ECF to refuse to grade Games?

General discussions about grading.
Mike Gunn
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: ECF to refuse to grade Games?

Post by Mike Gunn » Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:51 pm

Since the FIDE Laws are actually silent on the issue of adjudication, it coulkd be argued that they are neutral on the issue.

According to the FIDE Laws (8.7) both players have to sign both scoresheets at the end of the game. Since I have never observed anyone doing this at the end of an evening league game are we to conclude that no evening league should be graded by the ECF?

At the root of this there are two irreconcilable positions: one group believes a game of chess is spoiled if you end up having to play blitz and the other group objects strongly to the game being determined by other than the players' own play. As several posters have suggested above this issue should be about respecting the views of all who play in evening leagues and not about imposing your own personal opinion on the rest.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: ECF to refuse to grade Games?

Post by Mike Gunn » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:04 pm

On the origins of adjudications:

The first ever match in the Surrey League was played on the 4th February 1884 at Oliphant's Cafe when South Norwood defeated "Endeavour" (later to become Brixton and then Streatham & Brixton) by 5.5 to 3.5. The match started at 7pm, three games were concluded by 9pm and the remaining games were adjudicated (on the spot) at 10.30pm.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18344
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF to refuse to grade Games?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:18 pm

Mike Gunn wrote: one group believes a game of chess is spoiled if you end up having to play blitz and the other group objects strongly to the game being determined by other than the players' own play.
I don't think the positions are that irreconcilable. If you play quickly enough, you rarely get a blitz finish or have to live on the increment as the game will usually end naturally with both players still keeping score. Adjudication allows those who would stop playing before the end of the game to do so without penalty. Adjournment imposes a time penalty for the second session.

User avatar
David Shepherd
Posts: 855
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:46 pm

Re: ECF to refuse to grade Games?

Post by David Shepherd » Thu Jul 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Mike Gunn wrote: At the root of this there are two irreconcilable positions: one group believes a game of chess is spoiled if you end up having to play blitz and the other group objects strongly to the game being determined by other than the players' own play. As several posters have suggested above this issue should be about respecting the views of all who play in evening leagues and not about imposing your own personal opinion on the rest.
Mike am I in a third group then? I don't much mind if its a quick play finish or an adjourned slower game - the only thing I object to is someone else deciding the outcome of my game based on both players making perfect moves :(

Mike Gunn
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: ECF to refuse to grade Games?

Post by Mike Gunn » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:34 pm

David, I agree with your earlier point - if you go for adjournment then adjudication is forced at the end of the 2nd session. It would be more logical to have further adjourned sessions. The oldest set of Surrey rules I can find is dated 2000 and the forced adjudication has been the case since then (at least). I am guessing that this rule was introduced for administrative convenience (a problem for league controllers is players who don't arrange a date for the first adjourned session, let alone a second). Of course if we adopted a quickplay finish at the end of the 2nd session we could be accused of forcing quickplay finishes on people who are opposed to them.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: ECF to refuse to grade Games?

Post by Mike Gunn » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:41 pm

Roger, the approach you advocate is how I prefer to play my own games.

As alluded to above, the Surrey time control for adjudication is 35 moves in 75 minutes followed by 7 moves every 15 minutes (the playing session is 160 minutes) so by playing faster you can force your opponent up to 42 or 49 moves in the session. The only time I adopted this as a deliberate tactic (before we introduced quickplay finishes as an option) I lost miserably.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1289
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: ECF to refuse to grade Games?

Post by Nick Grey » Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:45 am

I prefer adjournments to quickplay & not adjudication. Though will depend mainly on how bad work or travel has been.

The worst adjournment I played on in was when an opponent sealed his move & I then suggested opening the envelope as I expect your move is I resign. It is mate in 3. He insisted on continuing. He never arrived at the adjournment. I complained on the night to the club president particularly as he obviously had a lost position. He was barred from ever playing for the club again.

The best adjournment sessions I played were in a long time ago Surrey Congress. I really cannot recall how long or how many but we eventually drew. That may well have been the last time that the Surrey Congress had adjournments.

On Mike's adjudication tactic - I used in a London Commercial League game turning a lost position at move 35 to a won position at move 42.

I also tried to use it in a Surrey league match but having a travel delay before (when the opposition kindly did not start the match) that when I thought my opponent called time early in a lost position. I recalled that I had started his clock late as he was spending lots of time organising all the late arrivals. Anyway the game was adjudicated - and my won position came back as drawn. We considered an appeal but rejected it. Some months later I was surprised that my game was published in Chess Monthly. And the expert analysis could not understand why a draw was agreed between the two players.

On quickplays I have lost a few times on analogue clocks when I'm convinced at least 2 minutes left.

The real advantage of the digital clock is being offered a draw with 23 minutes to go having my opponent take a rook & then spend 20 minutes trying to find a win. Not there but concluded not losing either. A nice way to end season for me in a County U180 semi-final team match.

Sometimes it is the overall team position that is being considered.

Not sure about not grading games - seems a sure way to alienate players & cause more complaints. And likely to be players giving up playing chess.

Post Reply