PDA

View Full Version : incremental time control



Garvinator
19-08-2004, 12:57 PM
We are over here from the fracas solved thread:

By Barry Cox:

This is starting to get off topic. I'll reply to your comment but if anyone wants to debate the pros and cons of incremental time contols please start a new thread.

I am a big fan of the incremental time control. However, it's take up at my club has been slow (despite having ample digital timepieces). The main reason for this inertia is the requirement to finish all games by 12 midnight. The DOP is concerned that time controls like 75+30s/move will occasionally lead to overstepping this time limit. The other issue is there seems to be some suspicion of the digital clocks by some of the more "traditional" players.

Garvinator
19-08-2004, 01:11 PM
since i moved the thread to here about increments, i guess i should post something ;) :cool:

I am a big believer in increment games and cant stand guillotine finishes. I believe a game should be decided on the board but with managing your allotted time as a factor in the game.

Also i think increments are a better way to play tournament chess as it removes rule 10.2.

Barry, i take you were playing with a dgt clock with your afore-mentioned game. I know that the 40 in 90 min timer is pre programmed, but i am not a fan of this time control for two reasons:

1) There are two periods when the arbiter could have to make rulings based on time issues
2) The two periods of no recording can give rise to disputes (ie how many moves played etc).

With a dgt, you can use 40 moves in 70 minutes plus 30 secs per move and get the same effect for the first part of the time control (except that both players must keep recording throughout). Then for the second period, if games going for ages is a real concern, then just use 30 minutes plus 10 secs or something similiar. this would only add about 10 minutes on to the game that finishes last.

Bill Gletsos
19-08-2004, 01:46 PM
since i moved the thread to here about increments, i guess i should post something ;) :cool:

I am a big believer in increment games and cant stand guillotine finishes. I believe a game should be decided on the board but with managing your allotted time as a factor in the game.
One could argue that guillotine finishes are still determined over the board.


Also i think increments are a better way to play tournament chess as it removes rule 10.2.
Over the last few years in the NSW Grade Matches where guillotine finshes are in effect there would have been about 3 per year determined via 10.2 (in reality Article D since no arbiter is present).


Barry, i take you were playing with a dgt clock with your afore-mentioned game. I know that the 40 in 90 min timer is pre programmed, but i am not a fan of this time control for two reasons:

1) There are two periods when the arbiter could have to make rulings based on time issues
I would think this would normally only be one period since only the first time period has X moves in Y minutes. The liekly hood of a time ruling being requuired in the second would only be if there was a dispute over whether there was a mate/stalemate/no mating material and a claim for a flag fall at that time.

2) The two periods of no recording can give rise to disputes (ie how many moves played etc).
Moves played isnt an issue in the second time period.


With a dgt, you can use 40 moves in 70 minutes plus 30 secs per move and get the same effect for the first part of the time control (except that both players must keep recording throughout).
This part is true but having no recording isnt such a major issue.


Then for the second period, if games going for ages is a real concern, then just use 30 minutes plus 10 secs or something similiar. this would only add about 10 minutes on to the game that finishes last.
This doesnt really achieve much.
The players are not required to record due to the increment being less than 30 secs. All it does is remove Artile 10.2 which in practice isnt such a major issue especially with a competent arbiter.

1min_grandmaster
19-08-2004, 01:57 PM
From a player's perspective, one should be able to handle both guillotine and incremental time controls. At the start of the game, both players have an equal amount of time and both players know how the time control works (they are responsible for this, anyhow).

If a player squanders their time in a guillotine time control and their opponent manages their time better, then the player low on time has no one else but themselves to blame. At the same time, the player who invests more time on their moves and comes with sufficiently good moves to win (with enough time on their hands) deserves to win, and the player who did not manage their plans on the chessboard has no one else but themselves to blame. It is not the fault of the time control nor the rules of the game.

There is the argument that the game should be decided on the board, that is, whoever has more skill should win. But isn't managing your time part of the skill in tournament chess? Dealing with the time factor is just as integral a part of competitive chess as knowing how to form plans and analysing variations.

From an arbiter's or organiser's perspective, both forms of time control have their advantages and disadvantages, which are obvious. Guillotine time controls allows you to confidently guarantee round times. Incremental time controls allow for less arbiter intervention, in particular, rule 10.2 becomes void.

One problem with incremental time controls is that players who adjust pieces on their opponent's time, especially after having knocked over many pieces, can often get away with it.

Imagine this scenario, which I have often had in practice. In a game with an incremental time control, say 10 secs/move, both players are short on time. Your opponent makes a move, knocks over lots of pieces on the board, including the piece that they 'moved', and then hits the clock. Some of the pieces end up on the floor and are rolling away. Now, on your time, they adjust the pieces (or even worse, they don't, using the reasoning that it's your time). What can you do? You can't hit the clock, because then you reward them with more time. But in a guillotine finish, you can hit the clock and they have to be responsible for their actions.

arosar
19-08-2004, 02:11 PM
Imagine this scenario, which I have often had in practice. In a game with an incremental time control, say 10 secs/move, both players are short on time. Your opponent makes a move, knocks over lots of pieces on the board, including the piece that they 'moved', and then hits the clock. Some of the pieces end up on the floor and are rolling away. Now, on your time, they adjust the pieces (or even worse, they don't, using the reasoning that it's your time). What can you do? You can't hit the clock, because then you reward them with more time. But in a guillotine finish, you can hit the clock and they have to be responsible for their actions.

I'd just holler over the DOP and ask for the time to be adjusted. It's a messy affair, I suppose - but it goes to the same advantages/disadvantages you mention.

AR

ursogr8
19-08-2004, 02:27 PM
From a player's perspective, one should be able to handle both guillotine and incremental time controls. At the start of the game, both players have an equal amount of time and both players know how the time control works (they are responsible for this, anyhow).

If a player squanders their time in a guillotine time control and their opponent manages their time better, then the player low on time has no one else but themselves to blame. At the same time, the player who invests more time on their moves and comes with sufficiently good moves to win (with enough time on their hands) deserves to win, and the player who did not manage their plans on the chessboard has no one else but themselves to blame. It is not the fault of the time control nor the rules of the game.

There is the argument that the game should be decided on the board, that is, whoever has more skill should win. But isn't managing your time part of the skill in tournament chess? Dealing with the time factor is just as integral a part of competitive chess as knowing how to form plans and analysing variations.

From an arbiter's or organiser's perspective, both forms of time control have their advantages and disadvantages, which are obvious. Guillotine time controls allows you to confidently guarantee round times. Incremental time controls allow for less arbiter intervention, in particular, rule 10.2 becomes void.

Great post down to here 1mGM.
So good I'm not going to bother commenting on Bill's post.




One problem with incremental time controls is that players who adjust pieces on their opponent's time, especially after having knocked over many pieces, can often get away with it.

Imagine this scenario, which I have often had in practice. In a game with an incremental time control, say 10 secs/move, both players are short on time. Your opponent makes a move, knocks over lots of pieces on the board, including the piece that they 'moved', and then hits the clock. Some of the pieces end up on the floor and are rolling away. Now, on your time, they adjust the pieces (or even worse, they don't, using the reasoning that it's your time). What can you do? You can't hit the clock, because then you reward them with more time. But in a guillotine finish, you can hit the clock and they have to be responsible for their actions.

But now you get a bit fanciful.
Amiel's post gives you the answer to this side issue.

starter

Rincewind
19-08-2004, 02:53 PM
But now you get a bit fanciful.
Amiel's post gives you the answer to this side issue.

That is not a solution as since the arbiter has to be summoned the clock will be stopped and meanwhile his opponent has corrected the position without losing any of his own time. This is not as satisfactory a solution as just starting your opponent's clock and asking them to fix the position on their time.

The same is true in my position the other night. Perhaps the arbiter, to punish my opponent, might have given me 2 minutes extra time. However, while he is adjusting the clock, my opponent get that time to consider the position on the board even longer. So is that really a punishment?

The only answer to 1minGM's problem would be a button which could be use to stop your clock and start your opponents without applying the increment. However, having such a button is a dangerous thing. ;)

arosar
19-08-2004, 03:01 PM
This is not as satisfactory a solution as just starting your opponent's clock and asking them to fix the position on their time.

Yeah, you can do that but 1mGM is complaining that by doing so, you're giving your opponent extra time. Since this seems unfair, the DOP should be summoned in order to remove the time added on.

AR

Rincewind
19-08-2004, 03:06 PM
Yeah, you can do that but 1mGM is complaining that by doing so, you're giving your opponent extra time. Since this seems unfair, the DOP should be summoned in order to remove the time added on.

Yes, that is the point. When I said: "This is not as satisfactory a solution as just starting your opponent's clock and asking them to fix the position on their time." I meant when NOT using incremental time controls. I thought that was clear from context.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2004, 08:35 PM
Over the last few years in the NSW Grade Matches where guillotine finshes are in effect there would have been about 3 per year determined via 10.2 (in reality Article D since no arbiter is present).

Out of interest, do you know:

* what proportion of these have been rejected.
* whether any have not been straightforward.

Garvinator
20-08-2004, 09:15 PM
[QUOTE]From a player's perspective, one should be able to handle both guillotine and incremental time controls. At the start of the game, both players have an equal amount of time and both players know how the time control works (they are responsible for this, anyhow).

If a player squanders their time in a guillotine time control and their opponent manages their time better, then the player low on time has no one else but themselves to blame. At the same time, the player who invests more time on their moves and comes with sufficiently good moves to win (with enough time on their hands) deserves to win, and the player who did not manage their plans on the chessboard has no one else but themselves to blame. It is not the fault of the time control nor the rules of the game.
even though accurate in what it says, doesnt in my opinion actually debate itc v guill issue.


There is the argument that the game should be decided on the board, that is, whoever has more skill should win. But isn't managing your time part of the skill in tournament chess? Dealing with the time factor is just as integral a part of competitive chess as knowing how to form plans and analysing variations.no disagreement here either. But this factor is equal for both itc and guill.


Imagine this scenario, which I have often had in practice. In a game with an incremental time control, say 10 secs/move, both players are short on time. Your opponent makes a move, knocks over lots of pieces on the board, including the piece that they 'moved', and then hits the clock. Some of the pieces end up on the floor and are rolling away. Now, on your time, they adjust the pieces (or even worse, they don't, using the reasoning that it's your time). What can you do? You can't hit the clock, because then you reward them with more time. But in a guillotine finish, you can hit the clock and they have to be responsible for their actions.
and just like any situation, you stop the clock and call for the arbiter to settle the argument. I am still waiting for a convincing argument as to how guillotine is better than itc.

Bill Gletsos
20-08-2004, 10:39 PM
even though accurate in what it says, doesnt in my opinion actually debate itc v guill issue.
I disagree. I think it does.
He is saying that both types require you to wisely use your allotted time just in different ways.


no disagreement here either. But this factor is equal for both itc and guill.
Well it would appear that you disagree based on post #2 where you said

I am a big believer in increment games and cant stand guillotine finishes. I believe a game should be decided on the board but with managing your allotted time as a factor in the game.


and just like any situation, you stop the clock and call for the arbiter to settle the argument. I am still waiting for a convincing argument as to how guillotine is better than itc.
You were the one who suggested itc was better when you said:

Also i think increments are a better way to play tournament chess as it removes rule 10.2.

I think what 1minGm was saying in his post was that itc was not necessarily better than guill.

Bill Gletsos
20-08-2004, 11:35 PM
Out of interest, do you know:

* what proportion of these have been rejected.
* whether any have not been straightforward.
As far as I am aware none have been rejected, but I will confirm this with the Grade Match Arbiter next time I talk to him.

A few years back prior to our publishing Article D in the rule book the following scenario occurred.

Player A makes a draw claim with under 5 mins but more than 2 mins left on his clock. Player B points out this is not allowed. Player A refuses to play on.
The situation is reported to the Grade Match Arbiter the next day. Player A has no up to date score sheet. Player B's is a move or two behind. Player B provides the position, which is backed up by a witness. Player B is clearly winning (he has a Knight in a Knight and pawns V pawns endgame).
The grade match arbiter speaks to both players and rules that the game be continued. Player B is agreeable, Player A is not. Player A appeals to the NSWCA Appeals committee.
The appeals committee was provided with the same information as descriibed above with the addition of the position as described by Player A. It is sufficiently different from Player B's position such that the position is drawn due to one of plater A's pawns now be protected and passed oin the 7th rank.(In Player B's its on the 5th.)

The Appeals committee unanimously decided the following:
Players A's appeal was dismissed.
The arbiters decision was overturned and the game declared won by player B.
The onus was on Player A to know the rules.
He made an illegal claim and illegally stopped playing. He has to suffer the consequences of his actions.
A player should not be able to make an illegal claim and stop playing and then be given the possibility of continuing the game a few days later having had the chance to use computer assistance.
The issue of the differnt positions supplied by the two players was not referred to in the Appeal Committee's response, however the committee would accepted that Player B's version was a true representation of the position.

Its a similar situation to having a disagreement with the opponent and then deciding to play on "under protest". If you believe your opponent is in a breach of the rules and the two team captains cannot resolve it then you should just refuse to play on. Howver if you are going to take this course of action you need to be damn sure the rules are on your side. Of not then its best to play on without the "under protest" claim.
After all the "under protest" claim is just a case of having a bet each way. If you win then you dont bother to protest. If you lose you protest.
The NSWCA Appeals Committee will as a general rule pretty much reject any appeal if the appelant played on "under protest".



Just as an aside to make sure everyone was aware of the Article D and the procedures we actually print the following in the Grade Match book:
1. Be conversant with the current (July 2001) FIDE Laws of Chess. In particular, in the final 30 minutes to finish the game, nobody is allowed to point out a flagfall except the two players playing the game. Team captains must not point out flagfalls in any games but their own.

Be aware also of the rule governing draw claims in the final 30 minutes to finish the game. A draw may be claimed by a player with less than 2 minutes on their clock - before their flag falls - if they feel that their opponent is only “playing for time”. The procedure described in Article D of the Laws of Chess regarding Quickplay Finishes where no Arbiter is present must be followed. The player shall forward the relevant information to the Grade Match Arbiter.

2. Article D of the Laws of chess is as follows:

Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.

He may claim on the basis

(a) that his opponent cannot win by normal means, or

(b) that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.

In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet, which must be completed before play has ceased. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.

The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.

ursogr8
21-08-2004, 05:43 PM
That is not a solution as since the arbiter has to be summoned the clock will be stopped and meanwhile his opponent has corrected the position without losing any of his own time. This is not as satisfactory a solution as just starting your opponent's clock and asking them to fix the position on their time.

The same is true in my position the other night. Perhaps the arbiter, to punish my opponent, might have given me 2 minutes extra time. However, while he is adjusting the clock, my opponent get that time to consider the position on the board even longer. So is that really a punishment?

The only answer to 1minGM's problem would be a button which could be use to stop your clock and start your opponents without applying the increment. However, having such a button is a dangerous thing. ;)

Barry
I agreed with both of Amiel's posts. But now I see reading a later post of yours, you had different context.
starter

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2004, 10:57 PM
As far as I am aware none have been rejected, but I will confirm this with the Grade Match Arbiter next time I talk to him.

NSWCA Grade Match players may be using the rule more sensibly than people do here then. Most 10.2 claims here don't get upheld, and that includes the few Article D cases we've had.


The Appeals committee unanimously decided the following:
Players A's appeal was dismissed.
The arbiters decision was overturned and the game declared won by player B.

Agree totally.

antichrist
23-08-2004, 06:51 PM
Without reading all the posts as paying for this, in increment time what would happen if more than one board knocked over their pieces. The arbiter can't be in two places at once.

antichrist
14-03-2005, 03:13 PM
One of the major reasons I stopped going to tournaments was due to the intro of time increment. As a person who did handle time very well (relatively) I thought they were taking my advantage away from me, i.e., the better player. So the lesser player got a second chance.

What is the use of say 20 mins each with 10 sec per move increment? Why not just put it at 30mins each and be done with it and the better player deservedly keeps his advantage. I know some players who are shocking at time and deservedly should lose.

I was in one game in time increment where my opponent would not have even got anywhere close to endgame due to time trouble under the guillotine method and yet was playing on for a draw due to repetitions or stalemates. Having ten sec increments is a luxury when only kings and one piece left on the board. I still had 100% of my time. Is this a just ending??

Why reward the inadequate and penalise the better.

One way to avoid this injustice is that in time increment competitions, each round each player has the choice whether to veto time increment therefore reverting to guillotine. And extra 5 or 10 mins can be added or nothing at the beginning if guillotine method, this is decided at the beginning of the comp.

Anyway, I decided never to go to a time-increment comp. again so no one will see my money.

pballard
14-03-2005, 04:20 PM
One of the major reasons I stopped going to tournaments was due to the intro of time increment. As a person who did handle time very well (relatively) I thought they were taking my advantage away from me, i.e., the better player. So the lesser player got a second chance.

What is the use of say 20 mins each with 10 sec per move increment? Why not just put it at 30mins each and be done with it and the better player deservedly keeps his advantage. I know some players who are shocking at time and deservedly should lose.

Hi AC. Interesting argument. I admit I'm often bad at managing my time and do badly at guillotine for that reason. And I also admit that one of the reasons for time increment is to protect bad time managers, i.e. forcing them to use their time better.

However I can think of another reason why incremental time controls inherently are a good thing, aside from protecting bad time managers like me. That is: neither player knows how long the game will last, and so players are given more time when the game goes longer.

Consider this example - which used to happen to me quite a lot in "allegro" time limits (20 or 30 mins a game) :) - I've built up a strong attack, but if I sac a piece now, does it lead to forced mate? I sit there analysing, analysing... now I'm down to 5 minutes on my clock. What do I do? Keep analysing, or play a safe move? If I keep analysing, and I find after (say) 3 more minutes that the sac forces mate, then good, I have 2 minutes to finish my opponent off. But if, after that 3 minutes, I find the sac is unsound... I'm screwed :). I then play the safe move (with 2 minutes left on my clock), but all my opponent has to do is shuffle his pieces and I lose on time. But if there's a time increment, I can continue to play moves, and at least the game keeps going, instead of me inevitably losing on time.

Like I said, the beauty of time increments is that the longer the game goes, the more time you get, which is (at least from my perspective) fair. Instead of rewarding time budgeting, it rewards good chess. And it doesn't have to be much: 10 seconds/move only adds 10 minutes for an extra 30 moves per player.

OTOH the guillotine time control forces me to analyse less, to preserve time just in case the games goes longer. Which, IMHO, makes for worse chess.

Of course I respect your decision, I just thought I'd offer another perspective.

--
Peter

antichrist
14-03-2005, 04:46 PM
I can also see and appreciate your points but can only repeat I just lost a very good advantage so I just don't bother, I was not consulted. So the only comps I go to now are the ones I organise myself -- funny aye!

What is really behind it is my pride, I was faster than everyone else (in old hometown) and now they are given a leg up to have a go at me.

Rhubarb
14-03-2005, 04:53 PM
I just thought I'd offer another perspective.Just to summarise what you said, Peter B, the whole point of the increment is to have more games decided on the board rather than by the clock, while still giving both players the same amount of time to invest as they see fit, and at the same time having a negligible effect on tournament time-tabling.

Rincewind
14-03-2005, 05:16 PM
Just to summarise what you said, Peter B, the whole point of the increment is to have more games decided on the board rather than by the clock, while still giving both players the same amount of time to invest as they see fit, and at the same time having a negligible effect on tournament time-tabling.

It also has the added advantage of discouraging AC from attending your event. ;)

Rhubarb
14-03-2005, 05:34 PM
It also has the added advantage of discouraging AC from attending your event. ;)Baz, that's why I edited my post! It contained a minor flame of AC but then I noticed AC' next post was unusually balanced and intelligent so I deleted the flame part.

Rincewind
14-03-2005, 05:52 PM
Baz, that's why I edited my post! It contained a minor flame of AC but then I noticed AC' next post was unusually balanced and intelligent so I deleted the flame part.

I think there is a place for guillotine finishes in Blitz tournies and I think they are still mostly run as such. But for more serious chess I think most people prefer the game settled at the board, and not by the clock. It also has the potential to simplify things for DsOP (like AC) too.

Garvinator
14-03-2005, 08:50 PM
I think there is a place for guillotine finishes in Blitz tournies and I think they are still mostly run as such. But for more serious chess I think most people prefer the game settled at the board, and not by the clock. It also has the potential to simplify things for DsOP (like AC) too.
As a player i hate guillotine. It looks like ac and i will never play in the same tournament as i dont participate in rated tournaments that are guillotine.

One of the main reasons I dont like guillotine is that games can be decided by the arbiter under 10.2. I prefer to have my games decided on the board. If you run out of time in an increment game, then you deserve to lose for such poor time management.

antichrist
14-03-2005, 09:51 PM
It also has the added advantage of discouraging AC from attending your event. ;)

That is where you are wrong. When I have time I still trot along, play social games in between and hassle the organisers. So you will apprec where I am coming from I consider time increment BS. I am surprised no one has complained before.

Rincewind
14-03-2005, 10:04 PM
That is where you are wrong. When I have time I still trot along, play social games in between and hassle the organisers. So you will apprec where I am coming from I consider time increment BS. I am surprised no one has complained before.

There was a time when chess was a game played between gentlemen and clocks were not required.

antichrist
14-03-2005, 10:13 PM
There was a time when chess was a game played between gentlemen and clocks were not required.

Yeah, but how long did the World Championship take, forty days and forty nights. Again the player who can't handle time gets an advantage.

Recherché
15-03-2005, 10:20 PM
I can't stand time controls that have no increment. I don't really have a problem with time controls like "forty moves in sixty minutes", as long as there's an increment on the last time control. There's a big difference between knowing you must make ten more moves in the five minutes you have left at this time control, and somehow trying to squeeze a complicated (even if entirely winning) engame of indeterminate duration into your last few minutes. Every move unavoidably costs time, at minumum about 2 seconds if you're moving legally.


There was a time when chess was a game played between gentlemen and clocks were not required.

Clocks and ladies are both good for the game, in my opinion. :)

antichrist
15-03-2005, 11:20 PM
I can't stand time controls that have no increment. I don't really have a problem with time controls like "forty moves in sixty minutes", as long as there's an increment on the last time control. There's a big difference between knowing you must make ten more moves in the five minutes you have left at this time control, and somehow trying to squeeze a complicated (even if entirely winning) engame of indeterminate duration into your last few minutes. Every move unavoidably costs time, at minumum about 2 seconds if you're moving legally.



Clocks and ladies are both good for the game, in my opinion. :)

Well we can agree on that if not on time increments.
You may like this one I have no idea.

from strip chess thread

I was just thinking my second option in that strip chess poll could be a winner (mixed gender strip transfer chess) , reality tv of course. Imagine transdressing on tv, a definite winner, and how spectators would follow the game to access what will come off who next and go onto who next. Low brow maybe but deserves ago. Kerry Packer is a chess fan, can anyone ring him up?

Rincewind
15-03-2005, 11:45 PM
Clocks and ladies are both good for the game, in my opinion. :)

Ladies were permitted, provided they played like gentlemen. ;)

antichrist
16-03-2005, 12:13 AM
Ladies were permitted, provided they played like gentlemen. ;)

I have a butch lesbian friend that I love playing with, must include chess of course. Edit: Actually not necessary.

Recherché
16-03-2005, 08:59 AM
You may like this one I have no idea.

It's hard to see strip chess getting off the ground.

antichrist
16-03-2005, 09:57 AM
It's hard to see strip chess getting off the ground.

That would make it a guaranteed winner.

revisiting.

Where did you get that previous quote of mine from??

The mixed gender transfer to lightning time with exchanging clothes maybe. Only allow gorgeous and hunk types on tv, not the L Fell or my generation.

The correct commentary and everything else is essential.

What a crowd and tv puller if we could arrange an exhibo at the end of a major comp.

have transferred this post to Strip chess in Non Chess

Thunderspirit
16-03-2005, 06:50 PM
This issue is very easy. Both time controls should exist because there are players who like both. Sudden death finishes offer the time scramble junkie their drug while other players like the possibility to gain time, and not get blitzed.

In Europe sudden death finishes are present always as there aren't enough DGT's especially for large events, though I played 2 events where there was enough DGT's but a sudden death finishes were still used.

The most common time limit is 40/105 + g/15. This is the weekender time limit. There a six games (one on Fri night) and players can have one 1/2 pt bye in the first 5 rounds. The quality of chess is generally better than the junk that is g/60 or g/60+10 sec.

As a DOP I prefer DGT's. There are no claims under the 2 minute rule, and the players decide the game rather than the DOP. As a organiser, DGT's can run rounds late, and as a player I like the gullitien finish, the chess is bad, but I concede it 1. fun, and 2. you can get points you don't deserve.

I think most club have some DGT's and so can offer both. Club's without them will probably have to have a 4 hr game with a blitz finish, unless they are happy with a time limit like 40/90+ 20/30 (repeating), which was oldies but goodie employed at Woden chess club when I was a kid.

It's all about marketing- give the players what they want...

antichrist
16-03-2005, 09:13 PM
I do think it was too peaceful a surrender by those who handle time well.

As far as I know I am the only person protesting, this surprises me.

Alan Shore
16-03-2005, 11:18 PM
I do think it was too peaceful a surrender by those who handle time well.

As far as I know I am the only person protesting, this surprises me.

AC, you're not the only one, I've written extensively supporting the G60 time control in old threads. I was a huge critic too of the 40 30 time control... it was ridiculous with some games going forever and delaying the start of the next round by more than an hour!

Question: If the TC is 60 1, does this eliminate any 10.2 claims under 2 mins?

Ian Rout
17-03-2005, 08:01 AM
Perhaps the two key points were

I think there is a place for guillotine finishes in Blitz tournies and I think they are still mostly run as such.
and


It's all about marketing- give the players what they want...
If there is significant demand for guillotine chess, which these days should be classified like rapid/blitz as a category in its own right, then let's have them for those who like it.

I suspect the reason we don't is that most people who like lightning recognise the inefficiency of spending two hours setting it up, with no guarantee that the game won't finish earlier. You can play a whole tournament in that time.

Interestingly there is a distinction between "guillotine" and "rapid". You can play, say 20 minutes plus 10 seconds/move which is about twice as fast as G60 but without the guillotine finish.

Recherché
17-03-2005, 10:17 AM
Where did you get that previous quote of mine from??

This thread. Post #29.

Thunderspirit
17-03-2005, 07:16 PM
AC, you're not the only one, I've written extensively supporting the G60 time control in old threads. I was a huge critic too of the 40 30 time control... it was ridiculous with some games going forever and delaying the start of the next round by more than an hour!

Question: If the TC is 60 1, does this eliminate any 10.2 claims under 2 mins?

On the first point I agree. The 40/30 time limit was a bad experiment. It was good that it was tried, but now it's gone.

On the second question does 60+1sec per move remove draw claims under the two minute rule, the answer is yes. Which proves a point that these time controls can be silly as well.

I believe if you are going to use DGT's the incremient should be 1 min. 30 sec is only pracitcal for club chess but then many players find it hard to keep their score sheet up to date and play Ok moves with just the 30 secs.

This is another reason I like g/60, after 55 minutes or perhaps 56 or 57 the pen goes down, and I make a decision not to record. This has conquences like not being able to claim repititions, but it's a judgement call.