Adjudication: another league moves on

[Ian Thompson]

Where the game finishes on the night, the time control will be incremental (G80 +10s) wherever suitable digital clocks are available.

Did you feel the need to have a rule to prevent infinite games, bearing in mind that without keeping score, there's no obvious way to enforce the fifty move rule?

I dislike 10 second increments for similar reasons to Roger's question. Evidently my objection is more theoretical than practical (e.g. your later comments, Sean's and Stewart's posts).

The question I put to people with this concern is - Which is more likely:

a) A 150 moves game that takes 3.5 hours to complete at 80 minutes + 10 seconds increment

b) A game played at 36 moves in 90 minutes, repeating, with adjournment after 3 hours play, where the player then chooses to take more than half an hour over their sealed move.

How have you been able to accept the risk of b) happening for years, but can't accept the risk of a)?

[Jonathan Bryant]

... but can't accept the risk of a)?

The risk of (a) as you describe it here doesn't concern me in the slightest.

[Roger de Coverly]

How have you been able to accept the risk of b) happening for years, but can't accept the risk of a)?

If adjournments aren't allowed, you have no risk of overruns. (Stories of Neil Cooper sealing a move outside of Maidenhead library come to mind). If you substitute a G/90 move rate by an 80 10 move rate, you are introducing a risk of overruns where none previously existed. Increments, those with 30 seconds anyway, encourage long games.

In some ways, it's not the risk of overruns that's the bigger concern, but the answer to this question:-

If you are defending KR v KRB from a tablebase draw does the game go on forever until you make a mistake and allow a forced win?

[Rob Thompson]

If you are defending KR v KRB from a tablebase draw does the game go on forever until you make a mistake and allow a forced win?

Given that there's a legally defined limit at 50 moves, no.

[Ian Thompson]

How have you been able to accept the risk of b) happening for years, but can't accept the risk of a)?

If adjournments aren't allowed, you have no risk of overruns. (Stories of Neil Cooper sealing a move outside of Maidenhead library come to mind). If you substitute a G/90 move rate by an 80 10 move rate, you are introducing a risk of overruns where none previously existed. Increments, those with 30 seconds anyway, encourage long games.

In some ways, it's not the risk of overruns that's the bigger concern, but the answer to this question:-

If you are defending KR v KRB from a tablebase draw does the game go on forever until you make a mistake and allow a forced win?

You have a guillotine of some sort (e.g. the Surrey Border League allows 10.2 claims after 190 minutes play). That way 99.99% of games get the benefit of increments compared to playing the end of the game like a blitz game, and the 0.01% of games where the uncertainly of the precise finishing time matters are no worse off than they would have been with an all moves in X minutes time control.

[Stewart Reuben]

Somebody has K, R, B v K, R or similarly K, R. N. The increment is 10 seconds so the players are no longer keeping score. The arbiter should step in when it is clear to him that 50 moves have been made without a capture or pawn move, or that the position has occurred 3 times. I might let it go more than 50 or more than 3 to make certain. He should use the Bringing the game into disrepute law to justify his action.
There should be an arbiter at each event and it is only a small sum of money that inhibits the practice. If there are two of them, both could play. It is vanishingly unlikely both will be involved in a very long game. Encourage people to become arbiters.

[James Toon]

Somebody has K, R, B v K, R or similarly K, R. N. The increment is 10 seconds so the players are no longer keeping score. The arbiter should step in when it is clear to him that 50 moves have been made without a capture or pawn move, or that the position has occurred 3 times. I might let it go more than 50 or more than 3 to make certain. He should use the Bringing the game into disrepute law to justify his action.
There should be an arbiter at each event and it is only a small sum of money that inhibits the practice. If there are two of them, both could play. It is vanishingly unlikely both will be involved in a very long game. Encourage people to become arbiters.

For what it's worth, I'd like to see someone try to win (or defend) KRB v KNN using a 10-second increment with no time to write the moves down.

I'm not sure what we would do if faced with the prospect of a marathon of this kind. I expect it's easier to line up arbiters for weekend tournaments than for weekday evening league chess (which are not "events" in quite the same way). Incremental time controls will be a new experience for the Civil Service League. Probably we will wait until a problem arises, try to cope with it at the time, and legislate afterwards.

The Central London League is currently having an internal debate about incremental time controls in order to set the ground rules for next season. I'm not going to comment on the issues now but will publicise the outcome.

[Roger de Coverly]

You have a guillotine of some sort (e.g. the Surrey Border League allows 10.2 claims after 190 minutes play).

Exactly. So if you allowing ten second increments in a league, you need to come up with something of that nature. Stewart suggests that an arbiter could be summoned in a tournament and intervene if it appeared fifty moves had been exceeded.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I can recall two of my games in recent years going the full 50 moves - in both of them, I had R + N v R.

[Joey Stewart]

I don't suppose tracking the 50 moves have been an issue in your game, Jack, since you would have likely had tons of spare time with which to keep score.

[Stewart Reuben]

I have never seen KRB v KNN. But KBBN v KR would be interesting. KBNN v KR is an easy draw. RxB is a huge threat.

I know that there aren't all that many disputes, even with 10.2 or adjudication. But people will find an increment is even more tranquil, fairer and, in my opinon, leads to better chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

But KBBN v KR would be interesting.

A bit of playing around with the Shredder tablebase suggests that the pieces win. It can take nearly fifty moves, so a possible draw with inexact play and someone counting moves.

[Joey Stewart]

So, back to the original topic. Was there much wailing and gnashing of teeth? Usually in leagues there are some stubborn old men who threaten to walk out if they are not allowed to adjourn every game they play - did this happen or was it a relatively peaceful decision?

[James Toon]

Relatively peaceful. A general acceptance that the time had come to move on, with some concern to help older players through the transition to avoid them walking away. I think we may lose a few. On the other hand, the league becomes more attractive to outsiders if it opens up.

[John Upham]

img_1468_lv.jpg