English Chess Forum

I want to compile a list of leagues that still have adjournments, and leagues which have quickplay finishes.

This can be broken into two questions:
1) Does your League have quickplay finishes or adjournments?
2) In what capacity can they be called? I.e. both captains agree, one captain insists, or some other convoluted system.

Oh yes! There are still adjournments in the London League To answer your questions, I think these are the rules:

1) both
2) both players have to agree if they want quickplay or adjournment finish. In the first division, if players don't agree then odd boards default to quickplay and even boards default to adjournment finish. In lower divisions if players don't agree then they default to adjournment finish.

Don't get me started on this - we still have adjournments in 21st century?? The world has moved on and we are still stuck in the past!

Much to my regret, the Surrey Border League still does. However, the committee is proposing to make the adjournment "option" truly an option. Both the victim and the perpetrator will have to agree to this nonsense. Right now, a perpetrator may force a victim into it.

See http://www.borderleague.org.uk/local/ti ... n=20092010

The Berkshire League also perpetrates this crime currently

See http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/local/ ... n=20092010

Hopefully they will consign this to the dustbin of chess also with adjudication.

I believe that the ECF Board is considering a proposal to not rate games that have been completed via more than one session.

At the risk of being ageist it would be interesting (or not) to correlate a desire for this nonsense with increasing age.

I suspect the more one is beyond sixty years old then the more one favours adjournment.

We are setting a poor example to younger players yet again along with the fear of digital clocks.

The Thames Valley League as of last season had the following rules:
1. Decisions are made at board level before the game: slowplay with adjournments/adjudications, play to a finish with two time controls, all moves in 75/90 minutes, with that as the order of precedence. So if either player wants adjournment/adjudication that's what you get.
2. When time is called, if the game is unfinished the player whose turn it is to move can choose to adjourn at his/her opponent's venue or propose adjudication. The other player can then either agree to an adjudication or insist on adjourning at the first player's venue. So you only travel if you are prepared to do so.

There was a proposal at the recent AGM along the lines of the London League Division 1 rules outlined by Maria. I haven't heard yet what happened: perhaps someone who was there (Richard Thursby?) can enlighten me.

John: I will be 60 this month and dislike adjournments/adjudications. Life's too short.

It does look like we are living the past a little in League chess

A normal league match last approx 3 1/2 hours (7.30 to 11 pm), nowadays using FIDE "new" time controls, a rated game on average lasts that long, and even congresses play at a 4 hour time control

So is a time control of 3 1/2 in total not long enough for a game of chess, and that is why adjournments still occur

BTW, Manchester have a default time control of 30 in 1hr 15mins and 20 mins QP finish, adjournments are only allowed if both captain's agree. There hasn't been any adjournments for nearly 10 years

John Upham wrote:Much to my regret, the Surrey Border League still does. However, the committee is proposing to make the adjournment "option" truly an option. Both the victim and the perpetrator will have to agree to this nonsense. Right now, a perpetrator may force a victim into it.

Are you sure about this? The proposal the committee discussed said "[make] All-moves-in-90 minutes the Default in these divisions (instead of Adjournment). It will still be possible for either player to insist on adjournment in these divisions, however, at the cost of having to travel to the opponent's venue for the continuation, but the player must make his preference known before White's second move."

John Upham wrote:See http://www.borderleague.org.uk/local/ti ... n=20092010

Default time limit for Division 1 is Fischer 85 minutes + 5 seconds, with a proposal to change it to 80 minutes + 10 seconds next season. (The time limit mentioned in the link is an optional one that both players can agree to.)

It's certainly directly related to age from what I heard about the London League's committees deciding on the rules of adjournment. None of the younger players would even dream of requesting adjournments. I agree, very poor example for the younger players who want to improve and therefore need to practice their chess in conditions that are closest to the international standard. I really hope ECF will implement the rule of not rating adjourned games.

Interesting replies.

From an outsider's point of view, the Berkshire and Surrey Border league certainly offer a variety of time controls! Perhaps over-complicating it?

Regarding age: I think under x, almost everyone wants QP. Over x, it's much more mixed. I think that 25 < x < 35.

The time control at the Olympiad this summer is such that the game duration is 5 hours for the game. So why do local leagues need two (or more) 3-hour sessions in which to play them?

Many International timecontrols are a joke these days. Fortunately at the very highest level things have improved a bit from when FIDE introduced their knockout tournament with near rapidplay timecontrols and tried to call it a World championship. It is a shame Ilyumzhinov's timecontrols continue to be so prevalent outside of 2 game a day tournaments.

Ian Thompson wrote:

John Upham wrote:Much to my regret, the Surrey Border League still does. However, the committee is proposing to make the adjournment "option" truly an option. Both the victim and the perpetrator will have to agree to this nonsense. Right now, a perpetrator may force a victim into it.

Are you sure about this? The proposal the committee discussed said "[make] All-moves-in-90 minutes the Default in these divisions (instead of Adjournment). It will still be possible for either player to insist on adjournment in these divisions, however, at the cost of having to travel to the opponent's venue for the continuation, but the player must make his preference known before White's second move."

John Upham wrote:See http://www.borderleague.org.uk/local/ti ... n=20092010

Default time limit for Division 1 is Fischer 85 minutes + 5 seconds, with a proposal to change it to 80 minutes + 10 seconds next season. (The time limit mentioned in the link is an optional one that both players can agree to.)

Ian,

It was definitely agreed to make adjournment something that both players would have to agree to. We await the publication of the minutes of the meeting.

The North Devon League does not have adjournments; all fixtures have quickplay finishes.

The Somerset League, in which I used to play, used to have the option of adjudication or quickplay finish - I don't think it's ever had adjournments. Adjudications were abolished in 2002, I think, partly on the grounds that the last known case of one was in 1997 or thereabouts.

Done a bit of research on this, looking at league websites. Most leagues don't like to tell prospective players the rules of their league...

So far, I've found:

Leagues where you can only play quickplay finish, or one player or one team can insist on it: 4NCL, Cambridge, Cannock, Central Lancashire, Chester, Chiltern, Coventry, Darlington, Derby, Dudley, Huddersfield, Leamington, Leeds, Leicester, Merseyside, North Circular, North Devon, Nottingham, Sheffield (& Summer), Somerset, Stoke, Wolverhampton (Summer), York, Yorkshire

Leagues which still play adjournments: Berkshire, Birmingham, Bournemouth, Bradford, Bristol, Croydon, London, Manchester, Middlesex, Mid-Sussex, Portsmouth, Southend, Stockport, Surrey Border, Thames Valley, Warrington, Wolverhampton, Worcester

Leagues which have adjournments (from above), but it needs both players/teams to insist on them (so if you want QP, you can have it): Bradford, Manchester, Middlesex, Mid-Sussex, Warrington

All of the adjournment leagues offer quickplays if both players or both teams agree, apart from the Worcester League, which was the only league I could find that doesn't even offer the option of a quickplay finish. You adjourn by default, unless you choose to adjudicate, or the captains can agree the result between themselves.

Alex Holowczak wrote:From an outsider's point of view, the Berkshire and Surrey Border league certainly offer a variety of time controls! Perhaps over-complicating it?

The Berkshire League is less complicated than John's tables make it appear.

Divisions 1 and 2 are 30/75 + 15 and Division 3 G/75.

In Division 1 and 2, the alternative rate is 36/90 recurring with adjournments subject to some special conditions:-

(a) both players must agree
(b) the time (and place) of the second session must be agreed before the game is started. Default venue is where the game started.

Alex Holowczak wrote:Leagues which have adjournments (from above), but it needs both players/teams to insist on them (so if you want QP, you can have it)

You can add Berks.

In practice these measures plus anti-adjournment match captains have confined adjournments to history.

If I ever thought that the AGM needed padding with pointless discussions (as if!), I would propose the removal even of these measures.

In Bucks the move rate is 35/75 + 15 with no options. This is accepted without debate and that's in a county where digital clocks are considered a dangerous novelty!

The Bedfordshire League has on time limit: 35 moves in 75 minutes plus 15 mins Quick Play. There is no minority that I have heard pushing for the return of adjudications or adjournments.

The county has also refused to compete in the correspondence competitions where there remains the option to use Royal Mail.