English Chess Forum

Hello and greetings from a new member,
I belong to a small and probably very typical chess club.

We meet on a workday evening and because of time restraints fairly often have to adjourn internal league games. Does anyone know of a FIDE/ECF ruling on the use of chess ‘engines’ to analyse adjourned positions?
I appreciate that any rule, if it exists, would be impossible to police and would be nothing more than a gentleman’s agreement, but just wondered how other clubs have adapted to meet the involvement of Fritz and its like on club chess?

Kind regards
Trefor

but just wondered how other clubs have adapted to meet the involvement of Fritz and its like on club chess?

The simple solution is to abolish adjournments.

If you have 3 hours, just play G/90 or something like 30/75 + 15. If it's just 2 and half hours, use G/75 or 30/60 + 15.

Trefor

The ECF rules do not give any specific guidance relating to the use of computers in adjourned games. As an ex-internal organiser my advice would be to make all the games quickplay finishes, and tailor the playing sessions to the length of time your club has at the venue. For example our club has the venue from 19:30 to 22:30, so we play 30 in 1:00 followed by the remainder in 0:15.

Internal competitions present problems not associated with league games - most notably relating to the availability of players. For our club, which has c. 20 members, 5-7 is usually the winning score - and we play a double round all play all event. Some problems (with adjournments) could include getting players to play on when they have low availability, what to do with games that have not been finished - especially towards the end of the season and, as you mentioned, what to do with people using/not using computers. Internal events are often good for players who are newer to chess and/or who may be less likely to play in leagues. Games that finish on the night are often more attractive for these players - especially juniors. They are also more likely to enable ungraded players to gain ECF grades for the following season.

If you did chose to use quickplay finishes then this does not prevent prevent players from using adjournments - you could make quickplay the default option and then adjourments possible if both players agree. Players could then come to a gentlemanly agreement before the game or, if they cannot, then they could prevent this scenario from happening.

Peter

Thank you for your replies,

I will ask AGM to change our internal league to either Game in 90 or 35/75 then 15 min quick play - we already use the latter for inter-club matches so can't believe there will be any problems with this. I must confess to having a preference for game in 90 though!!

As long as the games still qualify for grading I suspect that everyone will be happy and at least we will be back to the old fashioned concept of 1 player v 1 player!

Many thanks
Trefor

You might also find it's not as much of an issue as you fear. It's all very well getting the engine to analyse, but how much of that analysis can anybody remember? Don't forget, too, that as any correspondence player will tell you, just because the engine reckons it's found the best move doesn't mean it's true.

LOL that is very true! Especially as the game that sparked the query is a rook and pawn endgame

Actually player A {who sealed] told player B that he may as well resign as Fritz had analysed the adjourned positon to be a win for white(A). This in turn infuriated B who retorted that he only joined a chess club because he wanted to play against fellow humans and could stay at home and play software!!
and so on
and so on
----
----

Play has not yet resumed so only time will tell, whether
a) Fritz was correct
b) Player A can remember any/all of the 'correct' moves

Thanks

I've seen Rybka claim an advantage exceeding 3.5 for one side in a completely drawn rook ending (h-pawn with rook ahead of it).

Plenty to play for, I reckon, though of course I say that without having seen the position....

JustinHorton wrote:You might also find it's not as much of an issue as you fear. It's all very well getting the engine to analyse, but how much of that analysis can anybody remember? Don't forget, too, that as any correspondence player will tell you, just because the engine reckons it's found the best move doesn't mean it's true.

Too true - but in answer to the original question, there is nothing to stop you using software during an adjournment. We did have a problem at our club many years ago when two of the finalists in our club championship were working together on their adjourned games, which the rest of us considered unfair. Neither of them won the event.

I had a postal game a few years ago which I steered into B + wrong RP vs king (I had the bare king obviously!) and it took my opponent 20 moves to work out it was drawn, at which point the then current version of Fritz thought it was +5.....

Kevin

Well, as my club mates constantly mock me for my sheer incompetence at endgames I share Fritz’s confusion.

Luckily I acquired some good endgame books at Christmas and as the late and very great Tal once said ‘Before the endgame, the God's have placed the middle game’

It is just a pity that before the middle game they placed the opening!!

Trefor Owens wrote:Actually player A {who sealed] told player B that he may as well resign as Fritz had analysed the adjourned positon to be a win for white(A).

How rude.

I wonder what the appropriate response for B is here.

There are people who can memorise log tables and engage in similar worthy endeavours.

I was Black in the following position in a Middlesex League game between Athenæum and Kings Head in 2001. It was my opponent who sealed.

2r2rk1/5p1p/1q2n1pQ/8/1Pbp4/7P/1B3PP1/1BR1R1K1

On the face of it an interesting position which superficially appears quite good for White. I analysed (sic) several of my opponent's tries with the aid of the blessed Ludwig von Fritz.

The next few moves were:

37. Re4 f5 38. Rh4 Qa7 39. g4 d3 40. gxf5 Rxf5 41. Qxg6+ hxg6 42. Rh8+ Kf7 43. Rh7+ Kf8 44. Rxa7 Nf4

These were all played at a fairly fast clip. I don't know whether my opponent was inspired and played accurately through the tactics, for his next move was:

45. Rh7??

For the first time I stopped and had a long think, this was the first move not given by the silicon theorist. I responded:

45... Ne2+

After a few minutes thought White resigned.

To me, even though I won, the whole exercise seemed rather futile.

It's true that evening games with a Quickplay Finish are a slow form of Rapidplay, but the problem lies in the length of the playing session. Even an extra half hour would help. I should like adjournments to be outlawed.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

Trefor Owens wrote:Actually player A {who sealed] told player B that he may as well resign as Fritz had analysed the adjourned positon to be a win for white(A).

How rude.

I wonder what the appropriate response for B is here.

Heh, possibly we should have run that as a competition.

I'll propose "well perhaps ...ing Fritz can turn up to the second session and see how it gets on".

"Actually player A {who sealed] told player B that he may as well resign as Fritz had analysed the adjourned positon to be a win for white(A).
How rude.

I wonder what the appropriate response for B is here.

Heh, possibly we should have run that as a competition.

I'll propose "well perhaps ...ing Fritz can turn up to the second session and see how it gets on"."

Certainly rude - How about, "Oh, I heard that some defective ones got sold, hard luck."

Actually, I think telling someone they should resign is a distraction, perhaps contact the competition organiser and claim the game?

Kevin Thurlow wrote:I wonder what the appropriate response for B is here.

Rykba says it's a draw?

LegoChess suggested building a fortress to achieve a draw