by Paul Shepherd Surbiton Chess Club

There are a few subjects that chess players get excited about and the issue of being obliged to play quickplay or slowplay finishes is right up there on the excitement scale! After many years of discussions that had not changed the status quo the feeling was that there was sufficient momentum for change this year in the Thames Valley League via resolutions put to the AGM.

The debate is often quite emotional when it comes to this subject with various experiences cited as reasons for change. There is no doubt that the advent of grandmaster strength chess playing computer programs retailing at £30-40 now means that many players have access to a super strength kibitzer during any adjournment when playing under slowplay conditions. The argument then goes that this means that players are no longer playing just using their own resources and that the intervention of silicon at a crucial stage of a game could unfairly distort the “natural” result between the players. This leads to an advocacy for quickplay finishes which keeps the players on their own resources throughout. This is now the accepted approach in all top class chess – so what is the problem? Some also argue that adopting mandatory quickplay could attract more juniors to the game and in general will lead to less consumption of time per game in a busy world.

One of the counter arguments is that, unlike in most top class chess, many chess clubs are still only equipped with mechanical clocks that do not allow a time increment (eg. Fischer increment) to be added for each move. Without this facility players can “hustle” their opponent even when they are blatantly losing or even just in a simple, level, position with a small time advantage. The guillotine falls and some injustices can occur when it does so. There are also those, predominately but not exclusively, older players who enjoy the prospect of analysing an adjourned game as they have done throughout their playing careers while noting that computers remain a lot less useful when it comes to endgames than complex middlegames. They also may believe that a “natural” result does not necessarily follow from a tense time scramble which may be more to do with managing nerves than with chess playing technique.

Ultimately whether one advocates mandatory or default quickplay or slowplay finishes it is pretty likely that such a judgement comes down to how good you perceive you are personally at handling each form of time control.

Prior to the Thames Valley League AGM on 21 June 2010 Surbiton’s membership was canvassed for their opinion on this subject in order to inform the way we ought to vote. Below is the summary feedback note to the members:-

Thanks very much to all who responded to the questions regarding this issue (see motion 2 below). We had 18 responders who, between them, played 90 games in Thames Valley Div 1 last season, which is, a very representative, 80% of the total games we played.

We looked at the results on a “weighted” basis, ie. the responses of each player are weighted by the number of games he played in TV Div 1 last year on the principle that if you play a lot your opinion should count more than if you rarely or never play. We have also reported “un-weighted” results too for transparency. You will observe that the “weighted” approach has a small, but not decisive, impact on the results.

Opinion Survey Headlines:

On a “weighted” basis on our scale of 1-10 (1=100% QP and 10=100%SP) the club comes out at 6.0. So a majority have a preference for slow play vs. quick play. (The “un-weighted” figure was 5.3) *On a “weighted” basis 35% favoured the 4QP, 4SP default proposal (The “un-weighted” figure was 45%).

Some quotes received regarding the proposal:

I am broadly in favour as it is a good option on a practical level but want to ensure slow play remains.

I don’t like Quick Play, but I understand the reason for the proposal.” “I’m not keen on this as it exacerbates what I see as an already over-complicated situation!

A 3hr session should be sufficient for 99%+ of matches to reach a fair result on the night via quick-play, and I think that’s the main thing to be aimed at.” “I’d like to hear an argument for why the change is needed and what the objective of this half baked proposal is, as without that I don’t see the merit of the change.” “I’m against the rule change – the element of compulsion for some and choice for others depending on board order is arbitrary and therefore unfair.

At last!! Definitely in favour!

Of those who responded (approximately 33% of members) to the question regarding the number of moves in a session under SP rules, 80-90% favored increasing the number of moves from 30 to 35 in 2.5 hours and from 36 to 42 moves in 3 hours.

Common themes in other comments submitted:

• Maximize the duration of playing sessions (to maximize number of moves made in first time control) and remove constraints to that (eg. start earlier if possible).

• If 4QP/4SP proposal is adopted then clarify rules re: grading / board order and try to make as flexible as possible to allow player’s preferences to be accommodated.

• If QP finish incorporate Fischer increments where possible.

• If QP finish clarify rules in relation to QP including 10.2.

Conclusions

a) There is a majority of our players who prefer SP over QP.

b) The 4QP, 4SP proposal did not enjoy sufficient support in Surbiton for us to vote in favour.

c) There is support to maximize the playing session duration.

d) A majority support the proposal to increase the number of moves per session under SP.

e) Based on your comments we proposed a motion to the AGM (see motion 4 below)

The AGM on Monday 21st July 2010

Here are the motions and how the voting went:

1. Play shall continue for three hours unless both captains (or deputies) agree to play for a shorter period of time or, because due to restrictions on the playing time available to the home team, it is unreasonable to play a three hour session. [We voted in favour and it was passed]

2. In division 1, boards 1, 4, 5 and 8 to have quickplay finish except by consent of both players, whilst boards 2, 3, 6 and 7 to have adjournment except by consent of both players. [We voted against and it was defeated 10:2]

3. An adjournment can only occur after: (a) move 35 if the first session lasts 2½ hours (b) move 42 if the first session lasts 3 hours. [We voted in favour and it was passed]

4. When a quickplay finish is agreed and Fisher clocks are available and both players want to use Fisher timings that they should be permitted with increment of 5 seconds a move unless BOTH players agree something different. [We proposed this and it was passed]

Hopefully a substantial number of clubs will see the outcome of the AGM votes as a step in the right direction which ought to lead to longer playing sessions and more moves per session thus increasing the chances of a result “on the day”. Also, as clubs gradually change their clock stock over to digital over time, there will be an increasing facility to play quickplay with increments which may encourage more players to volunteer for quickplay finishes. No doubt this issue will be revisited in the future!