Should we scrap adjournments?

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
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 4:38 pm

Fair point. I dunno then - maybe 1 Qe4 Rd8 2 f3 followed by Kg2, Bf2 etc. Feels like White's a lot better to me TBH. But of course your computer would be a far better guide.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19271
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:43 pm

Tryfon Gavriel wrote: It seems though black has great play on
Qe4 Rd8!
If Qxg6 then Qc6!
The threat to take the g pawn seems to validate the Houdini assessment of +1.89. I'd imagine it is considering best play to somehow mask the Nf3 threat and use the Qxg6 idea either directly for the pawn, or indirectly to improve the position. I don't know the Herts rules, but if you can elect adjournment or adjudication at the end of a session, don't you avoid adjudication if you suspect you are busted? If you are worse but tenable and facing an opponent with a reputation as a grinder, elect for adjudication. The bluff of who travels, if such rules apply, comes into to it as well.

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 4:51 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Tryfon Gavriel wrote: It seems though black has great play on
Qe4 Rd8!
If Qxg6 then Qc6!
The threat to take the g pawn seems to validate the Houdini assessment of +1.89. I'd imagine it is considering best play to somehow mask the Nf3 threat and use the Qxg6 idea either directly for the pawn, or indirectly to improve the position. I don't know the Herts rules, but if you can elect adjournment or adjudication at the end of a session, don't you avoid adjudication if you suspect you are busted? If you are worse but tenable and facing an opponent with a reputation as a grinder, elect for adjudication. The bluff of who travels, if such rules apply, comes into to it as well.
That position if Qe4 Rd8 Qxg6 Qc6 is near dead equal according to Houdini: (just 0.24)

1:
3r2k1/p5p1/1q3pQ1/1p6/1P1n2P1/P2R2BP/1P3P1K/8 b - - 0 1

Analysis by Houdini 3 x64:

1. = (0.24): 2...Qc6 3.Bf4 Qc2 4.Kg2 Qc6+ 5.f3 Qc2+ 6.Bd2 f5 7.Qg5 Qxd3 8.Qxd8+ Kh7 9.Qh4+ Kg8 10.Qf2 Nxf3 11.Bc1 fxg4 12.hxg4 Ne5 13.Qe3 Qd5+ 14.Kg3 Qd6 15.Qb3+ Nc4+ 16.Kg2 Qd7 17.Qf3 Nd2 18.Bxd2 Qxd2+ 19.Qf2 Qd5+ 20.Kg3 Qd3+ 21.Qf3 Qd6+ 22.Kg2 Qd2+ 23.Qf2
2. +- (1.74): 2...Qb7 3.Bf4 Qd5 4.Re3 Ne6 5.Bg3 Qc6 6.Qf5 Nd4 7.Qe4 Qxe4 8.Rxe4 Kf7 9.Kg2 Ne6 10.Re2 g5 11.Bh2 Rd3 12.Rc2 Kg6 13.Rc8 Rd2 14.Rg8+ Kf7 15.Ra8 Rxb2 16.Rxa7+ Kg6 17.Ra6 Nf4+ 18.Bxf4 gxf4 19.h4
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"

User avatar
John Saunders
Posts: 1377
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Contact:

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by John Saunders » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:03 pm

Tryfon Gavriel wrote: 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
Houdini's 6...Ne6 in the first line looks a bit strange as it allows White to take on a7 without a fight. Hiarcs prefers 6...Nc6 defending the pawn. However, life is still tough for Black after 6...Nc6 as White plays 7.h4! followed by 8.Bc5 with Qf8+ coming. (Houdini may have spotted the importance of stopping the B coming to c5.)

A conscientious adjudicator would have to put a few hours' work into it before deciding. I'd want to see some evidence that White could either (a) win the a7 pawn and advance the queenside pawns in some useful way; or (b) use Q and B to attack the K in some equally fruitful way.
Personal Twitter @johnchess
Personal Website https://www.saund.org.uk
Britbase https://www.britbase.info

David Blower
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by David Blower » Thu May 22, 2014 11:55 pm

At the 2014 AGM the Wolverhampton League have voted to get rid of adjournments as the default option for Divisions 1 and 2, and a quickplay finish is the default option for ALL divisions (1-4.) Adjournments can still happen if both teams agree (for all divisions 1-4.)

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Joey Stewart » Fri May 23, 2014 8:31 am

Good to hear that, always nice to see the adjournments reduced, chess comes out a big winner.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

David Blower
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by David Blower » Fri May 23, 2014 2:10 pm

For some reason we had to have the debate at the AGM about the "quality of chess." There was also the fear that players might decide not to play in the league. But the debate about us being amateur chess players having to travel twice to one venue for a game of chess was the issue most of us had with it, hence it got through.

Anyway according to one person an IM is now more likely to take part in the league.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Joey Stewart » Fri May 23, 2014 2:21 pm

A very good rational argument to have used, the travel can prevent non driving players from even having the opportunity to continue.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.


Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19271
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri May 23, 2014 11:42 pm

David Blower wrote:I should have said here is the Brewood website report on the Wolverhampton Chess League 2014 AGM.
Presumably you must have clubs with early closing with default move rates based around 80 minutes per player. Elsewhere in the country, move rates are frequently based around three hour sessions, so you start between 7.30 to 7.45 pm, play three hours to finish at or before 10.45 and just about have enough time before typical last orders at 11.00 pm.

David Blower
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Should we scrap adjournments?

Post by David Blower » Sat May 24, 2014 1:05 am

Yes we do. 36 in 75 back 15 was also suggested, with the suggestion as well that home clubs could choose between 30 in 65 back 15, and also 36 in 75 back 15, (with the same time control used for ALL of that clubs home matches from the start of the season) but in the end it was decided to have the same time controls for all clubs in the league.

Post Reply