Various matters related to adjournments

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In the 1995-96 season I, rather unsuccessfully, decided to cut down on Birmingham League games and in fact only played three. Unfortunately, they lasted a total of 10 sessions!

Starting on the 30/11/95 I played 151 moves and 5 sessions to eventually hold a lost Q&P v Q against Paul Wallace.
Starting on the 10/02/96 I played 55 moves and 2 sessions blundering in a very level ending against Ralph Allen.
Starting on the 25/3/96 I played 57 moves over 3 sessions to convert a win into a draw against Paul Webster.

It's fair to say that scoring 1/3 against an average maybe 20 points below me and taking 10 sessions and 263 moves wasn't the most enjoyable of experiences. At least nowadays although my results aren't much better I'm safe in the knowledge that I can only play a maximum of two sessions per match. I heard, unofficially, that the 151 move 5 session game was a Birmingham League record but I've no idea if that's correct.

That is an impressive amount of game time, and I don't think I've ever had any game approaching 120 moves, let alone 151 (I vaguely recall a game somewhere over 100 moves). In the five-session game in particular, did you find that your play varied from session to session, and started to be affected less by the position on the board, but by thoughts of how long the game was going on for? And did you feel that you and your opponent were sparring with computer analysis, rather than OTB play (i.e. it was beginning to feel like a correspondence game)?

I'm slightly confused as to how you can play 57 moves over 3 sessions. What sort of time control was that?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Finally, adjournment sessions are actually quite rare in practice. I can't remember the last time I had more than one in a season.

My experience tends to be the opposite. I've had several seasons when more than 50% of my games have gone to adjournments. Admittedly, some of them are agreed drawn or resigned without resumption. This, though, tends to depend on the standard of the opposition, as to get to adjournment territory you need to avoid the sort of mismatches that lead to relatively quick wins. But if you have evenly matched opponents, who both use up all their time in the first session (rather than playing on for a few more moves and having the position resolve itself), and have a hard-fought battle, then an adjournment is actually quite likely, from what I've seen.

I am amazed, though, at how some players, when they reach the first time control in a game where adjournment is an option, fail to stop and think about when to seal a move. So many players blunder at or just after the time control, when with a bit of thought they could have sealed a move and ensured whatever advantage they had was kept. Albeit, it does delay the match result if lots of players do that.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Jonathan,

I don't think the London League is likely to encourage juniors for the reasons you say; it's very 4NCL-like with its central venue concept. I was referring to the concept of having multiple adjournment sessions generally, which is still fairly common throughout the land.

Were you? I must have been misled by
"What a fantastic way to encourage young players to play in the London League"

I think Alex was being sarcastic.

Anyway, I'm not sure you're really getting the point about the London league and juniors either. It's where the population is relative to where the games are played that's important. There are a fair few clubs who don't play at Golden Lane - I've never played a junior at any of them.

Juniors in the Surrey/Croydon/Thames Valley League - those I see (and play) quite regularly.

I've never thought about this before, but now you mention it, you are right. Students, maybe, but juniors, no. The juniors I can remember playing have all been in other leagues or at tournaments.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Do you think that (non-quickplay) chess ceases to be a worthwhile and enjoyable activity after move 36? Chris's experience even seems to have inspired him to go off and learn something about Queen endings so he will definitely come out of the experience a better player!

Er, I'm not so sure about that.

It depends how much of it I remember.

Having said that, I was at a chess club tonight, and for the first time in ages I wasn't playing but had the chance to relax and just push some pieces around on a board and analyse a few positions, including some of these endgames. I suspect that I learnt more from doing that then any reading of a book would, though of course when reading any book, you have to analyse on a board to really gain the most from it. Far too many people, me included, try and just read/browse chess books, and think they are learning something, when in fact the material is not really sinking in - play over lines on a board, preferably against someone else, and you get far more of an understanding of a position.

As a safety net, what you need is some computer or strong player to step in when you or your sparring partner make a big blunder, but there is no substitute for having to actually think for yourself and make moves on the board (with a clock ticking if needed). In the lines I played through tonight, I gained a new-found respect for the queen's ability to keep checking for what seems like ages, but I also found out that when the checks stop, the initiative can quickly swing the other way.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I adjourned several times against PG Bakker in a Q+P ending at Guernsey many years ago, and finally lost on move 133. He was a bit fed up at losing sightseeing time, but I never felt the ending was bad enough to resign (I still had stalemate threats at move 131).

My father had an unfinished game in the Customs championship, which eventually reached move 125, when it was Q+B vs Q+3P, (both players hoping to win!), but the deadline for reporting results arrived...

[Jonathan Bryant]

My experience tends to be the opposite. I've had several seasons when more than 50% of my games have gone to adjournments. Admittedly, some of them are agreed drawn or resigned without resumption.

I would count these as not being adjourned - in the sense that a second session actually gets played. Keeping a note of what happens to my team mates, I see that relatively few of them actually go back for a second session - and it must be easier in the London League where all adjournments are played at Golden Lane than in regional leagues where travelling by public transport can be an issue.

I spent much of 2007-2009 at LSE which is walking distance to Golden Lane. I fully intended to play as many adjournment sessions as possible but even then I rarely did actually have a second session.

Looking back on last season, by the way, I see I had three games that lasted more than 50 moves. The longest was my one London League adjournment which went to two hours or so of the second session and 58 moves. Another was a quickplay finish in the Banks League and the third was against your good self in a county game (also technically a quickplay finish but a very different kind of one to a normal club match).

[Alex Holowczak]

Jonathan,

I don't think the London League is likely to encourage juniors for the reasons you say; it's very 4NCL-like with its central venue concept. I was referring to the concept of having multiple adjournment sessions generally, which is still fairly common throughout the land.

Were you? I must have been misled by
"What a fantastic way to encourage young players to play in the London League"

I think Alex was being sarcastic.

Correct.

Actually, of my four adjourned games this season:
One I won by default when my opponent never turned up
One I won by default when my opponent refused to turn up no matter what the date was, citing lack of availability/other commitments
One I won when my opponent resigned over the phone (but was prepared to play on on the evening; my decision to adjourn was specifically to avoid playing it out)
One I drew when I offered a draw by e-mail, due to my sealed move losing a piece

Based on this record, I should probably be arguing for adjournments...

[Jonathan Bryant]

I adjourned several times against PG Bakker in a Q+P ending at Guernsey many years ago, and finally lost on move 133.

A while back I noticed that Ray Keene had a 128 move game when he won the British Championship in 1971. A queen and bishop ending that became a pure queen ending (in that RDK was two queens and king against pawn and king when he eventually checked mated his opponent). That was adjourned at least once and presumably possibly twice.

I tracked down his opponent last year - he's living in America now - turned out to be a nice guy. A talented junior player who gave up shortly after that 1971 championship and came back to chess in a casual way over the last few years.

[Alex Holowczak]

What about adjournments in congresses? Most congresses have either 3 hour or 3 1/2 hour games, options which are available in league chess. For example, the Worcestershire Open got 120ish entries last year, with a time control of 35 in 75 + 15 minutes to finish. I believe it had more entries than any event in the Warks/Worcs/Staffs area last year. So clearly, people are prepared to play in congresses with quickplay finishes, at a time control which is available in league chess. So why are they accepted and positive in congresses, but not in league chess?

[Ian Thompson]

So clearly, people are prepared to play in congresses with quickplay finishes, at a time control which is available in league chess. So why are they accepted and positive in congresses, but not in league chess?

One obvious difference is that everyone can see that there is a need to have an immediate result in a congress so the pairings can be done for the next round, and the winners are known at the end of it. In a league, it doesn't really matter if the result of a game and match isn't known for a few months.

[Jonathan Bryant]

What about adjournments in congresses? Most congresses have either 3 hour or 3 1/2 hour games, options which are available in league chess.... So clearly, people are prepared to play in congresses with quickplay finishes, at a time control which is available in league chess. So why are they accepted and positive in congresses, but not in league chess?

This is a very good question. There are two answers, I think.

(1) There's a difference between quickplay finishes with a playing session of four hours (like at the Torquay tournament I played at last year) or 3 1/2 hours than 3 hours - the length of the session in the London League - or even 2 hours 40 (Surrey/Croydon League playing sessions). i.e. the longer the session the less likelihood of getting to the quickplay finish bit.

- that's only a minor thing however. I suspect the real reason is,

(2) my experience suggests tournament chessers are quite a different group to league chessers - with different mindsets, attitudes, tastes, expectations etc. That is, tournament players are (mostly) a subset of league players.

I suspect you'll find a strong correlation between folk who don't like quickplay finishes and folk who don't play tournaments (and not just because of the obvious reason that playing a tournament means playing a quickplay finish or two).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

What about adjournments in congresses?

If the tournament is either an all-play-all graded sections tournament, or a one-game-per-day Swiss, it is possible to have adjournments (you play the adjournments in the afternoon for a one-round-per-day morning swiss, or at random other times for APA sections). I believe there may also have been a way to do the draw for a Swiss even with adjournments, but may be wrong there. I am grateful to have experienced tournament adjournments (not sure if any exist any more) at Hastings in the 1995/6 event, when it was quite a learning experience to be doing frantic analysis over lunch or in the evening for an adjournment session. It did, however, mess up sightseeing time, as alluded to earlier, and also preparation time. The real stories related to adjournments come from the GM tournaments of earlier times, especially the stories where large numbers of GMs analysed a position to help a colleague, and failed to spot the obvious move... If there was a congress still offering a schedule that included adjournments, I'd probably play in it, as there is something about the dynamics of a game split into adjournment sessions that appeals to me!

[Jonathan Bryant]

I am grateful to have experienced tournament adjournments (not sure if any exist any more) at Hastings in the 1995/6 event, when it was quite a learning experience to be doing frantic analysis over lunch or in the evening for an adjournment session. It did, however, mess up sightseeing time, as alluded to earlier ....

Lack of sight-seeing time was a problem in Hastings???

I'd also be interested to know if there are any congresses/tournaments that still have adjournments. I'm guessing not. The Torbay one-game a day congress (and perhaps the London Chess Classic too) could have adjournments but choose not to.

A seven-hour playing session with a quickplay finish is preferable to an adjournment, it seems to me. Of course that's not remotely practical in league chess.

That leads me to ponder, what leagues have the longest/shortest time (in terms of hours/minutes and number of moves) before a game might be adjourned.

e.g.
London League: adjournment after 36 moves and a 3 hour playing session

Thames Valley League: adjournment - if it happens - after 30 moves and a 2.5 hour playing session (although I haven't played TV chess for a couple of years so this might have changed).

Surrey League: adjournment after 35 moves and a 2 hour 40 minute playing session.




Of these, I find the Thames Valley time control clearly the worst. Indeed it's one of the reasons why I don't play in that league any more.

[William Metcalfe]

Most congresses that i play are acually 4 hours sessions 1 hour 30/40 for what ever moves then back either 20 or 30 mins i belive a 4 hour playing sessions is long enough for a good game off chess.
We do not have ajurnments up here in the north east the cleveland league time control of 36 moves in 90 mins then back 15 is the best time control of the 3 leagues i play in.The most stupid is Durham leagues 28 moves in 70 mins then back 20 mins.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thames Valley League: adjournment - if it happens - after 30 moves and a 2.5 hour playing session (although I haven't played TV chess for a couple of years so this might have changed).

http://www.thamesvalleychess.org/rules/main.htm

"The time controls have been changed 16a now reads 35 in 75 minutes, 70 in 150 minutes and thereafter 28 moves per hour and 16d is now 42 in 90 minutes, 70 in 150 minutes and 28 per hour thereafter. Players can insist on adjudication after black's 70th move not 60th."

The time control of 42 moves in 90 minutes is faster than the one you were used to, but games tend to finish by move 42. There are other options as well. I still haven't decided which option suits me best. Possibly none of them.