Modifying quotrapidquot tournament rules


Back to forum

Marc Lacrosse    (2006-07-08)
Modifying "rapid" tournament rules ?

Hello all,
Hello Thibault
As I already said in an earlyer thread, one of the reasons why I joined FICGS was the possibility to play fewer games simultaneously at a faster pace than in other corr. chess associations.
So I enrolled in a first rapid tournament where I find two things unpleasant for a so-called "rapid" category:
1. some of my opponents (and myself also) accumulated reflection time "reserves" of 40 or even 50 days in some cases, which is not appropriate for a "rapid" tournament IMHO.
2. my last unfinished game is completely won for more than ten moves now (it's K+pawns against K+pawns with an unstoppable passed pawn for me where computers announce forced mate in ... max 40 moves). My 2200+ opponent continues to play at a very slow pace. It's pretty annoying : I bet I could win my game at blitz tempo against Kasparov analysing for three days per move but I suppose I will have to play for weeks until his king is mated!

So I propose :
1. To have an absolute limitation of the time reserve a player can accumulate in rapid tournaments (30 ?)
2. To have a procedure allowing to call for external adjudication when a player refuses to resign a forcefully lost game.

Your opinion ?


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-08 12:33:21)
Fischer clock - Limitation

Hello Marc.

About the adjudication, that's a problem without a real solution IMO. I think human interventions must be reduced as much as possible (null is clearly best), many players agree with that.

I just written you were right and agreed with your first proposal about the accumulation time rule for rapid games. Now I think it just can't solve the problem and wouldn't be efficient enough... In the few cases (ie. yours) a player may last a game, for any reason (maybe manage his rating), changing the time accumulation limitation wouldn't prevent him to last it almost the same, by spacing out his moves...

No solution yet, but we can discuss it, maybe we can improve this point.