most venues require the name(s) of the visiting player(s) to be notified in advance (for security reasons), and clubs only meet when there is a match. So unless the visiting player is playing someone who works in the building where the adjournment is being played, AND has the key to the equipment cupboard, it is a bit of a problem... It is difficult enough getting into some venues when there are eight of you turning up!
There is some scope for co-operation between clubs here. If the two players agree on a date, and neither of their clubs has a home match on that night, it should be possible to play on at the venue of a third club that does have one. If adjournments were a practical possibility, I don't see why this shouldn't happen.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Joey Stewart » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:49 am

You know, there might be some favourable arguements in the case of adjournments (as misguided as they may be) but I cannot see any purpose to this stupid adjudication - what if I were to nick a gambit pawn in the opening, play right up to the end of my theory in the middlegame then wander off for the next hour or so and come back and request that they run the position through a computer which would nullify every tactical shot the opposition threw at me until the position was declared a win for me!

What about if a piece is sacrificed for a nice looking attack, with lots of tricks and traps for the opposition to navigate, surely easier for him to just let the clock run down and then let fritz decide the outcome on his behalf (as, OBVIOUSLY, he would have spotted every defensive resource possible under time pressure).

No, there is nothing in favour of the adjudication, if players want to finish a game on the night then they should be playing shorter time controls or not at all if they cant handle the pressure - after all, presure is what this game is all about!
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:56 am

Joey Stewart wrote:what if I were to nick a gambit pawn in the opening, play right up to the end of my theory in the middlegame then wander off for the next hour or so and come back and request that they run the position through a computer which would nullify every tactical shot the opposition threw at me until the position was declared a win for me!
Apart from the computer bit, that's the way that British club (and county) chess used to be played and still is here and there. If you played the Benko or the Marshall, you had to hope that the adjudicator understood the concept of potentially drawn (or better) endings even if a pawn down.

Joey Stewart wrote:What about if a piece is sacrificed for a nice looking attack, with lots of tricks and traps for the opposition to navigate, surely easier for him to just let the clock run down and then let fritz decide the outcome on his behalf (as, OBVIOUSLY, he would have spotted every defensive resource possible under time pressure).
Yes - that as well. You had to make the first time control of course. In some leagues this was as low a move number as 30. It did often force the "stronger" player to use devious non-theory openings to force weaker opponents onto their own resources at the earliest possible stage.
Joey Stewart wrote:No, there is nothing in favour of the adjudication, if players want to finish a game on the night then they should be playing shorter time controls or not at all if they cant handle the pressure - after all, presure is what this game is all about!
There is something in what you say. After all you could use a move rate of 60 moves in 90 minutes followed by adjudication. For many games, this would be the same as all moves in 90 minutes with the possible advantages of a safe haven if you can count the moves and no 10.2 claims. Do you see those leagues that cling to adjudication adopting such move rates? No, the fastest move rate out there is 42 moves in 90 minutes.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:33 am

I had a game last night where I managed to get to the endgame a piece up and completely won. My opponent played on a bit, perhaps hoping to swap his Bishop and three pawns for my three pawns, and I'd be left with KNB v K. At about 9:40, we'd made the time control and I had about half an hour more on my clock. I was quite within my rights to just sit there until 10pm, still have more time than him, and seal a harmless move, knowing full well that he wouldn't be bothered to turn up for the second session. (As it happens, he resigned a couple of moves later.)

That situation is why adjournments have no place in League chess in 2010.

I later found out that since the team went on to lead 3 1/2 - 2, winning the match (we had a half point handicap for being in a lower division), I could have just waited until 10:15, still been fine on the clock, and claimed an adjudication, guaranteeing the win.

This situation is why adjudications have no place in League chess in 2010.

User avatar
John Saunders
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Contact:

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by John Saunders » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:28 pm

As always, lots of "anti" propaganda from the adjudophobes and adjournophobes. If Joey S thinks it is all so easy to exploit the loopholes of adjudicated chess, why doesn't he show it by winning lots of games and zooming up the grading list? Alex presents us with two run-of-the-mill match situations and then makes two bald assertions based on what looks like insufficient evidence. Nothing to convince a league committee there, I think.

What the two categories of adj...ophobes always fail to mention is the ongoing unpopularity of QPF. Can anyone explain this? If it were so wonderful, it would surely have taken over completely by now, wouldn't it? After all, it has been around for decades. But the fact is that it remains unpopular with significant numbers of players who don't like the abrupt and artificial change of gear from slow to fast chess mid-game. They are often the less experienced, occasional players with low levels of self-confidence, or they might be older players who are conservative in their chess tastes. They like a sedate (half) game without the high-octane excitement of QPF where clock handling counts for more than chess skill. The anti-QPF group may also include stronger and more ambitious players who realise that QPF leads to superficiality, and who relish the chance to play the whole game at the same rate at a second session.

Fewer people play league chess these days than in years gone by. It is possible that the advent of QPF may have been a factor in this. For anyone new to chess, I suspect that initiation into the horrors of QPF could be very off-putting and might well drive them away from the game. QPF might be right for typical visitors to this forum but is it necessarily right for the whole chess population?
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)

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:38 pm

John Saunders wrote:...What the two categories of adj...ophobes always fail to mention is the ongoing unpopularity of QPF. Can anyone explain this?
I suspect Ernie's word "competitive" in the post above yours is important here.

My own preference for adjudication or adjournment or quickplay finish has shifted back and forth over the years but in talking to people about it I've noticed a few common themes emerging:-

people who prefer quickplay finishes tend to see the game they are to play as a competitive experience. It's about winning or losing, not necessarily about playing 'well' in some sense.

people who prefer adjournment or adjudication usually make reference to 'correctness' of play in some way. It's about trying to play as well as possible for them.

E.g.

discussing different finishes with a guy from another club recently I said that I preferred quickplay finishes because I got the chance to play endgames. My quickplay finish games simply go on longer (in terms of number of moves) than my adjournments or adjudications.

He replied something along the lines of "yes but they're rubbish moves" - because you're making them with your flag hanging.


Quickplay finishes amplify the competitive nature of the contest and that, I think, is why some people don't like them. It's certainly a very harsh way to spend your evenings - especially if you're tired after a day's work.

johnmcbride
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:18 pm

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by johnmcbride » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:52 pm

I am sorry, but there should be no room for such things in this day and age. Computer analysis afterwards should mean that if you have a reasonable advantage at adjournment, it will be followed through after resumption. A game continued to the end in one go will often be won by the person making the 2nd last mistake. Even the best grandmasters make mistakes, so it is something we have to live with as part of the game.

My experience of adjournments occurred some years ago when I used to play in the Blackpool and Fylde League. QP finish had to be agreed by both players, or adjournments was the default. I do not know if that is still the case. My opponent a Mr D W, was winning out of the opening, he quickly got to move 30 and then just sat there for well over an hour. That way he could guarantee sealing a move in a winning position and had zero risk of messing it up. Is that supposed to be a better way to play chess? Most games just get started after move 30. I was not happy that he had wasted my evening and was blatantly abusing the system. Getting on a bus and walking a distance to go to him and playing on a worse position was not an option, and he knew it.

All I can say is that if you like adjournments, then correspondence chess is the way forward for you.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:57 pm

Adjournments suit older players, and quickplay finishes suit younger players.

For instance, I'm in the process of entering an Aston University team into the Cannock League for next season. It's far easier for me to do this than enter the Birmingham League, even though we're on the edge of the allowed region. When I go to my Guild to ask for some funding, I can give them the exact number of times we may require transport. The players know exactly how many times the players themselves are required. Even though some matches are 20 miles away in Cannock and Stafford, it's actually much easier to arrange a team to play in it. Tough for me to play, but for campus-living people, it's fine.

The Birmingham League had exclusively adjournments since 1897, and has had mainly adjournments since the 1980s. Quickplay Finishes are rare, and can only be played between teams who want them. Yet the League has still reduced in half. What was the biggest junior club in Birmingham once had 40+ members (as recently as five years ago), now has about 10-15. Those are far more important factors than adjournments/adjudications. Indeed, most players in Birmingham play in one Quickplay league, and one Adjournment league. So they have no categoric opposition to Quickplay Finishes.

In 2010, chess is going the way of quickplay, and clock handling is a part of chess that every junior is well-versed with. Times have moved on from the days when adjournments were de rigour. While it may not be universally acclaimed at the moment, I'd have thought it was better to be ahead of the curve, not behind it.

Angus French
Posts: 2149
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Angus French » Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:27 pm

My take, FWIW:

Generally I prefer not to have a QPF in a league match as I can too easily ruin a game I might have invested some hours in. Where I have an option, such as in the Surrey League, I often chose adjournment. If a game is unfinished at the end of a session it's often not played on (as the players will agree a result), but, if it is, I like spending time on adjournment positions and I hope that I can learn from them.

There are guidelines attached to the FIDE Laws of Chess for adjournments - so they're certainly not outlawed.

Those who call for the imposition of QPFs ought, I think, to consider what effect such a change would have on those who (at least) dislike QPFs: I'd suggest that a sizeable population of chess players may be alienated.

The Surrey League has an interesting, if slightly complex, rule to determine the type of game played between two players: the away players offers a choice of two from QPF, adjournment or adjudication and the home player chooses one of the two. That way, both players are assured of not getting the type of game they least want.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:32 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:Adjournments suit older players, and quickplay finishes suit younger players.
Cobblers!

That statement is bunkum.

You just had to be sitting on the next board to Bob Wade in his 80's to know how untrue that statement is.

Bob had always been a quick player throughout his life, but as he got older, he just found that he couldn't sit at the board for hours, so he just played quicker still. At the 4NCL, I saw him clocking his opponents on a regular basis, an hour up before move 40. I once even saw him two hours up before move 60. In the London League I even saw him spectacularly an hour up before move 36 in a time control of 36 in 1 hour 30 minutes - that on several occasions. He was an absolute monster in the endgame, it didn't matter whether it was a 15 minute QPF or a 20 minute QPF or a 30 minute QPF or another hour to move 60 followed by a half hour, he always outplayed his opponents in whatever time he had. I remember one particular queen ending in the 4NCL, which he entered 3 pawns down and emerged ultimately the victor. He had no problem with a QPF, even at a great age.

He was certainly not alone in this: I can think of several other old players, some now passed on, some still with us, who were, or are, all fantastic players at QPF, and who all preferred the convenience of getting the thing finished without any fuss.

Sorry, but cobblers!

Paul McKeown

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by Alex Holowczak » Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:37 pm

Clarification then,

Quickplay Finishes suit younger players. Young players will hate the concept of adjournments. Older players will prefer adjournments by comparison.

Post Reply