Adjudication: an appeal to holders of congress votes at ECF

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't understand the snootiness about it, which other countries just don't seem to have.

Other countries tend not to have evening leagues in the style with which we would be familiar. The German approach is more akin to county matches with games played at weekends. Those who have played in German domestic competitions talk of matches scheduled to start at 9 am on a Sunday morning or even earlier. But unlike the 4NCL, the timetables of the German leagues date back to before FIDE legalised quickplay finishes in the early 1990s.

[Nick Grey]

On Stewart's point he has put this one before. In 2006 there were views from Thames Valley to oppose.

Not sure why seem to suggest a 2014 rule change (from an inquorate meeting).

Thames Valley very few finishes in this way. But mainly because at time control or shortly after - agree a half or resign.

May just mean less games, people not playing anymore, or actually playing at home in the evening rather than at the club. Very little of that happens - mainly on league chess only.

[Nick Grey]

TV can have 2.5 hour sessions. The lateness of starting, some awful journeys, some where trains & buses not running after matches finish. Surrey too like that.

Not sure why juniors ought to be playing that late on a school night.

Note sure why ECF want to implement all anyway (& charges look like a tax to me or at least a service & I cannot see why no VAT on the service of GRADING

[Roger de Coverly]

Thames Valley very few finishes in this way. But mainly because at time control or shortly after - agree a half or resign.

What's being proposed is that if a league has rules that allow adjudication even in a limited number of circumstances, that the league should no longer be graded.

Go a little further west to Oxfordshire, Berkshire or Buckinghamshire and you will find that adjudication with all the gamesmanship this permits was abolished years ago. You will also find that players with respectable grades are more than capable of playing an entire game within a three hour schedule and for that matter that's how they earn and defend respectable grades.

How the independently minded Council Representatives will vote this afternoon ( after midnight posting) remains to be seen. The best outcome would be a vote "adjudications no", but "ECF dickat no".

[Ian Thompson]

Note sure why ECF want to implement all anyway (& charges look like a tax to me or at least a service & I cannot see why no VAT on the service of GRADING

Game fee is subject to VAT - I've just received an invoice from the ECF for last season's league game fees and it shows it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Game fee is subject to VAT - I've just received an invoice from the ECF for last season's league game fees and it shows it.

The ECF is subject to VAT because of its turnover and grading is used as a fund raising measure in any case.

It's an historic accident that the decentralised nature of chess organisation rather naturally results in most activities being below the VAT threshold.

[E Michael White]

I've only just come across this debate.
Have no doubt, adjudication is not according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. The relevant sentence is the first in the introduction.

FIDE Laws of Chess cover over the board play.

Stewart

The term OTB or over the board chess had been used for over 100 years to mean chess where the moves were played at a board in 1 or more sessions with possible adjudication or adjournment after an agreed time or number of moves.

FIDE did not issue any announcement in 1997 of a change which would have had a large impact. Do you have any FIDE record of FIDE meeting notes or minutes to suggest this addition was meant to ban adjudications thereafter ?

[Richard Bates]

I've only just come across this debate.
Have no doubt, adjudication is not according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. The relevant sentence is the first in the introduction. FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play. Only twisted logic can pretend that an adjudication is otb. Y

Only twisted logic can pretend that a draw offer and acceptance in the period post adjournment and pre-resumption (eg. over the phone) is otb

[Richard Bates]

Is it war?

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/sccu.htm

[Malcolm Clarke]

Personally I think that even if a league does allow adjudications then it ought to be possible to reduce the number of them. My own league allows adjudications, but has not had one in the last two years, even though if as thing stand and the proposal is passed our games will not be graded.

One argument against adjudications is that the adjudicator can take into account things that the players would never be able to see over the board. However I can see other ways in which games are resolved that lead to a result that does not reflect the ability of the players.

What I sincerely hope is that this does not become a divisive issue. I personally have been involved in the administration of league chess for 24 years with players and teams coming from all backgrounds and different circumstances, and I hope that people can see other people's point of view even if it is different from their own.

[David Shepherd]

Maybe as a compromise a ban should be put on grading games that allow adjudication before x number of moves have been played (or are adjudicated before x moves).

[Rob Thompson]

Maybe as a compromise a ban should be put on grading games that allow adjudication before x number of moves have been played (or are adjudicated before x moves).

I fully expect some kind of compromise to appear from the floor.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I am addressing this particularly to the holders of congress votes at Council because I understand that some of you have “been lined up” to support Alex Holowczak’s motion which is attempting to eradicate the practice of adjudication from ECF graded chess. As this issue does not affect congress chess, I am suggesting that you abstain.

Coming back to this. Was it really true that some votes were 'lined up' and given that the motion was defeated 85-138 (as reported in the AGM thread), should it be presumed that this appeal from Mike had an effect? It would be nice to know who voted and how, but was it a secret ballot or is some of the voting public in the sense that some delegates were instructed to vote a particular way. and that is public knowledge?

[Roger de Coverly]

Was it really true that some votes were 'lined up' and given that the motion was defeated 85-138 (as reported in the AGM thread)

The motion was defeated first by a show of hands and then by the card vote. It might be inferred that the "voters" , those with scores of mandates and proxies had been lined up in favour.

Apparently the London League had instructed Stewart Reuben to support the motion on their behalf if there was a disabled players exemption, but not otherwise.

In many respects I could believe the vote wasn't so much about the merits of adjudication, but the powers or otherwise of the ECF to dictate to voting members (Leagues and Congresses) what their rules should say. I would have thought a motion recommending that at the very least, adjudication should be reduced to an option agreed by both players, stood a much better chance of success.

But then having fought the case for abolition or at least making it non-compulsory through several AGMs in two counties, perhaps I'm biased. I do know that I've played perhaps a thousand games since the possibility of an adjournment or adjudication has had to influence my choice of opening or even individual move choices.

[Mike Gunn]

To answer Chris K's specific question: Surrey had prior warning that Alex's proposal was going to appear on the ECF Council agenda. In fact we wrote to him putting our case and trying to persuade him not to pursue the matter and received a courteous reply (declining to do so) from him. We also understood that Alex had secured support from the individuals on Council with the largest numbers of votes before tabling the motion. This was a reasonable action on Alex's part because it was pointless raising this issue (which had been previously defeated) unless he was sure there was going to be some support for it. However, those individuals with the largest numbers of votes also happen to be people who derive most of their votes from their congress activity - hence my OP which I (still) think is a valid point.