Adjournments and Adjudication

[IanDavis]

I did wish to question, though, whether or not such a signature appended to each of his postings aided communication on most threads

Why would you imagine that one would choose a signature so as to aid communication on each thread that you contributed to? That does seems rather implausible to me.

[Paul McKeown]

Dear Ian,

I suppose I should apologise for laying it on a bit heavy yesterday evening, no harm was intended, it just seemed from your first post that you were suggesting that myself or Richard James or Richard Eales were fabricating; it only became apparent later that you were suggesting that Staunton might have been lying. I am interested in establishing the truth, as to whether or not Staunton was telling porkies about Elijah Williams. I will start a thread in the history section - probably tomorrow - and post some links to some Google Books which I have been reading. The 1851 tournament report is really quite fascinating, to tell the truth. I fear I might have to spend some time down at the Newspaper Collection at Colindale to nail this one, one way or the other. I should say that I remain unconvinced that Staunton was lying about Williams taking hours over moves, but I am, of course, open to contrary evidence. I think it should be born in mind that the London Chess Club had been strongly opposed to the 1851 tournament being run largely by the St. Georges Club, who were younger and had grown much larger very quickly. It seems to me that the London Club did not wish to be eclipsed in glory. There was an element in the London Club that by 1852 were clearly very ill disposed to Staunton. Staunton implied in the tournament book that Williams took inordinate time over his moves when the danger of a loss was looming; bear in mind the enormous stakes that were being played for, genuinely vast amounts of money by the standards of those days. Williams match in 1852 would have been, in contrast, for piffling stakes, which would have made a potential loss smart rather less. If you are interested, I would be delighted to explore this together.

Regards,
Paul McKeown

[Paul McKeown]

I did wish to question, though, whether or not such a signature appended to each of his postings aided communication on most threads

Why would you imagine that one would choose a signature so as to aid communication on each thread that you contributed to? That does seems rather implausible to me.

Ian.

No - I don't suppose he does. My point is that it rather gets in the way, because it pokes one in the eye every time one reads one of his posts.

Regards,
Paul.

[IanDavis]

Bring back adjournments...and get rid of those pesky clocks. Why should chess move with the times?

Reading this thread brought a memory back to the front of mind. This is jumping off into a different game, but it is probably the most extreme example of adjournment abuse in the world, ever. See short summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honinb%C5% ... _Go_Seigen

[Alex Holowczak]

The British Go Open is being played this weekend, with time limits of 50 minutes + 30 moves in 5 minutes overtime. The theoretical number of moves in a game of Go is 180 (but won't, making all those moves is bad). So the game can't last more than about 2 hours 20, assuming that 0 moves are made in the initial 50 minutes. This is a pretty violent example of a quickplay finish!

[David Williams]

Things have changed in Go then. I know next to nothing about the game, but I somehow have an old book on the subject (by Edward Lasker, no less). He mentions that in tournaments they often played ten hours a day. The book contains a famous game from 1926 between Karigane and Honinbo. The annotation includes such gems as "Move 53. In the forenoon of the second day only three moves were made in two hours", and "Move 65. Black deliberated three hours before making his next move, obvious as it seems to us ordinary mortals". I would have assumed that there were no clocks, until Move 255, when Karigane resigned because he only had ten minutes left!

[PaulTalbot]

"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."

I know of one adjournment where one player memorised every reasonable line 12 moves deep.


"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..."

Absolutely right.


"your arguments about it being 'unfair' simply don't stand up to scrutiny."

Of course it's unfair. I want to play against another person, not another person & his computer & all his mates. There are some chess clubs who have a members only section on their internet pages for players to post adjourned positions so that the whole club can devote time to giving advice. How can this be right? How can it not be cheating?

If 2 players both agree to play a time control with a possible adjourned finish (& all that goes with that i.e. second session, computer analysis) then that is their choice, I have no problem with it. I just do not think that adjournment should ever be the default option.


"They don't even let a gang of players propose a rule change, let alone vote for one!"

I understand your frustrations of AGM's. At our AGM last year (WDCL) the league secretary neglected to send written copies of all the proposals to all the clubs 6 weeks before the meeting. Therefore, even though everyone received a printout of the proposals at the meeting, and even though the majority of proposals had been discussed on clubs websites and forums for months running up to the meeting, some people objected and got the AGM abandoned. I suppose that technically they were correct but I think that they were definitely morally wrong. They used a technicality to not only prevent any change but to even prevent discussion. Everyone (apart from those who sabotaged the meeting) went home feeling annoyed and frustrated and as you may guess the main change that these saboteurs were determined to prevent was the proposal that QPF became the default time option.
Adjournments are from the past, they no longer fit into today's society. My son is home from university. He will play a match for our club just 3 days before he goes back to uni. How can he finish that match if it ends up adjourned? Surely common sense tells us that QPF should be the default option and adjournments only played when both players agree.

[Richard Bates]

I don't really understand the argument put by some on the thread that "QPFs are good because you get more endings". Whilst that may be factually correct, what is the point? The great attraction of endgame play is that the limited material creates real possibilities for analysis, and unlike earlier in the game a search for the "truth" of the position can be attempted. This is true whether playing the position at the board, or analysing it prior to the adjournment.

Adjournment analysis is fun, and more so than standard post-game analysis because the outcome can actually have an influence on the result.

[PaulTalbot]

One of the problems is that people 'search for the truth' using a computer.

[Alex Holowczak]

It seems I have not been the only one starting a mini-coup.

I discovered today that four or five clubs have submitted the same proposal. Even staunch adjournment clubs in the Birmingham League support the idea of making the default option quickplay finish, having been convinced of the arguments, apparently.

The Records Secretary for the Birmingham League had passed the number of adjournment sessions played in Division Five and Division Six this season, and there were less than 10. So while all the teams are voting for adjournments, the games never get that far anyway, or are settled on the night by captains wheeling and dealing to avoid the adjournment, or by players offering draws/resigning over the phone. So why are they voting for them in the first place?! Divisions Five and Six of the League are the ones who tend to be overwhelmingly in favour of adjournments, and without them, the League would have probably been able to pass this proposal years ago.

There are 61 teams in the Birmingham League, and 5 Officers also get a vote. The Quickplay-Adjournment election was won 32-29 by adjournments last season. The five officers have at least a 3-0 lead for adjournments, not sure how the other two stand. So it'll be about 32-32 depending on how those two vote... If the others have been convinced to pass the vote, then it could tip the scales in favour of Quickplays.

[Alex Holowczak]

I don't really understand the argument put by some on the thread that "QPFs are good because you get more endings". Whilst that may be factually correct, what is the point? The great attraction of endgame play is that the limited material creates real possibilities for analysis, and unlike earlier in the game a search for the "truth" of the position can be attempted. This is true whether playing the position at the board, or analysing it prior to the adjournment.

Adjournment analysis is fun, and more so than standard post-game analysis because the outcome can actually have an influence on the result.

The great attraction of endgame play for an IM who is used to playing 7-hour long games is that you can find the truth of the position. The same is not true for 150-graded "patzers" who just want a game of chess. The only reason people want adjournments in League chess is because they have no confidence in their ability to play the game. They want the buffer of extra time to make sure they're avoiding howlers. Do you need five hours to make sure you're not leaving a piece en prise?

It's exactly because adjournment analysis influences the result that it should be outlawed.

Besides, adjournment analysis is fun if you have the time to spend on it. If you have a job, family, the last thing you want to do is spend a few hours consulting an endgame.

[Richard Bates]

I don't really understand the argument put by some on the thread that "QPFs are good because you get more endings". Whilst that may be factually correct, what is the point? The great attraction of endgame play is that the limited material creates real possibilities for analysis, and unlike earlier in the game a search for the "truth" of the position can be attempted. This is true whether playing the position at the board, or analysing it prior to the adjournment.

Adjournment analysis is fun, and more so than standard post-game analysis because the outcome can actually have an influence on the result.

The great attraction of endgame play for an IM who is used to playing 7-hour long games is that you can find the truth of the position. The same is not true for 150-graded "patzers" who just want a game of chess. The only reason people want adjournments in League chess is because they have no confidence in their ability to play the game. They want the buffer of extra time to make sure they're avoiding howlers. Do you need five hours to make sure you're not leaving a piece en prise?

It's exactly because adjournment analysis influences the result that it should be outlawed.

Besides, adjournment analysis is fun if you have the time to spend on it. If you have a job, family, the last thing you want to do is spend a few hours consulting an endgame.

Well my post was really about endgames, not adjournments, but anyway.

Anybody who can't find an hour to analyse an endgame probably can't spare the time to do any study away from the board so is anyway at a disadvantage. Perhaps we should ban chessbase and opening books? And a bit less time spent on here should free up another few hours Significant job and family commitments tend to rule out the playing of the chess in the first place. Although it's the family that's the killer.

BTW i would never use the word "patzer" - i don't know why you demean yourself so.

[David Pardoe]

That's his "signature", it appears on all his posts regardless of what he says.

Presumably, it's supposed to be used for things like "Regards, Paul McKeown", so you don't have to bother typing it. Yet still people type it.

Don't see the point of that too much in a forum environment, the name of the poster is already on-screen in two places near to the post you've just written anyway...

Dear Alex,

I was delighted to receive your correspondence at 12:56 p.m., this inst., however, it leads me to feel that you took my previous correspondence at 12:26 p.m., this inst., too literally and without the necessary grain of curmudgeonly sarcasm.

My previous correspondence, addressed to the person of "David Pardoe," was written perfectly in the knowledge that his monniker, "BRING BACK THE BCF," was generated automatically. I did wish to question, though, whether or not such a signature appended to each of his postings aided communication on most threads, which on the face of it, generally have little to do with the perceived benefits of returning to a "British" rather than an "English" titled federation. My view, which I suppose I shall now have to spell out, is that whilst that may be David Pardoe's view, it doesn't generally help acceptance of his epistles, as it is a controversial opinion which rather demands the readers attention, particularly due to the capitalisation of the motto, every time one reads his posts, most of which have little, if anything, to do with the BCF.

I suppose that I shall now have to indicate sarcasm on every post which might employ such a curmudgeonly device with something like "[curmudgeonly sarcasm intended]".

I do wish you and yours the very best in all regards,
Yours sincerely,
Paul McKeown

Paul, I have explained my position on this previously, but basically it is as follows...
Firstly, the disolution of the BCF on the eve of its 100th birthday was an act of `calculated vandalism`, and shortsightedness, where numbers were `juggled`, and the `real wishes of the majority of grass roots players` were ignored, I believe. The only really significant ballot was `ignored`, where over 40% of the votes were `for` retaining the BCF.
As usual, it all went down the pan at some `bogus` election, where those (limited numbers) present didnt really reflect the majority view. Much of the `publicity` surrounding this was skewed, I believe, and didnt really represent the groundswell of opinion. Many polls used to reflect `opinion` were very small counts...and I suspect a fair amount of `selective stats` were being bandied about to massage the picture.
But thats now `water under the bridge`...the deed has been done. But I am definately in favour of a more United (and inclusive) Britain, and one that operates within budgets.
If we are going to regard ourselves as a `world class player`, we need a world class brand.
The BCF I believe could give us that exclusive and prestigeous banner, and be a great brand name for Marketing, etc.
But we need the punch and verve to exploit the potential of such a platform.
It has `history` and would be `inclusive`..
We cant afford our semi detached `little england` approach.
We cant compete with the `big boys` such as China, India, Russia, USA, etc, who have tremedous `population` advantage when it comes to world events.
Running all these micky mouse teams is not a good idea, and is uneconomical. Funding our international committments needs to be done on a pragamtic and affordable basis. There might even be a place for a `Commonwealth team`.
But, to facilitate this, our international events need to be revamped, perhaps, to make team sizes larger...say 8 - 10 member teams. That would mean we could aim for a mix of say 5 English, 2 Scots, 1 Wales, and 1 Northern Ireland player...and make this an inclusive event. Maybe even have one or two players more from outside `england` on occasions.

[Roger de Coverly]

But, to facilitate this, our international events need to be revamped, perhaps, to make team sizes larger...say 8 - 10 member teams. That would mean we could aim for a mix of say 5 English, 2 Scots, 1 Wales, and 1 Northern Ireland player...and make this an inclusive event. Maybe even have one or two players more from outside `england` on occasions.

Outside of the Olympiad and Euro Team ( 5 player squad, 4 players in action), there aren't any international events in which ENG field a team. I'm aware that one of the UK's leading grandmasters would prefer there to be a UK team in such events. In practice though, for most of the last 30 years such a team if selected on strength and rating would have been composed entirely of ENG players.

[PaulTalbot]

But, to facilitate this, our international events need to be revamped, perhaps, to make team sizes larger...say 8 - 10 member teams. That would mean we could aim for a mix of say 5 English, 2 Scots, 1 Wales, and 1 Northern Ireland player...and make this an inclusive event. Maybe even have one or two players more from outside `england` on occasions.

Outside of the Olympiad and Euro Team ( 5 player squad, 4 players in action), there aren't any international events in which ENG field a team. I'm aware that one of the UK's leading grandmasters would prefer there to be a UK team in such events. In practice though, for most of the last 30 years such a team if selected on strength and rating would have been composed entirely of ENG players.

Part of the problem of this (speaking generally) is, we as a nation can't decide whether we are English or British. The Scots, Welsh and Irish have no such problems. They generally regard themselves as Scottish, Welsh or Irish. If you could eradicate the anti-English feelings that many of these people hold then you stand a chance of creating enough support for a united GB. So, if you want to establish a British Chess Federation that is what it must be, British. People will object if, in order to establish a BCF, you disband the ECF but allow the allow the Irish, Welsh and Scottish federations to remain.