Adjourned Games

[JustinHorton]

Har, very good

[John Upham]

At the recent Southampton League AGM, a proposal from Basingstoke Chess Club to abolish the possibility of adjourned games was defeated by 6 votes to 2.

[Matt Mackenzie]

That doesn't appear a terribly large selectorate tbh?

[Graham Borrowdale]

At the recent Southampton League AGM, a proposal from Basingstoke Chess Club to abolish the possibility of adjourned games was defeated by 6 votes to 2.

That doesn't appear a terribly large selectorate tbh?

I suspect it was 6 clubs rather than individuals, so the clubs might well have had an internal vote on the subject. If the good people of Hampshire want to retain the option of adjournments then I don't see a particular problem (lights touch paper, etc...)

On the subject of outside help in correspondence games, I was slightly taken aback many years ago, when a very strong player approached me and started discussing a correspondence game I was in the middle of against an equally strong player. I was obviously playing against a committee!

[NickFaulks]

At the recent Southampton League AGM, a proposal from Basingstoke Chess Club to abolish the possibility of adjourned games was defeated by 6 votes to 2.

If I lived in Basingstoke and played matches in Southampton and Salisbury I don't expect I'd be very keen on adjournments.

[Stewart Reuben]

I am disappointed nobody suggested to Trefor Owens that the club lash out and buy some electronic clocks. Then play perhaps all the moves in 85 minutes + an increment of 5 seconds per move from the first.
This gets the games over in 3 hours and avoids adjudication, adjournment or quickplay finishes.

[Paul Dargan]

Stewart - but it doesn't really avoid a quickplay finish does it - it's just a different kind of quickplay finish. Moreover it takes a while for people to get used to not getting an extra tranche of time after 30 or 36 moves or whatever. I understand the arguments for increments - but telling people that they avoid QP finishes isn't really one of them

Paul

[Stewart Reuben]

Paul,
With an extra 5 seconds per move, there is no quickplay finish. That is defined in G1. The phase of a game where all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.

e.g. You have knight against rook in a theoretically drawn position. With a finite time, perhaps 2 minutes, you have little hope of drawing in 50 moves. With an extra 5 seconds per move, you have a reasonable chance of drawing.
It is not a QPF in any sense of the expression.
If an extra tranche of time is wanted, then 40 moves in 70 minutes, all in 15 + 5 seconds per move from the first is a satisfactory alternative.

Remember we are responding to a query from Trevor Owens who is not very experienced.

[NickFaulks]

It is not a QPF in any sense of the expression.

Many simple club players will mistakenly think that it is a quickplay finish in the sense that it is the finish of a game in which they have to play their moves quickly.

[Paul Dargan]

Stewart - Let's not go down what FIDE define things as and think about players. While I agree that the guillotine effect what it does mean is that a game which is conducted at a normal pace of 30 in 75 or similar, will thne become a lightning game playing at a move every 5-10 seconds depending on the exact arrangement implemented.

My suspicion (based on zero research) is not that people object ot the guillotine effect but that they do not want an otherwise sensible game ruined by accelerated play in the final stages. From that perspective we are merely substituting one bad solution (QPF) with another (increments). People with this perspective would rather adjourn and play at the same pace in another session. It's not a perspective I share (and I make sure in LL that I play on a board that will have QPF by default) - but it is a valid viewpoint that has been expressed previously.

Paul

[Alex Holowczak]

My suspicion (based on zero research) is not that people object ot the guillotine effect but that they do not want an otherwise sensible game ruined by accelerated play in the final stages. From that perspective we are merely substituting one bad solution (QPF) with another (increments). People with this perspective would rather adjourn and play at the same pace in another session. It's not a perspective I share (and I make sure in LL that I play on a board that will have QPF by default) - but it is a valid viewpoint that has been expressed previously.

My knowledge from the Birmingham League, who consulted with its membership very widely two years ago, concluded that the vast majority of players simply objected to the guillotine, and were quite happy to play a 1-session game with increments. Those who wanted 1-session chess anyway were quite happy to accept increments, because they simply wanted to finish the game on the night.

Having come up with compromise rules this year, the majority of the teams chose 1-session chess, with increments favourable in higher divisions, and quickplay favourable in the lower divisions. I suspect this was due to the availability of digital clocks lower down the league; they are rarely 1st teams in the lower divisions, and most clubs probably only own enough clocks for 1 match.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Possibly some of those accepting increment play are recognising that it is better than a quickplay finish, which is not the same as accepting that it is better than adjournments. For games played at the same pace for the whole game, adjournments is the only option. It is a philosophical point as to whether speeding up play towards the end of a game is acceptable or not. Some players benefit from this, others end up with worse results. It is also a practical point when considering whether to play a game over one session or multiple sessions. Whether you put number of sessions ahead of time control purity mostly determines where you stand on the issue.

[Alex Holowczak]

Possibly some of those accepting increment play are recognising that it is better than a quickplay finish, which is not the same as accepting that it is better than adjournments.

Indeed, that's exactly what we found in Birmingham. But those in favour of adjournments realised that if the issue was going to get put to a vote over whether the default would be adjournments or quickplay, quickplay would win the vote.

[Roger de Coverly]

For games played at the same pace for the whole game, adjournments is the only option.

If players crawl along at 3 minutes a move, then yes, when you have three hour or shorter sessions to contend with. Otherwise just up the tempo to a move every 90 seconds and sixty move games will fit a three hour session without excessive time panic.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

It is a philosophical point as to whether speeding up play towards the end of a game is acceptable or not.

We really need to stop this myth that quick play finishes automatically mean players have to speed up play towards the end of the game. This usually only happens when players don't manage their time properly. I know this isn't exactly a scientific study, but of my 70 league games over the past 4 seasons, 50 have had fewer than 50 moves and only 5 have gone beyond 60 moves (only 1 over 70 moves) and, at a rate of 35/75 +15, I cannot remember the last time I've had to speed up my play towards the end, or been in serious time trouble.