Topics

Archive

Quickplay Finishes:  Updated Proposal for Rule Changes

30th September 2008

David Fryer advises that this topic was debated at Crowborough Chess Club's AGM with the following outcome, which replaces his proposed Rule changes posted on 15th June 2008:-

Proposed Rule Change - Mid Sussex Chess League 2009/2010

At the Crowborough Chess Club AGM on 12th September 2008 that was attended by about 20 members the following rule changes were fully discussed and approval given to submit to the MSCL Secretary for inclusion at the next MSCL AGM in 2009. This has now been submitted to Sue.

The voting was overwhelmingly in favour. There was also discussion with once again overwhelming  approval to advise any Crowborough delegates at the next MSCL AGM to vote against any proposals that would exclude the option of adjudication or any proposal to increase the number of moves before adjudication takes place.

Following discussions with and comments from chess players around the county these proposed rule changes are slightly different to my first attempt as posted on this forum last season. The main reason being to comply with the FIDE Laws of Chess.

The aim of this rule change is to allow, where both players wish it, the option of a quickplay finish in place of adjudication.

The reasoning behind '7.5 Before white makes his second move both players may agree ...' is to cover the situation where one player may be late and on his arrival may find his opponent away from the board.

The following changes to rules 7.2, 7.3, 7.4,8.1,9,9.1 and additional clauses 7.5 and 7.6 are marked in red.

The relevant sections of the FIDE Laws of Chess that these rule changes comply with are;

Article 10: Quickplay Finish

A `quickplay finish` is the phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.

If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.

a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time.

d. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c.

 

D.

Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue.

D1.

Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis

a.  that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or

b.  that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet, which must be completed before play has ceased. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.

 

7  Time controls

7.1  Clocks  Clocks must be used in all games.

7.2  Time controls: division 1  In Division 1 matches, including play-offs between Division 1 teams, at least 3 hours must be allowed for play, and unless 7.5 applies the time control shall be 42 moves in 1 hr 30 min and 7 moves per 15 minutes thereafter.

7.3  Time controls: other divisions  In other matches at least 2 hrs 40 min must be allowed for play. If at least 3 hours is available, then the time control shall be as above with the option of 7.5, but for shorter matches it shall be 40 moves in 1 hr 20 min and 7 moves per 15 minutes thereafter with no 7.5 option.

7.4  Additional time controls  Both clocks should be turned by 15 minutes for each additional 7-move time control played.

7.5 Quickplay finish Before white makes his second move both players may agree to play under the following time control; 30 moves in 60 minutes with all (remaining) moves in 30 minutes. Upon this agreement the clocks shall be adjusted accordingly by adding 30 minutes to each player's clock. After completion of black's 30th move the clocks should be turned back by 30 minutes.

7.6 During the quickplay phase of the game A player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.

 

He may claim on the basis

a)       that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or

b)       that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means

 

In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.

In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet, which must be completed before play has ceased. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.

If a result cannot be agreed then each club shall submit a claim in accordance with 9.1

8  The playing session

8.1  Before play begins  Immediately before a match, team captains shall: (1) exchange names of team players; (2) toss for colours, the winner's team taking either White or Black on the odd-numbered boards; (3) agree and announce to all participants: (a) the time controls and if applicable explain the option of a quickplay finish , (b) the agreed finishing time, (c) any arrangements for interruptions that could involve stopping clocks.

9  Adjudication including Quickplay Finish claims

9.1  Submitting games for adjudication  Team captains should make reasonable efforts in the eight days following a match to agree the results of any unfinished games. If agreement on any such game cannot be reached, then each club must submit forthwith to the Adjudication Secretary of the Sussex County Chess Association: (1) a copy of the final position, with all relevant facts, and the club's claim; (2) the adjudication fee, and (3) a stamped addressed envelope.

With regard to a quickplay finish claim under 7.6(b) a copy of the verified scoresheet must also be submitted by the claiming team.

 

 

Quickplay Finishes

1st August 2008

David Fryer responds to the query regarding the point of play by which the decision on QPF or adjudication must be made in his proposal:-

 

To answer Duncan's question my thinking behind 'Before white makes his second move both players may agree' is that it is not uncommon for one player to arrive after the clocks have started and when he does arrive the other player may have wandered away from the board. To avoid a time disadvantage to a player at the board it seemed useful to make this rule. I cannot claim originality for this as I pinched it from league rules that I could find on the web.
 
There may be other subtleties like this that I have missed and that is one of the reasons why I was suggesting a sub committee to look at the rules.
 
David Fryer

 

Quickplay Finishes

25th July 2008

Reading the forum for the first time since the AGM it was pleasing to see so much sensible comment. It has not been so pleasing to hear of the out of hand dismissal of having a working party concerning quick play finishes and other comments that were made. The league belongs to all its members.

Sue Chadwick's QPF league is surely worth looking at, after all more chess played must surely be a good thing. My only concern would be that it may result in kicking the core question into the long grass so to speak. My wish is for a proper process and vote; if then the league rejects it then fine and I for one would just get on with it rather than stop playing MSL chess. Everyone appears to appreciate the importance of avoiding a daft schism and I hope Ian Comely is unduly pessimistic about the possible results of such a process. Since we cannot uninvent the computer and its de facto role as adjudicator; the intention must be to persuade members that QPFs or at least the option of QPFs is the lesser of two evils.

Though I have only just read them for the first time I like the look of David Fryers proposals in particular the two minute draw claim rules (rule 7.6). Just one thing, could someone (David perhaps) explain why the agreement to QPF could be made up to just before whites second move? Why not before battle commences? Am I missing the obvious?

Lastly in answer to Mathew Britnell, yes I would happily contribute to a group aiming to hammer out a consensus amongst the pro QPF members.

Duncan Badham

Brighton Chess Club

 

Quickplay Finishes

27th June 2008

Matthew Britnell continues the debate, drawing on the comments already made by bothe David Fryer and Sue Chadwick:-

 

David Fryer is to be thanked for proposing detailed rule amendments enabling an element of QPF if individual pairings chose.  I think however he was a little quick to reject Sue Chadwick's idea, which has more mileage than he supposes.  One possibility, if we took up Sue's idea, would be to require clubs, if we ran it as an experiment for a season or two, to only enter the 'Finish on the Night League' if they also pledged to enter their usual team or teams in the current MSCL.  So the Finish on the Night League would be an extra, not a subtraction from a club's existing commitments and would I think answer the charge of divisiveness.  At the risk of sounding a divisive note myself however, might it be not be time to knock the Knock Out Cup out to free a bit more time for clubs to enter such a new league? The KO Cup is of course already in a finish on the night format so in a sense that would be entirely appropriate.  And I say that as the captain of Lewes Chess Club's KO team, which continues to support the KO Cup while many other clubs do not. 

Anyway, all that wasn't may main reason for writing!  I think David was right to feel aggrieved that the MSCL AGM wouldn't even entertain the setting up of an official working group to look into QPF options.  I don't think however that those of us who favour change should simply go back to riding our own hobby horse preferences - as I was in danger of doing myself just a minute ago!  That won't get us anywhere.  Clearly one major impediment to change is the fact that those of us who want change seem not to want to agree amongst ourselves.  One has only to review the contributions to this Forum over the last few months to see that there are as many proposals as contributions and as yet no one proposal that a significant number of the rest seem to want to get behind.  There's no reason why, even without the sanction of the MSCL AGM, that those who favour some form of finishing on the night shouldn't get together and hammer out an agreed format.  This could then be submitted to the MSCL AGM next year as an agenda item knowing not only that a lot of time and effort had gone into it, but that it already had a significant groundswell of support within the league.  I for one would like to contribute to such a group: would anyone else?  David, would you be prepared to co-ordinate and lead it?

Matthew Britnell

Lewes Chess Club

 

 

 

Quickplay Finishes:  A Proposal

15th June 2008

As he undertook to do at the recent AGM, David Fryer (East Grinstead, Crowborough and Uckfield Chess Clubs) has made the following proposal for clubs to consider:-

 

As requested at this year's AGM I will be sending to the League Secretary (once I have club approval) the following proposed rule changes for the season 2009/2010 to be considered at next year's AGM.

These rule changes are aimed to provide the players (if they both agree) with the option of playing to a quickplay finish. This provides ample time for all club officials to discover their members views on this issue.

Because of the multitude of different options suggested by members not least on this forum I had hoped that a working sub-committee could have been setup by the league to assess the different options and to propose a rule change. However this was summarily dismissed at the AGM so these changes are my own best attempt and I would ask that any clubs who wish something different submit amendments to the league secretary in a timely fashion so that everyone can consider the options before next year's AGM.

I agree with Ian Comley that we should avoid any possibility of fragmenting the league and would be worried about creating a separate quickplay finish division for this reason. But I must disagree with Ian that there were only 8 adjudications last season. This is a myth as I would estimate from the matches that I have been involved in that of the 725 games played last season that at least 100 games were adjudicated by Fritz.

Proposed Rule Changes

The following changes to rules 7.2, 7.3, 7.4,8.1,9,9.1 and additional clauses 7.5 and 7.6 are marked in blue.

7  Time controls

7.1  Clocks  Clocks must be used in all games.

7.2  Time controls: division 1  In Division 1 matches, including play-offs between Division 1 teams, at least 3 hours must be allowed for play, and unless 7.5 applies the time control shall be 42 moves in 1 hr 30 min and 7 moves per 15 minutes thereafter.

7.3  Time controls: other divisions  In other matches at least 2 hrs 40 min must be allowed for play. If at least 3 hours is available, then the time control shall be as above with the option of 7.5, but for shorter matches it shall be 40 moves in 1 hr 20 min and 7 moves per 15 minutes thereafter with no 7.5 option.

7.4  Additional time controls  Both clocks should be turned by 15 minutes for each additional 7-move time control played.

7.5 Quickplay finish Before white makes his second move both players may agree to play under the following time control; 30 moves in 60 minutes with all (remaining) moves in 30 minutes. Upon this agreement the clocks shall be adjusted accordingly by adding 30 minutes to each player's clock. After completion of blacks 30th move the clocks should be turned back by 30 minutes.

7.6 During the quickplay phase of the game If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls on the grounds that his opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means. He shall stop the clocks and both players shall record the position. If the players do not agree then the claimant's opponent will be awarded 2 additional minutes and the game continued. Should the same player claim a draw for a second time before his flag falls and the players do not agree then the game shall be discontinued and each club submit a claim in accordance with 9.1

8  The playing session

8.1  Before play begins  Immediately before a match, team captains shall: (1) exchange names of team players; (2) toss for colours, the winner's team taking either White or Black on the odd-numbered boards; (3) agree and announce to all participants: (a) the time controls and if applicable explain the option of a quickplay finish , (b) the agreed finishing time, (c) any arrangements for interruptions that could involve stopping clocks.

9  Adjudication including Quickplay Finish claims

9.1  Submitting games for adjudication  Team captains should make reasonable efforts in the eight days following a match to agree the results of any unfinished games. If agreement on any such game cannot be reached, then each club must submit forthwith to the Adjudication Secretary of the Sussex County Chess Association: (1) a copy of the final position and with regard to a quickplay finish the position of the first draw claim, with all relevant facts, and the club's claim; (2) the adjudication fee, and (3) a stamped addressed envelope.

 

Quickplay Finishes

7th June 2008

Ian Comley (Horsham Chess Club) weighs into the debate with a plea to be cautious before leaping into such a fundamental change over which views are so divided:-

I have read through the entire discussion and was interested by the views expressed which are clearly strongly held on both sides  and which splits many clubs straight down the middle.

Switching from adjudications to any form of QPF will be the most fundamental change since the time control was changed. Such a fundamental change should not be entertained lightly as the MSL continues to delivers thousands of high quality games, year in year out. Bearing in mind the tenuous position that the league has been over the last two years we need to tread very carefully.

Last season there were just eight adjudications, each of which was resolved satisfactorily, fairly and amicably. To disturb the current system which has served us so well for so long risks a divisive debate with a very uncertain outcome - experienced players are warning of the dissatisfaction and discontent that inevitably arises.

We should leave this difficult issue alone until we are absolutely forced to fight a civil war.

--
Ian Comley

 

Quickplay Finishes

2nd June 2008

Sue Chadwick (Brighton & Hove CC) suggests a way forward might be to set up an additional division or competition with QPFs to gauge just what support there is amongst the clubs for this:-

An interesting AGM was held last night but the QPF issue was not a topic on the formal agenda, although it was on the informal one and I think remains an issue for the league as a whole. However, thinking about it, and in view of a quite definite and passionately felt division of opinion, I am left wondering if the idea of an experimental QPF division isn't such a bad one. It would run alongside the current league and would be an additional opt-in competition for any clubs wishing to put up a team or teams. Playing in either competition would not disqualify anyone from also playing in the other. Would there be any interest from the clubs in doing this? I feel fairly confident there would be enough interest among Brighton players for us to be able to put together at least one QPF team. What do other clubs think? If this works and enough people were in favour we could seek to formalise the arrangement at the next AGM.

Sue Chadwick