PDA

View Full Version : FIDE Time Control for major events



Bill Gletsos
15-09-2006, 08:17 PM
The following motion was passed at the General Assembly meeting in Turin.

The FIDE Presidential Board accepted the proposal of ACP for a single time control for all major FIDE events: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one.

The list of FIDE events where this single time control will be used:
Chess Olympiads
World Team Championships
Continental Team Championships
World Cup
Continental Championships
Zonal Tournaments
World Youth & Junior Championships
Continental Youth & Junior Championships
World School Championships
Continental Club Championships

Regarding the proposal of the ACP for the single time control, Mr. Makropoulos said that Candidates Matches and World Championship Tournament are not included in the above list, as in these tournaments a 7 hours time control is used.

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2006, 08:44 PM
*conditional applause*

The extra 30 minutes from move 40 is a very welcome change indeed but why not let players manage their own time and just make it 120/+30 without this paternalistic time-control-at-move-X stuff?

Is the thinking that players will leave too little time for the endgame (in which case it's silly; that's their problem) or is it aimed at trying to cause most games to finish fairly early while giving those who get difficult endings more time to finish them?

I suppose the latter would make organisational sense, but I still think time controls at move X are relics of outdated technology and am a little bit surprised to still see them.

Garvinator
15-09-2006, 08:56 PM
*conditional applause*

The extra 30 minutes from move 40 is a very welcome change indeed but why not let players manage their own time and just make it 120/+30 without this paternalistic time-control-at-move-X stuff?

Is the thinking that players will leave too little time for the endgame (in which case it's silly; that's their problem) or is it aimed at trying to cause most games to finish fairly early while giving those who get difficult endings more time to finish them?

I suppose the latter would make organisational sense, but I still think time controls at move X are relics of outdated technology and am a little bit surprised to still see them.
I would think that the reason why the 40 move time control is still used is to keep the game moving along. Under a 120+30 time control, there is the potential for a game to have only about 25 moves each in 5 hours. That being said, I would think that 90+60 or 80+60 is superior to 120+30, it equates to roughly the same amount of time, but leaves the players just a little bit longer per move.

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2006, 06:35 PM
I would think that the reason why the 40 move time control is still used is to keep the game moving along.

Yeah, could be better for the spectators, especially online.

Fair enough. It's progress over what there was and it seems like whether it's the best way to go can be argued either way.


That being said, I would think that 90+60 or 80+60 is superior to 120+30, it equates to roughly the same amount of time, but leaves the players just a little bit longer per move.

True but then you sometimes get games that go forever. Kengis-Arlandi game at Mt Buller was 7 hrs 25 mins, and shaving 10 mins each off the start time doesn't really knock much of a hole in that.

Denis_Jessop
16-09-2006, 08:13 PM
I suspect that this is a good example of the way in which rules need to be considered in the light of the purpose for which they will be used.

Whilst the new limit may be fine for top level games (though maybe still too fast) it is inappropriate for club games played in the evenings. For those, the 90min + 30spm from move 1 is ideal. It fairly neatly fits into an evening and lessens the role of the arbiter - quite important if the arbiter is also playing as is often the case. Again, for club games where adjournments now have almost completely disappeared, there is no logic in a time limit that prescribes, say 40 moves in 90 minutes plus something else. I'm not really satisfied that there is any logic in it for any purpose but certainly not for club games.

DJ

Garvinator
16-09-2006, 11:59 PM
I suspect that this is a good example of the way in which rules need to be considered in the light of the purpose for which they will be used.

Whilst the new limit may be fine for top level games (though maybe still too fast) it is inappropriate for club games played in the evenings. For those, the 90min + 30spm from move 1 is ideal. It fairly neatly fits into an evening and lessens the role of the arbiter - quite important if the arbiter is also playing as is often the case. Again, for club games where adjournments now have almost completely disappeared, there is no logic in a time limit that prescribes, say 40 moves in 90 minutes plus something else. I'm not really satisfied that there is any logic in it for any purpose but certainly not for club games.

DJ
Another factor is that it isnt even one of the pre set time controls on either the dgtxl or dgt2000 :eek:

Brian_Jones
17-09-2006, 03:43 PM
Although the ACP proposal was accepted by FIDE, it is being ignored by many organisers who are quite happy to keep with 90 + 30secs.

Bereaved
17-09-2006, 08:56 PM
Although the ACP proposal was accepted by FIDE, it is being ignored by many organisers who are quite happy to keep with 90 + 30secs.

Does anyone know whether FIDE is planning to make tournaments played under 90 + 30 ineligible for rating? if so is there an official start date for this proposal to take effect?

It would be great to know, if someone could let me know, or point me in the right direction if I missed a reference to it.

Thanks in advance, Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Bill Gletsos
17-09-2006, 09:07 PM
Does anyone know whether FIDE is planning to make tournaments played under 90 + 30 ineligible for rating? if so is there an official start date for this proposal to take effect?I am unaware of any such plans.

Note that my original post does not say that it is a required time control for all FIDE rated events just for all major FIDE events.
In fact it appears to be a required time limit only for the events listed.

Rhubarb
18-09-2006, 01:10 AM
Does anyone know whether FIDE is planning to make tournaments played under 90 + 30 ineligible for rating? if so is there an official start date for this proposal to take effect?
You're just making this up, right? Edit: Oh, I see, you're just taking the piss out of Brian taking the piss and then taking a breather.

Re-edit: I have to say that this ancient notion of a time control at move 40 is just completely ridiculous, based on some arbitrary Soviet-Botvinnik idea of how chess was supposed to be played (to think that they actually adjourned games, can you imagine, but, wait for it, they sometimes adjudicated games - I kid you not!).

The only considerations, in this day and age, are the initial time and the increment.

Denis_Jessop
18-09-2006, 04:26 PM
Good Heavens! Who in his right mind would suggest adjudicating games? ;)

These days they are not even adjourned which is the only sensible reason I can think of for having a time control of X moves in A minutes etc.

DJ

antichrist
21-09-2006, 04:37 PM
You're just making this up, right? Edit: Oh, I see, you're just taking the piss out of Brian taking the piss and then taking a breather.

Re-edit: I have to say that this ancient notion of a time control at move 40 is just completely ridiculous, based on some arbitrary Soviet-Botvinnik idea of how chess was supposed to be played (to think that they actually adjourned games, can you imagine, but, wait for it, they sometimes adjudicated games - I kid you not!).

The only considerations, in this day and age, are the initial time and the increment.

I don't see any advantage that increment per move creates, a faster player "creates" more time but as already is the faster player with more time does/should not need the extra time. If it supposedly encourages wins over the board and not on the clock it penalises (by discrimination) the faster player not being able to win on time so easily. In other words it encourages mediocrity at the top - strugglers like myself.

MichaelBaron
21-09-2006, 05:10 PM
I don't see any advantage that increment per move creates, a faster player "creates" more time but as already is the faster player with more time does/should not need the extra time. If it supposedly encourages wins over the board and not on the clock it penalises (by discrimination) the faster player not being able to win on time so easily. In other words it encourages mediocrity at the top - strugglers like myself.

I think there are two sides of the coin. First of all, if one player is faster, he deservs to have more time on the clock. Secondly, the very objective of having time added to the clock after every move is to make sure that people do not lose on time.

Chess is a sport. Thus, being fast does pay off sometimes.

antichrist
21-09-2006, 05:14 PM
I think there are two sides of the coin. First of all, if one player is faster, he deservs to have more time on the clock. Secondly, the very objective of having time added to the clock after every move is to make sure that people do not lose on time.

Chess is a sport. Thus, being fast does pay off sometimes.

If a player is faster he will already have more time on the clock so does not deserve/need increment.

By insuring that players do not/may not lose on time by having the increment is taking the sport out of it, as being fast doesn't not necessarily pay off.

The slower player gets a second bite of the cherry.

MichaelBaron
21-09-2006, 05:25 PM
If a player is faster he will already have more time on the clock so does not deserve/need increment.

By insuring that players do not/may not lose on time by having the increment is taking the sport out of it, as being fast doesn't not necessarily pay off.

The slower player gets a second bite of the cherry.


But what are the options? Surely you are not proposing to give an increment to one player only. It leaves us with two options.

1) gillotine finish
2) incriments

antichrist
21-09-2006, 05:37 PM
But what are the options? Surely you are not proposing to give an increment to one player only. It leaves us with two options.

1) gillotine finish
2) incriments

guillotine survived for a hundred years before being beheaded, and as I have asked before, did any get more joy out of "increment era". I certainly got less.

With my better time I lost being able to squeeze players, which in turn resulted in lesser time between games to recover the for the intenser concentration I put into my games (sometimes can).

Against low players, usually after losing in round one maybe, I have ended up with more time on more clock than began with and the loser hanging on and extending game by increment all for bulldust - if you get the drift, even holding up the new round. What rubbish as far as I am concerned.

Rhubarb
21-09-2006, 10:02 PM
guillotine survived for a hundred years before being beheaded, and as I have asked before, did any get more joy out of "increment era". I certainly got less. A/C, play without clocks survived for many, many centuries before that (interactive bonus feature! See if you can figure out why.) See, back in the pre-19th century all games were decided on the board. When, finally, the clock was put on the endless cogitators in the interests of practicality and fairness, all of a sudden an outside element could directly decide the game. Flag fall was death. The chess players accepted this for more than a century. But, then, technology came to the rescue. With the increment, games could once again purely be decided on the board (assuming a little diligence on the part of the players) while neither side had any time advantage.


With my better time I lost being able to squeeze players, which in turn resulted in lesser time between games to recover the for the intenser concentration I put into my games (sometimes can).RHUBARB


Against low players, usually after losing in round one maybe, I have ended up with more time on more clock than began with and the loser hanging on and extending game by increment all for bulldust - if you get the drift, even holding up the new round.

I was trying to work out how this scenario could happen. Say you were playing a 60m +10s increment tournament. Now, let's assume that the organisers scheduled according to a maximum round length of 140 minutes (this is being incredibly generous as it's only allowing 20 minutes for the increment - i.e. a down-to-the-wire 60 move game).

Now, A/C, for you to have more than your original allotment (60m) while your opponent is on the 10s increment every move, by my calculations you would need to play a 240-move game in order to cause the schedule for the next round to be delayed.

Does it usually take you 240 moves to beat "low players"?


What rubbish as far as I am concerned.Indeed.

antichrist
22-09-2006, 04:13 PM
A/C, play without clocks survived for many, many centuries before that (interactive bonus feature! See if you can figure out why.) See, back in the pre-19th century all games were decided on the board. When, finally, the clock was put on the endless cogitators in the interests of practicality and fairness, all of a sudden an outside element could directly decide the game. Flag fall was death. The chess players accepted this for more than a century. But, then, technology came to the rescue. With the increment, games could once again purely be decided on the board (assuming a little diligence on the part of the players) while neither side had any time advantage.
RHUBARB



I was trying to work out how this scenario could happen. Say you were playing a 60m +10s increment tournament. Now, let's assume that the organisers scheduled according to a maximum round length of 140 minutes (this is being incredibly generous as it's only allowing 20 minutes for the increment - i.e. a down-to-the-wire 60 move game).

Now, A/C, for you to have more than your original allotment (60m) while your opponent is on the 10s increment every move, by my calculations you would need to play a 240-move game in order to cause the schedule for the next round to be delayed.

Does it usually take you 240 moves to beat "low players"?

Indeed.

I only have one experience of this and I have never returned for a second helping so will not investigate your example above.

It was 20 mins plus either ten or twenty second increments. One game I ended up with 23 minutes on clock which is not only ridiculous as I am supposed to use time up and not gain it, otherwise back to the future stuff or relativity theory and as well not fair to my opponent.

And another round my opposition was hanging on to grim death by the increment, again I had used no time, of course this would not normally lead to a different result but very frustrating when one only wants to rest their mind for their next game that will be harder as moving up ladder.

There were two juniors on bottom board who did not how to finish a game and kept playing all night so to speak, they did hold the draw up and upset some players. Without increment they could not have done this.

Have not gone into other scenarios as consider all humbug. And as Jason commented: increment does take the sport and excitement out of the game as a player, spectator and arbitar.

MichaelBaron
23-09-2006, 10:45 AM
I only have one experience of this and I have never returned for a second helping so will not investigate your example above.

It was 20 mins plus either ten or twenty second increments. One game I ended up with 23 minutes on clock which is not only ridiculous as I am supposed to use time up and not gain it, otherwise back to the future stuff or relativity theory and as well not fair to my opponent.

And another round my opposition was hanging on to grim death by the increment, again I had used no time, of course this would not normally lead to a different result but very frustrating when one only wants to rest their mind for their next game that will be harder as moving up ladder.

There were two juniors on bottom board who did not how to finish a game and kept playing all night so to speak, they did hold the draw up and upset some players. Without increment they could not have done this.

Have not gone into other scenarios as consider all humbug. And as Jason commented: increment does take the sport and excitement out of the game as a player, spectator and arbitar.

Well, why do not we all play Australian and state championships with a 5 0 time limit? Blitz is exiting for everyone :D. Spectators will be delighted:owned:

antichrist
23-09-2006, 03:47 PM
Well, why do not we all play Australian and state championships with a 5 0 time limit? Blitz is exiting for everyone :D. Spectators will be delighted:owned:

But you nor anyone else have answered my criticisms of the weaknesses. For top comps could/should be 40 moves in 120 minutes with one hour increments after so many more moves.

antichrist
25-09-2006, 01:11 PM
I read in today's PParr column how Topolov(?) got tired after 6 hours of game and flunked, maybe an adjournment was necessary even though disregarded by Shirty. Was there a lunch or dinner break of at least two hours?