Should we scrap adjournments?

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:24 pm

Graham Borrowdale wrote:I think adjudication has to be objective, so if it is theoretically drawn for 200+ players it is theoretically drawn for sub-200 players. In the RB v R example the 200+ player might well have more expectation of winning over the board than a sub-200 player, but that would depend on the strength of the opponent.
As to how much of an advantage the computer should declare before the adjudicator awards a win, I have no idea. +1.0, +2.0?
This is not the case I was referring to: in my example, the ending KRB vs KR is theoretically won for White but it would require a lot of technique, usually beyond sub-200 players. What would the adjudication be in case of someone like myself (180 ECF, honestly not capable of such a precise technique) trying to win against a 240 ECF player?

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:37 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote:
Graham Borrowdale wrote:I think adjudication has to be objective, so if it is theoretically drawn for 200+ players it is theoretically drawn for sub-200 players. In the RB v R example the 200+ player might well have more expectation of winning over the board than a sub-200 player, but that would depend on the strength of the opponent.
As to how much of an advantage the computer should declare before the adjudicator awards a win, I have no idea. +1.0, +2.0?
This is not the case I was referring to: in my example, the ending KRB vs KR is theoretically won for White but it would require a lot of technique, usually beyond sub-200 players. What would the adjudication be in case of someone like myself (180 ECF, honestly not capable of such a precise technique) trying to win against a 240 ECF player?
Win if the position is winning; draw if it is drawn. (It's usually drawn.)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19262
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:53 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote:What would the adjudication be in case of someone like myself (180 ECF, honestly not capable of such a precise technique) trying to win against a 240 ECF player?
If done with proper procedures, the adjudicator wouldn't know the identity of players. In the days when we had adjudications, our local practice was for the two clubs to submit unresolved positions to the league controller. These were then passed on to the BCF's adjudication service. Exactly how the adjudication service handled it from then on isn't known, but the expectation is that the actual adjudicators were only told it was position #1 etc.

Other leagues and counties had their own adjudication system, some still running them, but the same principle of anonymity needs to followed.

User avatar
John Saunders
Posts: 1373
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Contact:

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by John Saunders » Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:18 am

Graham Borrowdale wrote:However, the thread is titled should we scrap adjournments, which is a completely different subject to adjudications. I still maintain, as a few brave souls have, that there is a place for adjournments, if both players agree.
A valiant attempt by Graham to get the thread back on track. But the very next post starts...
Roger de Coverly wrote:Adjudications...
... and with just one word Graham's point about adjournments has been neatly sidestepped and ignored by the forum's leading windbag. (Not an insult, merely a statement of fact, with his eye-watering 8,615 posts in just over five years. That's an average of 4 or 5 every day of the year.)

One of the reasons I haven't posted much for a few years is the fact that people are allowed to get away with transparent ruses of this sort in order to railroad threads in the direction of their own hobby horses (apologies for the pardoesque mixed metaphor). This leads to tedious repetitions of opinions and discussions which go over the same old ground, with the same old people grinding away until they are assured of the last word.

I would have thought that, in the course of his 8,615 posts, Roger might have vented his opinion on every conceivable facet of the chess world and the time might have come to give it a rest. Or, as the chess oracle that never stops giving, he could start his own blog, or perhaps tweet. For this reason, I respectfully suggest we change the title of the thread to "Should we scrap Roger de Coverly?".
Personal Twitter @johnchess
Personal Website https://www.saund.org.uk
Britbase https://www.britbase.info

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19262
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:33 am

John Saunders wrote: This leads to tedious repetitions of opinions and discussions which go over the same old ground, with the same old people grinding away until they are assured of the last word.
Something that obviously doesn't apply to editors of chess magazines endlessly recycling the same opinions.

User avatar
John Saunders
Posts: 1373
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Contact:

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by John Saunders » Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:42 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
John Saunders wrote: This leads to tedious repetitions of opinions and discussions which go over the same old ground, with the same old people grinding away until they are assured of the last word.
Something that obviously doesn't apply to editors of chess magazines endlessly recycling the same opinions.
Editors of chess magazines are accountable to their bosses if their work is sub-standard. Who are you accountable to, Roger?
Personal Twitter @johnchess
Personal Website https://www.saund.org.uk
Britbase https://www.britbase.info

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19262
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:07 am

Graham Borrowdale wrote: However, the thread is titled should we scrap adjournments, which is a completely different subject to adjudications.
I don't actually think it is. If you aren't going to have rules which require a game to be finished by the players on the night, you need a means of resolving unfinished games. Adjournment is one, but if you have potential travel difficulties preventing second sessions, you end up with adjudication as the other side of the coin. I'm trying to think of leagues where adjournment is compulsory with no adjudication option in the event of no "play on the night" agreement . The London League is certainly one on some boards and judging by AlexH's comments, the Birmingham another. But are there others?

Graham Borrowdale wrote: I still maintain, as a few brave souls have, that there is a place for adjournments, if both players agree. Computer intervention, especially at shall we say the lower levels of local leagues, is likely to be lower than some here might believe, and anyway, a couple of moves in and you can be following a line you have not looked at.
That's probably not disputed provided both players want to play that way, but there are still leagues where just one player can insist, or even the match captain or other club official can decide it for the whole team. I think a rule set is needed that you agree the place and time of resumption before starting play in the first session. This was the rule in the days when Congresses had adjournment sessions and cuts out all that gamesmanship involving who offers what so as to force who travels where. If you cannot agree a resumption time, the rules for playing on the night kick in.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19262
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:15 am

John Saunders wrote: Editors of chess magazines are accountable to their bosses if their work is sub-standard.
Not when they own them.

As we've seen with FIDE, chess administrators have a tendency to add the adjective power-crazed. They have to be reminded that their decisions are not going to be unquestioned.

If writers in Chess magazines are going to annotate positions with their own particular hobby-horses and personal feuds, it would help if their assessments were actually correct.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4150
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by David Sedgwick » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:10 pm

John Saunders wrote:"Should we scrap Roger de Coverly?"
Not in my opinion.

He frequently drives me mad as well, but he exposes a lot that those responsible would prefer to keep hidden.

PeterFarr
Posts: 600
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:17 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
John Saunders wrote:"Should we scrap Roger de Coverly?"
Not in my opinion.

He frequently drives me mad as well, but he exposes a lot that those responsible would prefer to keep hidden.
Well said. Also RdeC is a mine of factual / historical information that is often both interesting and relevant.

Tryfon Gavriel
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 2:02 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Tryfon Gavriel » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:27 pm

Sorry to renew this thread via a Google search but may I ask : Was I right to resign the following position (instead of sending it off for adjudication) :

[FEN "6k1/p5p1/1q3pp1/1p1r4/1P1n2P1/P2RQ1BP/1P3P1K/8 w - - 0 1"]

I was playing Black unfortunately.

I assume because Houdini 3 was giving nearly +2 it was right to resign it rather than sending it off for adjudication in the Herts league.

Should perhaps the criteria for what constitutes a lost position on adjudication be made clearer ?!


6k1/p5p1/1q3pp1/1p1r4/1P1n2P1/P2RQ1BP/1P3P1K/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Houdini 3 x64:

1. +- (1.89): 1.Qe4 Rd8 2.Kg2 Kf7 3.f3 Ne6 4.Bf2 Qc7 5.Rxd8 Nxd8 6.Qa8 Ne6 7.Qxa7 Nf4+ 8.Kh2 Qxa7 9.Bxa7 Ke6 10.b3 Nd3 11.Bc5 g5 12.Kg3 g6 13.Bf8 Kf7 14.Bd6 Ke6 15.Bc5 f5 16.gxf5+ gxf5 17.a4
2. +/- (1.46): 1.Qe7 Kh7 2.Qc7 Qxc7 3.Bxc7 Rd7 4.Bg3 Rd8 5.Kg2 a6 6.f4 Kg8 7.Bf2 Ne6 8.Rxd8+ Nxd8 9.Kf3 Ne6 10.Ke4 g5 11.Bg3 Kf7 12.f5 Nd8 13.Bf2 Nc6 14.Bd4 Nxd4 15.Kxd4 Ke7

Feedback welcome from all
Best wishes, Tryfon
Webmaster, http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/as ... ?from=1053
Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/kingscrusher
Host of Kingscrusher's weekly radio show on Playchess.com : "Kingscrusher's radio show"

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19262
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:46 pm

Tryfon Gavriel wrote: Should perhaps the criteria for what constitutes a lost position on adjudication be made clearer ?!
As far as I recall it from the distant past when leagues local to me had adjudications, there were two choices. You could use the BCF's service (shows how long ago it was) or appoint your own local adjudicator(s).



White to move.

I would have thought a very borderline call as a win for White. The computer engines are evidently seeing something, but it's a long way from a position where as Black you would resign.

Adjudication was traditionally supposedly the result with "best play", in other words a pair of GMs took over and notionally played out the position.

It's one of those issues, where if you are going to raise it at a League AGM, abolition would remove the problem.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by MartinCarpenter » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:50 pm

A sadly absurd point to be adjourning the game really :) It'd be vastly better done in 10/15 moves time.

It might well be an objective white win but nasty things can easily happen. Look at say, 1 Qe7 Kh7 2 Qc7 Qe6 3 Qxa7 Qe4. Not even obvious what white is doing in that line after 1 Qe4 if you just defend a7 with Nc6 - the white Q can hardly move, the king isn't long term secure etc.

I'd probably resign it rather than adjourn it, but then I'd do the same as white so I wouldn't pay much attention to that!

John Cox
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by John Cox » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:30 pm

Does 1 Qe4 not win the g-pawn at once?

Anyway, adjudications and adjournments are both equally absurd and should be stamped out, of course, at least between non-consenting adults. If two grown men really want to go away and come back another night then fair enough, but making people play adjournments is ridiculous.

Tryfon Gavriel
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 2:02 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Tryfon Gavriel » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:34 pm

John Cox wrote:Does 1 Qe4 not win the g-pawn at once?

Anyway, adjudications and adjournments are both equally absurd and should be stamped out, of course, at least between non-consenting adults. If two grown men really want to go away and come back another night then fair enough, but making people play adjournments is ridiculous.
Hi John

This was his intended move if he was going to seal if we were going to adjourn it.

It seems though black has great play on

Qe4 Rd8!

If Qxg6 then Qc6!

One of the points I had of getting the knight earlier to d4 was to do with the f3 square. He had played though b4 stopping Qc5-d5. However c6 is also useful for the black queen to try and exploit f3.

Cheers, Tryfon
Webmaster, http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/as ... ?from=1053
Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/kingscrusher
Host of Kingscrusher's weekly radio show on Playchess.com : "Kingscrusher's radio show"

Post Reply