Does your League still have adjournments?

[Mick Norris]

This is from 2008, so it may be out of date:


League Manchester Central Lancs East Lancs Bury & Rochdale Bolton

Boards per team 7 5 5 4 6

Divisions 4 of 11, 10, 7, 8 teams 3 of 6 teams 3 of 8, 7, 7 teams 2 of 6, 7 teams 1 of 8

Grading restrictions none Div 1 - none none none none
Div 2 - Average U130
Div 3 - Average U110

Start time 7:30 PM 7:30 PM 7:30 PM 7:30 PM 7:30 PM

Time Control 30/75 mins 35/75 mins 35/75 mins 35/75 mins 30/75 mins
20 min finish 15 min finish 15/15 min then adjudication 15 min finish 15-30 min finish

Number of matches likely to be 7 10 14 10 14
plus cup yes yes yes yes yes
home and away maybe yes yes yes yes

ECF graded yes yes no no no

Entry fee £19 plus game fee of c£16 £10 £14 £4 £13
NMS membership no Compulsory £10 per player no no no

[David Shepherd]

Representatives from the Surrey League ...... make your case for retention!

In the Surrey Main League, all three possibilities (Adjournment, Adjudication and Quickplay Finish) are permitted. At the start of the game the away player offers the home player the choice of at least two of the three options and the home player selects one of the choices offered. In this way nobody can be forced to conclude the game by a particular method which he or she really dislikes; everyone gets at least his or her second choice.

This is not true I dislike both adjudications and adjournments - I will never again pick or offer adjudication, and dislike adjournments as it means you may be forced to travel long distances after work just to play a few moves where your opponent has probably studied the position on a computer. In one game this year I was put under pressure to resign a "lost" position to avoid my opponent having to travel a large distance. In the end I went back to their club a second time (a round journey of about two hours after work - as the club although in the Surrey league was not in Surrey) as it did seem slightly unfair to make the opponent travel to finish in a position where I would have resigned had the outcome of the match not depended on it. In the end I drew but was left with a dislike of adjournments.

[David Shepherd]

I am of the same opinion as a player in a match I played in this season - when he was asked "Which finish do you want adjudication or adjournment" he simply replied neither.

It is not so much that I object to allowing a choice of finish - if both players want to adjourn or adjudicate then why not (grading is a different issue), what I object to is not having the quickplay option as a default if one of the players wants it.

[Kevin Thurlow]

The short playing session is a problem in Surrey, whatever the method of finishing the game. I don't agree that the antipathy to QP is always age-related. The strongest teams in Surrey Division 1 regularly have matches which are all QP finish, and lower down, a lot of "experienced" (by which I mean "old") players prefer QP. However, one of our juniors frightened an opponent a couple of years ago by accepting QP, when he had 28 minutes on his clock as he had come in as a substitute. His very sporting opponent pointed this out and asked if he wanted to change his mind, to which the answer was "no". So our player had an immense psychological advantage, but lost anyway.

I believe Surrey also still has a Fischer timing option, but that is only useful for clubs that can occupy their premises indefinitely.

The London Civil Service League has adjudication as default choice but players can agree to adjournment or QP. The last adjournment happened about 10 years ago, partly as you need to get security clearance for any visitor, which is a pain for just one person!

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I am of the same opinion as a player in a match I played in this season - when he was asked "Which finish do you want adjudication or adjournment" he simply replied neither."

This reminds me of a match in Surrey years ago, when either player could insist on adjournment in the top division and the KO, but couldn't in the lower divisions. (But you could agree to adjourn.) Redhill played a Division 2 team in the KO event, and the player next to me announced at the start "I want to adjourn if we are unfinished at time-control", getting the reply "I don't", (thinking he could just refuse... Our player wisely decided to say nothing more.) We were cheated of an enormous argument as our player won comfortably in the first session. The opposing player was the late Peter Shaw, and anyone who remembers him will know that he did have the occasional argument! I think our player was Brian Valentine, who will doubtless correct me if I have misremembered.

[Richard Cowan]

Might be of interest to Alex - http://beehive.thisishull.co.uk/default ... geID=11579

[Graham Borrowdale]

Lots of arguments here about the rights or wrongs of allowing adjournments. I suppose it depends what you want from your chess. I have played in a few leagues, and some of my best games over the years have been with adjournments, where the second phase of the game can be played with proper time for thought. Probably some of my worst have been as well, but at least they have been proper games. In my experience adjourning at move 30/35 does not necessarily mean that the computer finishes the game; if you don't want to use a computer then don't feel obliged to, and if your opponent does, then so be it. One thing is for sure, many of my worst games have been with quick finishes.

When I played Surrey League I always opted for quick-play over adjournments however, for reasons of preferring not to have to find the additional evenings required, and I never opted for adjudication (we have all had the opponent who wins a pawn then sits on their hands rather than playing chess).
As for Fischer timings, I well remember being left playing my game at Coulsdon until nearly midnight, long after the rest of my team had left (we were 7-0 down), while my opponent, no doubt experienced with such things, succeeded in blitzing me from a lost position by accumulating 10 second increments while I floundered trying to record the moves while my clock ran down!

As to whether adjournments should be outlawed simply because a 'majority' of players dislike them, I would caution against that approach. As long as the adjournment is selected by both players then I don't see a problem. The league I play in at the moment has quickplay finish, no options, and I would say much of the chess is pretty low level (at least mine is) beyond move 35. Maybe I should try correspondence chess!

[Richard Cowan]

The league I play in at the moment has quickplay finish, no options, and I would say much of the chess is pretty low level (at least mine is) beyond move 35. Maybe I should try correspondence chess!

Or you could learn to play endgames...

Seriously, if you think this is where games are decided, then concentrate more on it - you'll win more games!

[Roger de Coverly]

In the Surrey Main League, all three possibilities (Adjournment, Adjudication and Quickplay Finish) are permitted. At the start of the game the away player offers the home player the choice of at least two of the three options and the home player selects one of the choices offered. In this way nobody can be forced to conclude the game by a particular method which he or she really dislikes; everyone gets at least his or her second choice.

The problem is that if you cannot commit to a second session, the only options are quickplay and adjudication. Adjudication wouldn't be so bad if a compulsory high minimum number of moves (say 60) had to be played before a game could be adjudicated.

Pro-adjudication people don't like this idea - presumably it breaks John Upham's rules 3 and 6.

3. Some of our players cannot play endings and shouldn't be expected to at their age bless them
6. Playing chess quickly is ungentlemanly and not sporting

[Alex Holowczak]

A vocal objection to adjournments here is that it leaves no time for the endgames. In my experience, they're just rubbish at endgames, regardless of how long they're given. So, they need either more time to go through it, or other people/computers to tell them how to play it. Just learn how to play endgames before you start the game.

The people who prefer adjournments are often not of the standard (e.g. under 140) to appreciate them fully anyway, if you see what I mean. Whereas, e.g. IM Richard Bates might find them intriguing and almost infinitely complex, these thoughts are not shared lower down. They may be in awe of its complexity, but they probably rely on instinct to work out the best thing to do. I know I do!

[Richard Cowan]

Or you could just play quicker so as to reach the endgame with enough time left - or memorise those lines which leads to an early endgame (there are a few!)

[Adam Raoof]

A vocal objection to adjournments here is that it leaves no time for the endgames. In my experience, they're just rubbish at endgames, regardless of how long they're given. So, they need either more time to go through it, or other people/computers to tell them how to play it. Just learn how to play endgames before you start the game.

I admire your tact and diplomacy

Mind you, in my case you may also be right...

[Alex Holowczak]

I've noticed that the standard of endgame play here is generally rather low. I win too many games I shouldn't in the endgame, even when I have less time than my opponent. I'm not exactly a specialist, either.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I've noticed that the standard of endgame play here is generally rather low. I win too many games I shouldn't in the endgame, even when I have less time than my opponent. I'm not exactly a specialist, either.

Having played seriously for nearly 30 years now, I agree!

And I can't help wondering if it is even now a hangover from when adjudications were commonplace - it led to many players treating endings with little better than contempt, and as ever old attitudes die hard

[Brian Valentine]

This reminds me of a match in Surrey years ago, when either player could insist on adjournment in the top division and the KO, but couldn't in the lower divisions. (But you could agree to adjourn.) Redhill played a Division 2 team in the KO event, and the player next to me announced at the start "I want to adjourn if we are unfinished at time-control", getting the reply "I don't", (thinking he could just refuse... Our player wisely decided to say nothing more.) We were cheated of an enormous argument as our player won comfortably in the first session. The opposing player was the late Peter Shaw, and anyone who remembers him will know that he did have the occasional argument! I think our player was Brian Valentine, who will doubtless correct me if I have misremembered

Alexander Cup October 1982 Shaw 0 Valentine 1 33 - 3 moves before armageddon