Another League Adopts Quickplay Finishes.

[Michael Flatt]

I suspect that this topic has been debated many times over in more than one other thread. The Quick-play finish is a well established method of finishing the game. It is not new.

[Martyn Harris]

Joey, a few practical points:

If there is no arbiter present, then the claim ends the game. Make a note of position, and if at all possible a complete score of the game, and pass on to appropriate competition authority. They should have access to a tame arbiter who will make a ruling. Most arbiters set a high hurdle for supporting claims, working on the basis that if it is possible for the claimant to go wrong they will do so unless they have already shown by the moves made that they know how to draw the position. Unfortunately a few arbiters seem to delight in making offbeat rulings in order to justify their existence, and if you get one of these then making or declining a claim is little more than a fingers crossed job.

Many (most?) leagues expect captains to act as joint arbiters to resolve problems on the night. However it is probably best not to include resolution of two minute claims within their remit - too much scope for creating bad feeling without getting agreement.

A claim also constitutes a draw offer, and the opponent can accept the implied offer. End of problem. However some players do not like accepting claims as they read an implied "you have no choice" into the claim and object as a matter of principal. Consequently you may find it better to offer a draw first, then make a claim if this is declined.

When playing with an arbiter present it is probably best to make the claim as early in the two minute period as you are prepared to accept the draw so as to encourage the arbiter to watch the maximum amount of play before they have to make a ruling at flag fall. Of course if the arbiter is already watching the game then this is of lesser import. If there is no arbiter present so that the ruling has to made purely on the basis of position and possibly score, then make the claim as late as possible as this is likely to give the simplest position and the greatest number of moves for the arbiter to base their decision on.

The arbiter should not be interested in any supporting analysis. A position being drawn with best play does not constitute grounds for supporting a claim.

The claimant, having less than two minutes on their clock, may not have a full record of the game. An opponent who refuses to allow their scoresheet to be used may simply increase the chance that the arbiter will rule in favour of the claimant.

[Ian Thompson]

The claimant, having less than two minutes on their clock, may not have a full record of the game. An opponent who refuses to allow their scoresheet to be used may simply increase the chance that the arbiter will rule in favour of the claimant.

If that happens the arbiter should deal with it under either, or both of, Laws 8.2 and 8.3, using one of the measures available under Law 12.9.

[Roger de Coverly]

On that note, does anybody have a good set of rules to explain the two minute rules to a layman league player (and not the alien legal speak that they use on the fide website)

You might want to look at the document prepared for the county next door although it hasn't been updated to make Appendix G references.

http://www.oxfordfusion.com/oca/documen ... ce2010.pdf

It recommends that the player seeking a draw should first test the waters by making it as an offer. The opponent might well agree that the position is drawn or that the draw offer is exceptionally generous given the position on the board.

[Martyn Harris]

The claimant, having less than two minutes on their clock, may not have a full record of the game. An opponent who refuses to allow their scoresheet to be used may simply increase the chance that the arbiter will rule in favour of the claimant.

If that happens the arbiter should deal with it under either, or both of, Laws 8.2 and 8.3, using one of the measures available under Law 12.9.

Won't argue with that. The point I was rather poorly trying to make is that if in a league match with no arbiter present a player takes umbrage at the game being halted by a claim and refuses to cooperate with the ensuing procedure, he may well not like the option that the remote arbiter chooses in his ruling. I fear that in practice players who through their own ignorance of the rules believe that their opponent is pulling a fast one can react by simply walking away, maybe making a derogatory parting shot as they do so. The laws you quote indeed explain why that would not be a good idea. I'd be disappointed if a claim didn't go through 'on the nod' under these circumstances, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that an arbiter would still want to make a ruling based on the exact individual circumstances of the case concerned.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Well done, Joey,

A thread with positive responses without any sign of dissent or dispute.

What is the world coming to?

It is not worth even trying to put an alternative point of view on this subject, for fear of being branded a dinosaur, or worse, as has happened to me on more than one occasion before. For my money, adjournments and adjudication are completely different. Adjudication, often used by players who sit on the position at move 30, is unsatisfactory. Adjournments, however, had a place for players who actually enjoy playing out endings at proper time controls, and I am a little sad that they seem to have been thrown out with the bathwater in most leagues, without being retained as an option should both players agree. I for one would rather play a single game over successive weeks in preference to two games with quick-play finishes. Another factor is that many players seem to have little idea of how to play endings, having never played anything but quick-play finishes (I am talking about players who only play evening chess, not those who play congresses/4NCL, etc).
Given the insistence that games must finish on the night, the way forward must be incremental time controls. At something like 30 moves in 60 mins + 15s per move from move 1, a 60 move game would last 75 mins (per player) and a 90-move game, 90 mins, the same length as most sessions. The risk of overrunning that is extremely small.

[Roger de Coverly]

For my money, adjournments and adjudication are completely different. Adjudication, often used by players who sit on the position at move 30, is unsatisfactory. Adjournments, however, had a place for players who actually enjoy playing out endings at proper time controls

There was just as much gamesmanship with adjournments as adjudications. A few years ago, the Berkshire League felt required to retain them as an option. Two stipulations though, both players have to agree and crucially they have to agree the "when and where" of an adjournment session before play commences. It isn't widely advertised as an option but has yet to be formally removed from the Rules. Take up has been minimal.

[David Blower]

Hopefully I can comment on this thread without a list of grades being published later on in the thread, to show that I have the lowest grade!

I think overall it is a good thing.

Would love to know what "proper time controls" are anyway?