recording with increment sf Tas Champs 2012

[antichrist]

Moves to be recorded until 5 minutes remain.

AC
How can this rule apply with increment time, you would not know when 5 minutes remain? Not really know, there could be a hundred moves afterwards the clock first shows 5 mins

[Kevin Bonham]

Moves to be recorded until 5 minutes remain.

AC
How can this rule apply with increment time, you would not know when 5 minutes remain?

Once your clock drops below 5 minutes, even if it later goes above 5 minutes because of the increment, you are exempt from scoring for the rest of the game.

I have seen some players deliberately drop to 4:59 before playing their move so they are exempt from scoring for the rest of the game. I have never yet seen a case where there is a dispute about whether or not a player (with >5 minutes showing) had earlier dropped below 5 minutes.

[Tony Dowden]

Since we're already off topic - I've always thought that if there is an increment of more than, say, about 10 seconds, then players should have to record all of their moves. (Maybe there is another relevant thread?)

[antichrist]

Once your clock drops below 5 minutes, even if it later goes above 5 minutes because of the increment, you are exempt from scoring for the rest of the game.

I have seen some players deliberately drop to 4:59 before playing their move so they are exempt from scoring for the rest of the game. I have never yet seen a case where there is a dispute about whether or not a player (with >5 minutes showing) had earlier dropped below 5 minutes.

so the game could go a hundred moves with nothing recorded - great state of affairs considering disputes where which was when, esp if both players non-recording.

[William AS]

Since we're already off topic - I've always thought that if there is an increment of more than, say, about 10 seconds, then players should have to record all of their moves. (Maybe there is another relevant thread?)

Yes, if the increment is 30 seconds or more players must score at all times.

[Kevin Bonham]

so the game could go a hundred moves with nothing recorded

If neither player is recording then an arbiter or their assistant should record if possible. An assistant can be appointed ad hoc for this purpose.

It's much the same as for a guillotine game where both players are below 5 mins, or for a time control game (like 40 moves in 2 hours then whatever) where both players get short of time close to the time control. In the former case it's likely the game will end sooner by someone running out of time, but if both players are below 5 mins in a guillotine they will often bash out moves so fast that the arbiter/assistant has little hope of recording them. With increments the recorder has a good chance of following the game.

[antichrist]

If neither player is recording then an arbiter or their assistant should record if possible. An assistant can be appointed ad hoc for this purpose.

It's much the same as for a guillotine game where both players are below 5 mins, or for a time control game (like 40 moves in 2 hours then whatever) where both players get short of time close to the time control. In the former case it's likely the game will end sooner by someone running out of time, but if both players are below 5 mins in a guillotine they will often bash out moves so fast that the arbiter/assistant has little hope of recording them. With increments the recorder has a good chance of following the game.

but we know in real life that this almost never happens - I have never witnessed a third person, official or otherwise, recording moves of a game they are not in. And how many games can such officials witness anyway. At least in guillotine finish there will be a strictly limited number of such moves that spectators can often volunteer info to the arbiter if there is dispute, but with so many games incrementing everywhere and for much longer time this is much lesser likely

[Kevin Bonham]

but we know in real life that this almost never happens

In Tassie it does - at least at tournaments I'm involved in.

At least in guillotine finish there will be a strictly limited number of such moves that spectators can often volunteer info to the arbiter if there is dispute, but with so many games incrementing everywhere and for much longer time this is much lesser likely

There is no "strictly limited number of such moves" for guillotine. The no-scoring time starts when a player has five minutes left. That would be their whole time control for a 5/0 blitz game. 5/0 blitz games between fast players will quite often run for 60 or 70 moves and I have often seen players in guillotine games get down to 5 mins after only 20 moves or so then bash out moves at blitz pace for the rest of the game.

The real difference is that for a guillotine game you know it will end in at most ten minutes from the point where both players stop scoring, while for an increment game the time left is unpredictable. But that cuts both ways because in a guillotine tournament you will have many boards in acute time trouble at the same time, which makes the arbiter's role very difficult. Ever tried arbiting three 10.2 draw claims at the same time?

[antichrist]

Yes, if the increment is 30 seconds or more players must score at all times.

Surely this is the answer, make the smallest increment at least 30 secs so all moves can be recorded by participants.

[Kerry Stead]

Doesn't the fact that players don't have to record (assuming they don't - they can still record if they are less than 5 minutes if they want to) also create potential issues with draw claims, particularly if there is no third party to record the game?
Is there any reason why you would go for 90+15? Why not use 75+30 (commonly used at Box Hill for example) or something like that to avoid these issues?

[antichrist]

Doesn't the fact that players don't have to record (assuming they don't - they can still record if they are less than 5 minutes if they want to) also create potential issues with draw claims, particularly if there is no third party to record the game?
Is there any reason why you would go for 90+15? Why not use 75+30 (commonly used at Box Hill for example) or something like that to avoid these issues?

exactly, providing that it meets all required times sufficient for awarding of FIDE awards, ratings etc.

[Lighty]

90+30 seems to be the norm... I don't know what's wrong with that.

[Keong Ang]

exactly, providing that it meets all required times sufficient for awarding of FIDE awards, ratings etc.

Tas Champs 2012 does not appear to be FIDE rated.

Tournaments that are FIDE rated with standard time controls would need to meet minimum time requirements.
For this tournament, it appears that no player has a rating of 2200 or higher but there are players who are rated at or above 1600. Therefore, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes.
A time control of just 60minutes with 30seconds increment per move would be sufficient to meet FIDE rating requirements and make the recording of all moves mandatory.

For FIDE rating as well as award of FIDE titles or title norms, the fastest time control that would meet all requirements and make recording of all moves mandatory is 90minutes with 30seconds increment.

[Keong Ang]

90+30 seems to be the norm... I don't know what's wrong with that.

With 90mins +30secs increment, sometimes games take more than 4 hours. This can cause schedule problems. If more than one round per day, you'd need to schedule rounds 6 hours apart to be safe.

In any case, if the tournament is going to be valid for titles or title norms, one of the prescribed time controls must be used. 90+30 is the most practical that is prescribed. Also, a maximum of 2 rounds per day is permitted, making it difficult to schedule the required 9 rounds conveniently into a busy calendar.

Since this tournament is not FIDE rated, it just needs to comply with the controlling authority's regulations.
I don't know why a time control of 90+15 was chosen, a 75+30 should be more practical. If an increment is used in standard rates of play, it is best to make it 30seconds. Short increments seem designed just to have a non-increment rate of play that disallows article10.2 claims.

[antichrist]

Tas Champs 2012 does not appear to be FIDE rated.

Tournaments that are FIDE rated with standard time controls would need to meet minimum time requirements.
For this tournament, it appears that no player has a rating of 2200 or higher but there are players who are rated at or above 1600. Therefore, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes.
A time control of just 60minutes with 30seconds increment per move would be sufficient to meet FIDE rating requirements and make the recording of all moves mandatory.

For FIDE rating as well as award of FIDE titles or title norms, the fastest time control that would meet all requirements and make recording of all moves mandatory is 90minutes with 30seconds increment.

cosidering the bolded part, is there an assumption that all games will go at least 60 moves to turn the 60 minutes into 90 mins (I doubt it)? Have FIDE just decided that 60 minutes with 30 sec increments is sufficient?