Rule 10A

[Paul McKeown]

Ian, in that case there are NO venues that I am aware of within the whole of the Thames Valley Chess League. I should resign my captaincy, I suppose, but, happily I've never come across such an idiot as would try to ruin the whole league. What is it with some chess players?

[Alex Holowczak]

The TVL time control is 36 moves in 90 minutes, followed by 24 moves in 60 minutes, so someone adjourning is likely to have about 60 minutes on their clock to think about their sealed move if they want to; more if they've played quickly up to the first time control. A typical game being adjourned may last 3.25 hours, but a worst case adjournment game could last close to 4 hours.

No - the building closes. If they haven't sealed their move by then, they lose????

I don't see anything in the TVL rules requiring someone to seal in less time than they have on their clock to the next time control. If the building closes before the player has sealed then the home team hasn't provided a suitable venue. If its the home player sealing, then it would be fair that they lose. If its the away player sealing, then I suppose the options are either that the home player loses, or that the away player doesn't have to seal a move, so he's got the whole adjournment session to decide what move to play.

I agree with Ian's synopsis, I'm afraid.

The only time that that would be a problem is if adjournment is decided on a team-by-team basis, rather than an player-by-player basis. You might get two players opposing each other who want to play quickplay, but they're tied to adjournment by their team. (Or something like that.) I've seen such a thing around here; you get players playing a game that could easily be adjourned, but don't adjourn and carry on playing at a speed that would be more appropriate for a quickplay finish. Those games can drag on...

[Ian Thompson]

Ian, in that case there are NO venues that I am aware of within the whole of the Thames Valley Chess League.

That's my point. People are generally prepared to accept the small risk if a player genuinely needing to spend a long time over a sealed move, and being unable to do so. They are not prepared to accept the, in my view even smaller, risk of an extremely long Fischer game causing a problem.

[Paul McKeown]

Alex,

I couldn't care less whose analysis you agree with.

The whole discussion is simply stupid. If you wish to wreck whole leagues by declaring their venues unfit for purpose, then you are no friend of chess. Now please just get real, and stop being an idiot.

Venues have limited time. If you wish chess leagues to play on weekday evenings, then time is rationed. That is life. Some people still prefer to adjourn (I'm not one of them, but that is neither here nor there), and whilst leagues cater for them, then sealing time will always be limited by the time available at the venue. Some leagues even state this categorically in their rules of play; some don't, but that doesn't mean you would be welcome to play in one of those leagues, demand an hour's sealing time and then attempt to claim a win by default when the venue closed. Even if the ECF awarded you the win, the practical consequence would be that the league would clarify its rules and, by the by, blackball you from playing in the league for being a total prat.

With ever diminishing regards,
Paul.

[Paul McKeown]

Ian, in that case there are NO venues that I am aware of within the whole of the Thames Valley Chess League.

That's my point. People are generally prepared to accept the small risk if a player genuinely needing to spend a long time over a sealed move, and being unable to do so. They are not prepared to accept the, in my view even smaller, risk of an extremely long Fischer game causing a problem.

I have had two rated games last beyond one hundred moves, one, KQnP - KQ went to about 160 before I won. I have had another rated game in the nineties. My experience of increments is very negative, albeit limited to internet blitz. I have had numerous games with two or three second increments go beyond move 200 and one on freechess.org went to move 300, before it was automatically cut off by the server. Games with increments need a guillotine, otherwise they are unworkable, particularly if one player is willing to abuse the good nature of his opponent and drag the whole affair out beyond the point that it is completely clearly drawn.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex,

I couldn't give a flying f*ck whose analysis you agree with.

The whole discussion is simply stupid. If you wish to wreck whole leagues by declaring their venues unfit for purpose, then you are no friend of chess. Now please just get real, and stop being an idiot.

Venues have limited time. If you wish chess leagues to play on weekday evenings, then time is rationed. That is life. Some people still prefer to adjourn (I'm not one of them, but that is neither here nor there), and whilst leagues cater for them, then sealing time will always be limited by the time available at the venue. Some leagues even state this categorically in their rules of play; some don't, but that doesn't mean you would be welcome to play in one of those leagues, demand an hour's sealing time and then attempt to claim a win by default when the venue closed. Even if the ECF awarded you the win, the practical consequence would be that the league would clarify its rules and, by the by, blackball you from playing in the league for being a total prat.

With ever diminishing regards,
Paul.

Thanks for that...

The point is, as you correctly say, no one would ever do that because it's stupid. Similarly, no one would drag out an incremental game to move 100andplenty if it was obviously drawn. The situations are equivalently open to abuse, but they don't get abused.

[Paul McKeown]

100+ games do happen, they do in fact happen organically from time to time. You get KRB -v- KR for instance. If you don't record, then the defender has no recourse to the draw by 50 move rule, nor to the draw by repetition. If there was no form of guillotine, then the defender might as well resign, otherwise he will have to defend perfectly and hope his opponent dies before he does.

My limited experience of chess with incremental time controls is that a player with a practical advantage (e.g. KRB -v- KR) will not stop until he has won by hook or by crook.

Ergo chess with increments is a different game altogether, unless there is some form of guillotine.

As to the dumbass allegation that I am "against increments", what utter cock. I can see their benefits, but I can also see their problems. Why is it that there are people who prefer to proselytise than think? If you have a short increment, then you must have a guillotine. In the Border League, for instance, you can claim 10.2. In the Thames Valley League, a game that goes on past 10:15 (or whatever the local "time") is, must be adjudicated. What is the problem, guys? Ants in the pants?

Having said that, I'm not sure how the arbiter will decide KRB -v- KR at move 90. Seems unreasonably short to me, but hey ho, let him come to some sort of Solemonic judgement.

Then there is the other problem that Richard Bates (and many others over the past decade or more) have pointed out. The missing toilet break.

Oh, and Alex, if you ever claim a win by default against me, due to the venue closing, be sure to know that I will put in a counter claim of win by default.

[Ian Thompson]

100+ games do happen, they do in fact happen organically from time to time. You get KRB -v- KR for instance. If you don't record, then the defender has no recourse to the draw by 50 move rule, nor to the draw by repetition. If there was no form of guillotine, then the defender might as well resign, otherwise he will have to defend perfectly and hope his opponent dies before he does.

My limited experience of chess with incremental time controls is that a player with a practical advantage (e.g. KRB -v- KR) will not stop until he has won by hook or by crook.

The defender of this ending doesn't have a problem with a Fischer time control with a small increment that he wouldn't have with an all moves in X minutes time control. In both cases he won't have an up-to-date score sheet, so he can't claim a draw by the 50 move rule or a draw by repetition. In both cases a 10.2 claim (if allowed by league rules) is unlikely to succeed because this ending is known to be very difficult to defend successfully even though it is drawn with best play.

The difference is that with an all moves in X minutes time control the defender has the possibility of getting a draw if he can move faster than his opponent, so his opponent has to concede the draw to avoid losing on time. With Fischer the defender has the possibility of getting a draw by continuing to defend accurately until his opponent falls asleep. Neither are satisfactory. I don't think one is clearly preferable to the other (given that I don't know in advance which side of this ending I might end up playing). One point in favour of Fischer is that you will have a few seconds per move, so the chances of defending successfully are greater than when you are having to move instantaneously to try to avoid losing on time.

Having said that, I'm not sure how the arbiter will decide KRB -v- KR at move 90. Seems unreasonably short to me, but hey ho, let him come to some sort of Solemonic judgement.

The Surrey Border League rules give a player the right to make a claim at this point, not an obligation to do so. The player trying to draw the game should wait until he's confident his claim will succeed before he makes it, which may mean delaying it.

[Roger de Coverly]

My experience of increments is very negative, albeit limited to internet blitz. I have had numerous games with two or three second increments go beyond move 200 and one on freechess.org went to move 300, before it was automatically cut off by the server.

On ICC, the "draw offer" button would double up as a "draw claim" button. So if you think you've repeated the position three times or it's been 50 moves since the last capture or pawn move, hit the draw button. If the conditions are satisfied you will get an instant draw, otherwise the opponent may decline by moving. The server is acting as an arbiter in these instances by keeping score. Other internet servers may vary of course.

The problem of how to terminate games at 10 seconds a move isn't going to go away - your example of KRB against KR is apt. So far we have
(a) no specific rule - so trust that all players in the league are "sporting" ( Berks League)
(b) reinstate 10.2 (Surrey Border)
(c) adjudication (Thames Valley)
(d) record all the moves and allow speculative claims (ICC)

KRB v KR is very easy to adjudicate - just look it up in a 5 man tablebase.

[Rob Thompson]

Most of the servers i've played on auto-claim for you once threefold repetition et al have been reached, which is another way to do it, but i suspect not applicable for over-the-board chess

[Roger de Coverly]

In both cases a 10.2 claim (if allowed by league rules) is unlikely to succeed because this ending is known to be very difficult to defend successfully even though it is drawn with best play.

In a league context (no arbiter present) would the arbiter charged with giving a result after the game had ceased, really risk giving a verdict in KRB v KR without looking up the position in the tablebases? I'd agree that an arbiter "present" would probably ask for play to continue under observation.

[Alex Holowczak]

Oh, and Alex, if you ever claim a win by default against me, due to the venue closing, be sure to know that I will put in a counter claim of win by default.

Why would I do that? For a start, if we ever played (given we live in completely different cities, and play in completely different leagues...), we'd both agree to play a quickplay finish!

[Ian Thompson]

In both cases a 10.2 claim (if allowed by league rules) is unlikely to succeed because this ending is known to be very difficult to defend successfully even though it is drawn with best play.

In a league context (no arbiter present) would the arbiter charged with giving a result after the game had ceased, really risk giving a verdict in KRB v KR without looking up the position in the tablebases?

I don't think the tablebase information is particularly useful. The game is not being adjudicated. The question is whether the defender has demonstrated that they know how to draw the position. Without an up-to-date scoresheet, I don't see how such a claim could succeed, given that the ending is known to be very difficult to defend successfully.

I'd agree that an arbiter "present" would probably ask for play to continue under observation.

This is difficult as well. How many moves should the defender have to play before being given a draw? As the attacker in this position, I would say that he should have to defend the full 50 moves before getting a draw, which would be difficult if he has less than 2 minutes left on his clock. As the defender, I might say that successful defence for 10 moves is enough.

[Paul McKeown]

Roger,

The problem with KRB -v- KR is that currently you know that the defender has to defend for 50 moves, then it is declared drawn. With the intervention of an adjudicator the result would depend on what the tablebases say. The practical result of playing might be, say, draw 40%, win 60%. The practical result of playing an indeterminate number of moves, might be, just as a for instance, draw 45%, win 55%.

I am not sure I like that, but maybe it is something that one just needs to get used to.

Regards,
Paul.

[Neill Cooper]

No - the building closes. If they haven't sealed their move by then, they lose????

When playing for Maidenhead I once had to take the board and set outside put it on a car bonnet for my opponent to seal his move.