The Tournament Rules
Commission has spent its summer working on a document
that we hope will be useful to all Tournament Directors,
Organizers and hosts, and to the players. One of the juicy
topics has been Adjudications.
Before I get into the
topic, I think it might be useful to explain the ICCF rule
making process. The appropriate committee discusses it
proposals during the
year and presents them to Congress. That sounds simple
enough, but what has
happened in the past, is that many of the committee members
were not able
to come to Congress. Congress then attempted to discuss (in
shred, and rewrite before running out of time. The process
was improved several
years ago by changing the Sunday afternoon meeting into
Everyone was assigned to a committee. In some cases, it was
not the same one that
he may have worked on during the year. Many delegates,
especially new delegates,
hadnít worked on any committee during the year. This change
did improve the process
as the Committee Chair, the Tournament Rules Commissioner,
for example, could then
present his report to Congress and have at least those
delegates on the Sunday
committee understand, discuss, and support the reasons for
the proposals. This has helped,
but not always avoided, the shredding, rewrites, and running
out of time problems.
The World Tournament
Director drafted ďArbiter RulesĒ several years ago.
It was an extremely ambitious document filled with good
ideas, but it has never
made it out of Congress. The problem was that some of those
ideas should have been
handled by the Tournament Rules or the Playing Rules
Committees, and some
suggestions fell in the Statutes area that is under the
The Tournament Rules Committee has redrafted what we hope
will be the handbook
that the Tournament Directors and Arbiters have needed. It
has moved the suggested
Rules to the appropriate Rules or Statutes areas.
One of those topics
dealt with Adjudications. How to avoid them, how to
handle them. ICCF tournaments in general do not have end
dates. The USA
and NAPZ do use end dates. This has the advantage of the TD
being able to say,
I donít care how much time you have left, you have to finish
the games by xx/xx/xx, Then we tell the players that ďMax
the AxeĒ is the Adjudicator. But, when it comes down to
determining winners and titles, though, we extend the date.
We havenít been able to avoid all adjudications.
One problem is that some
players think they have a win somewhere
(and sometimes they do) but they cannot find it. So they
hang on in the hopes
that some GM Adjudicator will find it for them. Others think
they are winning
and do not realize that they are dead lost and stalling
until they try to write the
analysis to support their claim of a win. It has put a
burden on Adjudicators.
They are sometimes faced with analysis that shows the player
hasnít a clue that
there is a win, maybe even a forced win, 30 moves away.
There have been cases
where the player hasnít even submitted analysis, heís just
hoped that the
Adjudicator would find the win that heís given up trying to
find. Isnít having
some GM win the game for you just to good to be true? Yes,
we think so.
This yearís attempt to
solve the Adjudication problem will be along the lines
of ďthe default decision is a draw.Ē No analysis or poor
analysis means no win.
Thatís all the teaser you get for now. We all have to wait
for Congress to vote.