Adjournments and adjudications
The leagues run by the Hertfordshire Chess Association have a rather elaborate set of rules for their time controls. It goes something like this:
Clearly when playing the longer game there's a fair chance of not finishing by 10:30 (or whenever). When this happens we go through a little dance to negotiate the next step:
To my mind, this is all quite horrible. If I'm clearly losing I'd rather take my chances in a quick-play finish. If it's close, I'd rather fight it out then and there - I don't want my game to be about who has the stronger computer or more free time; I want it to be about who plays better chess. And if I'm clearly winning, I'd rather finish it off on the night.
An adjournment is just too time-consuming (and, in this computer age, quite contrary to the notion that the contest should be between me and my opponent). An adjudication is likewise an unsatisfactory way to decide a game. So it all stinks.
However, I seem to be in a minority. Looking back, I see that about two-thirds of my games in this league have been at the longer time control. This wouldn't have been at my choice, so I suppose that my opponents must have insisted. (About a third of those games were incomplete at close of play.) I wonder what's going on... perhaps it's that the shorter time control is just too short, and that puts people off.
Oh, the game. I haven't really figured out whether I'm presenting my games in this blog or just using them as a hook into topics of (marginally) wider interest. I guess probably the latter. So I'll only say that:
After negotiations we agreed to go to adjudication (I didn't fancy going back to Hemel Hempstead to defend the final position), but in fact I've resigned this morning. The computers don't like my position at all, so I can't see adjudication giving me anything.
I haven't yet had time to work out where things did go wrong exactly. I suspect I may have had chances even after losing the material. I don't see why any readers should be expected to do my homework for me, but suggestions are of course welcome. I'll be looking into it at some point in the next few days but, barring an unexpected thirst for analysis in the comments, don't expect to post the results.
- if both players agree, then the game can be played at all moves in 80 minutes
- else the game is played at 75 minutes for the first 35 moves, and then 15 minutes are added for each further 7 moves
Clearly when playing the longer game there's a fair chance of not finishing by 10:30 (or whenever). When this happens we go through a little dance to negotiate the next step:
- someone seals a move
- the home player (I think it's the home player who must speak first, but I may be wrong) says whether he is willing to go to adjudication or wishes to play on
- if he is willing to go to adjudication then his opponent can either agree to that, or can force play to continue; then the continuation will be at the home venue
- if the home player is not willing to go to adjudication, he can nominate 'play on' in the first step. But then he must go to the away venue to continue the game.
To my mind, this is all quite horrible. If I'm clearly losing I'd rather take my chances in a quick-play finish. If it's close, I'd rather fight it out then and there - I don't want my game to be about who has the stronger computer or more free time; I want it to be about who plays better chess. And if I'm clearly winning, I'd rather finish it off on the night.
An adjournment is just too time-consuming (and, in this computer age, quite contrary to the notion that the contest should be between me and my opponent). An adjudication is likewise an unsatisfactory way to decide a game. So it all stinks.
However, I seem to be in a minority. Looking back, I see that about two-thirds of my games in this league have been at the longer time control. This wouldn't have been at my choice, so I suppose that my opponents must have insisted. (About a third of those games were incomplete at close of play.) I wonder what's going on... perhaps it's that the shorter time control is just too short, and that puts people off.
Oh, the game. I haven't really figured out whether I'm presenting my games in this blog or just using them as a hook into topics of (marginally) wider interest. I guess probably the latter. So I'll only say that:
- I drifted into time trouble (about 5 minutes for the last 15 moves; in a practical sense this was my main mistake)
- I didn't really understand what was going on
- so I lost the thread, and some material
After negotiations we agreed to go to adjudication (I didn't fancy going back to Hemel Hempstead to defend the final position), but in fact I've resigned this morning. The computers don't like my position at all, so I can't see adjudication giving me anything.
I haven't yet had time to work out where things did go wrong exactly. I suspect I may have had chances even after losing the material. I don't see why any readers should be expected to do my homework for me, but suggestions are of course welcome. I'll be looking into it at some point in the next few days but, barring an unexpected thirst for analysis in the comments, don't expect to post the results.
Comments