PDA

View Full Version : 40 move time control with increments



Garvinator
20-07-2009, 10:02 AM
When the 40 move time control was played with no increment, players waited till their clock reached zero time before making a claim for passing the 40 moves. They then took the risk that if they had not made 40 moves, they would lose on time.

What is meant to be the procedure when a 30 or 60 second increment is used?

I have had a few situations where the players have reached the 40 moves by the scoresheets, but due to not having pressed the dgt clock a couple of times, the clock has not added the extra time for the second period automatically.

Also have had a few situations where the players have double pressed the dgt clocks, so the extra time is added before they reach the 40 moves by their scoresheets.

The laws of chess seem to only cover guillotine 40 move procedures.

Jesper Norgaard
22-07-2009, 06:59 AM
I have had a few situations where the players have reached the 40 moves by the scoresheets, but due to not having pressed the dgt clock a couple of times, the clock has not added the extra time for the second period automatically.

Also have had a few situations where the players have double pressed the dgt clocks, so the extra time is added before they reach the 40 moves by their scoresheets.

The laws of chess seem to only cover guillotine 40 move procedures.
I guess that if the players are missing clock presses on the dgt clock, and you can confirm this with the scoresheet(s), as an arbiter you should just add the clock presses necessary. The resulting clock presses will then leave a situation where you can confirm if there is a flag fall or not. Too many clock presses should be corrected in a similar way. That might lead to the conclusion that there was a flag fall by a player (or both). If the clock shows 59:59 after adding 1 hour, but 40 moves have not been completed on the scoresheet(s), the conclusion would be a flag fall.

CameronD
22-07-2009, 07:09 AM
in thezonal my clock malfunctioned after about 6 moves. After spending 10 minutes for an arbiter as there was none present, he just put the starting time plus 6 presses of the clock on, giving me a bonus 7 minutes to my opponents 2 minute bonus.

Garvinator
22-07-2009, 12:28 PM
I was hoping for some more 'legalistic' answers ie where references to sections of the laws are used and historical examples are given.

Brian_Jones
22-07-2009, 02:53 PM
Any time control that relies on move counters or similar is bad.

FIDE has gone backwards with this change. If the objective was for slower play then 120mins plus 30 seconds per move would have been better in my view! :)

Kevin Bonham
22-07-2009, 03:12 PM
Any time control that relies on move counters or similar is bad.

FIDE has gone backwards with this change. If the objective was for slower play then 120mins plus 30 seconds per move would have been better in my view! :)

The problem with 120/+30 is that poor time managers will use up all their base time and be left surfing the increment all the way through the late middlegame and endgame, leaving them with no time to go to the toilet without risking losing on time.

That is why there is still a case for the use of time controls at a certain number of moves if the total time for the game is going to be long.

Jesper Norgaard
22-07-2009, 03:39 PM
The problem with 120/+30 is that poor time managers will use up all their base time and be left surfing the increment all the way through the late middlegame and endgame, leaving them with no time to go to the toilet without risking losing on time.

That is why there is still a case for the use of time controls at a certain number of moves if the total time for the game is going to be long.

I agree that is the reasoning behind the new FIDE time controls. But also the time control to x number of moves gives problems if the clock is not handled precisely (pressing once and only once for each move you make). Perhaps it would be possible to keep 90min.(or 120 min.)+30sec. and then allow 1 single toilet tour of 5 minutes pr. player pr. game (the arbiter stops the players clock in the process). Just a thought. I know it doesn't sound very practical in a 500+ players tourney.

Denis_Jessop
26-07-2009, 09:10 PM
The problem with 120/+30 is that poor time managers will use up all their base time and be left surfing the increment all the way through the late middlegame and endgame, leaving them with no time to go to the toilet without risking losing on time.

That is why there is still a case for the use of time controls at a certain number of moves if the total time for the game is going to be long.

My serious answer to this is that the rules should not be formulated to cater for poor time managers.

DJ

Axiom
26-07-2009, 09:25 PM
My serious answer to this is that the rules should not be formulated to cater for poor time managers.

DJ Hence the axiomatic beauty of the guillotine . ;)

Thunderspirit
27-07-2009, 09:33 AM
There are a few questions here that need addressing.

For the premise of the question to make sense, the time control must be a flat (say 90mins) and assuming you have made your 40 moves, when you get to zero, you will get 30 seconds a move on top, per move ever after. If this is the case, similar time controls to this were tried when DGT's first entered Australia, and from experience most players find the addition of the increment from the beginning, much easier. It also prevents, players looking at the clock, waiting for zero, to in this case see their first alottment of 30 seconds.

If I've understood the question correctly, one easy way to avioid this problem is to add the increment from move one. Another point that I think is important is that with a increment a 'first period' of 40 moves (or whatever) isn't needed. The time controls are supposed to help players who mismanage their time. I very strongly agree with BJ on this one.

If you must use this time control (and I can't see why) then it's the player's scoresheets that need to be used as evidence. I'm not exactly sure with the newer DGT's but the old ones don't keep track on how many moves are recorded when a player presses the clock. This would cause problems with illegal moves, or even the weird occassional blunder of a player pushing the wrong clock.

As a player, I've never liked incremental time controls and as a DOP/ Organiser (Not that I've done much organising) I'm starting to dislike them as well. Even in weekender 60+10sec the ability to stay on schedule is difficult when long ending are drawn out. The only time I really see where incremental time controls have the time to be used properly is in events, where there is only one or two games a day (max) and there is ample time between rounds.

In some ways, a weekender time control of g/75 is better than 60min. It's more time for the players and the everyone knowns when the games will finish. If European weekenders can be run with 40/75 and 15 mins finish or 40/90 and 30 mins finish, or I've seen 40/105 + 15 mins finish, for longer weekend events, then it might be served that Australia heads down this path as well.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2009, 12:59 PM
My serious answer to this is that the rules should not be formulated to cater for poor time managers.

I tend to agree with this in principle but there are an awful lot of them out there. Even at super-GM level time management is often very bad so it is no surprise that we get time limits designed to help the most helpless cases.

Garvinator
27-07-2009, 11:49 PM
I tend to agree with this in principle but there are an awful lot of them out there. Even at super-GM level time management is often very bad so it is no surprise that we get time limits designed to help the most helpless cases.
There are a couple of other benefits as well to having an increment of 30 seconds.

The players are forced to record all the way, so that it is recorded when the players have reached 40 moves. This means that there is an accurate game record.

If the game is being played under the 7 hour time control, the players are using increments for the whole game, rather than having two periods of guillotine and then finally using increments.

Rincewind
28-07-2009, 08:32 AM
The players are forced to record all the way, so that it is recorded when the players have reached 40 moves. This means that there is an accurate game record.

I agree with the sentiment. Not so sure about the choice of words. ;)

antichrist
08-08-2009, 11:27 AM
I tend to agree with this in principle but there are an awful lot of them out there. Even at super-GM level time management is often very bad so it is no surprise that we get time limits designed to help the most helpless cases.

But KB it has taken away my advantage of a good time manager. We all have our strengths and weaknesses and my comparative advantage was taken away and I have to re-adjust to a system that I despise (ans so yes I do organise my own comps some times)

Plus I find the increment a distraction clocks always re-adjusting. Whereas the old mechanical clock you only need a slight glance to see where the flag was and when to bump the table when the opponent's flag was near zero.

If the super GMs cant handle time they should not be there - the ones that can deserve to be.

We all suffer the disadvantage of less games for our money as well dissatisfied with the amount of games played and the amount of time waiting between games.

antichrist
08-08-2009, 11:33 AM
There are a few questions here that need addressing.

For the premise of the question to make sense, the time control must be a flat (say 90mins) and assuming you have made your 40 moves, when you get to zero, you will get 30 seconds a move on top, per move ever after. If this is the case, similar time controls to this were tried when DGT's first entered Australia, and from experience most players find the addition of the increment from the beginning, much easier. It also prevents, players looking at the clock, waiting for zero, to in this case see their first alottment of 30 seconds.

If I've understood the question correctly, one easy way to avioid this problem is to add the increment from move one. Another point that I think is important is that with a increment a 'first period' of 40 moves (or whatever) isn't needed. The time controls are supposed to help players who mismanage their time. I very strongly agree with BJ on this one.

If you must use this time control (and I can't see why) then it's the player's scoresheets that need to be used as evidence. I'm not exactly sure with the newer DGT's but the old ones don't keep track on how many moves are recorded when a player presses the clock. This would cause problems with illegal moves, or even the weird occassional blunder of a player pushing the wrong clock.

As a player, I've never liked incremental time controls and as a DOP/ Organiser (Not that I've done much organising) I'm starting to dislike them as well. Even in weekender 60+10sec the ability to stay on schedule is difficult when long ending are drawn out. The only time I really see where incremental time controls have the time to be used properly is in events, where there is only one or two games a day (max) and there is ample time between rounds.

In some ways, a weekender time control of g/75 is better than 60min. It's more time for the players and the everyone knowns when the games will finish. If European weekenders can be run with 40/75 and 15 mins finish or 40/90 and 30 mins finish, or I've seen 40/105 + 15 mins finish, for longer weekend events, then it might be served that Australia heads down this path as well.

First GG let me thank you for creating this thread, you wisely did it when I was on forced vocation.

Thunderspirit you have very eloquently put forward what I have cherished - that section I have bolded. Together with my comments in the earlier post above gets the bulldust out of contemporary chess. If they cant handle time they get out (lose) - as simple as that.

Doesn't cricket have light and over controls? aww can I bat on longer please even though it is dark and the kids and missus have gone to sleep out of boredom.