Another League Adopts Quickplay Finishes.

[Joey Stewart]

Last night, at the Gloucester league AGM, another vote was taken to change from adjournment/adjudication to fully quickplay games which was finally passed after many years.

It marks the end of an era, in some ways, but will really help things out in a lot of other ways.

Just a little uplifting thought to those of you still stuck in the dark ages - change can happen if you try hard enough.

[Michael Farthing]

The best and correct decision - but not a satisfactory one.

[Martin Crichton]

last week also the London commercial chess league adopted quick play finish as the default time control

just as well as TFL would have not been playing in 2015-16 season had the vote gone to stay with adjudications (correction) in the dark ages

last season 2 teams pulled out of their league because of adjudications nonsense....guess they finally seen sense in a bid to save their league!

[Matt Mackenzie]

The day when adjudication finally becomes a thing of the past will be a great one for English chess

[MJMcCready]

Couldn't agree more matt. I played for years in the Bedfordshire league with adjudications. I lost out on much valuable endgame experience as a result and am still a poor endgame player because of it. There's nothing worse than having the result of the game taken out of your hands when you are pushing for a win.

The idea of an endgame being theoretically drawn/won/lost at club level is nonsense as most, if not all, will make mistakes and offer chances to their opponent.

[Kevin Williamson]

I tend to agree with the comments about adjudications but I’ve always enjoyed playing on adjourned games. In my experience they help to improve endgame play as you can look for subtleties in the position that can easily be missed in a frenetic time scramble.

Of course computers are used in the pre-resumption analysis and can help steer the game for a few moves, but if there’s a clear win there then the game is usually resigned. Most players don’t like travelling for a lost cause.

My main gripe with adjournments (and adjudications) is that they can be used as a tactical ploy by those involved to delay the result of a match by weeks (or months in one league I play in), meaning that other teams are kept in the dark about the outcome.

[NickFaulks]

Last night, at the Gloucester league AGM, another vote was taken to change from adjournment/adjudication to fully quickplay games which was finally passed after many years.

It marks the end of an era, in some ways, but will really help things out in a lot of other ways.

Just a little uplifting thought to those of you still stuck in the dark ages - change can happen if you try hard enough.

Does Gloucester have digital clocks? In my opinion that's the final piece of the jigsaw.

[Richard Bates]

Last night, at the Gloucester league AGM, another vote was taken to change from adjournment/adjudication to fully quickplay games which was finally passed after many years.

It marks the end of an era, in some ways, but will really help things out in a lot of other ways.

Just a little uplifting thought to those of you still stuck in the dark ages - change can happen if you try hard enough.

Does Gloucester have digital clocks? In my opinion that's the final piece of the jigsaw.

Don't know the details but Middlesex League seems to have made some sort of provision for digital clocks with Fischer timings.

http://middlesexchess.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... -2015.html

60'+30" per move seems crazy for evening games though. Although it seems to be "choose you own time control"!

[Michael Flatt]

Well done, Joey,

A thread with positive responses without any sign of dissent or dispute.

What is the world coming to?

[Joey Stewart]

I think there might exist one or two digital clocks around the league here, but definitely not enough to be able to adopt incremental time controls, which I think are the perfect way to solve time scramble problems.

I did make the point to everybody that if the clubs begin buying digital clocks now, we will eventually be in a position to play such games in the future and be able to avoid two minute claims.

On that note, does anybody have a good set of rules to explain the two minute rules to a layman league player (and not the alien legal speak that they use on the fide website) exactly what situation to claim their draw. My understanding is that the opponant has to either be making no attempt to win by normal means or cannot win by normal means, but both are somewhat subjective, especially if the claimant has understood the rule to be a free draw whenever he runs short of time.

[Michael Flatt]

On that note, does anybody have a good set of rules to explain the two minute rules to a layman league player (and not the alien legal speak that they use on the fide website) exactly what situation to claim their draw. My understanding is that the opponant has to either be making no attempt to win by normal means or cannot win by normal means, but both are somewhat subjective, especially if the claimant has understood the rule to be a free draw whenever he runs short of time.

The only source I know of is the Chess Arbiters' Association website.

Quick-play finish has been moved to Appendix G Paragraph 5.
CAA have annotated the 2014 FIDE Laws of chess with advice. Skip down to page 34.
http://www.chessarbitersassociation.co. ... mments.pdf

Previously, the CAA provided more detailed advice but that document appears no longer to be available.

[Mick Norris]

On that note, does anybody have a good set of rules to explain the two minute rules to a layman league player (and not the alien legal speak that they use on the fide website) exactly what situation to claim their draw. My understanding is that the opponant has to either be making no attempt to win by normal means or cannot win by normal means, but both are somewhat subjective, especially if the claimant has understood the rule to be a free draw whenever he runs short of time.

MCF has the following:

Games in the Manchester League are subject to the FIDE Rule “Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue”.

This Rule (note that in the FIDE Rules, any reference to “he” is to be read as he or she, “his” as his or hers etc) currently states:

“Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game. He may claim on the basis:
a. that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b. that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up to date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be final.”
The claim must be referred to the Secretary of the Disputes Committee (unless the MCF has appointed an independent arbiter for the match) if the players cannot agree a result on the night.
Note that Article 10 in the current FIDE Rules refers to Quickplay Finishes, but that Rule 10.2 does NOT apply unless an independent arbiter is present.

Before you make a claim, offer your opponent a draw in line with the rules i.e. after you have made a move and before you press your clock. If your opponent rejects it then make the claim. If there is an MCF appointed independent arbiter present they will handle it. If not you must stop play immediately, agree the final position, and agree a score sheet as much up to date as possible; then if there is no agreement refer the matter to the disputes committee secretary.

What follows next comes with a health warning; it may be over ridden by the disputes committee.

“Not being able to win by normal means” covers two main situations.
(i) The side claiming the draw is material up and there is no realistic compensation. This is drawn as the only way to win is by “flagging” your opponent. Except that if you win material you cannot sit on the position, play no moves until you have two minutes left and then make a claim. You always have to play moves at a reasonable rate.
(ii) The position is a theoretical draw and you have demonstrated over the board you know how to draw it. The best example is a K&R v K&B. You have to take your king to the correct corner and then play some moves to show you understand the draw, before you will be given it.

Notes

(1) Do not ask me where the boundary is but you cannot clam a draw with several pawns each e.g. K, R and five pawns v K, R and five pawns.
(2) It is not an adjudication situation. It is a quickplay finish. You are expected to play quick and finish the game. This rule is only there to prevent a win on time that would bring the game into disrepute.
(3) There is a separate rule which says “The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game.”
(4) “Making no effort to win by normal means”. This means that while avoiding repeating the position the opponent is making no effort to improve his position.

[Michael Farthing]

Arbiters have the option of giving various rulings. For example, in the case above of a theoretical draw that you know how to play the arbiter can award some extra time and ask you to demonstrate your competence by continued play, with the requirement that your moves are made very promptly.

[Ian Thompson]

For example, in the case above of a theoretical draw that you know how to play the arbiter can award some extra time and ask you to demonstrate your competence by continued play, with the requirement that your moves are made very promptly.

Could you tell us where in the rules it says that?

[Michael Farthing]

10.2 (b) but I agree that using memory I have somewhat embellished it. The extra time is awarded to the opponent, so of necessity the claiming player must play quickly. The purpose of the delayed decision is so that the non-claiming player is obliged to demonstrate progress towards victory. However, maybe erroneously, I have always understood that a rapid play by the claimant showing a good understanding of a theoretical draw was another reason for an arbiter to declare a draw. This would make sense surely: it should be necessary that the draw is not only forceable but that the defendant should know how to force it. Perhaps a passing arbiter can comment further?