Richard Bates wrote:
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.
Richard Bates wrote: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.
Richard Bates wrote: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.
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. 
