Effect of quickplay on league membership

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
James Toon
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Effect of quickplay on league membership

Post by James Toon » Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:13 pm

Peter Ackley wrote: (a) how many players don't play league chess because of 'non-quickplay [NQ]' finishes OR how many people leave quickly after experiencing them
I know of more players my home club lost because they only wanted quickplay [Q] than I do of players we would lose if the league went Q. The NQ brigade has always been happy to gloss over this point.
I've lost players after their experience of this method of finish.
This is a difficult point. What should players do if their attempts to bring about reform result in failure? Should they continue to argue the case from within the league? Or should they cut their losses and play chess somewhere else?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19265
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Effect of quickplay on league membership

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:42 pm

James Toon wrote:A possible explanation is that the opponents of quickplay are the older players,
The opponents of adjudication are also older players - mind you we were young when we started opposing it :)

Peter Ackley
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:59 pm

Re: Effect of quickplay on league membership

Post by Peter Ackley » Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:48 pm

James Toon wrote:This is a difficult point. What should players do if their attempts to bring about reform result in failure? Should they continue to argue the case from within the league? Or should they cut their losses and play chess somewhere else?
It's difficult. Essentially you are trying to bring together two almost irreconcilable groups. Which group is affected, though, if the viewpoint of the other is forced on them - ie is it worse for the NQ group to be made to finish on the night or worse for the Q group to have to potentially have to find a second night? My view is the Q group is the most put out.

I've struggled through 10 years of NQ finishes in London after spending 7 years in the Leamington League. Each year I get a little less interested. It's not the fact that my opponent may use Fritz (disclaimer: other software programmes are available) but the hassle that comes along with an adjournment. The finding another night, the opponents behaviour (disclaimer: not in all cases). I won't go into detail - I've posted on these before.

What really sunk adjournments for me? It was 2008 and, in a tense game, we reached the time control. Needing a result out of the game I was left with little option than to travel. It was a difficult position - I had pressure, space but no pawns anywhere near my king. I also had to drive the best part of 60 miles to get there, including the M25 (with the roadworks). I prepared dilligently. I looked after line after line, seeing pressue but nothing conclusive. Upon arrival we sat down... and I had a won position in 5 moves (and a resignation in somewhere near 10). My sealed move wasn't a shocker (off the top of my head it might even have been forced). It was clear that little to no effort had been put into the position. Afterwards I thanked my opponent, who commented that at least I was going to get an early night. Cheers for that. It might not have been early but it was still, from a personal point of view, wasted.

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: Effect of quickplay on league membership

Post by Ian Kingston » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:24 am

Peter Ackley wrote:What really sunk adjournments for me? It was 2008 and, in a tense game, we reached the time control. Needing a result out of the game I was left with little option than to travel. It was a difficult position - I had pressure, space but no pawns anywhere near my king. I also had to drive the best part of 60 miles to get there, including the M25 (with the roadworks). I prepared dilligently. I looked after line after line, seeing pressue but nothing conclusive. Upon arrival we sat down... and I had a won position in 5 moves (and a resignation in somewhere near 10). My sealed move wasn't a shocker (off the top of my head it might even have been forced). It was clear that little to no effort had been put into the position. Afterwards I thanked my opponent, who commented that at least I was going to get an early night. Cheers for that. It might not have been early but it was still, from a personal point of view, wasted.
This is one aspect of adjournments that always puzzled me. I haven't played one since the 1980s, but I discovered that it was very rare that my opponents actually did any analysis of the position. Of all the adjournments that I played, I only lost one (a long rook and pawn ending), and in many cases the adjourned session ended in a win for me after only a few moves, despite resuming in a more or less balanced position.

The one I remember best was an ending of R+2P vs R+3P in which I was about to lose the extra pawn, but had the advantage of a well-supported passed pawn. The position was one in which detailed analysis was possible, and I slaved over it for a whole weekend, looking for winning ideas. Sadly, all I could find was a little trap immediately after the sealed move which could be easily defeated and would lead back to the sealed position, which was objectively level. There was no harm in trying it, so I did. My opponent fell straight into the trap and the second session lasted just four moves. He hadn't looked at the adjourned position at all.

Because of that kind of experience, I'm not persuaded that adjournments simply lead to Fritz vs. Fritz chess. If one player understands the computer's analysis and the other doesn't, then the game will soon be back in the players' hands and the engines' influence will be minimal. But that's just a hypothesis - I have no experience to back it up. And of course, the other objections to adjournments still stand.

Justin Hadi

Re: Effect of quickplay on league membership

Post by Justin Hadi » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:44 am

Peter Ackley wrote: It's difficult. Essentially you are trying to bring together two almost irreconcilable groups. Which group is affected, though, if the viewpoint of the other is forced on them - ie is it worse for the NQ group to be made to finish on the night or worse for the Q group to have to potentially have to find a second night? My view is the Q group is the most put out.

...

What really sunk adjournments for me? It was 2008 and, in a tense game, we reached the time control. Needing a result out of the game I was left with little option than to travel. It was a difficult position - I had pressure, space but no pawns anywhere near my king. I also had to drive the best part of 60 miles to get there, including the M25 (with the roadworks). I prepared dilligently. I looked after line after line, seeing pressue but nothing conclusive. Upon arrival we sat down... and I had a won position in 5 moves (and a resignation in somewhere near 10). My sealed move wasn't a shocker (off the top of my head it might even have been forced). It was clear that little to no effort had been put into the position. Afterwards I thanked my opponent, who commented that at least I was going to get an early night. Cheers for that. It might not have been early but it was still, from a personal point of view, wasted.
Totally agree with these sentiments. Once, in the Birmingham league I had a totally completely winning exchange up endgame (rook and pawns vs bishop and pawns), which would easily been converted on the night in a QPF, almost regardless of time left. My opponent, as was her right, asked for a resumption the next week. After a little homework, the game was easily and quickly won and it seemed that she had hardly looked at the position. During the journey my car actually broke down :? This begs the question, why bother going for an adjournment in a totally lost position if you're not even going to look at the position? This was even a mild case, there have been instances of people going for adjournments just to annoy the opponent enough to offer a draw as it's too inconvenient to travel to resume a week later.

User avatar
Gareth Harley-Yeo
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:58 pm
Location: Wales
Contact:

Re: Effect of quickplay on league membership

Post by Gareth Harley-Yeo » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:01 am

James Toon wrote:When I posted the results, the only summer league I knew about was the Wolverhampton Summer League. I will add the South East Lancashire Summer League (thanks to Mick Norris for drawing attention to it).

I confined the survey to standardplay leagues, meaning that rapid, blitz and lightning leagues are outside scope. I can't tell from the East Glamorgan website whether the Summer League and Summer KO Tournament are run as standardplay events, and if so whether the rules are any different from the main League rules. Maybe Gareth can tell us.
Summer League
Summer KO

I don't play in them myself as I like the rest-bite the summer offers. I'm 90% sure they are the same rules as the league. 30 moves in an hour then back 25mins play to a finish.

I know one of the old guard tried creating a non quickplay summer league a season or two ago but I don’t think it caught on.

As for adjournment stories; It had been known that on more than one occasion somebody's sealed move was 'resigns'. I'm sure you can imagine the frustration and anger that caused between players and clubs.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Effect of quickplay on league membership

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:20 am

Justin Hadi wrote:Totally agree with these sentiments. Once, in the Birmingham league I had a totally completely winning exchange up endgame (rook and pawns vs bishop and pawns), which would easily been converted on the night in a QPF, almost regardless of time left. My opponent, as was her right, asked for a resumption the next week. After a little homework, the game was easily and quickly won and it seemed that she had hardly looked at the position. During the journey my car actually broke down :? This begs the question, why bother going for an adjournment in a totally lost position if you're not even going to look at the position? This was even a mild case, there have been instances of people going for adjournments just to annoy the opponent enough to offer a draw as it's too inconvenient to travel to resume a week later.
The Birmingham League offers the option of adjudication - but only if the match result is decided - to prevent such things. Did you not have this option available? (The match may still have been alive, but I'm wondering whether or not the rule existed at the time of this claim.)

I had a game against one player where the player was bound to adjournments by his team. He played quite slowly, so duly sealed at move 32ish. He never turned up for the resumption. He appeared with his son at a junior club a few weeks later. He apologised, and explained that he worked nights, and took 1-day holidays to play league chess. Of course, with adjournments, he had no time to make a similar arrangement, due to not being able to give enough notice. Despite making some arrangements, they fell through, and got called in to work on the evening of the match, with no time to tell me he couldn't make it. He said he preferred the local QP league that the team plays in, because it fits in better around work commitments. The team were then 3-1 down, and the other match which was a draw all day long became a win for our player, with the opponent seeing what had happened on my board trying crazy things to win, eventually losing on time.

But at least we didn't have to rush our endgame. :D

Justin Hadi

Re: Effect of quickplay on league membership

Post by Justin Hadi » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:31 am

Adjudication - no, I don't think so but I wasn't exactly up on the rules. I would prefer to have to travel now and again to play an adjournment rather than have games adjudicated. On reflection, I can't remember exactly which league it was, there are a few in the area but the season or two I played adjournment seems to have been the norm. I can't remember playing a quickplay finish at all - actually there were probably a few, but it's about 5 years ago now!

Mick Norris
Posts: 8436
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Effect of quickplay on league membership

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:51 am

James Toon wrote:When I posted the results, the only summer league I knew about was the Wolverhampton Summer League. I will add the South East Lancashire Summer League (thanks to Mick Norris for drawing attention to it).
James

You can find the results of the Summer League on the MCF website but not the Rules, it will give the structures of the league (divisions, team, cup)

I've already given you the time control, 30/hr then 15 min finish

The other rule that may interest you is that the away team has white on odd in the league, but toss for colour in the cup (teams are 6 boards)

Promotion and relegation are theoretically 1 up 1 down, but in practice the composition of the league often changes to defeat this

If you need any more info, suggest you contact David Kierman David.Kierman@manchester.ac.uk
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Post Reply