Back to SCCU home page      Open Forum
Letters
updated 22.6.01
OPEN FORUM
TIME CONTROLS & FINISHES

Page introduced 11.4.01. The topic was getting a bit sprawly in the main Open Forum page.

Before the correspondence here's the beginnings of a Table, showing how people manage their time controls and what kind of Finish they apply. It started as County Leagues, but it grew. We're still missing Sussex, who were adjourn-or-adjudicate diehards last we heard. There have been changes over the last few years. Middx details are taken from their website and could be out of date. More info, anyone?
     It's a bit condensed. All available options have a "y", and the one in upper case is the default. That is, the one you can insist on. It's noticeable that where there are options in both the blue section and the yellow, the default is always in the yellow. The default may not be the norm (in non-London Kent it isn't). There is no default in Surrey, but they're thinking about it.
     The "Decision made" column is firmly in the yellow. Whether to be Blue or Yellow, where an option, is always decided before the game starts. Presumably you could decide at the first time-check whether to have QPF or go into the yellow, but no one does.

 

QPF

All moves
in x min

Fischer

Adjourn

Adjudicate

Decision made

SCCU

Y

          

Berks

      

Y

y

end of session

Berks KO

 

 Y        

Bucks

Y

          

Essex (1st session)

y

    

Y

y

end of session

Essex (2nd session)

      

y

Y

end of session

Herts

  

y

  

Y

y

end of session

Herts KO

  

Y

  

 

 

 

Kent

y

    

Y

y

end of session

Middx

y

    

Y

y

end of session

Oxon

Y

          

Surrey

y

    

y

y

start of session

Cambridge City/Coll

Y

          

Civil Service League

y

    

y

Y

start of session

Leamington League

Y

          

London League

 

    

Y

 

 

London League Div 1

y

    

Y

 

 

Mid Sussex League

 

    

 

Y

 

N Circular League

Y

    

 

 

 

N Essex league/KO

Y

    

 

 

 

Southend & District Lgue

 

    

Y

 

 

Sy/Hants Border League

y

 y y

Y

 

 

Sy/Hants Border KO

y

 Y y

 

 

 

Thames Valley League

      

Y

y

end of session

Some people - certainly Kent and the Border League - outlaw the yellow towards the end of the season.



From Ian Thompson
21.6.01
Richard,
Is this a first for a local league? The Surrey/Hants Border League had its AGM last night. From next season players will have the option of playing a Fischer time control of 60 minutes initial time allocation, plus 30 seconds per move. This is an optional time limit, as it can only be played by clubs with digital clocks, and at clubs who do not have a fixed time by which they have to leave their venue. At the moment, I think we have 10 teams (out of 33) with digital clocks and a suitable venue.
     For your time limits table, the Border League time controls are now:
a) Standard League Match time limit - 36 moves in 90 minutes followed by adjournment. Adjudication is not available.
b) Standard KO Match time limit - all moves in 90 minutes.
c) The players may mutually agree to play one of the following instead of a) or b):
     (i) All moves in 90 minutes
     (ii) 30 moves in 75 minutes, followed by 15 minutes quickplay finish
     (iii) Fischer time control of 60 minutes initially, plus 30 seconds per move.
To complicate things, in May the standard time limit for league matches changes to b) (with the players still able to choose one of the options from c) if they wish). This is to ensure that there are no adjourned games outstanding at the end of our season on 31 May.
     (NB. The only change we have made to our time controls is the addition of the Fischer option. Your table currently shows this season's May time limits, but not the standard time limits used for the rest of the season.)
Ian Thompson Ian@crookham.freeserve.co.uk
rjh: I think it's right now. I've even added a Fischer column. I believe that when Ian originally gave me the details I took the May transformation to be a rule change coming into effect in May 2001. And, as it practically was May 2001 at the time, I just put the "new" rule down. I suppose it would have been a funny time to change the rules.


From Bernard Cafferty
3.6.01
Richard,
It seems no-one from Sussex has commented yet on your theme of quickplay finishes etc. In the Mid-Sussex League we have the time limit of 42 moves in 90 minutes, starting at 7.30pm, or 7.45pm, latest, and then adjudicate. Some of our trips take well over an hour, given the distance from, say, Hastings to Horsham.
     Obviously, 42/90 is a pretty fierce speed of play, but one manages to adjust. At the AGM twelve days ago the comment was made that the number of positions submitted for adjudication was going down and totalled only nine last season, for four divisions. It is assumed that we benefit from the week's grace given to examine the position before submitting the match card. After a day or so, especially in the age of computers, it becomes clear what the outcome will be and so clubs save their money!
Bernard Cafferty 101466.453@compuserve.com
Hastings
rjh: I believe the Mid-Sussex League is independent of the Sussex CCA, though affiliated to it. I'm not really sure what the Sussex CCA run. There is also a South-West Sussex League.


From Paul Dupré
28.5.01
Dear Richard,
Today I have read your Open Forum page of the Web Site, and there seems to me a distinct lack of views except about QPF. I think maybe we should be looking towards a radical shake up of the League Chess scene. But, as far as QPF goes:
     Due to my lack of interest in adjournments and adjudications, this year I decided only to play county matches and weekend tournaments. However, somehow I was talked into a few league matches by my good friend, the Surrey Under 175 captain.
     Anyway, as an attacking player I do like the tension to build up and rarely draw my matches, which is why I like QPF in general. I have only played 17 games since this season started for me in October and my grade should go up this year in August. I have Won 10 Drawn 1 and Lost 6. But when I take away the non QPF games it gets better at Won 10 Drawn 0 Lost 4. If I then take away the games where I arrived late at an away venue I get Won 10 Drawn 0 Lost 1.
     What does this tell me, well as far as I can see, it tells me perception of time is more important than the time itself. When I was late for away matches I rushed my moves and played very badly. I will of course be endeavouring to turn up on time from now on. By the way, I also found my average length of game to reach a final outcome was over 40 moves which is not usually reached in most League matches. Therefore as I play chess to play chess I won't let others influence my games next season at all.

But what I'd really propose is to scrap the current situation completely, in club leagues. My reason for this is some clubs manipulate board order or selection of players or starting times etc. Depending on which league you play in (eg. the Surrey/Hants Border League I am familiar with) away teams get white on odd, and this is an advantage as you know what colour you are before you start. In Surrey they play home or away against each club, so their leagues are unbalanced with either more home or away matches. Also, the year I played board 2 for Cobham I kept getting white and the top board was pissed off with continually playing black.
     I wish to suggest an alternative to all these problems. ....Quickplay Leagues that start at a specified time whatever the circumstances. These are more fun for evening chess. Smaller divisions so that you play home and away. With matches being played over ½ hour each. At half time have the usual coffee or tea interuptions, then swap colours and play the second half. Another benefit to shorter matches would be the Pubs are still open when you finish, and there's not so many post mortems. Serious chess could then be confined to longer playing sessions available for County Matches and weekend congresses and club tournaments.
     Of course a lot of people would be distressed because they would lose their long play grade. But, then they would gain a quickplay grade so there are some advantages.
Regards
Paul Dupré paul.dupre@breathemail.net
10 Lyfield, Oxshott, Surrey KT22 0SH


From Roger de Coverly
24.5.01
Both Bucks, Berks and the Thames Valley have nominal 7.30 pm start times. The practical start time usually depends on the prompt arrival of the away team, the ease or difficulty in setting up the room for matches and how much leeway was allowed for travelling difficulties in previous matches between the clubs.
     The survey makes interesting reading in particular the geography of where adjudication is still the norm. The culture of "playing for adjudication" seems most deep-seated nearer to London. I decided that I didn't want to play in the Thames Valley league after a game in a match away to a well-known Junior club ( 30/75 + adjournment/adjudication) in which both my young opponent and myself rattled out 30 moves in about an hour and then my opponent made no additional moves after move 30. In both the Bucks (before this season's changes) and the Berks, I tried to encourage the destruction of this culture by playing on as a matter of principle .. so that anyone trying this trick would just start the second session 30 minutes down on the clock.
     If you used increment timings, it might be necessary to reintroduce complusory adjudication at 10.55 pm ( hopefully at a move number much greater than 30). This is after all an unwritten law that no game should continue past last orders, not to mention closure times at the premises.
Roger de Coverly rdc@rdc200.fsnet.co.uk
rjh: At one club I could name, the principal constraint on start time is the arrival of the home team. The home team in general, and the one who's got the key in particular.


From Tim Dickinson
23.5.01
Richard,
Just read Jeremy's latest contribution [below] with interest. I'd agree that the start time does make a difference - most venues would close no later than 11pm so if one kicks off at 8pm then one's landlord might not appreciate the late finishers (and post-mortems/end-match disputes!). Anyway, the Oxon league mostly kicks off at 7:30pm, except for a couple of clubs which kick off at 7:15pm because of landlord constraints.
     Interestingly, the Leamington League, which I also play in, is rather more slack on the start time. Officially it's 7:30pm everywhere but more generally matches start at around 7:45pm because the team captains usually prefer to 'wait until everyone's here'. Not a view I favour, personally, but then I'm not a captain in the LL. The time control there, in case you might like to put it in, is 35/75 + G/15 - ie. the same as Oxon's.
     Another potential factor [very minor, this one, I would admit in time-control decisions] is the number of boards per match. In Oxon it's six, in Leamington four. Might be worth starting up yet another column for that?
Regards,
Tim T.Dickinson@btinternet.com



From Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell
23.5.01
Dear Richard
I note with interest that about half the organisations in your table have some sort of play to a finish option as their default. The majority of these seem to be QPF rather than "all moves in x mins". However I think a significant factor here may be the time that the match is due to start*. (In Herts, this is 7.45, though it is rare to get all players in the room by then, let alone sat at the board...). With a late start to accommodate players' work habits (ie commuting to London), this makes a QPF difficult in a short playing session. We used to have a rate of 30 in 65 + 15 QPF but this was never very popular - I suspect the "30 in 65" was at least as much a problem as the QPF. So we changed to "all in 80". In the Herts KO competition, the only option is "all in 80".
     Regarding the comments on game quality, I find it intriguing that the London League Div 1 has a QPF option, but all the other divisions have a compulsory adjournment - I'd like to know the thinking here. Do the strongest players have the more demanding jobs etc, making it more difficult to assign 2 nights to a single game (and not counting the time spent on adjournment analysis, etc.)? I used to enjoy adjournment analysis, but I just don't have the time for it now.
     Fischer timings anyone...?
Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell MitchellFJ@bre.co.uk
Secretary, Herts Chess Assn
* perhaps you could add an extra column for start time?
rjh: I might, if I got a few more to put in. It varies in Kent. Outside London, travelling distances sometimes mean weekend matches (and a reasonably long playing session). Evening matches, I think both in and out of London, tend to "start" at 7.45. There's no rule about it.
     I have heard that the QPF provision, in the top division of the London League, was introduced to accommodate very strong players who won't commit more than one day to a match because of busy tournament schedules. I don't see how it can work, unless they're very sure of their opponents. QPF is still not the default and the opponent can insist on adjournment if he wants.


From Kevin Thurlow
21.5.01
Dear Richard
Just to add to your table. The London Civil Service Chess League uses 36 moves in 90 minutes then adjudication, unless both players agree beforehand to either adjourn or to have 30 moves in 75 minutes then all in 15 minutes. Hardly anyone adjourns, and quickplay finish is becoming more popular. Adjudication is still fairly popular, mainly because results come back within 6 weeks of the match, and the adjudicators are of high quality.
     Sadly that does not apply in Surrey, where you can expect a wait of months not weeks for adjudications, and the results are frequently incomprehensible. Hence Redhill's first team in the Surrey league has generally gone for quickplay finishes.
     None of the methods is ideal for an evening league, but QP finish is the only way you finish the game unaided, and you know the result at the end of the evening.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow KJT@lgc.co.uk


From Jeff Goldberg
18.5.01
Essex General Purposes Committee
You might like to know that the above committee met on Wednesday. It decided that there will be a quickplay finish option in the Essex League from next season. If both players agree they can play 30 in 75 minutes and clocks back 15 minutes to a finish.
     It seems sensible enough to me, although I won't be agreeing to it myself. I'm waiting for the "if the game is unfinished after 3 hours, a coin will be tossed" option.
Jeff Goldberg jeff.g@ntlworld.com


From Howard Grist
17.4.01
One thing cropped up at the Southend Congress, on the topical subject of finishing games. As you may be aware, the Southend Congress is one of the very few congresses not to use quick-play finishes. This year we had four games go beyond the 6 hours that we allow for each game (at which point they adjourn and start another game. We guess the result for pairing purposes.) Previously I have heard the occasional comment from players that they like Southend as there is no quickplay finish, but this year there were numerous comments that the absence of quick-play finishes is not an enticement for them to enter next year.
Howard Grist howard.grist@btinternet.com


From Gary Cook
14.4.01
Dear Richard
Just read with interest the various views on quick-play finishes vs adjudications vs adjournments.
     In the North Circular Chess League we have had all three at one time or another. For the last two seasons we have had a time control of 30 moves in 1¼ hours followed by a 15 minute QP finish. There have been no complaints from players or officials and the number of silly disputes has fallen. As to the argument that a player may go wrong in time pressure - what makes people think that they will wait until time pressure to make a mistake? For the vast majority of players (and I quite happily include myself) the games are littered with mistakes. The problem is not if I will make one, but if my opponent will spot it. And if he is also in time pressure then there is less chance of him doing so!
     From a Secretary's point of view (and I would imagine the captains' as well) having a quick play finish makes my life a lot easier. When I get the match result in I do not have to wait another month to know who won (assuming the players bothered to arrange a date for the second session). And I do not have to chase captains for the elusive results for adjourned games.
Regards
Gary Cook gary@cernunos.globalnet.co.uk
Secretary, North Circular Chess League


From Scott Freeman
13.4.01
Richard
I have read with interest the various comments made by different people on end games, particularly in respect of Surrey, where I have, on behalf of my club, been actively campaigning for the introduction of Quickplay as the default option for Surrey League matches.
     Coulsdon had made such a proposal 2 years ago but it didn't happen then but led to us supporting the compromise idea from Mike Gunn that we are using this season and that he gave a run down of elsewhere on this page. Sadly, moves are afoot from some players to try and revert us to a system which is likely to give the advantages in selecting end games back to those who prefer adjudication, which cannot be good for the future of chess in the county.
     I personally believe that the opinion in the county is about 50-50 but as time goes on, I feel that more players will opt for quickplay and see its benefits. Indeed, many (including some formerly pro-adjudication) have commented to me that they have enjoyed their games more this season, because there has been a sharpness to the matches they have played and match results have normally been sorted out on the night.
     Some club captains have sought to use the old rules (ie adjudication as the norm) and have instructed their players so to do (despite the instruction to allow any individuals to use the new rules given by the tournament controller at the start of the season) , thus distorting the full picture of how the games have been decided. Some players were not even made aware of the new rules by their club secretaries, meaning that they blissfully played the old rules for a couple of games until someone told them, again distorting the figures.
     The issue is like politics. It boils down to what you fundamentally believe to be correct and often, views are completely polarised. It might be to ensure that everyone can play a steady game and not be forced into incorrect play by being under pressure or whether or not you feel that each player should be responsible for finishing the game by themselves. Frankly, I have to say, who plays perfectly anyway?
     There is only one occasion in history when I might have been happy to see adjudication used to decide the result of a competitive match but I am going to use it to try show how silly adjudication is in my opinion:
     Bayern Munich were 1-0 up against Manchester United in the European Cup Final and outplaying them. They had hit the bar twice and were well on top in the match. (Now the fun part): Then, the Bayern Munich captain reminds the referee that none of his players want to play the last 10 minutes because they are frightened of making a mistake and in the panic of the time scramble at the end, they were worried that they might lose the game, so the referee stopped the match, adjudicated the position in favour of Bayern Munich and awarded them the trophy.
     For those that know the match I am referring to, they will know that this didn't happen and Manchester United struck twice in the last 3 minutes to win the game (I was sick!). But it raises the issue about how long it will be before players stop trying to hide behind this argument of how quickplay can ruin good matches and start taking responsibility for their own games. After all, it is the same for both players.
     At the end of the day [rjh: but isn't there a parrot missing in the last paragraph?], I feel that these players have to look forward and see what is best for chess rather than what they want for themselves. I have fears of mucking up during a quickplay but I will never again play a game that goes for adjudication on principle, as I believe I have a responsibility to win or lose the game by myself. It interests me that where there is a progressive chess club, it is normally connected (but not always!) with attitudes positive to developing chess for the future (ie. quickplay being favoured) rather than those wanting to hold us back in the past.
     Now for the flood of objections.......
Kind regards to all
Scott Freeman scott.freeman@btinternet.com
Coulsdon (& former Surrey) Secretary


Thank you to Tim Dickinson, David Millward, John Philpott and Ian Thompson for a little clutch of responses around midnight of the 11/12th April. Two extracts:

From Tim Dickinson (Oxon)
Richard,
...Adjournments scrapped a few years ago due to (a) the advent of computers and (b) the number of matches left unresolved due to an adjournment. Often the captains never found out the adjournment had been completed!
     The de Coverly theory involving the move 36 'draw offer' doesn't apply so much, I find, in the Oxon league. What happens more often is the time scramble to move 35, followed by steady play to move 45, and a final time scramble. Of course the 'adrenaline junkies' are very much at home with this time control. I have two such in my team at the moment.
Tim T.Dickinson@btinternet.com


From Ian Thompson (Border League)
Richard,
...We abolished adjudication a year ago. I don't think many players miss adjudications...
Ian Thompson Ian@crookham.freeserve.co.uk


From Roger de Coverly
11.4.01
Richard
The move rates in the Bucks and Berks competitions:
Bucks (both league and county individual) 35 moves in 75 minutes followed by 15 minute qp finish.
Berks league 36 moves in 90 minutes with adjudication or adjournment decided by players at end of session. Default is adjournment at other player's home venue. KO cup all the moves in 90 minutes (G/90).
     The Bucks rules were changed at the 2000 AGM, they were previously equivalent to the Berks league rules. One of the reasons for the change was to accommodate players in the individual competition (which didn't have adjudications) who were concerned with the fixture congestion inherent in adjournments.
     A general experience of the new Bucks rules is that it forces a faster speed of play than G/90 and matches finish earlier. What often happens is a time scramble to move 35 followed by 5 minutes' reflection ,a draw offer and adjournment to the bar. The choice of 35 moves (5 x 7) was to accommodate players who like to mark off their scoresheets in 15 minute segments.
     Perhaps we have a local advantage in that all the clubs (bar one) are able to support a 3 hour playing session. I don't know whether this is possible in Surrey but I'd suggest that 3 hour sessions give additional flexibility over time controls.
Roger de Coverly rdc@rdc200.fsnet.co.uk


From Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell
10.4.01
Dear Richard, Trevor & Mike
Game finishes
You might be interested in the Hertfordshire League Rules1, regarding choice of finish to the game. [Time control by default is 35 in 1¼ then 7 per quarter hour. Match captains may agree instead to play all moves in 80 minutes. Whatever the match captains do, any pair of opponents can do the other thing if they agree.]
     If play-to-a-finish does not apply, a sealed move will be made when the scheduled finish time is reached. The game will then be adjourned or adjudicated (if it is adjudicated the sealed move will be disregarded). The "home" player gets first choice. If the choice is "adjourn" then the game must be played to a finish on a mutually agreed date, at the "away" player's venue. However if the "home" player wishes to adjudicate, then the "away" player can insist on playing, but has to return to the "home" player's venue.
     Our "play to a finish" rate was changed at the start of this season. It used to be 30 moves in 65 minutes (to avoid any ambiguity, since 60min for the first session is the threshold between rapidplay and slowplay games), followed by all the moves in 15 minutes QPF. This option was only popular with adrenaline junkies (2 time scrambles!). The new rate only has one scramble, and no need to adjust the clocks.
     I'm not too keen on Trevor's suggestion to offer options once the first time control is reached, especially the idea of imposing time limits. This would seem very difficult to enforce, and bound to lead to disputes. However if the choices were offered at the start of the game it would seem reasonable.
     I expect this debate might all become academic in a few years, with playing to a finish becoming the norm. Adjournments will disappear as the result of the game will be determined by who has the best computer, rather than the abilities of the players. Also, people who can only make limited commitments of time to the game are not encouraged by the thought that they may need to devote two evenings to a single match.
Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell MitchellFJ@bre.co.uk
Secretary, Herts Chess Association
1 rjh: Jeremy sent an extract to me and Mike and Trevor. What's in square brackets in the first paragraph is my summary. I'm sure Jeremy would be pleased to send you the extract on request.
     The Herts rules say that all-moves-in-80-min "is not Rapidplay. Standard slowplay rules of chess apply". Hmm. Not Rapid, no. But on the face of it we're excluding the QPF "last-two-minutes" provision. Is that meant?
     The Kent rules, apart from this, are similar to the Herts ones if more chaotic. Never mind the match captains, each pair of opponents does its own thing regardless. But still the default, if they disagree, is "don't play to a finish". We'll put that right one of these days.


From Mike Gunn
6.4.01
Dear Richard,
Finishing games
To put non-Surrey readers in the picture regarding Trevor's suggestion [two letters down] I should perhaps explain the system that has operated in the Surrey league for the current season.
     At the start of the game the home player nominates one of adjournment, adjudication or quickplay as the way of finishing. The away player may accept or reject the proposal. If the proposal is rejected then the home player chooses one of the (not rejected) options. The novel feature of this scheme is that each player gets at least their 2nd choice - there is no default option for terminating the game.
     This system has not been universally popular in Surrey and we are about to devote an extraordinary general meeting to what should happen next season.
     Trevor's idea would have the advantage of allowing players to make the decision based on the state of the game. Of course, we have to persuade people to play 30 moves in 1 hour rather than 35 moves in 75 minutes.
Mike Gunn mike@wxyz.demon.co.uk
     rjh: Only a detail, but I don't think "home player" should make the offer. They might argue about which is the home player, when Coulsdon 1 play Coulsdon 2. I know one of them is technically away, but still they can argue about which. See Tim Spanton below! You'd be safer with "White makes the offer". Notwithstanding Tim's fears, I think any disagreement about who's White and who's Black will be quickly resolved by reference to bystanders.


From Tim Spanton
6.4.01
[Trevor's idea - below] sounds good and eminently sensible in theory, but knowing chess players' capacity to call black white, I can see it generating arguments. Also, it adds an extra element to the game that is not 'purely' chess-related.
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
London E1


From Trevor Jones
5.4.01
Richard
Quickplay Finishes, Adjournment and Adjudication
How to choose? All three are possible in the Surrey leagues, and discussions about it are in progress. I thought the Website and its readers might be interested in commenting on an idea I've put to other Guildford Chess Club members on the subject. The principles could apply to any competition, although more generous time limits and playing sessions could be allowed for in weekend matches. I will encapsulate my ideas in a single set of rules, although the different elements can be taken à la carte.
     1. All games play at (say) 30 moves in 1h until Black has made move (30) and stopped both clocks.
     2. One player (to be defined in the rules, could be White/Black, Home/Away player) must then offer his/her opponent a choice of at least 2 of the 3 finish possibilities. If he offers "adjourn", he can specify the venue or he can leave it to the opponent. (Specifying "adjourn at home for me" would presumably decrease the chances of the opponent choosing that option, but that would be all part of the procedure.)
     3. The opponent will then choose one of the options offered.
     4. A maximum of 1 min shall be allowed for making the offer and another 1 min for replying (if necessary timed by a watch rather than the chess clock). On failure to offer or reply in time, the other player shall have the final choice.
     5. Play then continues making best use of the remaining available time as agreed by clubs or captains in advance (or as specified in the rules). Typically this would mean +15 min each for a 2½ hour session. In the cases of adjourn and adjudicate the rate of play continues pro-rata (rounded up), meaning 8 moves in 15 min in the example I have chosen.
H.Trevor JONES htjones@raildev.fsnet.co.uk
67 Guildford Park Avenue, Guildford, GU2 7NH 01483 565319
     rjh: I'm thinking about it.

Back to top      Back to SCCU home page      Open Forum