Finals 4 July 2015

Discussion about all aspects of the ECF County Championships.
Mick Norris
Posts: 6723
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:11 am

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:PS. There was one glitch with an arbiter who shall remain nameless struggling to work out/remember how to set the clock for Fischer timings. I wonder if this was the first application of rule G4 (hope I got the rule number right). It all worked out in the end.
I thought the time control was 40/2 hours plus 30 mins quickplay finish?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Neil Graham
Posts: 1094
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by Neil Graham » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:21 am

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Thanks, Neil. Not as uncommon as I thought then. How far back do your records go, and does anyone have a complete record of the winners of all the sections back to when they first started (at different times)? I know the BCF/ECF Yearbooks should have them, but has anyone pulled all the information together? I have a vague memory someone might have done this, but maybe not.
The information is from the ECF Yearbook which carries a comprehensive list going back to 1908. :D

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:25 am

Mick Norris wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:PS. There was one glitch with an arbiter who shall remain nameless struggling to work out/remember how to set the clock for Fischer timings. I wonder if this was the first application of rule G4 (hope I got the rule number right). It all worked out in the end.
I thought the time control was 40/2 hours plus 30 mins quickplay finish?
The time limit must have included a quickplay finish otherwise rule G4 wouldn't have applied.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6723
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by Mick Norris » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:48 am

Ah yes, I see now
G.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

David Gilbert
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:03 am

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by David Gilbert » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:05 pm

A big ‘thank you’ to the top-notch organisers and arbiters who oversaw yesterday’s mammoth finals day. The whole occasion took place in a setting of genial rivalry. What a splendid way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Long may it continue. And let’s acknowledge all the unsung heroes, the captains who worked so hard to get their teams to Warwick. That appreciation extends to the Union officials, captains and players who didn’t make it to the finals this year who all made a valuable contribution to the success of the County Championships. Who says chess isn’t a spectator sport? Vantage points for the last two games to finish were at a premium. One game even had the drama of (perhaps the first UK example?) of an accepted Appendix G4 interruption. As if by magic, the M40 and M25 were almost traffic free on the way home. What a day!

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 6702
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:22 pm

Mick Norris wrote:Ah yes, I see now
G.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.
Indeed. In this case, the player with less than 2 minutes left clearly thought that asking for and getting the clock changed to increments would benefit him (he was down material), but I think it may have just as much benefited his opponent. In some cases, I might well blitz on and try and level up the times and see if my opponent cracked first and appealed to the arbiter for incremental time (though actually, that counts as a draw offer and I'd accept at that point).

It is a double-edged sword, in other words. You may get the chance on incremental time to salvage a long and difficult technical draw, but if your opponent is technically winning, then switching to incremental time will likely benefit them.

The arbiter explaining the rule at the start of play did make clear that it was the arbiter that decides if incremental time can be used, and that the arbiter may not necessarily agree to allow this. What I'm not clear on is how and when an arbiter uses this discretion. If the arbiter refuses, then presumably (as was also explained at the start of play) the player has recourse to rule G5 (the equivalent of the old 10.2):

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

I have my views on whether the G4 request should have been granted or not in the position in question, but I don't want to focus on that. It is more the general question of how an arbiter decides whether to accept a G4 request or not. Was this discussed in earlier threads?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 16718
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:39 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: It is more the general question of how an arbiter decides whether to accept a G4 request or not.
The rule as written has to be discretionary, as a suitable clock may not always be available. Arbiters have the rarely used power to declare a game drawn immediately, so that would be a reason to decline a G4 request. Other than that and clock availability, should such a request automatically be accepted, bearing in mind that it also counts as a draw offer? Perhaps arbiters are thinking about claims where the position is still immensely complex. With the first time control at move 40, that's unlikely in the Counties Championship, but I've seen players treating a G/120 move rate as the same pace of play as 40/120 with a time scramble. In other words they had about five minutes remaining on the clock and were still at move 20. So what of a G4 request at about move 30?

Ian Thompson
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Fleet, Hampshire

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:The arbiter explaining the rule at the start of play did make clear that it was the arbiter that decides if incremental time can be used, and that the arbiter may not necessarily agree to allow this. What I'm not clear on is how and when an arbiter uses this discretion.
The Laws don't cover this so the event ought to state in advance what criteria will be used to grant or deny a G.4 request. Players shouldn't have to play a game not knowing the time control at the end of the game. It would be interesting to know from arbiters the circumstances in which they would, or might, refuse a request, assuming that a suitable clock was available. I would hope that there aren't any.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1539
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by Michael Farthing » Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:29 pm

Well had the 5 second moves been kept up for long enough with the occasional pawn move every 69 moves or so all our cars would have been locked up in the car park :-) David Welch did say clearly that he wouldn't necessarily agree (citing that reprogramming the clocks was a fiddly business and he wouldn't want to interrupt for long a tense complicated position) though clearly in the event he (or somebody) did not withhold agreement.

But as everyone said a very good day. Shame I lost - but hey! I still got a trophy. Rather unfair on my opponent who won and didn't :?

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Finals 4 July 2015

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:57 pm

Yes, I would still prefer the money to be spent on refreshments to trophies. Then all Finalists benefit and the winners don't feel like children in lining up to collect their, er, rather obviously not very expensive trophies; and the prize giving time might be cut by 10 minutes.

Anyway, still a very successful day yesterday.

Post Reply