Various matters related to adjournments

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Splitting this off from this post in the tablebase endgames thread.

the upstanding Victorians that played chess would have agreed, like the gentlemen that they were, to not look at the position until the time came to resume the game. In practice, that wouldn't happen, human nature being what it is, but is there any logical reason at all that discussion and analysis of a position is allowed under these circumstances (is it actually allowed in the rules or just not mentioned at all?), when it is strictly forbidden at the board?

Analysis of the adjourned position with your seconds and your friends was allowed ( and normal practice) for a hundred years or more. At one time they used to adjourn at move 30. That's still in the opening.

Well, in this league (London League) the adjournments are at multiples of move 36. It has gone to a third session (adjourning at move 73). Last night I adjourned a different game (same league) on move 77, again going to a third session. So I'm facing the somewhat masochistic prospect of having spent 18 hours and six evenings on just two games. I don't suppose that is anywhere near a record, but does anyone out there know what the records are related to this sort of thing?

[Alex Holowczak]

So I'm facing the somewhat masochistic prospect of having spent 18 hours and six evenings on just two games.

What a fantastic way to encourage young players to play in the London League. Parents would love that.

[Richard Bates]

So I'm facing the somewhat masochistic prospect of having spent 18 hours and six evenings on just two games.

What a fantastic way to encourage young players to play in the London League. Parents would love that.

Why wouldn't they??? I can see the objection to travelling long distances to only play a few moves, or even have the opponent not turn up, but why would they have a problem with a hard fought adjournment lasting the distance? Unless they resent their children playing chess in the evening in the first place. Do you think that (non-quickplay) chess ceases to be a worthwhile and enjoyable activity after move 36? Chris's experience even seems to have inspired him to go off and learn something about Queen endings so he will definitely come out of the experience a better player!

I think having more than one playing session is pretty unnecessary and should be changed, but that's another matter.

[Alex Holowczak]

Do you think that (non-quickplay) chess ceases to be a worthwhile and enjoyable activity after move 36?

A young child, i.e. 10-12 years old, would get quite uninterested in it quite quickly. Maybe not the 150-standard England internationals, but the 100-standard ones in the bottom divisions wouldn't be too keen.

Most parents wouldn't like league chess for children that age due to how late the match finishes. 10pm-10:30pm can be quite late. So if you have 6-10 matches a season, say, that can just about be argued for as a nice one-off thing. If they have several adjournments such that you double the playing commitment, suddenly it's not a one-off but a regular thing.

[Richard Bates]

Do you think that (non-quickplay) chess ceases to be a worthwhile and enjoyable activity after move 36?

A young child, i.e. 10-12 years old, would get quite uninterested in it quite quickly. Maybe not the 150-standard England internationals, but the 100-standard ones in the bottom divisions wouldn't be too keen.

Most parents wouldn't like league chess for children that age due to how late the match finishes. 10pm-10:30pm can be quite late. So if you have 6-10 matches a season, say, that can just about be argued for as a nice one-off thing. If they have several adjournments such that you double the playing commitment, suddenly it's not a one-off but a regular thing.

Well i don't think you should structure the entire playing conditions of a league around (the parents of) 10-12 year olds. I'm not really sure that evening league chess (whether played with quickplay finish or other) is in general particularly suitable at that age anyway so i would be with parents on that one!

[Alex Holowczak]

Well i don't think you should structure the entire playing conditions of a league around (the parents of) 10-12 year olds. I'm not really sure that evening league chess (whether played with quickplay finish or other) is in general particularly suitable at that age anyway so i would be with parents on that one!

Sure, but remember that most people prefer them anyway. Just that most people who hold the votes don't! Certainly, more people - particularly people my age - are put off league chess by adjournments. It's all well and good wanting to play adjournments, but it's important for the long-term existence of leagues that they modernise such that younger players want in. I reckon you're probably one of the youngest players in the country who would argue in favour of adjournments!

The pros of league chess at that age are that they get regular competition against adults. Given the current junior Jamboree, that's a good thing, particularly if your weekends are busy (or your parents are busy at weekends).

[LozCooper]

Splitting this off from this post in the tablebase endgames thread.

the upstanding Victorians that played chess would have agreed, like the gentlemen that they were, to not look at the position until the time came to resume the game. In practice, that wouldn't happen, human nature being what it is, but is there any logical reason at all that discussion and analysis of a position is allowed under these circumstances (is it actually allowed in the rules or just not mentioned at all?), when it is strictly forbidden at the board?

Analysis of the adjourned position with your seconds and your friends was allowed ( and normal practice) for a hundred years or more. At one time they used to adjourn at move 30. That's still in the opening.

Well, in this league (London League) the adjournments are at multiples of move 36. It has gone to a third session (adjourning at move 73). Last night I adjourned a different game (same league) on move 77, again going to a third session. So I'm facing the somewhat masochistic prospect of having spent 18 hours and six evenings on just two games. I don't suppose that is anywhere near a record, but does anyone out there know what the records are related to this sort of thing?

In the 1995-96 season I, rather unsuccessfully, decided to cut down on Birmingham League games and in fact only played three. Unfortunately, they lasted a total of 10 sessions!

Starting on the 30/11/95 I played 151 moves and 5 sessions to eventually hold a lost Q&P v Q against Paul Wallace.
Starting on the 10/02/96 I played 55 moves and 2 sessions blundering in a very level ending against Ralph Allen.
Starting on the 25/3/96 I played 57 moves over 3 sessions to convert a win into a draw against Paul Webster.

It's fair to say that scoring 1/3 against an average maybe 20 points below me and taking 10 sessions and 263 moves wasn't the most enjoyable of experiences. At least nowadays although my results aren't much better I'm safe in the knowledge that I can only play a maximum of two sessions per match. I heard, unofficially, that the 151 move 5 session game was a Birmingham League record but I've no idea if that's correct.

[Alex Holowczak]

Starting on the 10/02/96 I played 55 moves and 2 sessions blundering in a very level ending against Ralph Allen.

Tactical error: You should have sealed for the second time on move 55.

[Richard Bates]

Sure, but remember that most people prefer them anyway. Just that most people who hold the votes don't! Certainly, more people - particularly people my age - are put off league chess by adjournments. It's all well and good wanting to play adjournments, but it's important for the long-term existence of leagues that they modernise such that younger players want in. I reckon you're probably one of the youngest players in the country who would argue in favour of adjournments!

I argue in favour of the option of adjournments (with decision taken at board level), where logistically appropriate, and like to challenge what i believe are some of the myths about them (such as "pointless because they just mean the game decided by computer", which in the vast majority of cases is just quite simply nonsense). I always opt for quickplay finish myself. If operated properly (and not cynically) then they are arguably significantly better for improving one's game than the alternative. There is simply no perfect option for fitting a proper game of chess into 2.5-3 hour sessions. The advantage in the London League, unlike I think generally elsewhere, is that a significant mitigating attraction of the adjournment option is a time control of 36 moves in 90mins rather than 30 moves in 75 minutes.

Of course one should cater towards making the game attractive to younger players, but i don't believe the stresses/difficulties of quickplay finishes for many older players should be forgotten. To achieve this i believe the best solution is some sort of hybrid (like in London League div 1 where the default option changes from board to board (meaning that players who strongly object to one option or the other can be accommodated) or alternatively the default set at board level at what is generally seen as the minority preference (those in the majority who would by definition generally play a like minded individual). I suspect that if you could persuade the Birmingham league to ditch their rule about the option of adjourn/quickplay being determined at match level rather than board level then most of your issues would disappear.

If i'm one of the youngest who would argue the case for adjournments then it's probably because i'm one of the youngest who can recall a time when adjournments were commonplace in most chess - be it league, easter weekend tournament or international events - and not quite such the abomination as they are now portrayed, and in fact generally from memory quite fun. It's also probably because i play in London where the logistical issues which arise elsewhere simply don't present the same problems. I am astonished that leagues with adjournments don't employ strong sanctions against late cancellation or non-appearance at resumption sessions, as a way of deflecting annoyance about the use of gamesmanship or worse as a means of getting results.

[Alex Holowczak]

I argue in favour of the option of adjournments (with decision taken at board level), where logistically appropriate, and like to challenge what i believe are some of the myths about them (such as "pointless because they just mean the game decided by computer", which in the vast majority of cases is just quite simply nonsense). If operated properly (and not cynically) then they are arguably significantly better for improving one's game than the alternative. There is simply no perfect option for fitting a proper game of chess into 2.5-3 hour sessions. The advantage in the London League, unlike I think generally elsewhere, is that a significant mitigating attraction of the adjournment option is a time control of 36 moves in 90mins rather than 30 moves in 75 minutes.

I don't like my opponent getting any advice at all during the game, be it from human or silicon. I'd rather finish on the night. The Birmingham League has the option of extending the adjournment time to move 36, 38 or 42, still at 2.5 minutes per move. I've offered this on a couple of occasions - even as the away team - and it has never been accepted. I think for the casual player, a 3 hour session is ample. If you want to play perfect chess, then County stuff, the 4NCL etc. is perfect for you. Given the vast majority of players play it for a fun game, I don't see why they get so hung up about a quest for perfection. Given they don't care about the result, I'm not sure why people are so bothered by it.

I am not opposed to the option of adjourning, either. By all means, if two people want to adjourn, go for it. I think that the default game type would be to finish on the night.

Of course one should cater towards making the game attractive to younger players, but i don't believe the stresses/difficulties of quickplay finishes for many older players should be forgotten. To achieve this i believe the best solution is some sort of hybrid (like in London League div 1 where the default option changes from board to board (meaning that players who strongly object to one option or the other can be accommodated) or alternatively the default set at board level at what is generally seen as the minority preference (those in the majority who would by definition generally play a like minded individual). I suspect that if you could persuade the Birmingham league to ditch their rule about the option of adjourn/quickplay being determined at match level rather than board level then most of your issues would disappear.

Ah, the Birmingham League don't listen to me. Every league meeting has one person who tends to dominate it, and everyone tends to agree with. Luckily, the Birmingham League has an absolutely fantastic person in that position! He's the only person who can persuade people in the League to do something like that - but even he can't win this argument!

Deciding on a board-by-board basis would obviously be better. What I like about the team-by-team level, is that it gives me an indication of how preferential they are to various teams. Certainly, new players who live near several clubs can make their choice as to which to join.

If i'm one of the youngest who would argue the case for adjournments then it's probably because i'm one of the youngest who can recall a time when adjournments were commonplace in most chess - be it league, easter weekend tournament or international events - and not quite such the abomination as they are now portrayed, and in fact generally from memory quite fun. It's also probably because i play in London where the logistical issues which arise elsewhere simply don't present the same problems. I am astonished that leagues with adjournments don't employ strong sanctions against late cancellation or non-appearance at resumption sessions.

Adjournments are actually better for me in terms of public transport. The sessions end half an hour earlier, which can often be the difference between catching the last bus or not. I'm willing enough to commit to the extra commitment though. Most players nowadays tend to be too busy or otherwise engaged to make such commitments. Non-appearance tends not to get punished because players who, for example, work shifts, and could get called in at any minute, often have little option but to pull out at the last minute. It makes me wonder even more why people in this position choose adjournments, when they know they can't commit to a resumption! I've already had a default win against a no-show at a resumption because my opponent got called out on shift work.

[Jonathan Bryant]

What a fantastic way to encourage young players to play in the London League.

There aren't many juniors who play in the London League - certainly proportionally fewer than in other leagues that I've played/continue to play in (Surrey/Croydon/Thames Valley).

I doubt very much that's got anything to do with the time control though and has probably got a lot to do with the central playing venues - travel time to and fro; relatively small amount of people who live near by (and most of those probably not having chess playing children).

As for your other points:-

I'm not at all sure it's true that most or necessarily even many London League players want quickplay finishes. The rules allow for players to agree a quickplay finish before the game starts. I am *never* offered this choice by my opponent. When I offered it - which I don't always do - it is refused. Some like it but I suspect most don't. This may not hold true in the top division, but see my next paragraph.

It's not at all fair to represent the decision makers of the London League to be in some sense "anti" quickplay finishes. Recently the rules have been changed to ensure that on every other board in the top division the default finish is quickplay.

Finally, adjournment sessions are actually quite rare in practice. I can't remember the last time I had more than one in a season.

[Alex Holowczak]

Jonathan,

I don't think the London League is likely to encourage juniors for the reasons you say; it's very 4NCL-like with its central venue concept. I was referring to the concept of having multiple adjournment sessions generally, which is still fairly common throughout the land.

I was referring to the Birmingham League when I said most players want adjournments, and that the vote holders are perhaps far more against them than is a true reflection of their players' opinions. I've come across teams who are surprised to be playing adjournments when I've adjourned, even though they're the ones who are forcing an adjournment in the first place. It's a fact of any voting system that the people who hold the votes tend to voice their opinion, rather than the opinion of the people they're supposed to represent. Even MPs do it. That's not a very controversial statement, but I guess it could be interpreted as such.

Every single game that could have had adjournments this season for me has been!

[Roger de Coverly]

Finally, adjournment sessions are actually quite rare in practice. I can't remember the last time I had more than one in a season.

It's many years since I've needed to play an adjournment or adjudication for that matter. Do players who still indulge in these practices feel that it influences their style of play? For instance avoiding "long" variations in favour of lines with an early tactical clash. Not playing double edged sacrifices at about move 30. Avoiding lines where the win might be a long endgame grind. Playing for cheapos instead of defending a dodgy ending.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Jonathan,

I don't think the London League is likely to encourage juniors for the reasons you say; it's very 4NCL-like with its central venue concept. I was referring to the concept of having multiple adjournment sessions generally, which is still fairly common throughout the land.

Were you? I must have been misled by
"What a fantastic way to encourage young players to play in the London League"


Anyway, I'm not sure you're really getting the point about the London league and juniors either. It's where the population is relative to where the games are played that's important. There are a fair few clubs who don't play at Golden Lane - I've never played a junior at any of them.

Juniors in the Surrey/Croydon/Thames Valley League - those I see (and play) quite regularly.

[David Shepherd]

Adjournments let the juniors play at a slower place - and more realistic pace compared to international competitions. It allows them to spend more time on endings that would normally be rushed in quickplay finishes. Who cares whether it all analysed on the computer. After a few moves it will soon be a case of understanding the position and the adjournment will have given them a chance to get to grips with the position and put in practice what they have learn't.

Infact I would argue adjournments are less beneficial to us old codgers who will never learn how to play an endgame properly