PDA

View Full Version : Weekend Time Controls



shaun
09-02-2004, 07:07 PM
While G/60 or 60mins + 10s a move have been standard time controls for Australian weekenders for the last 15 years, they don't always allow the best chess to be played. The (near) sudden death nature of the time control often reduces a game between two evenly matched opponents to a lottery, especially on the top boards. I believe longer increments would solve this problem and this poll is to guage what increments would be preferred.
An explanation of the choices.
60m+10s inc: Increment from the start, so by move 60 each player has a total time of 70 mins. Every 30 moves extends the time by 5 minutes for each player.
50m+20s inc: Increment from the start. Same amount of time at move 60, but every 30 moves extends the time by 10 mins for each player.
40m+30s inc: Increment from the start. Again the same amount of time at move 60, but every 30 moves extends the time by 15 mins for each player.
How am I expected to swindle if it isn't sudden death: This option speaks for itself.
The choices I've presented basically trade off initial time against increment. My assumption is the bigger the increment, the better (and fairer) the chess. However the other problem is longer sessions. For option 3, a 3 hour playing session would almost certainly be required and if you were playing 4 rounds on the Saturday, this would amount to 12 hours of chess. Likely round times for a 7 round event would be: Day 1 10am, 1pm, 4pm, 7pm Day 2: 9am, 12 noon, 3pm with lunch and dinner breaks taken whenever they can, rather than being scheduled.
Anyway, please vote and/or comment, as the results will be used in the planning for the ANU Open and other events I am involved in.

Garvinator
09-02-2004, 07:25 PM
my club, brisbane chess club is trying for our autumn swiss tourney the timer of 30/30 but it is a one game per week tournament. This would at least give some idea what the average timer of game etc is.

I have proposed this timer before as a potential weekender timer.



Bill can you answer a question for me on rated games.

Our club is thinking of using a timer of 30 mins per game, plus 30 seconds from the end of the 30 mins for one of our tournaments. Will this timer meet the requirements for the 60 minute rated game rule? If not, what time would we need to use to get the games rated on the long time control system?

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 08:01 PM
my club, brisbane chess club is trying for our autumn swiss tourney the timer of 30/30 but it is a one game per week tournament. This would at least give some idea what the average timer of game etc is.

I have proposed this timer before as a potential weekender timer.



Bill can you answer a question for me on rated games.

Our club is thinking of using a timer of 30 mins per game, plus 30 seconds from the end of the 30 mins for one of our tournaments. Will this timer meet the requirements for the 60 minute rated game rule? If not, what time would we need to use to get the games rated on the long time control system?
That is no good.
Currently the rule is if the time control is X/Y where X is the initial time and Y is the increment from move 1, then provided X is 30-59 and Y is 30 or greater then the game is rated in the normal system.
If X is 60 then Y does not matter and it is rated in the normal system.
If X is less than 30 then its always rated under rapid irrespective of the value of Y.
If Y is not from move 1 then unless X is 60 its always rapid.

Under Shaun's options above A and C would be rated under normal and B would be rated under rapid.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2004, 08:17 PM
While G/60 or 60mins + 10s a move have been standard time controls for Australian weekenders for the last 15 years, they don't always allow the best chess to be played. The (near) sudden death nature of the time control often reduces a game between two evenly matched opponents to a lottery, especially on the top boards. I believe longer increments would solve this problem and this poll is to guage what increments would be preferred.
An explanation of the choices.
60m+10s inc: Increment from the start, so by move 60 each player has a total time of 70 mins. Every 30 moves extends the time by 5 minutes for each player.
Shaun its my understanding that a number of tournaments have been run with G60 + 10secs where the 10secs only starts after the original 60 mins has expired and not from move one. This is option 12 on the standard red DGT 2000. I assume this is the 60mins +10 secs you refer to in the first sentence.

This obviously is therefore not the same as your option (A) which I am not sure has been used that often if at all.

I dont believe B has ever been used.
Option C has been used.

shaun
09-02-2004, 09:01 PM
Shaun its my understanding that a number of tournaments have been run with G60 + 10secs where the 10secs only starts after the original 60 mins has expired and not from move one. This is option 12 on the standard red DGT 2000. I assume this is the 60mins +10 secs you refer to in the first sentence.
This obviously is therefore not the same as your option (A) which I am not sure has been used that often if at all.

I dont believe B has ever been used.
Option C has been used.

The G/60 and then 10s after the 60 mins has expired, is the most common time control, but the one causing problems. Therefore I haven't included it.
Option A has been used in a couple of tournaments I have run (last years ANU Open IIRC).
Option B hasn't been tried as far as I know, but it is the one I voted for. I am dismayed that it can't be rated on the normal list. Wouldn't it be simpler to have eligibility based on the amount of time available at move 40 or 60?
The ANU Open went for 30m+30sec a move added from the start a few years ago, but this was unpopular, mainly due to the small starting time. 40m+30sec is an improvement, and the 30s increment requires players to keep score at all times (not popular with some).

Bob1
09-02-2004, 09:17 PM
I always thought that the 60m +10sec from move one was the way to go with weekend events.
Last December I had to set 40 chess clocks to this time control on my own.

I have just done some experimenting with the (red) DGT and setting 12 will save me at least 30 minutes next December.

I know what I want as a DOP - but what do the players want (not that I really care - as I can't understand why you would want to waste more than 10 minutes on a game of chess anyway!) --- BLITZ RULES.

Garvinator
09-02-2004, 09:30 PM
I know what I want as a DOP - but what do the players want (not that I really care - as I can't understand why you would want to waste more than 10 minutes on a game of chess anyway!) --- BLITZ RULES.

all gp events to be 15/0 then hey bob :doh:

eclectic
09-02-2004, 09:35 PM
The 40m+30sec is an improvement, and the 30s increment requires players to keep score at all times (not popular with some).not popular with some - i suspect for those who especially hope for the swindle in time scrambles where there is no increment.

the 30 sec increment ensures both players are recording moves and so one player can't go into critical time (less than 5 minutes on the clock) to exempt themselves from recording thus obtaining a psychological advantage over their opponent.
(why did fide chose 30 sec rather than 20 or 15 as the magic figure for the move recording benchmark ??)

having an initial allotment of 40 minutes per player ( or 30 ) will discourage the ploy of turning up at the 59 minute mark to pull off that other kind of swindle. the player who has bothered to turn up won't have to wait as long to claim the forfeit win.

i would prefer a 3 1/2 hour spacing between games as the worst scenario

eg

9.30 am sat, sun
1.00 pm sat, sun
4.30 pm sat, sun
8.00 pm sat

11.30pm finish saturday 8.00 finish sunday

i am basing this on a 120 moves per player game (worst scenario?) to still allow for some break (1/2 hr ?) between rounds

i doubt there would be many (if any?) games which would go that long

maybe round times could have flexibility depending on how quickly games finish?

but then again that might open the door for disputes.

eclectic

shaun
09-02-2004, 10:02 PM
not popular with some - i suspect for those who especially hope for the swindle in time scrambles where there is no increment.

the 30 sec increment ensures both players are recording moves and so one player can't go into critical time (less than 5 minutes on the clock) to exempt themselves from recording thus obtaining a psychological advantage over their opponent.
(why did fide chose 30 sec rather than 20 or 15 as the magic figure for the move recording benchmark ??)

Stewart Rueben made this recomendation. He believes that 30s is the minimum time reqd to redord you move and think about your next one. The reason it is not popular with some is they disagree with his reasoning, and that having to record when short of time interrupts the thinking process too much.


i would prefer a 3 1/2 hour spacing between games as the worst scenario

eg

9.30 am sat, sun
1.00 pm sat, sun
4.30 pm sat, sun
8.00 pm sat

11.30pm finish saturday 8.00 finish sunday

i am basing this on a 120 moves per player game (worst scenario?) to still allow for some break (1/2 hr ?) between rounds

i doubt there would be many (if any?) games which would go that long

maybe round times could have flexibility depending on how quickly games finish?

but then again that might open the door for disputes.

eclectic
Geelong tried this "iron-man" schedule a few years ago, and no one turned up for their tournament. Too many hours on Saturday, and an 8pm Sunday finish will ensure no one travels more than 50km to play in the tournament.

jase
10-02-2004, 01:21 AM
The G/60 and then 10s after the 60 mins has expired, is the most common time control, but the one causing problems. Therefore I haven't included it.

To expand, the problem is that players have to be very conscious of the times for both players when either of them is about to use their initial allotment of 60 minutes. when this occurs, BOTH players enter the increment phase. Ironically if you are the player who is first to use up this initial allotment [for example you have used 59:55, and have some 5 seconds remaining], it is better to allow your time to RUN OUT. You then enter the increment phase, and your clock, upon hdwndling to nothing and hitting 0:00, gives you your 10 seconds. THEN make a move, and hey presto! - you get another 10 seconds and you're up to 20 seconds.

Circumstances have arisen where player A uses up his allotment, his clock hitting zero, and both players start receiving increments. Player B does not notice this, having very little time left himself. Even with an awareness of the time control, it is often that player B does not notice the small 10 second increments, and assumes his clock can hit zero also before the need for panic.

To summarize my point, err...what Shaun said :clap:
[Seriously, just thought it worthwhile for players to be aware of the sort of things administrators are taking into account with any time control that does not offer increments until an initial allotment of time has been used. Eg X minutes, FOLLOWED BY Y seconds per move, as opposed to X minutes, PLUS Y seconds per move from Move 1]



Option B hasn't been tried as far as I know, but it is the one I voted for. I am dismayed that it can't be rated on the normal list. Wouldn't it be simpler to have eligibility based on the amount of time available at move 40 or 60?


This is the method FIDE uses [Chapter 15.1], and I agree. FIDE has a few different time controls, the most common being a minimum 2 hours over the course of 60 moves. Examples:
- All moves in 2 hours
- 40 moves in 90 minutes, followed by all the moves in 30 minutes
- 90 minutes per player, plus 30 seconds per move from the beginning

For standard rating purposes, I think we are currently agreed that each player should have at least 1 hour. For the time controls offered in shaun's poll [why people intentionally skew these polls through the wording of options they don't personally favour escapes me - it tends to void the findings], the total time available available per player after 60 moves would be 70 minutes in each of the examples with increments. Therefore I think they all ought to be rated as a 'normal' game.

The nth degree of this, as nihilists, devil's advocates, and Bill, might point out, is a 0 minutes + 60 seconds per move time control. After 60 moves, you have at least an hour.

The solution: combine the above [ie that to be rated on the standard list, a game must offer players at least 1 hour in which to make 60 moves] with the current ACF clause that the initial time be at least 30 minutes.

arosar
10-02-2004, 08:45 AM
Aahh...at last - something interesting. I favour 40+30 meself. But all this has actually been discussed at length previously in the email bulletins. So I thought I'd quote some here that are relevant.

GARY BEKKER

I congratulate the ACF for encouraging the use of digital clocks and Fischer
time controls, by introducing new ACF approved rates of play. I enjoy playing
in tournaments which offer the use of a Fischer time control and allow
competitors to have at least 60 minutes thinking time each.

I would be reluctant, however, to play in any event which offers less than a
total of 60 minutes per side thinking time. I therefore urge tournament
organisers not to use the very fastest time control available,
G/30+30s/move, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Proponents of the new minimum ACF time control of G/30+30s/move have
suggested that an average game lasts 60 moves and therefore most players
will get around 60 minutes total thinking time. I disagree with this.

Most games finish much closer to move 40, and those that do last until move
60 have usually already been practically decided much earlier. A sample of
all games included on the ChessBase "Big Database 2001", played during
1999/2000, proves this. From a total of just over 240000 games the average
game length was only 38 moves, with only 10% of all games lasting more than
60 moves. This means that with a time control of G/30+30s/move, the average
player will get only around 50 minutes total thinking time - something more
akin to Rapidplay chess.

Since I prefer to play chess at a more leisurely rate which does not include
gross blunders induced by extreme time trouble, I am unlikely to play in
events which use such a fast time control.

I urge organisers to consider using a more generous time control such as
G/40+30s/move, or even G/45+30s/move, in future weekend events.

REF: ACF Bulletin No. 126 - 22 July 2001 (http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfb126.htm)

And here is one by Dr Z. (I only quote in part because the rest of his email mainly refers to SP).

CHARLES ZWORESTINE


Dear Graeme,


OK, here are my comments as DOP of the Gold Coast Open! I will admit first
of all that the controversial new time control of 30 minutes for the whole
game, plus thirty seconds per move from the start caused little or no
problems. Moreover, the vexed issue of recording the moves was also not a
problem - for the most part, the players did.

However, this does not change my instincts on this matter. Future problems
with recording the moves may occur further down the track, and we need to be
wary. The ANU Open will tell us a lot more about this. My feeling is that 30
seconds may not be enough time for some people to record, adjust to the new
position and still make a respectable next move. Perhaps a minute
increment would make more sense. Or maybe 45 seconds as a compromise if a
minute seems too long...

The other point is that I feel only a game with a time control of an hour
per player or more should be rated. FIDE would say the 30 minutes plus
thirty seconds increment time control used at the Gold Coast Open should be
rated, as it is one hour each for a 60 move game. But that's because FIDE
consider 60 moves to be the AVERAGE game length! In my experience, this is
nonsense. 40 moves is the average length for a game; so that in effect, at
the Gold Coast Open, a lot of rapid play games were being ACF rated (not on
the rapid play list). Surely a time control of 40 minutes plus 30 seconds
increment would make more sense...

REF: ACF Bulletin No. 124 - 8 July 2001 (http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfb124.htm)

AR

Ian Rout
10-02-2004, 09:18 AM
I voted for 60/10 for reasons which I've given before but as the board's memeory span is not great I'll give my argument again.

- We accept that in a weekend we have to play faster games to fit them into the time. That's what a weekender is about.

- Using a guillotine finish ensures that the games fit in, but at the cost of wrecking them. Either players can shuffle around playing to win on time, or arbiters have to make synchronised-swimming type judgements on insufficient losing chances etc. (I distinguish between playing to win on time in a guillotine finish and advantageously gaining time by setting problems; the former is not legitimate, the second involves chess skill in both achieving and utilising the advantage).

- Thus the real gain comes in having a 10-15 second increment at all, since it cuts out all the nonsense associated with guillotine finishes and a player cannot lose on time after overwhelmingly outplaying their opponent. Increasing the increment further is at the expense of either the initial block of time or lengthening the game.

- Lengthening the game means that one or two games will throw everyone's schedule out. On the other hand compensating for this possibility by shortening the original block of time makes the games less satisfactory because there is less chance to stop and plan or calculate.

- As an aside, having the increment from the start rather than after using the first block is superior partly because no one can be in doubt whether they have reached the increment phase, but mainly because the game is played at a known rate (e.g 41.5 mins to reach move 1, 41 for move 2 etc) rather than having the increment cut in at move 40, or 60 or 90 or whatever.

- One argument, mainly advanced by arbiters, is that a 30-second increment means that people have to record their moves. However this is not of great significance since the bulk of problems with unrecorded games occur where there is a requirement to reach a specific move number.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 09:37 AM
Aahh...at last - something interesting. I favour 40+30 meself. But all this has actually been discussed at length previously in the email bulletins. So I thought I'd quote some here that are relevant.

GARY BEKKER

I congratulate the ACF for encouraging the use of digital clocks and Fischer
time controls, by introducing new ACF approved rates of play. I enjoy playing
in tournaments which offer the use of a Fischer time control and allow
competitors to have at least 60 minutes thinking time each.

I would be reluctant, however, to play in any event which offers less than a
total of 60 minutes per side thinking time. I therefore urge tournament
organisers not to use the very fastest time control available,
G/30+30s/move, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Proponents of the new minimum ACF time control of G/30+30s/move have
suggested that an average game lasts 60 moves and therefore most players
will get around 60 minutes total thinking time. I disagree with this.

Most games finish much closer to move 40, and those that do last until move
60 have usually already been practically decided much earlier. A sample of
all games included on the ChessBase "Big Database 2001", played during
1999/2000, proves this. From a total of just over 240000 games the average
game length was only 38 moves, with only 10% of all games lasting more than
60 moves. This means that with a time control of G/30+30s/move, the average
player will get only around 50 minutes total thinking time - something more
akin to Rapidplay chess.

Since I prefer to play chess at a more leisurely rate which does not include
gross blunders induced by extreme time trouble, I am unlikely to play in
events which use such a fast time control.

I urge organisers to consider using a more generous time control such as
G/40+30s/move, or even G/45+30s/move, in future weekend events.

REF: ACF Bulletin No. 126 - 22 July 2001 (http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfb126.htm)

And here is one by Dr Z. (I only quote in part because the rest of his email mainly refers to SP).

CHARLES ZWORESTINE


Dear Graeme,


OK, here are my comments as DOP of the Gold Coast Open! I will admit first
of all that the controversial new time control of 30 minutes for the whole
game, plus thirty seconds per move from the start caused little or no
problems. Moreover, the vexed issue of recording the moves was also not a
problem - for the most part, the players did.

However, this does not change my instincts on this matter. Future problems
with recording the moves may occur further down the track, and we need to be
wary. The ANU Open will tell us a lot more about this. My feeling is that 30
seconds may not be enough time for some people to record, adjust to the new
position and still make a respectable next move. Perhaps a minute
increment would make more sense. Or maybe 45 seconds as a compromise if a
minute seems too long...

The other point is that I feel only a game with a time control of an hour
per player or more should be rated. FIDE would say the 30 minutes plus
thirty seconds increment time control used at the Gold Coast Open should be
rated, as it is one hour each for a 60 move game. But that's because FIDE
consider 60 moves to be the AVERAGE game length! In my experience, this is
nonsense. 40 moves is the average length for a game; so that in effect, at
the Gold Coast Open, a lot of rapid play games were being ACF rated (not on
the rapid play list). Surely a time control of 40 minutes plus 30 seconds
increment would make more sense...

REF: ACF Bulletin No. 124 - 8 July 2001 (http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfb124.htm)

AR
One would think that these guys would be aware that we play chess according to the FIDE Laws.

When working out the total time control of X/Y FIDE always base it on 60 moves.

The current rules determining what constitutes a Rapid game or a Blitz game (Articles B1 and C1) both use the words "all the moves must be made in a fixed time".
What this therefore meant was that certain times limits which although logically should have been covered by the Blitz or Rapid rules were in fact covered by the normal laws of chess. Someone could successfully argue that a game of G3+ 2 sec a move from move 1 does not meet the require for Blitz according to Article C1 nor the requirement for Rapid in Article B1. As such the game is subject to normal laws, hence illegal moves do not lose etc.

The FIDE Rules Commission therefore made the following ruling at their 2002 meeting during the Olympiad in Bled.

If the primary time control + 60 times the increment for each player is less than 15 minutes, the game will be considered a Blitz game. An example: the primary time control is 5 minutes and there is an increment of 5 seconds per move. In that case we get the figure 5 minutes + 60 x 5 seconds = 10 minutes; (b) If the primary time control + 60 times the increment is from more than 15 to 60 minutes, the game will be considered a Rapid game. An example: At the start if each player receives 25 minutes and an increment of 10 seconds per move from move 1, we get the figure: 25 minutes + 60 x 10 seconds = 35 minutes.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 10:01 AM
To expand, the problem is that players have to be very conscious of the times for both players when either of them is about to use their initial allotment of 60 minutes. when this occurs, BOTH players enter the increment phase. Ironically if you are the player who is first to use up this initial allotment [for example you have used 59:55, and have some 5 seconds remaining], it is better to allow your time to RUN OUT. You then enter the increment phase, and your clock, upon hdwndling to nothing and hitting 0:00, gives you your 10 seconds. THEN make a move, and hey presto! - you get another 10 seconds and you're up to 20 seconds.

Circumstances have arisen where player A uses up his allotment, his clock hitting zero, and both players start receiving increments. Player B does not notice this, having very little time left himself. Even with an awareness of the time control, it is often that player B does not notice the small 10 second increments, and assumes his clock can hit zero also before the need for panic.

To summarize my point, err...what Shaun said :clap:
[Seriously, just thought it worthwhile for players to be aware of the sort of things administrators are taking into account with any time control that does not offer increments until an initial allotment of time has been used. Eg X minutes, FOLLOWED BY Y seconds per move, as opposed to X minutes, PLUS Y seconds per move from Move 1]
Well explained jase.
As you said a number of players are totally unaware of this circumstance.



This is the method FIDE uses [Chapter 15.1], and I agree. FIDE has a few different time controls, the most common being a minimum 2 hours over the course of 60 moves. Examples:
- All moves in 2 hours
- 40 moves in 90 minutes, followed by all the moves in 30 minutes
- 90 minutes per player, plus 30 seconds per move from the beginning

For standard rating purposes, I think we are currently agreed that each player should have at least 1 hour. For the time controls offered in shaun's poll [why people intentionally skew these polls through the wording of options they don't personally favour escapes me - it tends to void the findings], the total time available available per player after 60 moves would be 70 minutes in each of the examples with increments. Therefore I think they all ought to be rated as a 'normal' game.

The nth degree of this, as nihilists, devil's advocates, and Bill, might point out, is a 0 minutes + 60 seconds per move time control. After 60 moves, you have at least an hour.

The solution: combine the above [ie that to be rated on the standard list, a game must offer players at least 1 hour in which to make 60 moves] with the current ACF clause that the initial time be at least 30 minutes.
The current situation regarding what the ACF would rate in the normal system came into being back in 2001. I had been considering the situation for awhile and had just recently had a dicussion with Stewart Reuben about time controls when I was disussing a situation with him that was under Appeal with the NSWCA Appeals Committee.
Not long after this Shaun sent an email to myself and Graeme Gardiner about the possibilty of allowing games with initial time allocations less than 60 mins but with increments to be rated in the normal system. After a fair amount of deliberation the ACF Council adopted the current situation.
It should be noted that G30+30secs is not being forced on everyone, it is just an allowed option. Clearly organisers will want to maximise their entries and will therefore pick time controls that will hopefully do this.

As you pointed out jase you have to be careful otherwise someone will pick time controls like G0 + 60 or G1+59 or even G5+55 might occur.

The other extreme is also possible with G55+5 or G58+2. I'm don't think these are suitable either.

Perhaps for time controls with increments something like "games of X/Y will be rated in the normal system provided X is at least 30 and Y is at least 10 on the contition that X + (Y * 60) => 60."
Naturally for games with no increments the current situtaion of 60 mins per player minimum is required.

PHAT
10-02-2004, 11:09 AM
Sit down everyone - and shut up. I have the only important thing to say here. (BTW Shaun, you should have just asked me these questions.)

As you will recall, I ran a survey at last year's Doeberl.

Questions 35,36,37.

For 2-day events what time controls do you prefer?

60 minutes 31
90 minutes 9
120 min 5

+ 0 seconds 8
+ 5 seconds 3
+ 10 sec 11
+ 20 sec 6
+ 30 sec 15

Time added from start 28
Time added at the end 11

Now, THAT is real data from active chess players. (The bias is toward the likes of those who will play in the Doeberl.)

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 11:35 AM
Sit down everyone - and shut up. I have the only important thing to say here. (BTW Shaun, you should have just asked me these questions.)

As you will recall, I ran a survey at last year's Doeberl.

Questions 35,36,37.

For 2-day events what time controls do you prefer?

60 minutes 31
90 minutes 9
120 min 5

+ 0 seconds 8
+ 5 seconds 3
+ 10 sec 11
+ 20 sec 6
+ 30 sec 15

Time added from start 28
Time added at the end 11

Now, THAT is real data from active chess players. (The bias is toward the likes of those who will play in the Doeberl.)
Actually it could be argued your question 35 was insufficient because it did not offer people an option less than 60 mins. :(

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 12:10 PM
I think that question would have had less bias if it was asked in the form of:

what time control do you prefer to play in two day weekenders? (with the proviso that your total time at 60 moves must be more than 60 minutes and the initial time period is 30 mins.)

skip to my lou
10-02-2004, 12:28 PM
The (near) sudden death nature

I think this is what we need! It is certainly more exciting to play (and watch, therefore it might attract NEW players).


they don't always allow the best chess to be played

Yes, but I dont think weekend tournaments are designed for great chess to be played. The limitation of time available means the rounds need to be squashed in, and by the end of each day, the players are really tired!

I really enjoy the 60/10 weekend tournaments. I remember playing 30/30 and I dont like it as much. It doesn't allow enough thinking time at start and it gives too much time at the end because of increments.

I dont see any reason to change it if its been around for 15 years already.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 12:31 PM
I dont see any reason to change it if its been around for 15 years already.
What exactly do you think has been around for 15 years already?

skip to my lou
10-02-2004, 12:49 PM
While G/60 or 60mins + 10s a move have been standard time controls for Australian weekenders for the last 15 years

The 60/10 Timing. By 30/30 I meant 30 + 30inc which isn't sudden death.

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 12:58 PM
The 60/10 Timing. By 30/30 I meant 30 + 30inc which isn't sudden death.
Jeo, the digital game timers that allow increments have only been around for about three years. Before that everyone used the analog clock which did not allow increments.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 01:12 PM
Jeo, the digital game timers that allow increments have only been around for about three years. Before that everyone used the analog clock which did not allow increments.

Actually DGT created the red clock around 1994. This clock was replaced by the current red DGT 2000 in 1998.
Digital clocks only really started being used at tournamnets in Australia on many boards from around 1998 I think, maybe even later.

skip to my lou
10-02-2004, 01:15 PM
Not sure about 3+ years back. Ive been using red DGT clock ever since I started playing.

PHAT
10-02-2004, 01:27 PM
Ive been using red DGT clock ever since I started playing.
It is a pity that you can use a clock but cannot use the pieces well enough to belt me 7:0 for $100.

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 01:36 PM
It is a pity that you can use a clock but cannot use the pieces well enough to belt me 7:0 for $100.
Matthew, Matthew, Matthew.
Unlike CL and I arguing over multiple threads can you try and keep this bet restricted to just the one original thread. ;) :lol:

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 01:44 PM
Matthew, Matthew, Matthew.
Unlike CL and I arguing over multiple threads can you try and keep this bet restricted to just the one original thread. ;) :lol:
and i wonder when the moderators lock is going to come out for at least one of those threads :lol: :lol:

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 02:16 PM
i have run some numbers on paper to check what im about to say and i think its accurate.

Using the 60 mins per game plus ten seconds increment after the 60 mins is over is unfair on the person who runs out of the 60 minutes second.

Example:

Player A uses their 60 minutes first at move 40. They then get the ten seconds per move from then on.

Player B passes the 60 minutes at move 60, this means that player A has received 200 more seconds than player B.

Have i missed something or does this seem unfair to player B?

Ian Rout
10-02-2004, 02:22 PM
i have run some numbers on paper to check what im about to say and i think its accurate.

Using the 60 mins per game plus ten seconds increment after the 60 mins is over is unfair on the person who runs out of the 60 minutes second.

Example:

Player A uses their 60 minutes first at move 40. They then get the ten seconds per move from then on.

Player B passes the 60 minutes at move 60, this means that player A has received 200 more seconds than player B.

Have i missed something or does this seem unfair to player B?

The "followed by" mode (e.g. DGT 12) adds time to BOTH after one runs out.

Garvinator
10-02-2004, 02:25 PM
The "followed by" mode (e.g. DGT 12) adds time to BOTH after one runs out.
ok sweet, no prob then :clap:

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 02:25 PM
i have run some numbers on paper to check what im about to say and i think its accurate.

Using the 60 mins per game plus ten seconds increment after the 60 mins is over is unfair on the person who runs out of the 60 minutes second.

Example:

Player A uses their 60 minutes first at move 40. They then get the ten seconds per move from then on.

Player B passes the 60 minutes at move 60, this means that player A has received 200 more seconds than player B.

Have i missed something or does this seem unfair to player B?
You have missed something.
Once Player A starts getting the 10secs per move so does player B.
Thats how DGT option 12 works.

Rincewind
10-02-2004, 02:27 PM
Good data, Matt. But you will notice that your modes are at the extremities of your scales. Not ideal survey design. Also would be useful to look at the correlation between all three. Out of interest, what was the Doeberl using that year?

Bill Gletsos
10-02-2004, 02:30 PM
Good data, Matt. But you will notice that your modes are at the extremities of your scales. Not ideal survey design. Also would be useful to look at the correlation between all three. Out of interest, what was the Doeberl using that year?
I'm pretty certain it was G90 + 30sec.

skip to my lou
10-02-2004, 06:13 PM
It is a pity that you can use a clock but cannot use the pieces well enough to belt me 7:0 for $100.
I PM you the challenge this morning, before your post. Retard.

Alan Shore
12-02-2004, 05:22 PM
OK, let me begin by clarifying a few things:

First, I saw a few posts back someone quoting Charles Zworestine on the 2001 gold coast open 30 30 time controls working well. What you don't know, is what transpired at the 2002 Gold Coast Classic, that employed 40 30 time controls. One 4th round game lasted well over 100 moves, thus holding up the tournament schedule by over an hour - this is what can happen with ridiculously large amounts of increment. Since that time I'd thought the 30 second inc to have been banished forever, yet I can't believe there are those who want to see it brought back :rolleyes:

Now that I've demonstrated the horror of 30 second increment, even a 10 second increment at the beginning has the potential to increase the length of a game by a significant margin - as I recall from the 4th round of the 2002 Coal City Open (another 100+ move game), when the final game concluded at nearly 11pm!!

Now, at the last tournament I played in, I spoke to a few of the players, who agreed with me, their favourite time control for a weekender was G/60. This way, everyone knows exactly how much time they have to play the game in, round start times are never delayed, but more importantly it puts the excitement back into chess! The thrill of having just two minutes left on the clock, the adrenalin pumping, flashing out moves that you've spent the amount of time calculating that you think is correct, with a race against the clock to deliver that checkmate, or to prolong the game and potentially win from a terrible position.

Having that extra 10 second increment for some of us, is a curse more than a blessing, in positions even when we're dead won. Because there is no certainty about how much time we really have, it makes one complacent, they try to maximise that thinking time, and (as is the case on quite a few occasions I saw at my last tournament) end up hitting that clock 1 or 2 seconds too late - losing on time in won positions - This would not have occurred had they been aware of exactly how much time they had left to make all their moves. On the other end of the spectrum, other players become very flustered with the constant pessure of having to make every move in a 10 second time period toward the end - and consequently rush their moves and blunder. Again, by knowing how much time is left exactly, one can at least spend those valuable extra few seconds on calculation if it is required - to think for 30 seconds on the right move - whereupon the next few can be rattled off in seconds. Because of these two effects, the quality of the chess utilising increments, in my experience has the potential to be far worse. If the only argument against this is 'but G/60 is faster than G/60+10S' then I'd be more than happy to start games with G/70 to make up for it, as long as increment was banished.

These are simply my own arguments for the G/60, but I assure you all, it is not just me wanting to see this time control return, but many players. It's my contention, that the organisers are doing their own thing and not listening enough to the people who matter most; the players. This is further illustrated by the section on the poll labeled: "How can I swindle if it isn't sudden death?" Who would have the audacity to print an option like that? None other than Shaun Press, who as I recall in my last discussion with him, DID NOT LISTEN to the opinions of the players of transfer, and opted for the 'soft rules' because 'he himself thought them best'.

So come on organisers, how about listening to the players, instead of trying to blindly conform to international regulations and keep up personal appearances?

(I expect I shall receive all sorts of slurs for this post, but I write on behalf of the players of chess, the silent majority who want to see the classical time controls return and have said what needed to be said.)

eclectic
12-02-2004, 05:57 PM
sure BD,

i voted for the 40 30

but

to me it's not the increment or lack thereof which is the problem

it's the suspension of move recording which annoys me

maybe

one day FIDE might make the regular updating of the scoresheet a part of the move

if people want to move and press the clock with one hand and write with the other ... fine

ie you keep moving and recording until your time runs out so that games are decided on the moves which are documented

no less than five minute on the clock move recording exemption

that keeps the playing conditions equal for both players throughout the whole game

but the "swindler" won't want that, will they ?

they, when being creamed by their opponent, want to be able to run their clock to under five minutes so that their exemption from having to record moves jars psychologically with that opponent still having to do so thus upsetting their rhythm

go on then,

no increment
no exemption from writing moves

:whistle:

eclectic

Rincewind
12-02-2004, 08:34 PM
eclectic,

Are you aware that with a 30 second increment per move no player is ever exempt from recording their moves? That's one of the advantages of the 30 second increment.

_____________________

Also, I suppose you are aware that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was the title of a 1960's SciFi book by Phillip Dick, and easily his most important work. For those unfamiliar with it, it basically asks the question will artificial intelligences ever really be intelligent as we understand it, or perhaps more importantly what does it mean to be intelligent as we understand it. Bladerunner was Ridley Scott's adaptation of the novel and IMHO an excellent film. Anyone who has not seen it MUST, MUST, MUST see it as soon as you possibly can.

As to whether the sheep are electric or eclectic is fairly irrelevant. :D

eclectic
12-02-2004, 09:14 PM
hi barry,

i am aware of what the 30 sec increment does

but i also realise how many moves can be recorded in a 5 minute period when the pressure is on and i am sure that if we had to keep recording we'd all find a way of doing it quickly

BD seemed to complain about games going on "forever" so i am suggesting that if one wants to draw a line in the sand ie G60 no increment then ensure also that moves have to keep being recorded

i say this because the moment one or both players reach the move recording exemption stage they are granting themselves a defacto increment via the time and effort saved not writing

if one notes that with G60 a 120 move game is possible if we allow 30 sec to write each move (even 180 at 20 sec per move)

if a player takes too long to think for some moves so that by the time 55 minutes are up they have only made 20 moves for example why should they be rewarded for that inefficiency by not having to record moves in the last 5 minutes ?

i also wonder how often disputes requiring the arbitor arise within that final time scramble (ie when no increment is used) and how many of them could be more easily resolved were scoring still enforceable at that late stage

i know this is anti-fide - ( being the devil's advocate )

eclectic

ps

i am aware of the novel

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2004, 09:47 PM
I agree with BD, I was one of those who voted for the sudden death option. Probably because it's what I'm used to, but I really do feel that both the disadvantages of sudden death and the advantages of everything else have been greatly overstated.

However if going the sudden death route you must have an arbiter with a good and clear understanding of the infamous 10.2.

Garvinator
13-02-2004, 05:33 PM
i have a question regarding setting time controls on the DGT 2000.

I have been trying to set the classical time control on it of:

40 moves in 2 hours/ 20 moves in 1 hour and then 30 mins to the end of game plus 10 secs per move(from the beginning of the 30 mins).

How do i do this?

antichrist
13-02-2004, 06:52 PM
For Sydney Easter Cup, we just have flat 60 min each player, loss on flagfall, number of moves irrelevant and no one complains. It is rare that it becomes a time grab. I can only remember one game when Ed come in about 20 minutes late.

It is just accepted and all games finish on time and tournament finishes in time. why complicate things.

Alan Shore
13-02-2004, 08:57 PM
Sydney Easter Cup sounds great then, I'd choose it over Doeberl any day :D

I recently had a tournament game where I enforced 10.2 with 15 seconds left, Arbiter Roly did his job perfectly.

Garvinator
14-02-2004, 12:45 AM
i have a question regarding setting time controls on the DGT 2000.

I have been trying to set the classical time control on it of:

40 moves in 2 hours/ 20 moves in 1 hour and then 30 mins to the end of game plus 10 secs per move(from the beginning of the 30 mins).

How do i do this?
dont all rush to answer my question thanks

skip to my lou
14-02-2004, 01:47 AM
dont all rush to answer my question thanks
I was about to answer, but ok. I'll tell you later.

Rincewind
14-02-2004, 04:26 PM
i have a question regarding setting time controls on the DGT 2000.

I have been trying to set the classical time control on it of:

40 moves in 2 hours/ 20 moves in 1 hour and then 30 mins to the end of game plus 10 secs per move(from the beginning of the 30 mins).

How do i do this?

I don't think you can.

#6 is 2 periods + guillotine, 2hr, 1hr then 30 mins but no tmie added on.

#16 is FIDE tournament with 2hr + 1hr, f.b. 20 sec/move but doesn't have the third time control.

#17 is manual setting of 16 but still doesn't seem to let you have the third time control.

#25 is 'Fischer' tournament with up to 4 periods but it seems the time added on is applied from move 1.

So I think whichever way you go you wont be able to do exactly what you want. It seems to me the +10sec would be the easiest thing to let go. I mean, do you really need it when you already have to schedule 7 hours for the game? Also #6 is the easiest to set (5 button presses) so I'd just use that.

eclectic
14-02-2004, 05:05 PM
is there such a thing as a super dgt controller so that a "dop" or arbiter can use it to set the time control once then set all dgt's in the immediate vicinity via radio frequency ?

probably a far fetched idea mind you

but think of the time that organisers would be saved

especially when an unorthodox time control is being used

:hmm:

eclectic