PDA

View Full Version : one hour plus one minute time limit



FM_Bill
28-05-2005, 09:59 AM
The 90+30 seems illogical to me. It smacks of the crazy
40/90 30 moves in 15 minutes repeating controls of some
pre-incremental weekenders

a few points are here:
# 60 minutes + a 60 second increment would have advantages as a standard time limit.
# I hour and 1 minute are standard units of time, while 90 minutes and 30 seconds are not.
# The hour fits in perfectly with the 1 hour forfeit rule.
# One minute is enough time to record and play a move.
# With a larger increment, players can play quick moves to build up their time reserve.
# Endgames require just as much time as openings or middlegames.
# A good time limit gives you the same rate at any move in the game.
# Speeding up the rate after move 40 is a not a good idea.
# All in all, it would be a more enjoyable time limit.



The rest of the article is at

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~chess/time.html

EGOR
28-05-2005, 05:16 PM
Are we going to see this 60+60 time limit trialed in any upcoming NSWCA events?
Oops! :doh: It's the wrong Bill. :uhoh:

I'd still like to see it trialed in an actual tournament.

antichrist
28-05-2005, 05:24 PM
[QUOTE=FM_Bill]The 90+30 seems illogical to me. It smacks of the crazy
40/90 30 moves in 15 minutes repeating controls of some
pre-incremental weekenders

A/C
I seen nothing wrong with those old pre-incremental weekenders. In fact they are the only type I like. Why take away someone's advantage to give someone else a second chance?

Careth
28-05-2005, 08:52 PM
Personally, I like the 1 hour settings, and even then find them too long. Others though find this an attractive time setting because they dont get extra, the opponent cant wander of and regain the time, and it means younger players also (who I know play faster for I am one), dont feel bored and resign the game out of sheer boredom.

On the other hand, for a player who plays lightning mainly, and has a habit of not thinking is in for a shock. In the whole run, a hour is best for it teaches speedy (and preferably) accurate analysis, patience, and when playing a slower player, teaches you how to stay focused. I wish though i could follow these rules:) I play far too fast.

jase
29-05-2005, 12:46 AM
# 60 minutes + a 60 second increment would have advantages as a standard time limit.
# I hour and 1 minute are standard units of time, while 90 minutes and 30 seconds are not.
# The hour fits in perfectly with the 1 hour forfeit rule.
# One minute is enough time to record and play a move.
# With a larger increment, players can play quick moves to build up their time reserve.
# Endgames require just as much time as openings or middlegames.
# A good time limit gives you the same rate at any move in the game.
# Speeding up the rate after move 40 is a not a good idea.
# All in all, it would be a more enjoyable time limit.

The rest of the article is at

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~chess/time.html

Bill I have not yet checked out the full article, but I have long considered 1 hour + 1 minute per move to be an excellent time control for tournaments. I have been considering using it for some time in conjunction with an event I have been developing.

The disadvantage is that it might significantly extend a long game, making weekenders difficult to program. For example an 80 move game could last well over 4 hours.

This TC would meet guidelines for FIDE rating, if the rule remains a minimum requirment of 2 hours per player based on 60 moves

Another potential criticism is the reduced bank of time bring forward the onset of time pressures in matches. However the increased tree depth in opening theory mitigates this somewhat.

I agree too with your point regarding the ergonomics of this TC - easy to understand, and provides more scope for better play in endgames and through time scrambles generally. Your points are well made.

Alan Shore
30-05-2005, 12:26 AM
I seen nothing wrong with those old pre-incremental weekenders. In fact they are the only type I like. Why take away someone's advantage to give someone else a second chance?

Yeah I'm with AC... I hate inc... all it does is flusters me and gives me a false impression of how much time I actually have left.. guillotine forever!

jay_vee
30-05-2005, 01:36 AM
Yes, 60+60 is one of my personal favourites for long games as well, especially since I play a lot of week-day, one game per evening tournaments, where this is just the perfect time limit. It does have its practical drawbacks though in weekenders, though.

Bill: the "back to homepage"-link at the bottom of the page does not work.

EGOR
30-05-2005, 06:16 AM
guillotine forever!
Personaly I hate the guillotine finishes, the name is appropriate, you feel like your head is being chopped of at the finish.

ursogr8
30-05-2005, 08:51 AM
The 90+30 seems illogical to me. It smacks of the crazy
40/90 30 moves in 15 minutes repeating controls of some
pre-incremental weekenders

a few points are here:
# 60 minutes + a 60 second increment would have advantages as a standard time limit.
# I hour and 1 minute are standard units of time, while 90 minutes and 30 seconds are not.
# The hour fits in perfectly with the 1 hour forfeit rule.
# One minute is enough time to record and play a move.
# With a larger increment, players can play quick moves to build up their time reserve.
# Endgames require just as much time as openings or middlegames.
# A good time limit gives you the same rate at any move in the game.
# Speeding up the rate after move 40 is a not a good idea.
# All in all, it would be a more enjoyable time limit.



The rest of the article is at

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~chess/time.html

hi FM Bill

The objective/point you list above ^ is only made possible by the new digital clocks. On all previous devices I would think that there was no possibility to build up a 'bank' of time. Building up a bank of time has become an a new task/skill/challenge for the modern player.
Can I invite you to describe why it is a good point? The bank (because it builds up from move 1) can give scheduling problems for week-enders in particular. Perhaps for week-enders it may be better to do away with the 'banking' effect and just have the increment kick-in after 40 moves.....then it is serving the single purpose of avoiding the guillotine drop in quality of play.

regards
starter

Ian Rout
30-05-2005, 09:21 AM
I haven't played with this limit but my initial reaction is that I don't like it. By comparison with 90/30 the time to reach move 60 is the same (120 minutes) but to me the balance between the part of the time allocated initially and the part below the surface is wrong.

From an organiser's perspective a round will not finish any quicker than with 90/30 because the overall length of the longest game is at least the same, but there is less certainty because a game that goes for many moves can take longer.

From the player's viewpoint the fact of getting more time in the endings is more than undone by having less time to cope with difficult problems earlier, and thus potentially having to rush if complexities arise. This is a double hit because after losing early due to the reduced starting time bank you have longer to wait around while the start of the next round is delayed by the longer endgames.

The fact that arguments like "1 hour and 1 minute are standard units of time, while 90 minutes and 30 seconds are not" are raised with a straight face sounds like a sign of struggling to make a case.

antichrist
30-05-2005, 11:00 AM
Ian
I cannot find my old posts on this topic and I don't know if you read them.

I have only been to one comp with increment time that I can remember. Two weak players who could not finish endgame kept the whole room held up for at least 15-20 minutes. And as of low standard not worth watching.

I finished a 20 minute time limit with 23 minutes on my clock, how ridiculous, and my opponent virtually down and out of time kept hanging on and denying me the opportunity to see top-board end games which can be exciting and an attraction of tournaments. My opponent would have lost ages ago if no time increment.

As no set time for games ending we have lost the exciting guillotine finishes on the top boards as they become drawn out.

As I have been told the same people are mostly winnning under time increment it does not benefit anyone, only a nuisance -- on the board and for the draw schedule.

And if someone does get a benefit out of it, it is at the expense of a player who has a natural advantage of handling a set time. That is the slower player gets a second chance.

Garvinator
30-05-2005, 11:26 AM
One of the best arguments for having increments is that it takes out alot of the arguments at tournaments. This is a comment I have heard quite often when speaking to players from the guillotine days. Players dont feel cheated, games are not decided by arbiters (leaving both players unhappy usually).

If guillotine was so great, why have almost all the tournaments gone to using increments :hmm: Personally I think the answer is obvious.

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 11:59 AM
One of the best arguments for having increments is that it takes out alot of the arguments at tournaments. This is a comment I have heard quite often when speaking to players from the guillotine days. Players dont feel cheated, games are not decided by arbiters (leaving both players unhappy usually).

If guillotine was so great, why have almost all the tournaments gone to using increments :hmm: Personally I think the answer is obvious.Actually this thread has nothing to do with increment v guillotine but it got side tracked into it by A/C back in post #3.
FM_Bill's point was comparing increment time control 90 + 30 with 60 + 60.

Ian Rout
30-05-2005, 12:05 PM
Ian
I cannot find my old posts on this topic and I don't know if you read them.



I'm sure I have seen these from time to time. Personally I feel that guillotine finishes can be viewed as either a way of turning a game of Chess into a game of Clock (a game which some people may like, but let's not try to pretend it's Chess) or an extremely inefficient way of running a lightning tournament.

However I think that's a topic for another thread, I believe the purpose of FM Bill in raising the issue was to discuss what is an appropriate time limit for increments where they exist, not if they should.

Garvinator
30-05-2005, 01:02 PM
FM_Bill's point was comparing increment time control 90 + 30 with 60 + 60.
yes correct, my apologies :doh:

jase
30-05-2005, 01:15 PM
The objective/point you list above ^ is only made possible by the new digital clocks. On all previous devices I would think that there was no possibility to build up a 'bank' of time.

Do you mean to write "new" digital clocks? Time controls with increments have been made available since the introduction of digital clocks, therefore the opportunity to build a 'bank' of time has been around for some time.


Building up a bank of time has become an a new task/skill/challenge for the modern player. Can I invite you to describe why it is a good point?

Guillotine finishes bring the clock heavily into play during some middlegames and many endgames. Players have gone a little soft at the thought of actually having to efficiently manage their time and most now demand increment time controls. I think the far more sound argument for increments is that a greater number of games are decided on the board, not by technicalities that necessarily involve officials (eg. rule 10.2).

Building a bank of time creates the opportunity for complex analysis at the crux of the game. Where critical points are reached in middle and endgames, players are able to give weight to the position that often was not possible with no or little increments. It also acts as somewhat of a safety net for when a difficult position (or a long cigarette outside!) arises.

Relative to their opponent's time, players have always been able to build a time advantage; this has long been used by players to turn the knife. I have often seen GMs with a time advantage go for complications in the move 35-39 bracket, where a time control kicks in at move 40. I have seen these canny practioners offer draws at move 38 or 39 to further muddy the waters.


Perhaps for week-enders it may be better to do away with the 'banking' effect and just have the increment kick-in after 40 moves.....then it is serving the single purpose of avoiding the guillotine drop in quality of play.

If you have no increments before move 40, this drop in quality will still surface. And regularly, in my view, given that positions often reach their nexus in the middlegame, where time pressure can be a factor with a 40 move first time control.

Having an increment kick in at a move number also creates problems with
- move counters (due to additional presses of a clock in error of through illegal moves)
- confusion from players during time pressure about how many moves are made, and when and why the increment commences.
I think it's much preferrable to have the increment from move 1.

In Sydney, the time control 60 moves + 10 seconds per move, from move 1, has become dominant. It allows for reasonable scheduling by organisers, more certainty (compared to larger increments) from players about the next round starting on time, and a small increment to facilitate the opportunity to complete the game without the need for rulings over technical draws and the like.


From the player's viewpoint the fact of getting more time in the endings is more than undone by having less time to cope with difficult problems earlier, and thus potentially having to rush if complexities arise. This is a double hit because after losing early due to the reduced starting time bank you have longer to wait around while the start of the next round is delayed by the longer endgames.

These are separate points. To the first:
It's not only the endings, but frequently the middlegame, that this time control may advantage. You may be of the opinion that since the tipping point does not occur until move 60, this time control only becomes an advantage in the endgame. I agree with the logic, but think it's far from universal.

Try giving players a flat 2 hour time control - the same players will run into time trouble; we humans being only too delighted to bite the hand that feeds, and the resulting time pressure will be far worse than 1 hr + 1 min, or 90 min + 30 sec :doh:

In my experience as an arbiter the better players are frequently still engrossed in a middlegame, around move 25-35, at the 3 hour mark. Having to record each move and continue to play at the same level, it is difficult to build any sort of bank. Players essentially seek to survive on the one suck of oxygen they are afforded with each move. I think that with a 1 minute increment the opportunity is there to play better chess and build a bank of time amidst time pressure.

On the other hand it might be argued that with an initial bank of 60 minutes, rather than 90, the time pressure is likely to kick in earlier.

For the reasons raised by Starter and Ian, I don't think this is a good time control for weekenders; and I don't think Bill Jordan had weekenders in mind.

ursogr8
30-05-2005, 01:53 PM
Do you mean to write "new" digital clocks? Time controls with increments have been made available since the introduction of digital clocks, therefore the opportunity to build a 'bank' of time has been around for some time.
jase
You can strike 'new' from my text. I meant the introduction of digital clocks.



Guillotine finishes bring the clock heavily into play during some middlegames and many endgames. Players have gone a little soft at the thought of actually having to efficiently manage their time and most now demand increment time controls. I think the far more sound argument for increments is that a greater number of games are decided on the board, not by technicalities that necessarily involve officials (eg. rule 10.2).

I support increments over guillotine as it has virtually done away with disputes arguments, and tantrums at our large tourneys.


Building a bank of time creates the opportunity for complex analysis at the crux of the game. Where critical points are reached in middle and endgames, players are able to give weight to the position that often was not possible with no or little increments. It also acts as somewhat of a safety net for when a difficult position arises.
I suspect we need to move into new terminology to debate any point here. But I further suspect we would probably agree at the end of the debate; the bigger the Bank the higher the quality at the critical point.


(or a long cigarette outside!)
Ian Rout's straight face comment comes to mind on this point. ;)


Relative to their opponent's time, players have always been able to build a time advantage; this has long been used by players to turn the knife. I have often seen GMs with a time advantage go for complications in the move 35-39 bracket, where a time control kicks in at move 40. I have seen these canny practioners offer draws at move 38 or 39 to further muddy the waters.

I agree.


If you have no increments before move 40, this drop in quality will still surface.

Maybe I should have argued for increments to kick-in at move 22 or 27 or 31...



And regularly, in my view, given that positions often reach their nexus in the middlegame, where time pressure can be a factor with a 40 move first time control.
Agreed


Having an increment kick in at a move number also creates problems with
- move counters (due to additional presses of a clock in error of through illegal moves)
- confusion from players during time pressure about how many moves are made, and when and why the increment commences.

Agreed, but not significant in my opinion.


I think it's much preferrable to have the increment from move 1.

Your solution is obviously workable.


In Sydney, the time control 60 moves + 10 seconds per move, from move 1, has become dominant. It allows for reasonable scheduling by organisers, more certainty (compared to larger increments) from players about the next round starting on time, and a small increment to facilitate the opportunity to complete the game without the need for rulings over technical draws and the like.

Similar data from our experience in Melbourne.


<snip>
For the reasons raised by Starter and Ian, I don't think this is a good time control for weekenders; and I don't think Bill Jordan had weekenders in mind.


starter

jase
30-05-2005, 02:17 PM
One further point which I wish to make, but was unsure how to fit it into my previous context (so it gets to stand alone now!):

Some increments that kick in during a game, require a clock to run down to zero. For example, the time control X minutes, followed by Y seconds per move, sees the increment only commence after one player's clock hits zero. The both players get the increment.

This causes mucho confusion!! I ran a tournament for the NSWCA about 2 years ago when they were using this TC, and my tournament report recommended NEVER AGAIN! As your clock counts down 10 9 8 7 6..., the only way you know if you're in increment phase is a small triangle on your display. This may not be your priority as you are trying to play chess. I witnessed 3 player lose on time because they did not realise that their time had expired, the increment had kicked in, and they now had 10 seconds to make a move. And several others looked on with alarm as they had seconds remaining, were moving at the speed of light to stay alive, not realising that neither player had reached the increment phase and no time was yet being added.

Macabre fun :twisted:

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2005, 02:28 PM
Some increments that kick in during a game, require a clock to run down to zero. For example, the time control X minutes, followed by Y seconds per move, sees the increment only commence after one player's clock hits zero. The both players get the increment.

This causes mucho confusion!! I ran a tournament for the NSWCA about 2 years ago when they were using this TC, and my tournament report recommended NEVER AGAIN! As your clock counts down 10 9 8 7 6..., the only way you know if you're in increment phase is a small triangle on your display. This may not be your priority as you are trying to play chess. I witnessed 3 player lose on time because they did not realise that their time had expired, the increment had kicked in, and they now had 10 seconds to make a move. And several others looked on with alarm as they had seconds remaining, were moving at the speed of light to stay alive, not realising that neither player had reached the increment phase and no time was yet being added.

Macabre fun :twisted:I remember criticisng the 60min followed by 10sec/move time limit when it was suggested, but was told it was successfully used at events such as the Newcastle Open (and possibly Coal City) a number of times. I was also informed that an advantage was that it was a standard setting (#12) on the DGT clock whereas 60 + 10sec/move from move one required a manual setting (#23).

ursogr8
30-05-2005, 02:41 PM
One further point which I wish to make, but was unsure how to fit it into my previous context (so it gets to stand alone now!):

Some increments that kick in during a game, require a clock to run down to zero. For example, the time control X minutes, followed by Y seconds per move, sees the increment only commence after one player's clock hits zero. The both players get the increment.

This causes mucho confusion!! I ran a tournament for the NSWCA about 2 years ago when they were using this TC, and my tournament report recommended NEVER AGAIN! As your clock counts down 10 9 8 7 6..., the only way you know if you're in increment phase is a small triangle on your display. This may not be your priority as you are trying to play chess. I witnessed 3 player lose on time because they did not realise that their time had expired, the increment had kicked in, and they now had 10 seconds to make a move. And several others looked on with alarm as they had seconds remaining, were moving at the speed of light to stay alive, not realising that neither player had reached the increment phase and no time was yet being added.

Macabre fun :twisted:

Thanks jase

I appreciate this advice from experience.

When we have a need to schedule some macabre fun into one of our variant events then I will keep this effect in mind.

regards
starter

Alan Shore
30-05-2005, 03:42 PM
Personaly I hate the guillotine finishes, the name is appropriate, you feel like your head is being chopped of at the finish.

Not when you're the one that still has his head! ;)

EGOR
30-05-2005, 04:47 PM
Not when you're the one that still has his head! ;)
I don't play well enough to get into that position! :boohoo:

Thunderspirit
01-06-2005, 12:15 AM
[QUOTE=FM_Bill]The 90+30 seems illogical to me. It smacks of the crazy
40/90 30 moves in 15 minutes repeating controls of some
pre-incremental weekenders

A/C
I seen nothing wrong with those old pre-incremental weekenders. In fact they are the only type I like. Why take away someone's advantage to give someone else a second chance?

I sort of agree with A/C... Old guileteen finishes are fun, though thet are more work for the DOP. Some players like one, some the other, but DGT's are here to stay...

Garvinator
01-06-2005, 12:59 AM
i notice that FM Bill hasnt commented since his first comments, gives me the sense that Bill was just venting his spleen. It is only the rest of us that has given this thread more oxygen.

FM_Bill, do you intend to make further comments or debate any points other players have made?

jase
06-06-2005, 04:43 PM
i notice that FM Bill hasnt commented since his first comments, gives me the sense that Bill was just venting his spleen. It is only the rest of us that has given this thread more oxygen.


FM Bill may consider that having made his point, there's nothing further to add. It seems a bit harsh to accuse him of venting (not that I have anything against vents - very useful) for offering a 'new' time control, and justifying his preference for it.

As has been identified on this thread, the 1 hour + 1 minute per move from move 1 is really only suitable for tournaments played at a rate of 1 or 2 games per day.