NCCU AGM Minutes 2010

[Alex Holowczak]

Righto.

Maybe I should compile a list of leagues which still have them or not, and in which capacity... Not in this thread, anyway.

[Richard Bates]

Alex,

No Adjournments any more

From what I remember about 15 years ago we brought in QP finishes if both captains agreed. Then about 10 years ago we set QP as the default unless both captains agreed. I think there hasn't been an adjournment for many years.

If people want adjournment chess the Stockport League is the only one I gather in Manchester which still has adjournment is one captain requests

I know of a couple of players who have pull out because of the removal of adjournments, but that is the small minority

I remain mystified by the situation in these leagues whereby the time-control is determined at match level (agreement of captains) rather than board level. At a time when there remain reasonable numbers (active or non-active in protest) of players having preference for either option such a situation will clearly never result in a satisfactory resolution. What IS the justification given for match level determination?

[Alex Holowczak]

I remain mystified by the situation in these leagues whereby the time-control is determined at match level (agreement of captains) rather than board level. At a time when there remain reasonable numbers (active or non-active in protest) of players having preference for either option such a situation will clearly never result in a satisfactory resolution. What IS the justification given for match level determination?

I was told that it was because players know in advance what they're turning up to play. So when you schedule fixtures, you know whether to allow space after it (just in case) or not.

[Alan Walton]

Richard,

I don't know why the decision to be made at match level came about

A 3Cs view is that we play for a "club" and not as individuals, as a club we have the view of quickplay finishes being the best way to go, mainly because being juniors the parents didn't want the extra travelling on school nights for adjournaments, and generally throughtout 90% of the total chess played today, is QP finishes. There is also the view that when you adjourn games nowadays it is very likely you are playing our German friend analysis and not the opponents

I also have experienced some bad manners of some people not resigning games and just make somebody travel 15 miles just to be finished off within 10 minutes

[Richard Bates]

I remain mystified by the situation in these leagues whereby the time-control is determined at match level (agreement of captains) rather than board level. At a time when there remain reasonable numbers (active or non-active in protest) of players having preference for either option such a situation will clearly never result in a satisfactory resolution. What IS the justification given for match level determination?

I was told that it was because players know in advance what they're turning up to play. So when you schedule fixtures, you know whether to allow space after it (just in case) or not.

I would put that in the category of "flimsy" justifications! Especially when considering the knock-on problems it causes!

Deciding at board level generally means that regardless of the default option, the majority preference occurs most of the time. If anything, arguably the ideal to create maximum contentment is for the minority preference to be the default. Then, the minority always get what they want, but the majority usually get what they want (because of the greater chance of playing somebody who thinks similarly).

[David Pardoe]

The adjournment arguement is interesting. On the one hand it offers the chance to do some indepth middle game & endgame study. Although a computer might tell you you`re probably winning or not. In many games of any complexity, the resumption soon takes you off this analysis and into an endgame where you`re on your own....the clock situation can often be a decisive factor ...I`ve had some fantastic endgame adjournments.
However, where the position is more clearcut, hopefully agreement is reached before resumption, rather than have that unnecessary trip. Maybe the option of adjudication could be called on, where one player sees a clearcut result, and can demonstrate with analysis.
Travel is a key issue that puts many off. Maybe resumptions should be at neutral venues, where significant travel is otherwise involved. To be fair, we play some adjournments in the Stockport league, but they are a fairly rare event.
Some worry that QP finishes reduce chess to a speed lottery, and this is a valid point. Ive had many a game where a level game has turned to blitz, purely because one player had that extra 5 mins advantage.

Returning to another point...Alan is probably right to identify a gap in our chess offerings at the top end. Maybe the ECF & others need to find more top rated events to cater for the 180+ category players. Maybe we need a restricted `Home internationals` event, for players graded in the 225 - 180 category. Might make a good 7 round all-play-all event?
This might be even better, if split into several sections of 5-point bands, with the aggregate scores from each band used to determine the winning country.

[Alex Holowczak]

Maybe the option of adjudication could be called on, where one player sees a clearcut result, and can demonstrate with analysis.

No, no, and thrice no!

Travel is a key issue that puts many off. Maybe resumptions should be at neutral venues, where significant travel is otherwise involved. To be fair, we play some adjournments in the Stockport league, but they are a fairly rare event.

It was proposed that the second session of an adjourned match to be played at the team who opts for quickplay finishes (if there is one). This was rejected, because it "lost the advantage of being the home team".

Some worry that QP finishes reduce chess to a speed lottery, and this is a valid point. Ive had many a game where a level game has turned to blitz, purely because one player had that extra 5 mins advantage.

Well, get better at chess then! I don't like this argument; if you know what you're doing, there's plenty of time.

[Ian Thompson]

Some worry that QP finishes reduce chess to a speed lottery, and this is a valid point. Ive had many a game where a level game has turned to blitz, purely because one player had that extra 5 mins advantage.

Well, get better at chess then! I don't like this argument; if you know what you're doing, there's plenty of time.

Have a look at a few of the positions in the Endgame Corner columns here - http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archi ... e%20Corner. I suggest that even the best players in the world are unlikely to play many of these positions well in a quickplay finish.

[Alex Holowczak]

Some worry that QP finishes reduce chess to a speed lottery, and this is a valid point. Ive had many a game where a level game has turned to blitz, purely because one player had that extra 5 mins advantage.

Well, get better at chess then! I don't like this argument; if you know what you're doing, there's plenty of time.

Have a look at a few of the positions in the Endgame Corner columns here - http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archi ... e%20Corner. I suggest that even the best players in the world are unlikely to play many of these positions well in a quickplay finish.

Endgames in league chess either:
a) Do not reach such complexity.
b) Do have such complexity, but it is lost on the players who are playing them, such is their ability.

Adjournments are not used as an academic tool. They are used as a blunder check; a safeguard against actually finishing the game under normal means.

[Richard Bates]

Have a look at a few of the positions in the Endgame Corner columns here - http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archi ... e%20Corner. I suggest that even the best players in the world are unlikely to play many of these positions well in a quickplay finish.

Endgames in league chess either:
a) Do not reach such complexity.
b) Do have such complexity, but it is lost on the players who are playing them, such is their ability.

Adjournments are not used as an academic tool. They are used as a blunder check; a safeguard against actually finishing the game under normal means.

It is inconsistent to argue against the proposition that quickplay finishes result in lottery like outcomes, whilst justifying the abolition of adjournments on the grounds that people want to use them as 'blunder checks'. Of course Alex is a bit of an extremist on the question of clock-handling, having once held the opinion that people shouldn't be able to claim draws in the last two minutes because they had every opportunity to move quicker earlier in the game.

Actually although i am in principle in favour of default quickplay finishes in league chess, i suspect that for the sake of avoiding very ugly disputes polluting forums like this, if not actually coming to physical blows, it would be better if quickplay finishes are confined to top division chess

[Alex Holowczak]

Of course Alex is a bit of an extremist on the question of clock-handling, having once held the opinion that people shouldn't be able to claim draws in the last two minutes because they had every opportunity to move quicker earlier in the game.

I saw a game last weekend at the ECF U18/13 where an U13 player was clearly winning. He was on board 1 for his team, and he clearly knew how to play chess. Yet when he got down to the last 2 minutes, he started looking around, and tried to claim a draw under the "2-minute rule". The arbiter rightly declined this, because both players were in the process of pushing pawns up the board to queen them. He kept trying to claim it, until the point came when he was in serious danger of losing on time. In the end, the game was agreed a draw. I berated my player for accepting it!

I think that in thirty years, people talking about chess will be laughing about how stupid chess was in the olden days when they had these stupid adjournments. In most leagues that have converted to quickplay finishes, they do that now. At the BUCA event in Oxford, their President was delighted that the Oxford League didn't have them, and couldn't imagine how other leagues had them. The areas of the country that have quickplay finishes seem to laugh at the ones that have adjournments.

[Richard Bates]

Of course Alex is a bit of an extremist on the question of clock-handling, having once held the opinion that people shouldn't be able to claim draws in the last two minutes because they had every opportunity to move quicker earlier in the game.

I saw a game last weekend at the ECF U18/13 where an U13 player was clearly winning. He was on board 1 for his team, and he clearly knew how to play chess. Yet when he got down to the last 2 minutes, he started looking around, and tried to claim a draw under the "2-minute rule". The arbiter rightly declined this, because both players were in the process of pushing pawns up the board to queen them. He kept trying to claim it, until the point came when he was in serious danger of losing on time. In the end, the game was agreed a draw. I berated my player for accepting it!

I don't approved of berating players for showing good sportsmanship Winning isn't everything.

[Alex Holowczak]

Of course Alex is a bit of an extremist on the question of clock-handling, having once held the opinion that people shouldn't be able to claim draws in the last two minutes because they had every opportunity to move quicker earlier in the game.

I saw a game last weekend at the ECF U18/13 where an U13 player was clearly winning. He was on board 1 for his team, and he clearly knew how to play chess. Yet when he got down to the last 2 minutes, he started looking around, and tried to claim a draw under the "2-minute rule". The arbiter rightly declined this, because both players were in the process of pushing pawns up the board to queen them. He kept trying to claim it, until the point came when he was in serious danger of losing on time. In the end, the game was agreed a draw. I berated my player for accepting it!

I don't approved of berating players for showing good sportsmanship Winning isn't everything.

No, I know. I just advised him on the rules, and said that he should have played on. It wasn't really a case of sportsmanship; it was a case of agreeing a draw in a clearly non-drawn position. When the draw was agreed, he certainly wasn't losing.

[Richard Bates]

No, I know. I just advised him on the rules, and said that he should have played on. It wasn't really a case of sportsmanship; it was a case of agreeing a draw in a clearly non-drawn position. When the draw was agreed, he certainly wasn't losing.

Well if he was prepared to accept a draw then by definition he wasn't trying to win. Sounds like a clearcut case for a legitimate draw claim under quickplay finish rules to me! By agreeing a draw he just relieved the arbiter of the job of reading his mind He could of course have pretended that he was actually playing for a win but by not doing so he demonstrated good sportsmanship. They give prizes for that sort of thing in some sports

[Alex Holowczak]

No, I know. I just advised him on the rules, and said that he should have played on. It wasn't really a case of sportsmanship; it was a case of agreeing a draw in a clearly non-drawn position. When the draw was agreed, he certainly wasn't losing.

Well if he was prepared to accept a draw then by definition he wasn't trying to win. Sounds like a clearcut case for a legitimate draw claim under quickplay finish rules to me! By agreeing a draw he just relieved the arbiter of the job of reading his mind

Of course. I didn't see why he accepted the draw given that he was winning, both over the board, and on time.