Monthly Archives: February 2023

Determining colours, and the default time

Leave a Reply

As a former civil servant, I like to know what I’m talking about before I express an opinion on something. They call it Evidence-Based Decision-Making, or in other words, Knowledge is Power.

The London League is in the process of revising its rules. Back in October, an issue arose about whether teams should be selected on playing strength or in rating order. This blog carried out some research on the practice in other chess leagues the length and breadth of the land. The results appeared in the post The board order in league chess. Today we address two further issues: (1) how do you decide which team has white or black on each board; and (2) if you’re not there at the start, how much time do you have before you lose on default?

Determining colours

Traditionally the two teams would toss for colours and the winner would choose either white or black on top board (with the colours alternating down the board order). This was open to abuse in that if your player had prepared a particular line as white or black, winning the toss meant you could ensure the player got the preferred colour. So a refinement was to remove the choice and if you won the toss you automatically got a specified colour (in practice white) on top board.

Tossing for colours has its own issues: for example at what time before the scheduled start do you decide colours, and what happens if one team is not represented at the appointed time, for example running late in travelling to the venue? You could decide that the team which was there on time automatically had white on top board – at the risk of annoying the other team which might be late through no fault of its own.

So a further refinement – and this may reflect a modern trend towards simplification in procedure – was to eliminate the toss altogether and automatically allocate colours by a pre-determined principle, for example the home team or away team would always have white on odd boards.

Which brings us to the research. There are 86 chess leagues in England (excluding junior-only and online leagues). In 63 of these, the league rules are available online. (Previously it was 62, but one has emerged since then.) This is the frequency of the different options for determining colours.

  • home team has black on odd boards – 35
  • home team has white on odd boards – 5
  • toss for colours, winner chooses – 10
  • toss for colours, winner has white on odd boards – 9
  • not stated – 4.

In the London League, the fourth of these applies. Teams toss for colours and the winner automatically has white on odd boards.

The research shows that the clear preference in practice is for the home team to have black on odd boards. This must reflect the disadvantage to the away team in having to travel to the venue. This works fine if teams play their home matches at their home venue and their away matches at the opposition venue. But in some cases, including the London League, several clubs play all their matches at their home venue rather than a central league venue. Under this rule, their top board would have black in every game. That’s not a desirable outcome. The available information does not disclose – at least, not without a lot more digging – how many leagues feature clubs that always play at home and how many clubs are affected in each case. So we don’t know whether the London League is unique. If it’s not unique, the leagues which allocate colours automatically have not addressed the issue.

For the London League, a simple but unique solution has been proposed. This is that the home team has white on odd boards if the date of the match falls on days 1 to 15 of the month, and black on odd boards if it falls on days 16 to 31. Assuming a natural layout of the fixtures, roughly half of the fixtures would fall in each of the first and second halves of the month, so the colour distribution would be roughly even. At the time of posting, the proposal remains under consideration internally.

The default time

Here too, practice varies. The official FIDE Laws of Chess take a hardline approach:

6.6 a. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.

This rule was introduced a number of years ago. It seems appropriate in official FIDE events, which are strictly controlled. In less formal conditions – applying in the typical weekend tournament in England, and in league chess played on a weekday evening – it would be completely impractical. Hence the discretion for local rules to specify otherwise. And they have done. There are no known cases in English league chess where the default time is 0 minutes.

In the 63 leagues where information is available, the default time is as shown below.

  • 30 minutes – 30
  • 45 minutes – 8
  • 60 minutes – 18
  • time control (75+ minutes) – 2
  • not stated – 5.

In the two leagues with a “time control” default system, the player may turn up at any time while the clock is still running, losing only when the time control is reached. In one case this is 75 minutes. In the other, a range of time controls are available and 75 minutes is the minimum.

The available information does not disclose the reasons for deciding on a particular default time in each league. Rules are rules and they rarely include explanatory material.

If you were developing a set of rules based on reason and logic, you might decide on a principled approach so that (for example) the default time was half the time available for the game. So if you had 90 minutes to make all your moves, you would have 45 minutes after the start to arrive at the board. Arriving just before the cut-off would still leave enough time for a sensible game.

An alternative approach would be to recognise that leagues operate in different circumstances and that no one solution would suit every league. If the league operated in a very small catchment area, and the travelling time to the venue was not significant, it might be appropriate to specify the short default time of 30 minutes. In other leagues, for example in large metropolitan areas, players might need longer to reach the venue. This may be what happens in practice – more detailed research would be needed to establish a correlation.

In the London League, which covers a large area, the current default time is 60 minutes. This is long enough for any reasonable journey. The downsides are, first, that if you’re present and your opponent is not, and you don’t know whether your opponent is running late or has simply forgotten there’s a match on that night, it’s a long time to wait for a no-show. And second, that if your opponent turns up just inside 60 minutes, with an incremental time control allowing a game time of 75 minutes, it’s practically impossible for the latecomer to play a serious game.

At its AGM in 2022, the London League considered a motion from one club to reduce the default time from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. This was no doubt motivated by the downsides of the longer default time. It was, however, clear from the debate that 30 minutes was in practice too short a default time for a league whose catchment area was the whole of London. Players could well miss the cut-off for no fault of their own, for example problems on public transport (and, more recently, one might add industrial action resulting a reduced service or none at all). The motion was defeated by 18 votes to 4.

During the debate, a compromise was suggested of a default time of 45 minutes. This reflected the experience of the person proposing the compromise (no prizes for guessing who that was) that players often turned up within 45 minutes of the start, but he did not recall anyone turning up between 45 and 60 minutes late. So nothing would be lost, and players wouldn’t have to wait a whole hour for a no-show. The amendment was defeated by 12 votes to 9. This was not because the majority of the clubs represented thought it was a bad idea in itself. Rather, it was tabled at no notice, and they had not been able to consult their membership. So in 2023, the proposal (and again this is still under consideration, well in advance of the summer AGM) is to reduce the default time from 60 minutes to 45 minutes.

Anyway, the lesson for any person of a sound mind is, Vote For Barking – You Know It Makes Sense.

Smoke and dagger

2 Replies

The Beautiful Game speaks for itself. I try to let my moves do the talking. But sometimes the language of chess is overshadowed by events. So this is my story.

I returned to County Sligo in the Republic of Ireland for the annual Spring Tournament. This year it was held in the Diamond Coast Hotel in the seaside town of Enniscrone. This is, in most respects, a very good tournament. Generous sponsorship lies behind the quality wooden boards and sets, the latest DGT 3000 clocks, and live streaming of all games in the top section (the Masters) through DGT technology. I was playing in the Masters in a small but strong field of 22 with 8 titled players including Ireland’s only GM, Alexander Baburin. The winner on 4.5/5 was Jonathan Pein, son of the well-known player and organiser Malcolm Pein. 

In accordance with the FIDE anti-cheating regulations, players were required to remain in the playing area for the duration of their games. This large hall (the hotel ballroom) had its own dedicated toilets. The playing area was also defined to included a separate but adjacent room where players could smoke during the round. The playing hall itself was non-smoking. In Ireland, smoking is mostly banned in public places, but it is allowed in designated hotel areas.

Why am I telling you this? It was not relevant in rounds 1 to 4. In round 5, however, I was paired against Oleg Gubanov (FIDE 2266), a Ukrainian IM and professional smoker. By this I mean that he smokes for a living and finances his expensive habit through his winnings at the chess board. In the early stages of our game, he went into the smoking room two or three times to indulge his habit. On returning to the board, his whole being reeked of smoke and his smoke-filled breath permeated the immediate area. Passive smoking is a novel and unwelcome experience for me. Not only the adverse health effects and unpleasant smell. I found inhaling it made it hard to concentrate on the game and I started to develop a headache.

I went off to speak to the arbiter about this. He was sympathetic but could do nothing since the tournament regulations permitted smoking in the designated area (and by implication its after-effects for other players, including many juniors). I could not bear to sit through this so I removed myself and my possessions to a separate space about 10 yards away, observing the board from afar and returning only when it was my move. The other players must have thought it strange to see Gubanov sitting at the board and facing an empty chair.

It’s not ideal to play chess like this. I gave a good account of myself but could not manage the serious and prolonged thought that such an event requires.

Things went from bad to worse when Gubanov started making his moves immediately in response to mine without first writing down the move I had made. I thought (mistakenly) that this was illegal, and spoke to the arbiter again, but apparently the Laws of Chess do permit players to make their own moves before recording their opponents’ moves. This is contrary to the universal practice, and is unsporting since you save a little time on the clock if you don’t bother to write down your opponents’ moves in your own time. 

Over time, Gubanov made repeated visits to the smoking room. My headache got worse and my position deteriorated until I was actually losing. At this stage I experienced one of those “What am I doing here?” moments. I realised that the result of the game no longer mattered. What is the point of playing competitive chess if you have to endure conditions as unpleasant as this?

With about 30 minutes left on my clock, I went to the arbiter again and said that I could not continue to play. I said I would not resign, but neither would I make any more moves and would allow my clock to run down. He advised me that in order to lose on time, I needed to remain in the playing area. If I left the playing area before the end, my game would be forfeit. So I stayed in place, watching the other games and waiting for my flag to fall. The arbiter was present for this and formally confirmed that my opponent had won.

So I finished the event on 2.5/5, a par result, scoring 50% against opponents rated FIDE 2084 on average. This was what I expected at the start, although I could not have foreseen how it would end. As soon as my game was finished I left the playing area, returned to my room, packed forthwith and checked out. I left the venue like a bat out of hell and drove 160 miles back to Dublin ready for an early flight tomorrow. This is one chess experience I hope never to repeat.