Adjournments and Adjudication

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
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 1:42 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? If it were so wonderful, it would surely have taken over completely by now, wouldn't it?
John,

I think you might better search for the reason in the composition of the average league committee; all retired, all bear more than a passing resemblance to Mr. Mainwaring. Their working days as bank clerks were not at all wasted, as they honed their skills at the black arts of stuffing meetings and committees with the like-minded, calling in favours, fixing agendas, writing minutes, filibustering, dragging things out until nothing happens, apart that is from a few youngsters expiring from mental inactivity. If they are set against QPF, and they usually are, "What, what did you say? Quick play finish? Well, harrumph, well the old ways were good enough for Staunton, my good man, what? For the life of me I cannot see the purpose in such a thing. Unthinkable. Harrumph," or "Quick play finish, don't panic, don't panic, Captain Mainwaring!", they will normally be more than fit to see off any half-hearted challenge.

The truth is that people who are less set in their ways, just have better things to do, than grow cobwebs on such committees.

Bit like the ECF writ small.

Regards,
Paul.
Last edited by Paul McKeown on Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 1:47 pm

Ernie Lazenby wrote:I guess those who dont like QPF in leagues would be happy for a game to be played over 5 hours! or even worse lets play on a weekend and devote an entire game to a full day then those who want to analise to the enth degreee can.
Ernie,

My experience is that, whilst there may be a number of strong, experienced players who prefer an adjournment (John Saunders, for instance), for the most part, the QPF haters tend to be weak, inexperienced players, who just don't have the confidence to play their blunders quickly. They tend to hope that their opponent will be discouraged after 30 moves and an adjournment and will give up the effort to beat them. Their peace overtures will be immediate.

Regards,
Paul McKeown
Last edited by Paul McKeown on Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 1:59 pm

Post deleted - something wierd happened with phpbb!

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 2:02 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?
Many parts of the country outside of London (and Birmingham) abolished both adjournments and adjudications years ago. Bucks was over ten years ago and Berks about five. In Berks in particular, there was elective quick play supported by a majority of players for a few years before that.

In any event, I suggested playing a game to a finish in one session. This doesn't have to mean QPF because venues and digital clocks permitting, it embraces delay and increment timings.

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 2:12 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote: 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.
Very good point, and one that goes to the heart of many arguments about chess, not just those about game-finish (e.g. all the arguments about the use of ultra-fast time controls for events such as the Olympiad, and the use of rapid and blitz games as a tie-break for world championships instead of the holder retaining the title in the event of a drawn match, etc). It is basically purists versus pragmatists. Personally, at club level I am in favour of choice and wouldn't want to see either party totally vanquish the other. Not always possible, of course, but at least in places like London and Birmingham players can choose between leagues which use different game-finish methods.

As Richard Bates has already said, the chess-related arguments against adjudication and adjournment are bunk. Game finish is entirely a question of convenience. It may be that, for newer players, the traditional ways of ending a game provide a gentler initiation into the game, when the priority is learning to play rather than getting results.

Paul, I know what you mean and share some of your cynicism about the composition of chess committees! I also know only too well how annoyingly difficult it can be to overcome 36-move adjudicationists. My scorebooks are full of grade-sapping draws where my (sadly not quite) irresistible force has failed to overcome an immoveable object. However, that's my own fault for continuing to play in low-status matches which aren't really suited to keen competition players with high grades, or not taking the trouble to adapt my style to rough them up a bit. I'm still pro-choice on this issue and I'm definitely against the ECF bringing a big stick to bear on it. Not that they are particularly expert in wielding such an instrument, so I'm not sure what I'm worried about, to be honest... :wink:
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)

J T Melsom
Posts: 1294
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by J T Melsom » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:16 pm

My experience is that age has very little to do with the preference for quickplay - some of the junior members of my club are amongst the slowest players. I do however sense that whilst some players enjoy the competitive challenge of the quickplay phase, and almost become positively energised by it, others see the reaching of the first time control and the adjustment of the clocks as a moment of concern and in some cases the moment to draw things to a premature end, before engaging in full and often messier combat.

David Williams
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Adjournments and Adjudication

Post by David Williams » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:21 pm

I've played a lot of chess as a relatively high-graded player in the lower divisions of my league. When adjudication was the order of the day I hated it, and was an advocate of quick-play finishes, for all the usual reasons. Then we changed to QPF - and I became a fan of adjudication.

Previously the object of the game was not to mate ones opponent. It was to achieve a won game after a set number of moves. Everyone had a pretty good idea what this meant. There were time scrambles, but few losses on time. At the end there would be a couple of games unfinished. Normally clear-cut, sometimes resolved after a second look at home and a phone call, occasionally by adjudication. And by and large both players would be satisfied that the result was 'right', based on the play, and the rules that were known and accepted before they began.

With QPF the first change is that you have to play more quickly. The session isn't any longer. So the standard of play drops. And even so, like it or not, many players can't or won't leave enough time to win or draw an end-game. The clock becomes the crucial factor in a large proportion of games. Blunders and flag-falls in won positions are commonplace. Frustrating for the loser, and not particularly satisfying for the winner.

Overall my impression is that, in the lower echelons at least, adjudication results in better play than QPF, and more satisfactory finishes (and satisfied players).

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 2:26 pm

J T Melsom wrote:My experience is that age has very little to do with the preference for quickplay - some of the junior members of my club are amongst the slowest players. I do however sense that whilst some players enjoy the competitive challenge of the quickplay phase, and almost become positively energised by it, others see the reaching of the first time control and the adjustment of the clocks as a moment of concern and in some cases the moment to draw things to a premature end, before engaging in full and often messier combat.
Indeed. The best example of an older player who prefers QPF is the forum's very own Roger de Coverly, who has perhaps had more to say against adjournment and adjudication here than the rest of his fellow abolitionists put together.

Where I am not pro-choice is when it comes to QPF versus adjourning to the bar. That one is a no-brainer.
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)

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 2:33 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:people who prefer adjournment or adjudication usually make reference to 'correctness' of play in some way.
Jonathan,

I have never seen "correct" play in all my days of playing chess. The concept is purely theoretical. Arguments based on its reification always seem overweeningly pious.

Actually, it's just an excuse, "I lost because I blundered because I had to play too quickly."

Fact is that they had to play more than 30 moves and they have programmed themselves to avoid undertaking any critical decisions before move 30. Force them to play on and they will eventually have to decide on a pawn break or the like. Rather upsets their plans. They will blunder in the second session or in the quick play finish, doesn't matter which it is, just they have the excuses ready in advance with the QPF.

Regards,
Paul McKeown

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 2:42 pm

John Saunders wrote:
Indeed. The best example of an older player who prefers QPF is the forum's very own Roger de Coverly,

As this debate dates back to the 1980s or earlier after Congresses had abandoned adjudications, I think I was a younger player when it started. :) The initial rule change for leagues was not QPF but adjournment. This was to eliminate or discourage the worst feature of adjudications, namely the player that rattles out 30 moves in 60 minutes and then stops. In effect by adopting adjournment, rural leagues were partially copying the rule set of the London League. If we (rural leagues) have now abandoned adjournments it's down to travel issues for those without personal transport and aversion to playing a second session against someone armed with computer analysis. Players also had increasing difficulty finding additional "chess time" for the second sessions.

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 2:44 pm

John Saunders wrote:abolitionists
Well, seeing as you put it that way, yes, I'm resolutely opposed to both slavery and the death penalty, too!

But, seriously, I wouldn't propose abolishing either adjudication or adjournment, they both have their place.

I would merely make the default a quick play finish. If two players preferred a second session, I certainly wouldn't be against that.

I do oppose adjudication, though, except for certain exceptional cases, such as blind players, catered for by, for instance, the London League. And, in cases of force majeure, such as the two players whose clocks were not set correctly, but didn't realise until far too late (as already discussed on another thread). I suggested they be allowed to adjourn, I think that very reasonable. Again, if the venue has been flooded by the radiator pipes bursting, to give an example, during a QPF, fine, I see no objection to the game being adjudicated.

So, no absolute ban, just that QPF be the default. I think most chess players would prefer that.

Regards,
Paul McKeown

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 2:45 pm

John Saunders wrote:Where I am not pro-choice is when it comes to QPF versus adjourning to the bar. That one is a no-brainer.

I'll drink to that.

Amen!

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 3:36 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: If we (rural leagues) have now abandoned adjournments it's down to travel issues for those without personal transport and aversion to playing a second session against someone armed with computer analysis.
Still not convinced that chess-related arguments against adjournment are bunk, I see (sigh).

Actually, you might be right (but for the wrong reason). I think certain elite professional players wanted rid of adjournments because their built-in unfair advantage had been eroded by computers. It wasn't that the use of computers was unfair - it was too fair! In the good old days, when they were the favoured Soviet hero of the hour, they had a team of seconds to do all the adjournment work for them. The poor sucker on the other side of the board, particularly if he were some impoverished Western GM, probably only had a copy of Reuben Fine's BCE (or, if he were an English GM, a BCF-sponsored second who was too busy writing his latest book to do any analysis :lol: ). But then suddenly the non-Soviets had databases and analysis engines, giving them a sporting chance against the Soviet hero. Our hero becomes paranoid about the power of the computer, sees his erstwhile built-in advantage disappear, decides enough is enough and that it is time to go for a one-session game. That's just my pet conspiracy theory, really, and I've not tried to dig up any evidence for it - what do people think?

As regards club chess, the computer analysis argument against adjournment is a non-starter. You have a computer. I have a computer. They cancel each other out. Anyone with adjournment experience knows that you are soon on your own as one or both of you will soon diverge or forget your analysis.
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)

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 4:03 pm

John Saunders wrote: As regards club chess, the computer analysis argument against adjournment is a non-starter. You have a computer. I have a computer. They cancel each other out.
The fact that you can consult a computer at all is the unfair bit. If I went around asking people for help on any other move, I'd be defaulted, and rightly so. But with adjournments, suddenly, you can use computers, GMs...

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 4:07 pm

John Saunders wrote:
As regards club chess, the computer analysis argument against adjournment is a non-starter. You have a computer. I have a computer. They cancel each other out. Anyone with adjournment experience knows that you are soon on your own as one or both of you will soon diverge or forget your analysis.
Ultimately compulsory adjournments were abolished in local leagues because AGMs voted against them. Whether the arguments against adjournments were rigorous or not, players no longer wanted them. Avoiding computer analysis by players more skilled at using a computer engine was one of the factors. I'm not sure everyone does have use of computer software though. The (accidental) rubbish I see played in openings indicates otherwise.

Pure speculation, but I'm wondering whether retention of adjournments (and sometimes adjudications) in some leagues is down to the rules being determined by a rules subcommittee rather than in the more open debate of an AGM.

Post Reply