Guildford FIDE Congress 2026

[James Toon]

This event returns for 2026 at a new venue – St Catherine's School in Bramley – on the weekend of Friday 10 to Sunday 12 April.

Main details:
• 5-round Swiss tournament
• Two sections – Open and Major (U1800)
• Time control – 35 moves in 105 minutes then all remaining moves in a further 30 minutes. No increment
• Entry fee – £50 for ECF Gold / Platinum members. £66 all others (to pay for ECF rating)
• Prize fund – £1700 including special prizes for the top senior, junior, and female player
• All games will be ECF-rated and FIDE-rated
• Boards 1–16 in the Open will be live-streamed.

All details, including an online entry form and entry fee payment details, are on the Guildford website at https://www.guildfordchessclub.com/activities/GFC.html

[Roger de Coverly]

• Time control – 35 moves in 105 minutes then all remaining moves in a further 30 minutes. No increment

Are you worried about who might enter?

A problem with not having an increment is that you reintroduce the need to have rules and approaches for claims of being unable to win by normal means or not attempting to win. Arbiters can vary about how they apply such judgements. You do also have the clock substitution rule which I think is still in the Laws of Chess. Basically if someone makes an "unable" claim and the arbiter doesn't immediately accept it, the game continues using a substitute clock with an increment.

[NickFaulks]

Basically if someone makes an "unable" claim and the arbiter doesn't immediately accept it, the game continues using a substitute clock wiyth an increment.

I have been told that the ECF opts out of that possibility ( which they would be permitted to do ). I wish I knew where this is written.

[Alex McFarlane]

I assume this is the appropriate section. III.4 was introduced not as an alternative to using increments but for situations where there were insufficient digital clocks for all games. I would not expect it to be used where incremental clocks were available from the beginning but the organiser made a decision that end game time scrambles and decisions on the result being made by arbiters rather than players was the better option. Deciding the outcome of games was hard enough when arbiters were used to it, I hate to think how a newly qualified arbiter would deal with that situation now. I cannot understand why any organiser wants to introduce potential disputes to an event.

III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his/her clock, he/she may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.

III.5 If Article III.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his/her clock, he/she may claim a draw before his/her flag falls (see also Article 6.12.2). He/She shall summon the arbiter and may pause the chessclock. He/She may claim on the basis that his/her opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his/her opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means:

III.5.1 If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he/she shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he/she shall postpone his/her decision or reject the claim.

III.5.2 If the arbiter postpones his/her decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He/She shall declare the game drawn if he/she agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he/she was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

III.5.3 If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have been told that the ECF opts out of that possibility ( which they would be permitted to do ). I wish I knew where this is written.

This seems to be the current wording.
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023

III.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his/her clock, he/she may request that an increment extra five seconds be introduced for both players. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If the offer refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.

III.5 If Article III.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his/her clock, he/she may claim a draw before his/her flag falls (see also Article 6.12.2). He/She shall summon the arbiter and may pause the chessclock. He/She may claim on the basis that his/her opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his/her opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means:

III.5.1 If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he/she shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he/she shall postpone his/her decision or reject the claim.

III.5.2 If the arbiter postpones his/her decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He/She shall declare the game drawn if he/she agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he/she was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

III.5.3 If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.

What seems to have been added is that the player may request an increment without actually making an unable to win claim. That it constitutes a draw offer remains. It appears the arbiter can decline the request for an increment. Presumably if justified, the player could then escalate their claim to an unable one.

[James Toon]

Thanks. These are all valid points.

The reason for dispensing with the increment is that the venue has a strict shutdown of 10.00pm. We cannot risk very long games which would take us beyond that.

[Alex McFarlane]

A normal weekender time of 1hr 50 for all moves with 10 second increments would work within your time constraints. It would need to be a huge game to last more than 4.5 hours! ( minimum 120 moves and 30 every 10 minutes thereafter).
Indeed, what you are proposing for the time control could cause real problems between rounds 2 and 3 and 4 and 5. With your proposed time control it is easily possible to have games in severe time trouble and with the number of moves only in the low to mid 40s at the end of a session. The arbiter then has to decide the outcome of a game where both players will give their opinion on the future outcome of the game. While decisions can be made quickly, it was not unusual for these 'discussions' to take 10 or 15 minutes. As it is FIDE rated you might then have an appeal made about the proposed result. I accept that this is a worse case scenario but (minus the appeal) the timescale suggested was not uncommon when QP Finish decisions were common. I would expect that with arbiters either unfamiliar with these finishes or who have not had to deal with them in many years the process could be further delayed ... and that is assuming only one game goes to the limit.

[Roger de Coverly]

A normal weekender time of 1hr 50 for all moves with 10 second increments would work within your time constraints. It would need to be a huge game to last more than 4.5 hours! ( minimum 120 moves and 30 every 10 minutes thereafter).

There is a Surrey player who might challenge that limit.

I don't know why the initial time control isn't set to the FIDE approved 40 moves.

[Alex McFarlane]

I don't know why the initial time control isn't set to the FIDE approved 40 moves

From the FIDE regulations
1.2 Where a certain number of moves is specified in the first time control, it shall be at least 30 moves.

FIDE stopped forcing 40 moves several years ago. Convention determines that 40 continues as the main number.

[James Toon]

Alex – in the 2023 congress, the longest game was 214 moves and finished at 1.30am on Saturday morning. I can't take that risk with this venue.

[Alex McFarlane]

With 10 second increments as suggested the game would have lasted less time. Also probably fewer moves if it was a real game as the players have less time to plan. If it is the game I think it is, strong words from the arbiter to one of the players about bringing the game into disrepute would have ended it in even less time.

Another alternative if really worried about a finishing time is to reduce the increment after, say, 80 moves.

No matter what defence you try, removing increments and having quickplay finishes is a negative move. I hope you will not have too many problems with quickplay finishes.

[Kevin Thurlow]

“If it is the game I think it is, strong words from the arbiter to one of the players about bringing the game into disrepute would have ended it in even less time.”

I would consider that unacceptable interference in the game. It reminds me of an organizer instructing me to offer a draw in the only game continuing at the end of a tournament, “as we all want to go home.” If you are going to try to bully players, choose your target carefully.
Magnus Carlsen is applauded for winning equal endings against really strong opposition. Players regularly play on to try to win on technique. Deciding when that’s right or wrong is not the arbiter’s job.
As for “bringing the game into disrepute”, good grief. This is a desperate phrase beloved of football, cricket, rugby union, and even boxing organizations, when somebody tells the truth about that sport… I was once accused of bringing the game into disrepute when I made the (admittedly controversial) comment that arbiters should not lie or cheat or punch women in the face.

I would agree that having a short increment at some stage would be an improvement.

[Andrew Martin]

The Guildford congress is in danger of being cancelled due to lack of entries. This would be a great shame , as a lot of effort has been put in to find an excellent venue. The club works hard for chess.

If you were thinking of entering, enter now! If this is the first time you have heard of the congress, do give it consideration.

Thank you.

https://www.guildfordchessclub.com/activities/GFC.html

[Roger de Coverly]

The Guildford congress is in danger of being cancelled due to lack of entries.

Didn't that happen last year? There was a senior tournament and a minor tournament both cancelled. The problem with doing this is that it casts doubt in the minds of potential entrants as to whether the tournament will take place.

I think there may be some other points putting off potential entrants.

Lack of increments might be one, another could be the format. It's following the 1+2+2 design with a Friday evening round. As far as I can ascertain it's in a school in a rural settimg, so no obvious nearby hotels. It follows that those wanting to play all five rounds are going to have to commute Friday evening. That's a notably bad time for travel in the M25 catchment area.

[Ian Thompson]

I think there may be some other points putting off potential entrants.

... It follows that those wanting to play all five rounds are going to have to commute Friday evening. ...

Friday afternoon to get there in time for a 5 pm start. That's going to mean time off work even for local players.

The ban on any refreshments at the board other than bottled water probably doesn't help either.