Defaulted matches

[James Toon]

I read the rules of the competition, but not closely enough. I can't speak for my captain.

As for brushing aside the "deadwood" – I don't regard anyone as obsolete, but the world moves on, and institutions need to change to survive.

It would be interesting to canvass the views of everyone currently playing in the Surrey League to find out what the players, as opposed to the officials, really want.

[James Toon]

As a case in point… the Civil Service League retained adjudications to the very end, despite many attempts to abolish them. I started the Central London League, and then the London Public Service League, to provide alternative playing opportunities in London for people who wanted to finish their games on the night and without the intervention of a third party. Both these leagues are thriving, but the Civil Service League is dead.

[Joey Stewart]

Sounds like good riddance to the civil service League, adjourned games are absolute farce in this day and age (and have been for 20+ years) with the only really logical argument in their favour (not liking time scrambles) being solvable by the addition of increments to a quickplay finish.

I'm sure the vast majority of the Surry League players would feel this way too but a combination of apathy towards getting the rule changed and fear of turning up to an AGM only to have everyone else run away and leave you in charge of the whole League (which sounds apocryphal but it's actually not that far from the truth in my experience) allows these archaic practices to continue.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Its worse than that, they were still doing *adjudications* - which are much worse (and at one time genuinely harmful to English chess)

[Kevin Thurlow]

"As a case in point… the Civil Service League retained adjudications to the very end, despite many attempts to abolish them."

The players voted to retain adjudications. I didn't like it, but that was the result of the votes, so I felt the moral and decent thing was to accept that. QP was available by agreement between the players. (Andrew Ledger almost fell off his chair when he offered QP finish to me and I immediately said "Yes".) Adjournment was available as well, but it should be mentioned that as matches were mainly played in CS departments, it is not practical to have two people turning up, getting through Security, finding the right room, getting the equipment out of the locked cupboard... Increments do not work as Security want to kick you out at 9.30 pm.

Near the end of my CS League playing career, our team turned up for a home match and Security would not let the teams in, claiming (a) that there was no booking and (b) he had not been given the team lists in advance. It was gently pointed out that his left hand was resting on the piece of paper stating (a) and (b)... He still denied it.

I take the point about some people staying in post too long, but you also find that someone new and inexperienced comes along and bullies people into changing everything, and destroying what was actually working. The existing players give up and nobody replaces them.

CS also increasingly had the problems that Governments decided to disperse the Civil Service round the country, so there were fewer CS staff in London. Also, employers (as everywhere else) increasingly demanded that CS staff work unpaid overtime, so the days of 8 - 4, or 9 - 5 went, and few people felt like rushing straight from work to play chess. Some were still working when the match was underway.

However, I have already written enough about CS chess, unless a second edition appears.

[NickFaulks]

It would be interesting to canvass the views of everyone currently playing in the Surrey League to find out what the players, as opposed to the officials, really want.

What a revealing comment! Do you genuinely not know that this happens on a regular basis?

James, so far as I can tell you have played three Surrey League games in the past ten years. Can you not accept that there may be others who know as much about the wishes of the players as you do?

The AGM season is not far away and it is time to think about proposals for consideration by clubs, and through them to leagues. If you really which to instigate major changes, that should be your route.

[NickFaulks]

However, I have already written enough about CS chess

But what you have written is very valuable. There were many reasons why the CS league came to grief and, contrary to much propaganda, an overwhelming desire for quickplay finishes was not the crucial one.

When I started my career the Insurance League was thriving, with five or six divisions and a knockout. All of a sudden ( it seemed ) there was an exodus from London and it was all gone. My memory is a bit vague, but I do not remember any adjournments. There may have been the odd adjudication, but if so it did not ruin my enjoyment of the game as it might now.

In my opinion, the biggest single advantage of the Central London League is that our sessions can stretch at least to 3 1/2 hours, so a time control of 75' + 15" increment is fully workable and most players feel able to handle that. Clubs in the commuter belt, where the playing time is as little as 2 1/2 hours, have a problem.

[Roger de Coverly]

Clubs in the commuter belt, where the playing time is as little as 2 1/2 hours, have a problem.

A snobbish view perhaps, but to justify a high grade or rating a player needs to be capable of playing good moves quickly and venturing beyond the safety of games being terminated at move 36.

If venue constraints require fixed session lengths, why don't adjudication retaining leagues move the adjudication point to somwhere like move 60?

[James Toon]

James, so far as I can tell you have played three Surrey League games in the past ten years. Can you not accept that there may be others who know as much about the wishes of the players as you do?

Nick, you have clearly researched my playing history. I am flattered that you should take such an interest. However, the published records do not reveal the reason for my inactivity. I spent six years away from OTB chess when I was trying to deal with some serious mental health issues. If I had been well, I would have played more OTB chess in a range of leagues, including the Surrey League.

I certainly accept that others will know more about the wishes of Surrey League players than I do. I would like to be better informed about players' views on adjudications. I would be interested to see some statistical evidence on this. Do you have any?

[James Toon]

"As a case in point… the Civil Service League retained adjudications to the very end, despite many attempts to abolish them."

The players voted to retain adjudications. I didn't like it, but that was the result of the votes, so I felt the moral and decent thing was to accept that.

I recall various attempts to get rid of adjudications in the 1980s and 1990s. These were voted down. However, more recent history paints a different picture. I checked the AGM minutes for the period going back to 2000. There have been only two votes on adjudications since then. In 2011, a proposal in favour of quickplay finishes rather than adjudications was carried by 10 votes to 8, but this fell short of the two-thirds majority required for a rule change. In 2013, a proposal to make quickplay finishes the default option unless both players agreed to adjudication was carried by 7 votes to 3 and the rules were changed accordingly.

[James Toon]

I take the point about some people staying in post too long, but you also find that someone new and inexperienced comes along and bullies people into changing everything, and destroying what was actually working. The existing players give up and nobody replaces them.

Strong words. Is this a general complaint, or do you have anyone specific in mind?

[Kevin Thurlow]

I can think of several instances!