See Our Club Perspective on The Quickplay vs Slowplay Debate
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:
i) 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)
ii) 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”
iii) 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:
1. 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).
2. 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.
3. If QP finish incorporate Fischer increments where possible.
4. 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)
How it went at 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 overall there were 7 votes in favour and 4
against. The motion did not achieve the necessary two-thirds majority so it was
not passed. Notwithstanding this it was recognized at the meeting that teams
should strive for 3 hour sessions wherever possible.]
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 10:3]
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 Fischer
clocks are available and both players want to use Fischer 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]
Paul Shepherd (on behalf of Paul Durrant)
22 June 2010
"
Hopefully a substantial number of clubs will see the outcome of the
AGM
votes as a step in the right direction which ought to directionally 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!
Addendum January 2013
“Well it seemed like a good idea at the time!”
That is how I would summarize our attempt to make 3 hour sessions work in
the 2010-11 season following the changes at the 2010
AGM
.
The result of that experience in general was that, certainly for the first
team, there was a lot of negative feedback associated primarily with people
ending up getting home really late after matches, being tired at the end of
matches and for work the next day. The league is quite gentlemanly and most
teams give each other a bit of slack at the official start time of
7:30pm
as travel distances and times can be
long and the traffic burden on the streets of
London
seems to be increasing each year. So
7:45pm
starts are quite common. Add 3 hours to
7:45pm
and we are looking at leaving for home later than
10:45pm
once move sealing and gathering the troops is
taken into account. Some away trips are an hour’s commute….You can do the arithmetic!
So, after all that, we have come to the view, through actual experience,
that 2.5 hour sessions are what we currently desire. They remain the default
position in the league’s rules.
The change to the number of moves played in the session (from 30 to 35 moves
in a 2.5 hour session) has gone pretty smoothly from our perspective. This is
probably because it brought the “pace” of the
Thames
Valley
league up to the same level
as the
Surrey
league that we also compete in.
The insertion of the Fischer increment option has so far made zero
difference as no one asks for it. The reality probably being that those who do not
like quick-play will not be placated with a mere 5 seconds per move and those
who do like it prefer the “guillotine” hanging over their opponents head when
in hustling mode!
What are the results of all this experience since the 2010
AGM
?
The first team seems to average roughly one adjourned game per match. I
would say roughly 25% of the games are agreed as quick-play finishes although
this varies considerably from match to match. With 2.5 hour sessions the vast
majority of games are either resolved “on the night” or a result is agreed prior
to resumption. Hence thirty five moves appear to generally be enough to decide
most games based on this experience. Even for those few games that are agreed to
be adjudicated on the night it is quite rare for the result not to be agreed
prior to the formal adjudication. The first team has averaged only about one
actual formal adjudication decision per season for the past couple of years.
The adjudication fee is undoubtedly a factor for all parties!
For those of our team who want to play quick-play this is generally accepted
by our opponents but not in all cases. The upper boards of teams appear in
general somewhat more inclined to play quick-play than the lower ones but,
again, this varies. I have experienced some of my players declining to play in
matches where they knew their prospective opponents would not agree quick-play
finishes.
We and the league clearly need to keep this issue under review to ensure the
league format is as attractive to as many players as possible.
Paul Shepherd
21 January 2013
|