Mid Sussex Chess
League AGM Thursday 28th May 2009
Commendation for the proposed rule change by David Fryer.
Purpose of Rule Change
allow the players, if they both agree, to play their game to a finish on
This will be achieved with a time control of 30 moves in 60
minutes then all remaining moves in 30 minutes.
both players wish to play a complete game of chess as per the current FIDE
laws of chess then they should be allowed to do so within the Mid Sussex
changes do not affect those players who prefer adjudication as they can
still play all their games if they so wish under the current rules.
Arguments against as raised on the web site’s forum can be
split into two sections;
specifically against the proposed rule changes.
being played under adjudication rules will be disturbed by those playing
under quick play finish (QPF) rules.
to players arriving late happens anyway and should be little more than a
simple question and a yes no answer.
will be no discussion at the end of the game to complete the score
sheets as the rules and the ECF guidance on this matter is that the score
sheet has to be completed before the end of the game i.e. before the
clocks are stopped. If a player wishes to take advantage of the
claim that his opponent is not trying to win by normal means then
they should continue to write the moves down even with less than 5
minutes on their clock
in those cases where both players are short of time will the fast
pressing of clocks occur at the end of a QPF game and by definition the
players who are playing under adjudication rules will be either in a
time scramble themselves or sitting back waiting for the session to end.
one will be found to arbiter the QPF claims and/or disputes.
EC F chief arbiter for is happy to perform this function at no cost to
rule change is just the thin edge of the wedge and will result in QPF
proposed changes clearly state this is an option and only a new proposal
voted for at an AGM can change
is possible of course that in time everyone will be agreeing to play
is highly questionable that QPF finish games under these time controls
will count for normal grading and will only count towards rapid play
true. ECF and FIDE rating rules are quite clear in that games of over 1
hour per player are considered and rated as long play.
that adjudication has no reference in the laws of chess some senior members
of the ECF believe that adjudicated games should not be graded.
against QPF in general.
All these arguments against QPF
even if correct are irrelevant and too much time should not spent debating them
as QPF games are an option. If players find they have concerns over QPF they
will stop taking the option.
cause disputes and bad feelings between players.
true, disputes are due to one or both players not following the laws of
chess or acting unreasonably. This can happen at any point of the game
and do under the current rules.
D1 of the laws of chess relating to quickplay finishes where no arbiter
is present are restated in the proposed rule changes. If followed it may
result in a claim for a draw but no more of a dispute than an
choosing the QPF option should make themselves familiar with the
relevant laws of chess. Discussions and explanations of these laws if
required could be a new topic on the forum.
MSCL players are already familiar with the rules as they play in
tournaments subject to QPF.
are unfair as players do not resign in ‘lost’ positions
is true that the players need to leave themselves enough time to
complete the game in order to win.
a player knows that their opponent has plenty time they are just as
likely to resign as under adjudication rules.
a player does not resign the game can only last the 3 hours.
chess degenerates into rubbish chess
is true that the standard of play generally improves with more thinking
time however this is a problem with the amount of time available not QPF
that an endgame is played and won or lost by the players own moves
rather than never played at all.
This proposal is sponsored by Crowborough Chess Club and was
fully debated at the clubs own AGM. It was passed overwhelmingly with the
general consensus being that should both players wish to play under QPF then
why shouldn’t they however it was also the view of the meeting that no one
should be forced to play QPF chess. Some interesting debate also took place on
whether adjudication favoured the lower or higher rated player. With no
conclusion I might add.
It is true that there are many different ways that QPF could
be introduced into the league as well as various time control options but given
the opportunity for other proposals to have been formalised in the past year
and presented to the AGM I hope that this proposal will not be subject to
amendment and should stand or fall as presented.
One topic that should not be ignored in all this is that understanding
the laws of chess by all players is important. There can sometimes be a
confusion between claiming ‘cannot win by normal means’ under the QPF rules and
the rule that when your flag falls ‘cannot checkmate by any possible series of
legal moves’ applies.
A claim under the QPF rules is usually determined by considering
player has unreasonably extended the length of the game in order that his
opponent runs out of time.
one player has not managed his time well enough to complete the game.