So in effect, a sort of quickplay finish before such a thing was officially devised?Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 8:30 pmThe other was a form of self adjudication. The players set the clocks to five or ten minutes and played out the position on the board
DR. Morgh's Party? (help)
-
- Posts: 5250
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: DR. Morgh's Party? (help)
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: DR. Morgh's Party? (help)
It started unofficially, then became official, then was replaced by quickplay. I can recall the Lambeth Open of 1975 having what was termed the "ten minute" rule, which applied after a move rate of 48 in 2. I didn't get to play any, as in the one game that might have had one, my opponent resigned at move 48 or 49 rather than play it out. The rule was rapidly superseded by various quickplay finish rates. The rule changes probably helped spread weekend congresses since there was no longer a need for adjudicators. That games with quickplay finishes became officially legal for grading helped as well, although early versions of "unable to win" wording had to apply.Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 10:19 pmSo in effect, a sort of quickplay finish before such a thing was officially devised?
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Fri May 28, 2021 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 8839
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: DR. Morgh's Party? (help)
Goodness, as late as 1995? Looks like I very nearly overlapped with that practice. But then I have played lots of adjournments (a dying practice) so I didn't completely miss out on ye olde practices.
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: DR. Morgh's Party? (help)
I wondered whether that was a misprint for 1975.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: DR. Morgh's Party? (help)
Self Allegro. I like that one, keeps the game between the players.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 8:30 pmThe other was a form of self adjudication. The players set the clocks to five or ten minutes and played out the position on the board
My one and only experience of adjudication.
1983 (there abouts)
18:45 knock at door and told by Chris Donkin of the Wandering Dragons I am playing in Stirling (30 odd miles away) clocks start 19:30.
(I never even knew the Dragons had a team in the Central Scottish League) but a game is a game and off we went.
Get there, playing Max Thornton. Position becomes very interesting and I can see all kinds of tricks and traps.
I sac a piece around move 33. Position has boiled up, mates and swindles galore, opponent in time trouble.
He resigns!
Only it's not a resignation, he has stopped clocks because in the Central League they adjudicate their games at move 36.
'Sorry Geoff, forget to tell you.' says Chris Donkin.
If I had known that I would not have tried to swindle a win taking an odds on gamble at few moves earlier.
When I heard that Roddy McKay adjudicated the games and although I knew he would recognise all the play I got for
the piece he would have to give an honest, genuine (and correct) result. I lost.
Interesting car ride going home, everyone thought this was hilarious.
Next Year, me v Max again. Now I know the rules, In the game I'm better when I suddenly see a mate in 3 or 4
and the mating move is on move 36! Perfect. OOPS! I resigned on move 36!
Interesting car ride going home, everyone thought this was hilarious.
-
- Posts: 8839
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: DR. Morgh's Party? (help)
It was. I should have realised. Roger has corrected his post now, thanks Roger.
-
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:07 pm
Re: DR. Morgh's Party? (help)
I played in the U-160 at that event, and had an Allegro finish in the first round. It came came down to an ending where it might have been possible to stalemate my opponent's king in the corner and deliver mate with a knight, while his passer raced through to queen one move too late. Alas, the time ran out and I could neither calculate it properly nor keep score, so I'll never know. Had to allow a draw (but just as well: I might otherwise have ended up having to play Clive Frostick, who won the section with a "picket fence").Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 10:40 pmI can recall the Lambeth Open of 1975 having what was termed the "ten minute" rule, which applied after a move rate of 48 in 2.
I think Allegros were far preferable to either adjournments (tiresome and time-consuming) or adjudications (the number of "final" positions I've had that were declared draws, and which Stockfish now demonstrates were clear wins .... ) However, they still put some pressure on the arbiters, who sometimes had to step in when a player was attempting to win by simply running down his opponent's time. I saw Stewart Reuben declare a draw once in a K+R vs K+B ending where the defender happened to have less time on his clock but clearly understood the correct survival technique.
"The chess-board is the world ..... the player on the other side is hidden from us ..... he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance."
(He doesn't let you resign and start again, either.)
(He doesn't let you resign and start again, either.)