View Poll Results: What should be the minimum time control for a standard rated game?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • 30 minutes

    2 13.33%
  • 45 minutes

    0 0%
  • 60 minutes

    7 46.67%
  • 90 minutes

    4 26.67%
  • 2 hours

    1 6.67%
  • 2.5 hours

    1 6.67%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50
  1. #1
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575

    Minimum time control for standard rating

    What should be the minimum time control for a game to qualify to be rated in the standard (ie not rapid) rating list.

    Currently 60 minutes is the minimum. This is in line with when the FIDE rules on Rapid chess cease. IE You must begin scoring the game, etc. However, that does not mean the game necessarily needs to be rated in the standard rating list.

    In another thread Rob from WA proposed that 90 minutes be the cut off, and I'm inclined to agree with him. 60 minutes feels too fast to me and more like a rapid game than normal chess.

    Equivalents to 90 minutes using Fischer clock increments could be used too. Using the benchmark of initial + 60 * increment then a time control of 60 minutes + 30 seconds per incement would also be able to be rated. This time control is also good for directors as there is never a situation when a player can legally stop scoring the game and draw claims under 10.2 are avoided.

    In the poll just choose the single period equivalent of what you believe. EG if you think 90 minutes OR 60 + 30s/move should be the minimum then select 90 minutes. Only choose 60 minutes if you think game in 60 minutes (the present minimum) is what it should be.
    Last edited by Barry Cox; 21-04-2004 at 03:05 PM.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,421
    Not wanting to be a troublemaker, but I think it's an issue of the style as well as the length. A game with a guillotine finish, even with a relatively long starting period, still comes down to lightning, or potentially does. Even though 60+10sec is on the short side, it cuts out the nonsense of meaningless shuffling with vigorous clock thumping, or arbiters forming judgements on insufficient losing chances. I am relaxed about rating 60m+10 as "normal" given the practicality that at 90m its difficult to play seven rounds in a weekend.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    How's about 40mins+30secs [from 1]? I vote for that.

    AR

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,308
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    How's about 40mins+30secs [from 1]? I vote for that.

    AR
    this poll has been run before, do you remember that barry?

  5. #5
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    this poll has been run before, do you remember that barry?
    That was a while ago and there is a new bunch of people on here now. Be interesting to gauge current thinking.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    That was a while ago and there is a new bunch of people on here now. Be interesting to gauge current thinking.
    thought you would have countered with, no that was for best time control for weekenders, not for standard rated games

  7. #7
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,054
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    How's about 40mins+30secs [from 1]? I vote for that.

    AR
    According to FIDE thats considered to be equivalent to G/70.

  8. #8
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,325
    I play a lot of G60. I would say that the difference between G60 and G90 is much greater than the difference between G90 and G120 or maybe even slower, but not as great as the difference between G60 and G30 or even between G60 and say G45. In a G60 you can only deeply tactically examine one or two critical positions in the game, an awful lot gets left on the table but still the blunders are nothing like they are in a rapid. I'm still a bit uneasy about G30/+30 being mainlist-ratable but there hasn't been a huge outcry over this lately and I'm not sure how much that limit is used (G40/+30 seems a bit more favoured).

    The time translations are always a bit rubbery. FIDE's 60 moves is an overstatement for most games but an understatement at others. I played a training game at G60/+30 under tournament conditions last week and it went for nearly three and a half hours, which is longer than the longest G90. I'd be interested to know if the tendency for both players to run the clock down to next to nothing is more or less pronounced in the add-ons than in flat games of comparable length.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  9. #9
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    How's about 40mins+30secs [from 1]? I vote for that.
    Sorry AR but I could allow for every combination of possibilities. You'll have to choose between 60 or 90 this time.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #10
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    thought you would have countered with, no that was for best time control for weekenders, not for standard rated games
    That's true but I think one would influence the other. If we only rated G90 games (or equivalents) then we would see less G60 and more G90 weekenders I think.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    That's true but I think one would influence the other. If we only rated G90 games (or equivalents) then we would see less G60 and more G90 weekenders I think.
    I seriously doubt it. See my comments in the underrated junior thread.

  12. #12
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    I seriously doubt it. See my comments in the underrated junior thread.
    I think the main casualties would be the the larger 2 dayers who could not afford to drop to 6 or 5 rounds. Still the standard rating list's loss is the rapid rating list's gain.

    The question is where is the right place for the division of the two lists. G60 feels too fast for me and more like a G30 game than a G90 game. If people are avoiding G60 events because of it then changing the rating division will help the problem in two ways.

    (1) There may be more G90 events. Maybe not many more, but unlikely less.

    (2) People won't avoid the events that stick with G60 because it will not impact their standard rating.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #13
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    I think the main casualties would be the the larger 2 dayers who could not afford to drop to 6 or 5 rounds. Still the standard rating list's loss is the rapid rating list's gain.

    The question is where is the right place for the division of the two lists. G60 feels too fast for me and more like a G30 game than a G90 game. If people are avoiding G60 events because of it then changing the rating division will help the problem in two ways.

    (1) There may be more G90 events. Maybe not many more, but unlikely less.

    (2) People won't avoid the events that stick with G60 because it will not impact their standard rating.
    It seems we are debating this in two threads.
    So be it.

    Dropping rounds just to play G/90 is unlikely to increase player numbers.
    Hence the number of normal rated games will drop.

    The tournaments that stay at G/60 may not end up all getting rated.

    Hence you end up with:
    1) Less rated games in the normal system, hence less reliable ratings.
    2) All though the rapid system may benefit, it is unlikely to be very significant.

    Of course what I find interesting in all this is that although we may all like to pontificate on this, there has never been any sort of groundswell resistance to ther rating of G/60 in the normal system and its been around for at least 10 years.

  14. #14
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Of course what I find interesting in all this is that although we may all like to pontificate on this, there has never been any sort of groundswell resistance to ther rating of G/60 in the normal system and its been around for at least 10 years.
    Perhaps of course all this means is that we are Borg.

  15. #15
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    It seems we are debating this in two threads.
    So be it.
    I'll try to reply in here to save that other one for DR and MS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Dropping rounds just to play G/90 is unlikely to increase player numbers.
    Hence the number of normal rated games will drop.
    I don't know anyone who is avoid G60 games but it seems likely that there may be some. I can't think of too many people who would play in a G60+10 (FIDE) and not in a G60+30 (Fischer) so I think numbers would probably go up. Probably only marginally though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    The tournaments that stay at G/60 may not end up all getting rated.
    I think they would as weekenders need ratings to work organisers are rating currently. The other advantage is that organisers would save on rating fees and thereby be able to give bigger prizes and in turn atrract more players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Hence you end up with:
    1) Less rated games in the normal system, hence less reliable ratings.
    2) All though the rapid system may benefit, it is unlikely to be very significant.
    As I said in the other thread, lowering the SD of time controls would have a positive effect on reliability. Also more players nd more game woould reduce the impact of less game overall.

    I would hope the rapid rating list would be a big winner in this. There is some resistence at my club to rate the club rapid. I consistently argue in favour of keeping it rated as I believe the rapid rating list should be supported (even though most of us don't play in any other rapid events). But I feel most guys don't think the rapid rating is very credible or important, which is a shame.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Of course what I find interesting in all this is that although we may all like to pontificate on this, there has never been any sort of groundswell resistance to ther rating of G/60 in the normal system and its been around for at least 10 years.
    I don't think I'm potificating just exploring possibilities. I think the rating landscape has changed substantially in the last 10 years though and so the issue is worth debating. There could be a silent majority of anti-G60 players out there quietly taking up bridge.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Underrated Juniors
    By Paul S in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 627
    Last Post: 17-02-2008, 08:43 PM
  2. ACF March 2004 Ratings
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 310
    Last Post: 14-04-2004, 03:58 AM
  3. Best posts of 2003
    By paulb in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 289
    Last Post: 29-03-2004, 10:54 AM
  4. Weekend Time Controls
    By shaun in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 14-02-2004, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •