PDA

View Full Version : FIDE Extends Use of 90 + 30 Time Control to 1st January 2011



Bill Gletsos
08-06-2010, 11:30 PM
FIDE has announced the following.


The Presidential Board decided in Bursa to extend the validity for the official use of the time control 90 minutes with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from the first move, from July 1st 2010 to 1st January 2011. This followed representations to the Board and was made to enable the General Assembly in Khanty-Mansiysk to take a final decision on FIDE time controls. It was agreed that no further changes after Khanty-Mansiysk should be allowed for four years.

Garvinator
08-06-2010, 11:40 PM
I thought the 90 + 30 was going to get the chop for norm tournaments, but could still be used for fide rated events.

Is it this deadline that has been extended? Or is the proposal now (or always was) that 90 + 30 will not be allowed for any fide rated event?

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2010, 12:23 AM
I thought the 90 + 30 was going to get the chop for norm tournaments, but could still be used for fide rated events.

Is it this deadline that has been extended? Or is the proposal now (or always was) that 90 + 30 will not be allowed for any fide rated event?I take the announcement to mean that 90+30 will be extended for norm tournaments until 1st January 2011.
It was always valid and remains so for FIDE rated events.

FM_Bill
02-07-2010, 10:45 PM
What was the alternative time control they were considering?

Garvinator
02-07-2010, 10:47 PM
What was the alternative time control they were considering?40 moves in 90 mins, followed by 30 minutes, with a 30 second increment for all moves was going to be the minimum.

Rhubarb
01-01-2011, 01:05 AM
Last week I got an update from Shaun Press who has a contact in FIDE's Qualification Commission. While it hasn't been formalised yet, it is almost certain that the 90m + 30s increment will remain a valid time control for norm tournaments at least until the 2012 Congress.

Bill Gletsos
05-03-2011, 10:49 PM
The minutes of the Qualification Commission from the FIDE congress in Khanty-Mansiysk in 2010 indicate that the time control of 90m + 30s will remain valid for title norms until 30th June 2013

Garvinator
05-03-2011, 11:13 PM
The minutes of the Qualification Commission from the FIDE congress in Khanty-Mansiysk in 2010 indicate that the time control of 90m + 30s will remain valid for title norms until 30th June 2013
I wonder why it keeps being extended, but remains on the books to be re-considered?

Keong Ang
06-03-2011, 12:51 AM
I wonder why it keeps being extended, but remains on the books to be re-considered?

Hmm? You're an arbiter, and an FA to boot and don't know??? :rolleyes:

It's the arbiters that are demanding it to be kept because 90m + 30s increment is the best time control for arbiters. :owned:

There is no need to continually patrol the tournament hall to check the move counter, as in the 90m + 30m (after 40moves) + 30s from move one time control.

30s increment requires the players to keep scoresheets all the time.
Sure makes it easier for the arbiter in settling disputes.

The 90m + 30s tournament round is short enough and less taxing on the arbiter's stamina.

Why on books to be reconsidered? Because the strong players tend to dislike it.

At least that's what I've been told. :cool:

antichrist
06-03-2011, 06:49 AM
Hmm? You're an arbiter, and an FA to boot and don't know??? :rolleyes:

It's the arbiters that are demanding it to be kept because 90m + 30s increment is the best time control for arbiters. :owned:

There is no need to continually patrol the tournament hall to check the move counter, as in the 90m + 30m (after 40moves) + 30s from move one time control.

30s increment requires the players to keep scoresheets all the time.
Sure makes it easier for the arbiter in settling disputes.

The 90m + 30s tournament round is short enough and less taxing on the arbiter's stamina.

Why on books to be reconsidered? Because the strong players tend to dislike it.

At least that's what I've been told. :cool:


And lower players like myself also dislike it. Why? Because I handle time quite well and is an advantage for me even against some higher-rated players.

Well the flagfall guillotine finish let me squezze them where they don't like it, and deservedly I would win because of that talent. But increment time takes away my natural advantage so the less talented can keep me hanging in getting more tired for no reason at all, coz eventually due to their bad time or position they will fall. In flagfall days I could finish earlier and go enjoy looking in on top boards where my mates were playing. But not with increment. And as arbiter Lyons says, it takes the sport out of chess.

And I have read that the same results are coming out with increment at higher levels, so what is in it for them? The main reason I left the game was because of increment time.

Garvinator
06-03-2011, 06:50 AM
There is no need to continually patrol the tournament hall to check the move counter, as in the 90m + 30m (after 40moves) + 30s from move one time control.Using the dgt xl or dgt 2010, the move counter is not set as per fide instructions. There is a thread on here about that, trying to clarify if the move counter is set or not. The answer eventually was to not set the counter.

So what then happens is that the 30 minutes is added when the first players clock reaches zero, which is how the laws are defined for when the 30 minutes is added.

I have found that when I was using the move counter, it created so many issues that it is better not to set the move counter. The arbiter only then needs to check that 40 moves have been reached once a clock reaches zero.

With using the move counter, this scenario can occur- Player passes move 40 on the clock, and receives the 30 minutes and starts thinking for a few minutes. Then opponent claims that it is only move 38 on the scoresheets and the player has over-stepped the time control.

Not using the move counter avoids this scenario completely.

I have also found that most games do not drag on that much longer at all with the extra 30 mins. I think this is because players are aware they have to make 40 moves, so they get on with the game a bit, meaning almost all games are over a bit quicker. The only games that use the extra 30 mins are ones that have a decent ending and then the 30 mins is useful and worthwhile.

Keong Ang
06-03-2011, 08:32 PM
Using the dgt xl or dgt 2010, the move counter is not set as per fide instructions. There is a thread on here about that, trying to clarify if the move counter is set or not. The answer eventually was to not set the counter.

So what then happens is that the 30 minutes is added when the first players clock reaches zero, which is how the laws are defined for when the 30 minutes is added.

I have found that when I was using the move counter, it created so many issues that it is better not to set the move counter. The arbiter only then needs to check that 40 moves have been reached once a clock reaches zero.

With using the move counter, this scenario can occur- Player passes move 40 on the clock, and receives the 30 minutes and starts thinking for a few minutes. Then opponent claims that it is only move 38 on the scoresheets and the player has over-stepped the time control.

Not using the move counter avoids this scenario completely.

I have also found that most games do not drag on that much longer at all with the extra 30 mins. I think this is because players are aware they have to make 40 moves, so they get on with the game a bit, meaning almost all games are over a bit quicker. The only games that use the extra 30 mins are ones that have a decent ending and then the 30 mins is useful and worthwhile.

I find that the 30 minute extra time period after 40 moves easier to implement if the DGT XL or DGT2010 move counter was used. I only needed to check that the move counter tallies with the scoresheets progressively before the 40 move time period is crossed. If the clocks were allowed to run down to zero before having an extra 30 minutes added, we'd have to make sure nobody is waiting around for the extra time to be given.

I find that it's much easier to check the clocks against scoresheets progressively than to rush around the tournament hall frantically adding 30 minutes when flags start to fall, usually around the same time.

In the end it's really a matter of arbiter preference I suppose.

Bill Gletsos
06-03-2011, 08:53 PM
I find that it's much easier to check the clocks against scoresheets progressively than to rush around the tournament hall frantically adding 30 minutes when flags start to fall, usually around the same time.Why would you need to rush around the tournament hall frantically adding 30 minutes when the flags start to fall since the DGTXL and DGT2010 clock will do this automatically.

Keong Ang
07-03-2011, 07:11 AM
Why would you need to rush around the tournament hall frantically adding 30 minutes when the flags start to fall since the DGTXL and DGT2010 clock will do this automatically.

That's exactly why we use the move counter on those DGT clocks. Once 40 moves are done, 30 minutes are added. All done automatically. No need to frantically rush around the tournament hall. Instead just sedately go around checking that the move counters are in line with scoresheets.

I was responding to Garvin's statement about using single period time controls on the clocks, then manually adding the 30 minutes when flags start to fall. That causes much frantic rushing around to add 30 minutes! It would be much simpler to use the clocks multi time period move counter features.

Maybe I have misunderstood Garvin's statement... :hmm:

The easiest solution (for arbiters) is to have a 90m + 30s increment time control. It really makes the arbiters job much easier.

Bill Gletsos
07-03-2011, 09:36 AM
That's exactly why we use the move counter on those DGT clocks. Once 40 moves are done, 30 minutes are added. All done automatically. No need to frantically rush around the tournament hall. Instead just sedately go around checking that the move counters are in line with scoresheets.

I was responding to Garvin's statement about using single period time controls on the clocks, then manually adding the 30 minutes when flags start to fall. That causes much frantic rushing around to add 30 minutes! It would be much simpler to use the clocks multi time period move counter features.

Maybe I have misunderstood Garvin's statement... :hmm:I believe you have.

Keong Ang
07-03-2011, 07:55 PM
I believe you have.

...and I did misunderstand Garvin's statement, and went off on a tangent! :doh:

Garvinator
07-03-2011, 07:59 PM
...and I did misunderstand Garvin's statement, and went off on a tangent! :doh:Would you care for a takeback and have another go ;) :)