English Chess Forum

I came across the pdf newsletter of the Sussex County Association at

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... MmI5ODZmNw

The mid-Sussex league retains the practice of adjudication and one this season set an obvious record or equal record of having all 32 pieces on the board. Cessation of play had been at move 42.

rr2q3/npnbbk1p/p1p3p1/2Pp1p2/PP1PpP2/NRN1P1P1/1R1B1K1P/1Q3B2 w

The adjudicators awarded a draw. 43 b5 is possible and the only winning try really but there's probably another 40 moves in the position.

(edit1) to fix FEN (/edit1)
(edit2) If you were playing against the clock and had more time, you could leave the b5 break unplayed and move your pieces across to have a go at the g4 break (/edit2)

Incredible. The colours seem to be reversed - good newsletter, though.

Should such games be graded?

Adam Raoof wrote:Should such games be graded?

Well, they can't be FIDE-rated. I realise that wasn't your question.

I remember discussing this with you when I was your Alternate, and we were advised that the only way to do this was to insist that any game where adjudication was a possibility shouldn't be graded, even if it is never adjudicated. This might wipe out whole leagues... What do people think?

The ECF doesn't want to encourage the practice though, and so the adjudication service has been closed.

"I remember discussing this with you when I was your Alternate, and we were advised that the only way to do this was to insist that any game where adjudication was a possibility shouldn't be graded, even if it is never adjudicated. This might wipe out whole leagues... What do people think?"

It would wipe out of leagues. One sensible thing Surrey does is to allow players to finish games by QP (with a subsidiary Fischer option), adjudication or adjournment. Players can veto one of the above at the start of the game. Some hate adjournments, some hate QP, and some hate adjudications. At least now you don't have to have the finish you hate. (OK, you're stuffed if you hate two finishes.) If you come down to two methods of finishing, it radically increases the chance of a finish you hate, and people will stop playing.

Incidentally, a Redhill colleague insisted on sending a game for adjudication when all 32 pieces were on the board after 35 moves. He had a space advantage but obviously got a draw. He was talking about appealing the decision, but we talked him out of it!

I remember playing in the Surrey league when I was rated about 175ish and was white against someone rated around 220. He is still active, so I don't want to name him. But we played 30 moves of a game and he had been playing quickly. You could adjudicate the game any time after move 30 at a set time. When he had made his 30th move he said he wasn't moving any more and would adjudicate it and would take all the rest of the time on his clock.

Odd really, because this is the position and it was adjudicated 1-0, White to play:

5b1k/q1prnp2/p2p3p/3Pp1pP/2N1P1P1/Q1P1NP2/P3K3/1R6 w

I would be ruthless with adjudication - say it can't be graded and if people object, tough.

In most cases, I expect the "threat" to stop taking part in serious chess without it is a bluff. Adjourning can remain a (rarely used, hopefully) option to those who have genuine problems with quickplay finishes (as Colin Crouch eloquently explained here recently) But adjudications need to go the way of the dinosaurs pronto!

I was forced into adjudication the last time I played in the Surrey League - my opponent refused a quickplay finish and I was about to move away so would not be able to make an adjournment. I played badly and lost a pawn early on. My opponent declared at move 30 that he did not have to play any more moves. That was the only time in my chess career that I have not offered my opponent a handshake, I am ashamed to admit. No names again, but this was a strong player.

Matt Mackenzie wrote:In most cases, I expect the "threat" to stop taking part in serious chess without it is a bluff.

I agree. We got rid of adjudications in Leicestershire relatively recently. The doom mongers talked of players quitting in droves. It simply didn't happen.

Graham Borrowdale wrote:I was forced into adjudication the last time I played in the Surrey League - my opponent refused a quickplay finish and I was about to move away so would not be able to make an adjournment. I played badly and lost a pawn early on. My opponent declared at move 30 that he did not have to play any more moves. That was the only time in my chess career that I have not offered my opponent a handshake, I am ashamed to admit. No names again, but this was a strong player.

I think it's harsh to blame your opponent here. If the rules permit him to stop playing and he has a position that would be adjudicated a win, what's the incentive for him to play on? The rule is to blame here.

Sean Hewitt wrote:The rule is to blame here.

I don't feel that's fair either. If you play in the Surrey League, you know that you can't be required to accept adjudication, but that you can be required to accept adjournment or adjudication. If adjudication is unacceptable to you and adjournment impractical, you have the option not to play.

David Sedgwick wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:The rule is to blame here.

I don't feel that's fair either. If you play in the Surrey League, you know that you can't be required to accept adjudication, but that you can be required to accept adjournment or adjudication. If adjudication is unacceptable to you and adjournment impractical, you have the option not to play.

Well, in general, as a player, rather than as an administrator or an arbiter, I play chess because I enjoy playing chess, and when my opponent tells me during the game that he is not going to play any moves because the rules allow him to do so, then I am equally entitled to take umbridge. Its not all about the rules!

In the specific case I already explained that I would not be able to make an adjournment, which would always have been my second choice after a quickplay finish. Had my opponent played a few more moves and shown that he knew how to go about winning (which I have no doubt he could have) then I would happily have resigned at the end of the session. I always enjoyed playing in The Surrey League and this was the only occasion I was forced into an adjudication.

Graham Borrowdale wrote: My opponent declared at move 30 that he did not have to play any more moves.

That is the most objectionable part of the adjudication culture. Perhaps out in the sticks, players are expected to show some decorum or sportsmanship, so the premise that such gamesmanship should be abolished by force met little opposition, or at least opposition that could be defeated.

Ever since the BCF adopted a rule that the cut-off for standard play grading was a session time of sixty minutes, there hasn't been any grading reason for not moving the adjudication move count out towards sixty or ninety moves. The opposition is down to the p*****s who cannot cope with 60 moves in 90 minutes, even if they can handle 30 moves in 45 minutes and then stop..