PDA

View Full Version : Increments vs Guillotine



Gattaca
07-03-2007, 09:33 PM
Introduction:

When Jean and I played in Launceston a few months ago there was a questionnaire from the organisers about what we liked and didn't like for the players to fill in. The only thing I didn't like was the guillotine finish, for reasons expounded many times in the past by Roland Brockman and others.

One of the organisers, Leo Minol, is a supporter of gullotine finishes and we entered into correspondence on the issue. Leo doesn't use the internet much but is a gentleman of integrity and wants to get feedback, so when I suggested that he debate the matter on Chesschat (predicting that he would have his position mercilessly dismantled) he asked me if I would nevertheless post his essay on the matter, which I now do.

Guy West.

---------------------

SUBJECT: TIME INCREMENTS IN THE GAME OF CHESS
By Leo Minol

Some time ago I upset some people with my comment about increments and now I am taking the opportunity to clarify my statement. At this stage it is only a draft and I intend to expand on it at some later stage.

To start the discussion about increments let us try to understand not only the game of chess but also its purpose. When the increments were introduced, that I don’t know.

My view of Chess
As a very young boy I started to learn chess from my father and always was thought that chess was a visual game, through which I could learn self-discipline, observation, adjust to the situation and many other things. In the army we used to play chess for similar reasons, observation, to be alert and quickly analyse the situation and respond in the shortest possible time. In short it is a not only skill but also a character training game.

Therefore in my opinion increments completely change the purpose of the game of chess.

For various reasons I had a brake from chess for about 40ty years. Since I came back and joined the club and entered tournaments I heard far too many arguments about this or something else.

Further comments:
So far I have not heard any explanation to convincing me to change my mind on increments. Psychologically increments give you a wrong impression that you have a better game. If that is your idea, it’s OK with me.

I enter a tournament for the sake of playing a game with an unknown opponent to test my skill, and if I loose a game for whatever reason, time, wrong move or any other reason then I am not as good as my opponent.
Even if I lost a game but I enjoyed it that’s what counts.

Scoring the game I consider as being essential for future analysis and study.
In my view a chess tournament is to test your skills in the game of chess ‘like a swimmer or runner in a race tests his skill in endurance, strength or tactics.
Personally I take part in a tournament for participation, meeting with another fellow chess player regardless whether the times are as you called them “SUDDEN DEATH” or have increments, but not to “win at all costs”. Given reasons for increments gave me the impression to win at all costs.

Therefore in my mind the argument against the so called sudden death finish, psychologically can be expressed as ‘sudden death syndrome’.
Having advantage in both time and position, I lost the games on time, because somehow I could not see the winning moves, and I would have lost them on time regardless of increments.

Garvinator
07-03-2007, 10:21 PM
Where do we go from here Gattaca?

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2007, 12:14 AM
Probably said most of this a few times before so anyone bored with it should feel free to claim a draw by triple rep immediately.

I have some sympathy with Leo's position (which is naturally well known to me) because I think that some of the pressure for increments comes from players who are fundamentally awful time managers and who want a control that will help them to manage their time better. However, for many of these, the fix is an illusion and the same players who tend to lose on time in guillotines will wind up surfing the increment in bad positions and eventually losing anyway. If you have two minutes against thirty in a complex roughly even middlegame you will extremely likely lose anyway whether the increment is 0, 5, 10, 30 or 60 seconds a move. You can say it was because you were outplayed, but if you were that far behind on the clock, then it was really time management that was your problem and there is no point blaming the clock for that problem when you lose in a guillotine game.

Increments do help some quite strong players who are good at getting winning positions but in guillotines use up so much time that they then can't always get the win down. (In rare cases I have had this problem myself). Yes perhaps this panders to the win-at-all-costs mentality as Leo suggests, but guillotines pander to a similar thing when people play to use the clock to avoid losing games they were losing on the board. I don't think the win at all costs thing is that much of a problem anyway. I think playing to win with the clock as the 33rd piece is part of the fun! (It's probably why I play much weaker in casual games with no clock.)

I think the main reason increments will get more popular is that they are so much easier for arbiters, especially in getting rid of Article 10.2. The risks associated with this rule are exaggerated and I usually don't have that much problem applying the rule as an arbiter, but explaining it to other players and other arbiters is very difficult even when you know you have a very good grasp of it. As a player I've been living in dread that someday one of my opponents will create a problem by claiming a 10.2 that is not valid but that is then incorrectly upheld by another arbiter. I'm happy to play with increments to get rid of this risk.

However increments have their own problems as seen with the recent Hacche clock-setting incident and others. Overall I still think there are lots of good arguments to be made on both sides of this debate.

antichrist
08-03-2007, 12:15 AM
As it has been pointed out that similar results are occurring under increment that used to occur under guillotine. Maybe this occurs at the higher levels but I would dispute that also occurs at the lower levels where players are a bit more erratic of talent and usage of time. But as it is the higher games that are the more important and treated as such it is that sector that has mattered to organisers etc.

So therefore at the lower end where I (undeservedly) linger and as a good user of time, my advantage is diminished by increment. I consider this unfair in that if I have a certain stength I should be rewarded in better results accordingly. I would consider winning in shorter time (i.e. without increment) also a better result as gives more time to recover for the next round. And I do claim intenser concentration in the opening gives me that time advantage, leaving me with more mental tiredness to recover from.

So at the higher and lower levels of chess I do not see any benefit for increment, except it is less work and stress for DOPS. But as one IA has pointed out - it takes the sport and excitement out of the game.

Howard Duggan's post on this topic resembles that of the original post of this thread.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2007, 12:26 AM
John Nunn reckoned games with increments were more boring because players would not take as many risks!

Axiom
08-03-2007, 01:40 AM
Preference for one system over another ,cant helped be based on personal criteria at least partly.
I for one favour guillotine, as kb- states it is a defined 33rd 'piece' to consider as an absolute (ie.known time period), and easier to judge time per move considerations in evaluations.............but also being a weak endgame player, i dont like those extra minutes for my opponent to nail me, as opposed to trying to run him short of available calculation time :)

Basil
08-03-2007, 03:59 AM
Hi Guy

Please let Leo know that I am sympathetic and supportive of his position - one I feel is moot, though.

Thanks
Howard

WhiteElephant
08-03-2007, 07:54 AM
I'm not going to rehash the arguments either but I am a supporter of the guillotine finish.

trappistnight
08-03-2007, 09:58 AM
SUBJECT: TIME INCREMENTS IN THE GAME OF CHESS
By Leo Minol


Some time ago I upset some people with my comment about increments and now I am taking the opportunity to clarify my statement. At this stage it is only a draft and I intend to expand on it at some later stage.

To start the discussion about increments let us try to understand not only the game of chess but also its purpose. When the increments were introduced, that I don’t know.

My view of Chess
As a very young boy I started to learn chess from my father and always was thought that chess was a visual game, through which I could learn self-discipline, observation, adjust to the situation and many other things. In the army we used to play chess for similar reasons, observation, to be alert and quickly analyse the situation and respond in the shortest possible time. In short it is a not only skill but also a character training game.

Therefore in my opinion increments completely change the purpose of the game of chess.
Incriments dont change the perpose. The contest remains 16 pieces agianst 16 with a block of time to be managed.




Further comments:
So far I have not heard any explanation to convincing me to change my mind on increments. Psychologically increments give you a wrong impression that you have a better game. If that is your idea, it’s OK with me.

Incriments alow you to keep scoreing.
Incriments avoid disputes neer the gillotin finish.



Scoring the game I consider as being essential for future analysis and study.

Only incriments alow this.

WhiteElephant
08-03-2007, 11:10 AM
Look at it from a marketing point of view. The time scramble is one of the most exciting and exhilarating aspects of chess. Increments almost completely nullify this. Chess needs less nutty intellectuals producing perfect scoresheets and more exciting finishes to long games.

antichrist
08-03-2007, 01:04 PM
Look at it from a marketing point of view. The time scramble is one of the most exciting and exhilarating aspects of chess. Increments almost completely nullify this. Chess needs less nutty intellectuals producing perfect scoresheets and more exciting finishes to long games.

You are correct there. The perfectionists can go through the game afterwards to see what they missed out on - we used to enjoy those post mortems - they are diffused too.

Drawing analogies - they have shortened and hurried up cricket a few times to get more exciting finishes and results, as well as cutting table tennis games from 21 points to 11 points, but more games for more exciting finishes to each game. All of this purely for commercial reasons.

Even in movies the quickie is vogue so they can fit more ads in.

Garrett
08-03-2007, 01:30 PM
Like the big white elephant said - there's not much point rehashing all the arguements... But for what it's worth,,,

even though

(a) I have only ever lost one game on time (and that was only because I thought I made forty moves but in fact hadn't recorded anything in the bottom row of the first column of my scoresheet).

and

(b) I have been the recipient of numerous points in lost positions due to my opponent overstepping the time mark.

I prefer using the increment. It's more, ah, IMHO,.. civilised.

WhiteElephant
08-03-2007, 01:51 PM
Like the big white elephant said - there's not much point rehashing all the arguements... But for what it's worth,,,

even though

(a) I have only ever lost one game on time (and that was only because I thought I made forty moves but in fact hadn't recorded anything in the bottom row of the first column of my scoresheet).

and

(b) I have been the recipient of numerous points in lost positions due to my opponent overstepping the time mark.

I prefer using the increment. It's more, ah, IMHO,.. civilised.

Hi George,

I've met you once, and that was at an Aus Juniors in the late 80s which was held in a Brisbane shopping centre.

I remember that as we sat there playing our games, we had a few spectators but were largely ignored and (on more than one occasion) spat at!

After one round, Simon Palmer and I decided to play a few games of bullet. We found an out of the way board so as not to disturb the games in progress, set our (analogue!!) clocks to 1-min and began to play.

You should have seen the crowd that formed around us! Up to ten rows deep, people were pushing each other out of the way, straining for a look. We heard many approving comments and particularly gasps of excitement as our flags were close to falling. We played for nearly an hour and the crowd was constant around us. Hardly anyone bothered to watch the Championship games. We could have made a fortune if we charged admission.

Anyway, my point is, what kind of players do we want to see playing chess? If we want to promote the game and reverse the dropping numbers of adults at chess clubs, we need to make chess more exciting and charged with adrenaline. If that makes it more difficult for arbiters, well I believe it is a small price to pay. If the old fogies at chess clubs don't like it, well they should make room for younger and more dynamic players.

Axiom
08-03-2007, 02:11 PM
Hi George,

I've met you once, and that was at an Aus Juniors in the late 80s which was held in a Brisbane shopping centre.

I remember that as we sat there playing our games, we had a few spectators but were largely ignored and (on more than one occasion) spat at!

After one round, Simon Palmer and I decided to play a few games of bullet. We found an out of the way board so as not to disturb the games in progress, set our (analogue!!) clocks to 1-min and began to play.

You should have seen the crowd that formed around us! Up to ten rows deep, people were pushing each other out of the way, straining for a look. We heard many approving comments and particularly gasps of excitement as our flags were close to falling. We played for nearly an hour and the crowd was constant around us. Hardly anyone bothered to watch the Championship games. We could have made a fortune if we charged admission.

Anyway, my point is, what kind of players do we want to see playing chess? If we want to promote the game and reverse the dropping numbers of adults at chess clubs, we need to make chess more exciting and charged with adrenaline. If that makes it more difficult for arbiters, well I believe it is a small price to pay. If the old fogies at chess clubs don't like it, well they should make room for younger and more dynamic players.:clap: :clap:
Totally agree, my experience is similar re. spectator interest ......bring back the adrenaline and excitement! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Watto
08-03-2007, 02:34 PM
...
You should have seen the crowd that formed around us! Up to ten rows deep, people were pushing each other out of the way, straining for a look. We heard many approving comments and particularly gasps of excitement as our flags were close to falling. We played for nearly an hour and the crowd was constant around us. Hardly anyone bothered to watch the Championship games. We could have made a fortune if we charged admission.

Anyway, my point is, what kind of players do we want to see playing chess?
Too easy. We want to see dynamic, cool, young guns like WE and Simon Palmer! Or if they're no longer up to scratch, clones of them. Those nutty intellectuals with their embarrassing eccentricities, the quiet, uncool nerds and thinkers... they're ruining the game. From now on we only want sexy, virile people, people with style, people who know how to look good (even if their moves on the board leave something to be desired... )

Don't know about you but I'M EXCITED!! ;)

Sorry WE. Just having some fun...

WhiteElephant
08-03-2007, 03:02 PM
Too easy. We want to see dynamic, cool, young guns like WE and Simon Palmer! Or if they're no longer up to scratch, clones of them. Those nutty intellectuals with their embarrassing eccentricities, the quiet, uncool nerds and thinkers... they're ruining the game. From now on we only want sexy, virile people, people with style, people who know how to look good (even if their moves on the board leave something to be desired... )

Don't know about you but I'M EXCITED!! ;)

Sorry WE. Just having some fun...

Hehe well perhaps I went a bit over the top but I find it amusing that in one thread people are bemoaning the dropping numbers of players at clubs and in another they are supporting a sure fire way to make chess more boring.

Garvinator
08-03-2007, 03:30 PM
Hehe well perhaps I went a bit over the top but I find it amusing that in one thread people are bemoaning the dropping numbers of players at clubs and in another they are supporting a sure fire way to make chess more boring.
I think a very similar effect to guillotine (I did say similar, please remember that ;) ) is to use a very tiny increment, say 2 seconds.

This way you still get a blitz type effect and all the things that come with time management ie it is very difficult to rely on surfing the increment to win a game with only 2 secs per move added on. But you dont have all the problems associated with guillotine finishes ie 10.2 claims.

I dont agree with the premise of your argument. I think guillotine finishes leads to more arguments and dissatisfaction.

I do however come from Gen I ;)

Ian Rout
08-03-2007, 03:33 PM
The biggest problem I see with guillotine finishes is that they are not chess. It is a game with some overlapping rules and skills in the same way that a penalty shootout in soccer uses a couple of skills of the game (set shots and goalkeeping) and devalues the rest to being of value only as a way of getting into the shootout.

Having a time limit is sensible; having one where it becomes more important than actually playing the game isn't. In a guillotine game chess knowledge and methods become incidental. From a fair way out your whole strategy has to take into account avoiding a dead or blocked position where your opponent can just shuffle pieces around waiting for a flag fall (or on creating such a position, if that's the way you like to play).

The guillotine cheer squad maintain that fast finishes are exciting. I can't think of anything more tedious than playing a game for two or three hours and deciding it by playing K-g1-f1-f2-g2-h2-h1 (or the same idea in less blatant form) while the clock runs down. That's if it even gets that far before somebody puts a piece en prise rushing to avoid it.

Chess is not synchronised swimming. Rule 10.2 is relatively rare as KB states but deciding a game, especially if that in turn decides the tournament, on the judgement of an arbiter who may not even be a regular or particularly strong chess player is unsatisfactory. It may be necessary when you have to be out of the RSL club by 11:30 but would you seriously run an Australian Championship that way?

Even though 10.2 decisions may rarely happen, the fact that you have to play with it in mind is a problem. Shuffling the pieces and repeating the position to put pressure on the opponent and manouver for a break is a legitimate tactic but it can be construed as not trying to make progress.

It is also bad for your chess. Developing the skill of winning on the clock by playing mediocre moves quickly will win you some games (and rating prizes) but it will only make you a better time manager, in a chess context, not a better chess player.

To examine some of the arguments raised for guillotine -

The clock is the 33rd piece, it's just as important as the other 32. This one is simply bizarre. Yes, it becomes the 33rd piece if you form the rules so as to make it that way, but why would you? The clock is a necessary part of the game both to ensure that the game finishes at all and that players play under equal conditions, but other things are necessary parts of the game too; the board, the table, the building, the lights. Do we argue that it logically follows that such items must or should be incorporated as a major commponent of the decision rule? Who would suggest that the scoresheet is the 34th piece and the game should be awarded to the player with the neatest scoresheet?

"Increments completely change the purpose of the game of chess". What, guillotine finishes don't? For twelve centuries chess was played without time limits at all. When clocks were first introduced the penalty for exceeding the time limit was a fine, not the awarding of the game to the opponent. Until about 1990 games in major events and even many club tournaments were adjourned when specified time ran out. Since the late 1990s most events have used increments. Guillotine finishes were standard only in a brief window and in relatively unimportant events, and where finishing games in fixed time was paramount and technology had not provided alternative means to achieve it. Increments actually maintain the purpose of chess, as the game is decided on the board.

Time scrambles are exciting for spectators. Sort of, but if you've seen half a dozen you've seen them all. Anyway they normally last only briefly before somebody blunders or loses on time. You can still see a fast finish with an increment but you get more of it and better quality. Besides, if I've paid to play in a tournament I want games that are interesting for me to play, not for others to watch.

Increments may delay the start of the next round. If you have an inappropriate time limit, yes. A thirty-second increment in a weekender is a risk if you get a 150-move game, but if you have two games a day with a long break, or a ten-second increment on multi-game days with the interval set accordingly then this isn't a problem. Turning thousands of games into clock-thumping competitions and deciding the winner by an arbiter adjudicating on 10.2 so that you don't occasionally start a few minutes late is poor risk management.

Guillotine finishes reward time management. Even if true, so what? Why is this an important or interesting part of chess? But in fact the argument is both irrelevant, since time management is important whatever the time limit and, more seriously, wrong, since time management is impossible when you have to make effectively infinite moves in finite time.

Finally, has anybody ever wondered why a game is lost at the first flag fall? You don't lose a game at the first instance of any other administrative transgression such as making illegal moves, failing to record the score or excessive draw offers, there is a gradation of penalties culminating in default. If after a first flag fall both players got a few extra minutes and you only lost on your second or third you would still get all the alleged benefits of guillotine but players couldn't just play any old crap to run the time down, since an easily won position would still be won.

WhiteElephant
08-03-2007, 03:44 PM
I think a very similar effect to guillotine (I did say similar, please remember that ;) ) is to use a very tiny increment, say 2 seconds.

This way you still get a blitz type effect and all the things that come with time management ie it is very difficult to rely on surfing the increment to win a game with only 2 secs per move added on. But you dont have all the problems associated with guillotine finishes ie 10.2 claims.

I dont agree with the premise of your argument. I think guillotine finishes leads to more arguments and dissatisfaction.

I do however come from Gen I ;)

I agree that from an arbiter's point of view, guillotine finishes are problematic (not to mention adjournments causing hassles with pairings).

I also agree that guillotine finishes probably lead to more arguments. But dissatisfaction? I am not so sure. If there is a trusted arbiter making a decision then I as a player would be happy to abide by it. I've had instances where I felt decisions had gone against me but so what? Just move on to the next game.

PhilD707
08-03-2007, 03:56 PM
I am very much in favour of increments. In fact I was the first to adopt them in adult tournaments in Tasmania.
Other than arguments put forward by others previously there are a couple of points I would make against the Guillotine finish.

The first is that in the “old days” people tended to spend a big proportion of their game on the opening, perhaps equal or less on the middle game but typically left themselves with little time for the ending. In my view this is why people sometimes had relatively poorly developed end-game skills.

The other point is based on personal experience. In the old guillotine days on many occasions I found myself with a won game but with let’s say 2 minutes vs the opponent’s 20 minutes and an opponent who was simply aiming to play to win on time. As the time runs down the moves of the person with little time left become progressively less sensible so that often by the time of clock fall I was in a worse/lost position anyway.
I agree with those who cite poor time management but the fact is that people “won” games with the clock.
Now with the introduction of increments, (especially 30 secs per move), this does not happen anymore.
People who wish to win a game simply must play better chess.
The dynamics have changed.
I know at least two clock jockeys who have had a rude awakening in this regard!

If people miss the excitement of watching someone run into a brick wall at high speed well there are such things as lightning chess, demolition derbys and boxing matches (to name but a few) to satisfy those cravings.

Basil
08-03-2007, 05:28 PM
... we only want sexy, virile people, people with style, people who know how to look good (even if their moves on the board leave something to be desired... )

Here!

Basil
08-03-2007, 05:42 PM
The biggest problem I see with guillotine finishes is that they are not chess. It is a game with some overlapping rules and skills in the same way that a penalty shootout in soccer uses a couple of skills of the game (set shots and goalkeeping) and devalues the rest to being of value only as a way of getting into the shootout.
Ian I think your analogy can be argued both ways.

In football, I believe that if you're good enough to win, you should be good enough to win in the alotted time. If you have the better side, the better chances, the better skill and you can't get there in the 90 minutes, the claim of being better is somewhat moot. Time is part of the game of football.

Your analogy can be developed as "I am better, I can't prove it in 90 minutes, but I am fitter and so we'll play forever (increment) and I'll beat you technically instead.

Your point championing increment is a good one IMO, but it certainly doesn't defeat the case guillotine.

Axiom
08-03-2007, 09:14 PM
I am very much in favour of increments. In fact I was the first to adopt them in adult tournaments in Tasmania.
Other than arguments put forward by others previously there are a couple of points I would make against the Guillotine finish.

The first is that in the “old days” people tended to spend a big proportion of their game on the opening, perhaps equal or less on the middle game but typically left themselves with little time for the ending. In my view this is why people sometimes had relatively poorly developed end-game skills.

The other point is based on personal experience. In the old guillotine days on many occasions I found myself with a won game but with let’s say 2 minutes vs the opponent’s 20 minutes and an opponent who was simply aiming to play to win on time. As the time runs down the moves of the person with little time left become progressively less sensible so that often by the time of clock fall I was in a worse/lost position anyway.
I agree with those who cite poor time management but the fact is that people “won” games with the clock.
Now with the introduction of increments, (especially 30 secs per move), this does not happen anymore.
People who wish to win a game simply must play better chess.
The dynamics have changed.
I know at least two clock jockeys who have had a rude awakening in this regard!

If people miss the excitement of watching someone run into a brick wall at high speed well there are such things as lightning chess, demolition derbys and boxing matches (to name but a few) to satisfy those cravings.
thats a good argument :clap:

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2007, 10:20 PM
Incriments alow you to keep scoreing.

You are only required to keep scoring if the increment is 30 seconds or more (not 25 as I had to inform PhilD707 when he tried to impose compulsory scoring with a 25 second increment. :wall: :wall: :wall: )

I think 30 second+ increments are great for one-game-a-day events but can be tricky to schedule when you have two or more.

Generally Ian has argued his case very well (as usual) so here I admit that I am only picking at crumbs :lol: :


Who would suggest that the scoresheet is the 34th piece and the game should be awarded to the player with the neatest scoresheet?

I can think of plenty of bulletin editors who would argue the game should be awarded against the player with the untidiest scoresheet! And indeed an illegible scoresheet can cost you the game eventually if you persistently refuse to rectify it. But most DOPs (myself included) are softies on this.


Until about 1990 games in major events and even many club tournaments were adjourned when specified time ran out.

Not just til 1990. There are still places where this happens in club tournaments! :wall: (Actually, I use the plural unwisely. I am only aware of one of them!)


Even though 10.2 decisions may rarely happen, the fact that you have to play with it in mind is a problem.

This is true. The fear of 10.2 is worse than 10.2 itself.


But in fact the argument is both irrelevant, since time management is important whatever the time limit and, more seriously, wrong, since time management is impossible when you have to make effectively infinite moves in finite time.

Not sure about that since hardly any games go for >130 moves, though I do agree that it's very difficult to manage time for a complex position that might go to an ending or might not.


The first is that in the “old days” people tended to spend a big proportion of their game on the opening, perhaps equal or less on the middle game but typically left themselves with little time for the ending. In my view this is why people sometimes had relatively poorly developed end-game skills.

Some people. You were certainly one of them, and I can think of half a dozen others without any trouble. Some others were reasonably good at time management and only rarely got into scrambles. Ironically, sometimes it's the players who play the fastest who have bad endgame skills, because they don't understand that you have to slow down at some point and being +40 minutes on the clock doesn't help if you've walked into #2 in a queen ending or put a pawn on the wrong square in a pure pawn ending. (See swindles thread for some examples.)


The other point is based on personal experience. In the old guillotine days on many occasions I found myself with a won game but with let’s say 2 minutes vs the opponent’s 20 minutes and an opponent who was simply aiming to play to win on time. As the time runs down the moves of the person with little time left become progressively less sensible so that often by the time of clock fall I was in a worse/lost position anyway.
I agree with those who cite poor time management but the fact is that people “won” games with the clock.

Sure, but in some cases this is because opponents played for wins in positions where they couldn't win in time and they weren't willing to (or aware they could) claim a 10.2 they would have got. I also noticed under the guillotine that some players (not you) would get really strong positions then not speed up. If you're +4 with a few minutes on your clock you should be able to play generally semi-decent moves (moves that might chuck pawns, but not pieces) at about one move every 3-5 seconds. That should at least get you time to get enough junk off the board to eliminate your opponent's winning chances.


Now with the introduction of increments, (especially 30 secs per move), this does not happen anymore.
People who wish to win a game simply must play better chess.
The dynamics have changed.
I know at least two clock jockeys who have had a rude awakening in this regard!

I can think of one whose standard guillotine tactics have been quite badly derailed. I'm pretty confident he's one of your two, too. :lol: No idea who your second one is. Some players are good at using the guillotine to their advantage, but also good at using the increment to usually avoid the sorts of awful positions that would have made them need to.

Aaron Guthrie
09-03-2007, 01:34 AM
Finally, has anybody ever wondered why a game is lost at the first flag fall? You don't lose a game at the first instance of any other administrative transgression such as making illegal moves, failing to record the score or excessive draw offers, there is a gradation of penalties culminating in default. If after a first flag fall both players got a few extra minutes and you only lost on your second or third you would still get all the alleged benefits of guillotine but players couldn't just play any old crap to run the time down, since an easily won position would still be won.Wouldn't this just be the same as a normal time control, except some of the time is hidden and is only revealed on the falling of flag?

As regards the relationship of time control to the purpose of a game between two players, I don't have anything to say, but it vaguely relates to this-

"Condi chess is another way of making the game fun. The clock is about ten meters away from the board, and every time anyone makes a move, he or she has to run to the clock." Uncompromising Chess in Bretagne (http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3717)

Which conjures up in my mind the image of someone, in a normal tournament, running off with the clock, or even the board! By this I refer to carrying it away, rather than the "Dish with the Spoon" meaning.

Ian Rout
09-03-2007, 08:11 AM
Wouldn't this just be the same as a normal time control, except some of the time is hidden and is only revealed on the falling of flag?

No. The point with a single-guillotine finish is that once a player's time gets sufficiently low the player with more time doesn't have to play chess at all, except to ensure they don't get mated. The players are just playing a game of hitting the clock. Any random move will do, in fact the worse and more random the better.

However if a game is only lost on the second or third flag fall such a strategy will only procure one flag fall at the potential expense of a lost position which the opponent will win in the next phase. Thus while you can still eventually win on time if your opponent is too slow, you can't purely play for that.

PhilD707
09-03-2007, 09:48 AM
You are only required to keep scoring if the increment is 30 seconds or more (not 25 as I had to inform PhilD707 when he tried to impose compulsory scoring with a 25 second increment. :wall: :wall: :wall: )


Let me be the first to congraulate you on the relatively civil tone of your last post (where it pertains to me), although it is a shame that you had to mention the war again (Basil!).
Anyway, credit where its due; Good work! keep it up and I may contribute more often.


I can think of plenty of bulletin editors who would argue the game should be awarded against the player with the untidiest scoresheet! And indeed an illegible scoresheet can cost you the game eventually if you persistently refuse to rectify it. But most DOPs (myself included) are softies on this.


As an amusing(?) anecdote; you would have lost all of your games in one tournament played in Burnie by this untidiest scoresheet rule. In an attempt to add prestige the organisers had arranged for a beautiful wooden board and pieces on board 1. You were on the top board all the way through and as the person who scanned and manually entered games afterwards I can tell you that your efforts would have been impossible to faithfully reconstruct had I not had the scoresheets of your opponents. It had not occurred to us, (though it probably should have) that anyone would have difficulty in keeping score without the letters and numbers on the board to help them "join the dots".




I can think of one whose standard guillotine tactics have been quite badly derailed. I'm pretty confident he's one of your two, too. :lol: No idea who your second one is.


No problems with naming names.
Mile Pavicic, Nigel Lewis and Dragan Radosavljevic have all, since the introduction of increments, taken to resigning in lost positions as they have now discovered man cannot live by the Clock alone.
These 3 are all good club players and will of course continue to win many games in the future however as I said the dynamic has changed and these guys are now actually losing some games that they would have formerly won and conversely people like Thomas Hendrey and myself are winning games that we would almost certainly have lost under the guillotone finish.
That is to say the change in time limits is having some impact on individual performances.

I'll leave it to others to consider the significance (or otherwise) of the fact that I won my first ever Burnie Club tournament in 2005 (The Robert Isted Memorial). I previously participated in approximately 14 such Burnie Club events and have lost count both of the number of times when I had my opponent on the ropes only to lose on (or due to) time, and of the number of 2nd and 3rd place medals I have received :( .
The 2005 Robert Isted was one of the strongest events ever played in Burnie and had record entrants (17). It was also only the second event at the Club where incremental limts were used.

Desmond
09-03-2007, 09:49 AM
No. The point with a single-guillotine finish is that once a player's time gets sufficiently low the player with more time doesn't have to play chess at all, except to ensure they don't get mated. The players are just playing a game of hitting the clock. Any random move will do, in fact the worse and more random the better.I disagree with the general notion that fast chess is not chess.


However if a game is only lost on the second or third flag fall such a strategy will only procure one flag fall at the potential expense of a lost position which the opponent will win in the next phase. Thus while you can still eventually win on time if your opponent is too slow, you can't purely play for that.I admit that I had not thought of your idea of other penalties for flag fall. One problem that has been bothering me though: if you impose monetary penalties for overstepping the time limit, wouldn't player just buy them when required? If the penalty is say $10 and they are playing for say $600 first place, wouldn't this just be an investment?

Aaron Guthrie
09-03-2007, 10:12 AM
No. The point with a single-guillotine finish is that once a player's time gets sufficiently low the player with more time doesn't have to play chess at all, except to ensure they don't get mated. The players are just playing a game of hitting the clock. Any random move will do, in fact the worse and more random the better.

However if a game is only lost on the second or third flag fall such a strategy will only procure one flag fall at the potential expense of a lost position which the opponent will win in the next phase. Thus while you can still eventually win on time if your opponent is too slow, you can't purely play for that.I still don't get it. Let us say that the time control is 56 minutes, +2 on flag-fall 1, +2 on flag-fall 2, loss on flag-fall 3. Now if both players just treat the first 2 flag-falls as irrelevant what makes this any different from a time control with 60 minutes at the start of the game? In this case "sufficiently low" is the same as long as the person playing for time can keep track of the flag-falls and thus keep track of the true amount of time his opponent has left.

Ian Rout
09-03-2007, 10:19 AM
I disagree with the general notion that fast chess is not chess.

It's not the fast part that makes it not chess but the guillotine part. 60 minutes with ten second increment and 70 minute guillotine are about the same speed, on average. But whereas the former is chess throughout the latter can become simply fast as opposed to fast chess.


II admit that I had not thought of your idea of other penalties for flag fall. One problem that has been bothering me though: if you impose monetary penalties for overstepping the time limit, wouldn't player just buy them when required? If the penalty is say $10 and they are playing for say $600 first place, wouldn't this just be an investment?
Yes. I wasn't advocating this. I mentioned it as being the original application because the premise of the argument quoted by Guy is that guillotine finishes are in some way a standard going back to the dawn of time.

The ultimate penalty for not sticking to the time limit has to be loss of the game; the point is to implement that in a way where it doesn't become the game.

arosar
09-03-2007, 10:45 AM
I have a preference for incremental TC myself mainly because I seem to find the game a bit more relaxing in the opening stages.

Also I totally reject this idea that incremental time is not exciting when players are blitzing. Have you ever seen a clock slowly wind down danger close to zero and you're standing there thinking and egging the player, "Move you idiot"? Or on the flipside, if you don't like the guy you just will them not to move and forget about the clock. Then he does with just a second to spare! That's effing exciting.

One thing I notice about the +30s incr. though is that it can be a bit distracting. Because you have to write your moves down throughout you kinda have to constantly focus then refocus. This is critical especially when you have -60s left.

AR

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2007, 07:14 PM
Let me be the first to congraulate you on the relatively civil tone of your last post (where it pertains to me), although it is a shame that you had to mention the war again (Basil!).

This from someone who was quite recently whining here about a warning he received in 2002, which he seems to still regard as a greater outrage than both world wars and the Depression all combined! (The 25 second increment with compulsory scoring, clearly illegal under the FIDE laws, was one of the more minor issues I had with Phil's implementation of increments in the 2006 Tas Champs. I can't recall making much public comment against the 25 second thing before.)


As an amusing(?) anecdote; you would have lost all of your games in one tournament played in Burnie by this untidiest scoresheet rule.

You scanned them (Tasmanian Open 2005), I assume you still have the files? Why don't you post them so everyone can laugh at how bad they really were? :lol:

Yes, I do have an issue with accurate scoring by algebraic notation on boards without letters and numbers, but I believe it applies mainly when I have the black pieces. I also sometimes inadvertently misscore Rad8 as Rad1 or vice versa. Strangely enough I've found it hard to get rid of the conditioning of scoring from both sides of the board even though I switched to algebraic in 1995.

Of course, any DOP worried about players scoring sloppily (either incorrectly or untidily) can always give them a few warnings, then maybe a time penalty after half a dozen incorrect scorings and perhaps eventually a forfeit. Suffice to say this didn't happen, and any DOP applying such a standard would need to ensure consistency to all entrants.

Ironically I had to warn two players for illegible scoring once after one claimed a triple rep and both scoresheets were utterly incomprehensible even with the players there assisting the reconstruction!

Perhaps neater scoresheets might be a benefit of increments (since a player knows they will always get more time to keep scoring.) Then again I doubt it.

antichrist
09-03-2007, 10:18 PM
What incrementists have not appreciated here is that for a person to just cruise to a flagfall finish in guillotine due to a superior usage of time and/or position actually deserves that position. Their sinking opponent foolishly used too much time earlier or were outthought earlier and needed extra time to catch up - an unfamiliar opening by their opponent could cause this.

So give credit where credit is due. Time is an element of competition play and there is nothing more certain when that time will finish than a guillotine finish - the clock is staring at them and winding down with no ifs, buts or beg your pardons. What is more simpler or fair.

To keep competitions fairish in that faster players are not disadvantaged (in that their advantage is taken away) every second round in a comp should be guillotine.

Bluntly speaking I think people preferring increment should be laughed out of the room. If they can't handle the heat POQ!

Basil
10-03-2007, 01:09 AM
What incrementists have not appreciated here is that for a person to just cruise to a flagfall finish in guillotine due to a superior usage of time and/or position actually deserves that position. Their sinking opponent foolishly used too much time earlier or were outthought earlier and needed extra time to catch up - an unfamiliar opening by their opponent could cause this.

AC, you're saying that fixed time constraints are part of every facet of human endeavour. We all work within time-frames. Building houses, employment, games of football!, stage performances and so on? I agree.

It is only when we get to the greatest ever arty farty, airy fairy waste of human intelligence ever created (chess) that we find one abstract, oddball Robert Fischer who espoused that said waste could, and should, be conducted indefinitely! Only in the world of chess.

"No. I failed. I need more tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime! Gaaaaaarn. More tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime. It'll be beautiful, I promise."

ER
10-03-2007, 01:39 AM
to make it really interesting, introduce penalty shootouts! :owned:

ER
10-03-2007, 04:58 AM
I 'll just lay down in front of the goalposts and score if you can! :owned:
Cheers and good luck! :)

Desmond
10-03-2007, 07:42 AM
It's not the fast part that makes it not chess but the guillotine part. 60 minutes with ten second increment and 70 minute guillotine are about the same speed, on average. But whereas the former is chess throughout the latter can become simply fast as opposed to fast chess.I'm not convinced. I think that along the same lines there are many who would argue that 60+10 is not chess either. I am happy to agree that as time available to think about a move approaches 0, the quality of the move also approaches 0. I think that lightning fast pattern recognition is a huge part of chess, and see nothing wrong with this being tested at the tail-end of the game.


Yes. I wasn't advocating this. I mentioned it as being the original application because the premise of the argument quoted by Guy is that guillotine finishes are in some way a standard going back to the dawn of time.ok


The ultimate penalty for not sticking to the time limit has to be loss of the game; the point is to implement that in a way where it doesn't become the game.I think that the fundamental problem is that it is hard to penalise combatants in a chess game. There's no scoreboard to dock, no players to send off (unless you want to pinch pieces), etc. All there really is is penalising them on time or with the loss of the game. If you have an alternative I would be glad to hear it.

antichrist
10-03-2007, 02:41 PM
AC, you're saying that fixed time constraints are part of every facet of human endeavour. We all work within timeframes. Building houses, employment, games of football!, performances and so on and so on? I agree.

It is only when we get to the greatest ever arty farty, airy fairy waste of human intelligence ever created (chess) that we find one abstract, oddball Robert Fischer who espoused that said waste could, and should, be conducted indefinitely! Only in the world of chess.


Howard, your blood is worth bottling, plus I recall that earlier excellent post in another thread on the same topic.

I have seen whole comps get held up with such bullshit increment endings going on forever, it is ridiculous, I want to get the games over and go home.

Denis_Jessop
10-03-2007, 09:53 PM
AC, you're saying that fixed time constraints are part of every facet of human endeavour. We all work within time-frames. Building houses, employment, games of football!, stage performances and so on? I agree.

It is only when we get to the greatest ever arty farty, airy fairy waste of human intelligence ever created (chess) that we find one abstract, oddball Robert Fischer who espoused that said waste could, and should, be conducted indefinitely! Only in the world of chess.

"No. I failed. I need more tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime! Gaaaaaarn. More tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime. It'll be beautiful, I promise."

One can look at this matter from quite a different point of view. I prefer Fischer time limits. Equating this with life, I can say that every time I eat a healthy meal and not junk food, take excercise, go to the doctor for a check -up etc, I am getting a 30 second increment, say, so that my time will run out later than those who prefer the guillotine. :hmm:

DJ

Basil
10-03-2007, 09:59 PM
I'm with you Denis. One can indeed look at this from a different perspective. I too prefer increments - well actually happy with both.

I am arguing the increment side right here to counter the holier-than-thou incrementalists who have stretched their case beyond what is reasonable and balanced comment.

The reality is that both increment and guillotine are playable with merits and drawbacks associated with both. Damn - I didn't want to be the first to say that. Now the thread's finished ;)

antichrist
10-03-2007, 10:11 PM
Last edited by Bill Gletsos : 10-03-2007 at 04:15 PM. Reason: fixed quote tags

Well isn't this kind of Bill to do this for me and stop me looking such a big fool. The spelling mistakes I could have picked up of Bill's over the years that are a lot more illuminating than " %/><[]{} " tags

There have been many unanswered questions I have put to Bill, but no, he has to fix my quote tags.

Basil
10-03-2007, 10:11 PM
I'm really not happy with terminating the thread there.


Equating this with life, I can say that every time I eat a healthy meal and not junk food, take excercise, go to the doctor for a check -up etc, I am getting a 30 second increment, say, so that my time will run out later than those who prefer the guillotine.

So, no you're not getting a better use of your time; you're merely using your alloted time in a better fashion. Or perhaps not standing outside smoking while your clocks ticks down.

However, as this position is somewhat tenuous, I have to rule your argument out on the grounds we're talking about endeavours in life, not life itself.

antichrist
10-03-2007, 10:24 PM
I'm with you Denis. One can indeed look at this from a different perspective. I too prefer increments - well actually happy with both.

I am arguing the increment side right here to counter the holier-than-thou incrementalists who have stretched their case beyond what is reasonable and balanced comment.

The reality is that both increment and guillotine are playable with merits and drawbacks associated with both. Damn - I didn't want to be the first to say that. Now the thread's finished ;)

Howard, I remember reading in Junior Apprec thread that you claimed to have the safst goollies in town, well you are bloody well sitting on the fence on this issue dilly-dallying from side to side, JBP would have you on toast with bacon.

Basil
10-03-2007, 10:28 PM
Howard, I remember reading in Junior Apprec thread that you claimed to have the safst goollies in town, well you are bloody well sitting on the fence on this issue dilly-dallying from side to side, JBP would have you on toast with bacon.

*LOL* There's a difference. I am asserting that there's a place for both. Sometimes this is an escapable fact and knowing when to assert it is the test.

Denis_Jessop
11-03-2007, 10:43 AM
I'm really not happy with terminating the thread there.



So, no you're not getting a better use of your time; you're merely using your alloted time in a better fashion. Or perhaps not standing outside smoking while your clocks ticks down.

However, as this position is somewhat tenuous, I have to rule your argument out on the grounds we're talking about endeavours in life, not life itself.

But isn't life just one long chess game?

DJ

Desmond
11-03-2007, 12:40 PM
But isn't life just one long chess game?

DJI always thought it to be a cabaret, old chum!

Basil
11-03-2007, 02:40 PM
I always thought it to be a cabaret, old chum!
Or cabernet (solicitor, you know ;))


But isn't life just one long chess game?

Perhaps, but there ain't no increment! :doh:

Garvinator
11-03-2007, 02:55 PM
Perhaps, but there ain't no increment! :doh:
Yes there is, it is called defibrillation machines, bypass operations etc :owned:

I think we are really starting to get off thread here.

Ian Rout
12-03-2007, 10:38 AM
All there really is is penalising them on time or with the loss of the game. If you have an alternative I would be glad to hear it.
I thought I had described one in my earlier post, namely that in a guillotine finish the first expiry doesn't need to be a loss, this would only happen on the the second or third expiry. Players who failed to make the time limit would then still be penalised, initially by the loss of a "life" and subsequently by loss of the game, but it would be difficult to merely play for time and suicidal to make outright blunders.

On the other issue which has developed, the moral parallels between life and chess rules, I don't think we can derive a lot (beside amusement) from this. There is no morality in the rules of sports. The rules are just there to make the game interesting and aren't even consistent: catching the ball is good in Aussie Rules, useful in rugby union or league, and illegal in soccer; punching an opponent earns you a point in boxing but a suspension in chess.

This is the flaw in antichrist's assertion that you "deserve" to win if you can run your opponent's time by making inferior but quick moves. You deserve to win in that way if you are playing guillotine chess, because you have achieved by legal and ethical means what is specified in the rules as a win. That doesn't make it an interesting or worthwhile game.

antichrist
12-03-2007, 01:06 PM
.................
This is the flaw in antichrist's assertion that you "deserve" to win if you can run your opponent's time by making inferior but quick moves. You deserve to win in that way if you are playing guillotine chess, because you have achieved by legal and ethical means what is specified in the rules as a win. That doesn't make it an interesting or worthwhile game.

You are as good as making up fibs as [deleted-mod] - I never said any such thing.

What I said was:

What incrementists have not appreciated here is that for a person to just cruise to a flagfall finish in guillotine due to a superior usage of time and/or position actually deserves that position. Their sinking opponent foolishly used too much time earlier or were outthought earlier and needed extra time to catch up - an unfamiliar opening by their opponent could cause this.....

This is the exact opposite of playing inferior but quick moves that you have claimed I said.

How about an apology or are you going to be as weak as [deleted-mod] as well.

[irrelevant Hakoah rant deleted - mod]

Ian Rout
12-03-2007, 03:06 PM
It sounds like a reasonable paraphrasing to me but others can judge that as they see fit. I can't comment about Hakoah, but if I could I'd do it on the thread relevant to that subject.

Denis_Jessop
12-03-2007, 04:53 PM
<snip>



Perhaps, but there ain't no increment! :doh:

Howard
Please see post #39 in which I explained my theory of time increments and life.:cool:

DJ

Basil
12-03-2007, 04:58 PM
Please see post #39 in which I explained my theory of time increments and life.

I saw it Denis. And then I debunked it! [post #42]

Desmond
12-03-2007, 05:59 PM
I thought I had described one in my earlier post, namely that in a guillotine finish the first expiry doesn't need to be a loss, this would only happen on the the second or third expiry. Players who failed to make the time limit would then still be penalised, initially by the loss of a "life" and subsequently by loss of the game, but it would be difficult to merely play for time and suicidal to make outright blunders.I still don't see what they are being penalised. I am just envisaging that the arbiter will come over, say "you're a naughty boy", and adjust the clock.

Garvinator
12-03-2007, 07:19 PM
I still don't see what they are being penalised. I am just envisaging that the arbiter will come over, say "you're a naughty boy", and adjust the clock.
Also part of the reason for having increments is to reduce the influence of the arbiter in the game where neither playing has broken the laws of chess.

Like Boris, I am struggling to see how Ian's suggestion really changes matters. What happens if one players decides to 'show the bird' (metaphorically speaking) to the first two 'flag falls' by continuing to play for flagfall?

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2007, 07:46 PM
We tried 90/+10 in the Tas Champs this weekend.

In some senses it is actually more exciting and nervewracking than 90 flat. In 90 flat you can get into time trouble that's so terminal you lose (which happens to lots of people) and you get the odd crazy race to get mate down in the final seconds. In 90/+10 you don't get that, but you do get some players on the rack so that they keep going within seconds of losing - and it is extremely easy to overstep under these conditions, including with a winning position.

Basil
12-03-2007, 07:48 PM
+ 10 is thoroughly evil. I like it a lot.

Garvinator
12-03-2007, 08:41 PM
I hear quite a bit about increments increasing the length of games. Guillotine can also increase the length of quite a few games when players' don't resign because they think that they might be able to flag their opponent.

antichrist
12-03-2007, 09:37 PM
I hear quite a bit about increments increasing the length of games. Guillotine can also increase the length of quite a few games when players' don't resign because they think that they might be able to flag their opponent.

But this is irrelevant because the game will be over in the set time anyway. You only need one game to go the distance (that often occurs on board 1) and what happens on all other boards is irrelevant. And going the full time is already allocated for and one can watch decent games on board 1 with an exciting finish.

antichrist
12-03-2007, 09:38 PM
It sounds like a reasonable paraphrasing to me but others can judge that as they see fit. I can't comment about Hakoah, but if I could I'd do it on the thread relevant to that subject.

I will take that as an apology.

Ian Rout
13-03-2007, 09:16 AM
Like Boris, I am struggling to see how Ian's suggestion really changes matters.
Although I think it would be a major improvement, it's not nearly as great an improvement as simply playing an entire blitz tournament in the time you waste manufacturing a blitz finish. Anyway it's not hugely important, considering nobody will ever try it before guillotine goes the same way as playing in frock coats with egg-timers. It's just one of those idle speculative issues like what would you change if you ran the AFL, or if you were in Parliament House with six bullets who would you take out?

Aaron Guthrie
13-03-2007, 03:40 PM
Ian did you miss my post #29?

I think you need to tell us what the result of the preliminary flag-fall's are aside from the gaining of time.

ER
13-03-2007, 04:16 PM
I am a strong incrementist. I prefer games to last longer and qualitywise better, than having to witness agonising individuals trying to use the last seconds on their clock playing their desperate moves and at the same time keeping score of their games.
If you want no increment, then have some scorers to record moves like they do in cricket or basketball or other games.
Someone said something about Hakoah. I was a proud member of that Club early to mid 80s and I still remember the great times I had there!
Cheers and good luck to all! :)
PS Hi Xavier, hi Abraham, hi Marco, hi Michael, hi Vass, Hi John and the rest of the Bondi gang! :)

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2007, 04:21 PM
I prefer games to last longer and qualitywise better, than having to witness agonising individuals trying to use the last seconds on their clock playing their desperate moves and at the same time keeping score of their games.

The "agonising individuals" are not required to keep score once their time drops below five minutes.


If you want no increment, then have some scorers to record moves like they do in cricket or basketball or other games.

The arbiters should do this or appoint an assistant. Also with increments <30 secs the same issue arises. I scored the finish of three or four games this weekend.

Strangely when you score the final moves on their behalf relatively few players want the extra moves for the record.

ER
13-03-2007, 04:36 PM
The "agonising individuals" are not required to keep score once their time drops below five minutes.


Yes they are!

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2007, 04:45 PM
Yes they are!

They only are if there is an increment of 30 seconds or more per move. Check the Laws.

Bill Gletsos
13-03-2007, 04:51 PM
Article 8.4

If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard.

ER
13-03-2007, 04:59 PM
They only are if there is an increment of 30 seconds or more per move. Check the Laws.

The two tournaments I currently participate in (Box Hill Autumn Cup & Box Hill New Season Swiss) and ALL the tournaments I played last year, had the 30 second increment and we had to record ALL the moves!

ER
13-03-2007, 05:00 PM
Article 8.4

Bill thanks for the immediate response but I am talking about 30 second increment added from the first move here!

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2007, 05:18 PM
The two tournaments I currently participate in (Box Hill Autumn Cup & Box Hill New Season Swiss) and ALL the tournaments I played last year, had the 30 second increment and we had to record ALL the moves!

Which is correct, but your argument doesn't seem very coherent. You're supporting increments because you're against players having to score in their final seconds, but that actually can't happen unless they are getting at least 30 seconds per move.


Bill thanks for the immediate response but I am talking about 30 second increment added from the first move here!

In that case the whole game is a single period for the purposes of rule 8.4.

Bill Gletsos
13-03-2007, 05:20 PM
Bill thanks for the immediate response but I am talking about 30 second increment added from the first move here!
Based on what you wrote that did not appear to be the case at all.

You said

I am a strong incrementist. I prefer games to last longer and qualitywise better, than having to witness agonising individuals trying to use the last seconds on their clock playing their desperate moves and at the same time keeping score of their games.
That would indicate you were refering to gullotine finishes especially since your next sentence was:

If you want no increment, then have some scorers to record moves like they do in cricket or basketball or other games

antichrist
13-03-2007, 06:16 PM
I take credit for coining the word "incrementalist", what do you call a person who likes guillotine?

Basil
13-03-2007, 06:25 PM
I take credit for coining the word "incrementalist", what do you call a person who likes guillotine?

Hmmm, I think I did incrementalist. Yours was incrementist, was it not?

ER
13-03-2007, 06:27 PM
Based on what you wrote that did not appear to be the case at all.

You said

That would indicate you were refering to gullotine finishes especially since your next sentence was:

Not at all
I was talking about past experiences when lost on time was lost on time and terms such as increments and guilotines were never used.
Don't forget I stopped playing tournament chess around 1986 and I started again at 2003. Many things have changed including the clocks themselves. Since then, (2003) I cannot remember any tournament I participated giving the option to the player of no scoring moves when having passed the 5 minute time control. In fact, in all honesty (ignorance if you like) today it's the first time I heard about it from Kevin.
However, even with the 30 secs increment from the beginning there are still people who face difficulties in playing their moves and having to keep score of their moves. This situation I have witnessed!
Cheers and good luck

ER
13-03-2007, 06:28 PM
oops I stuffed up the quotations again, sorry!
Cheers and good luck

ER
13-03-2007, 06:31 PM
I take credit for coining the word "incrementalist"

That's why I used the term "incrementist" instead!

ER
13-03-2007, 06:35 PM
what do you call a person who likes guillotine?

Maximilien Robespierre?

antichrist
13-03-2007, 06:35 PM
we have not worked out what to call a/an guillotinist yet? Herodist maybe?

Desmond
13-03-2007, 06:43 PM
we have not worked out what to call a/an guillotinist yet? Herod maybe?It has big ears, big gloves, and plays cricket for Australia!

Bill Gletsos
13-03-2007, 06:46 PM
Not at all
I was talking about past experiences when lost on time was lost on time and terms such as increments and guilotines were never used.That is neither stated nor implied in your post that I quoted.

Don't forget I stopped playing tournament chess around 1986 and I started again at 2003. Many things have changed including the clocks themselves. Since then, (2003) I cannot remember any tournament I participated giving the option to the player of no scoring moves when having passed the 5 minute time control. In fact, in all honesty (ignorance if you like) today it's the first time I heard about it from Kevin.Not having score if you had less than 5 minutes left on your clock has been part of the Laws of Chess since the 1984 FIDE Congress in Thessaloniki when it was Article 11.2

ER
13-03-2007, 06:54 PM
That is neither stated nor implied in your post that I quoted.


It didnt have to! There was no arguement to defend, it was just a statement about having or not having increment!
Can you please clarify when the 30 second increment from the first move was first implemented?

Bill Gletsos
13-03-2007, 07:31 PM
It didnt have to!I disagree.

There was no arguement to defend, it was just a statement about having or not having increment!Your statements that I quoted in no way imply you were talking about games with increments with regards writing down moves. In fact they seemed to be trhe exact opposite. As such Kevin's response in post #64 seems correct.

Can you please clarify when the 30 second increment from the first move was first implemented?I'm not sure but the 1997 laws of Chess that were approved at the 67th FIDE Congress in Yerevan in September/October 1996 were I believe the first set of Laws to specify that you had to keep recording even if you had less than 5 minutes on your clock if you had at least a 30 second increment.

Phil Bourke
14-03-2007, 10:52 AM
I disagree.
I'm not sure but the 1997 laws of Chess that were approved at the 67th FIDE Congress in Yerevan in September/October 2006 were I believe the first set of Laws to specify that you had to keep recording even if you had less than 5 minutes on your clock if you had at least a 30 second increment.
That must be one huge increment FIDE is using if it takes 9 years to approve Rule changes. :)

Bill Gletsos
14-03-2007, 02:01 PM
That must be one huge increment FIDE is using if it takes 9 years to approve Rule changes. :)Thanks for pointing that out.
I have corrected the year.

Denis_Jessop
14-03-2007, 09:34 PM
Can you please clarify when the 30 second increment from the first move was first implemented?

A few comments here. You can't have increments without digital clocks. DGT clocks were still fairly rare in Australia in 1996 and Fischer-mode time limits even more so. They became more popular when FIDE declared its preference for the game in 90 minutes plus 30 spm time limit. I haven't chased this up but I think it was in about 2000.

DJ

antichrist
14-03-2007, 09:36 PM
So now I know who the culprits are!
I was blaming everyone else, if the current Pope can bring back the Latin mass surely guillotine can come back

Phil Bourke
14-03-2007, 11:18 PM
So now I know who the culprits are!
I was blaming everyone else, if the current Pope can bring back the Latin mass surely guillotine can come back
If the Pope can get the masses to Mass, then you may have guillotine :)

antichrist
15-03-2007, 02:59 AM
If the Pope can get the masses to Mass, then you may have guillotine :)

In that case I would be so distraught I will self guillotine!

Phil Bourke
15-03-2007, 12:17 PM
In that case I would be so distraught I will self guillotine!
Ahhh, the Latin version of Hari-Kari :D

Gattaca
15-03-2007, 04:04 PM
Leo has asked me to publish another letter of his.

--------------------------------------------------

Dear Guy!

I don’t know if I have all of the essays on the increments but I have made a copy of some of them.

I feel that all the answers were light hearted.

To start of with increments don’t change the purpose. The writer because the way it was written took it out of context. I should have edited it better. May be this will be in a better context. Chess is an excellent game for skill and character training purpose and in that field increments make the game of chess less effective.

In the early days of chess we played without increments, but in matching David and Goliath we handicap the players using any of the major pieces Q,R,N,B. This made the weaker player happy if they won against you.

With the introduction of electronic clocks increments can be introduced, but must serve a purpose. So let us use the increments eg 90m + 10s increment to eliminates an arbiter’s dilemma of a claim for a draw.

My objection was to the ‘fixed time’ game reference as ‘sudden death’ and by using a psychological expression when I referred to it as ‘sudden death syndrome’ got me in real hot water.

I have no preference to fixed or increment timing as long as they serve its purpose.

In 60m + 30sec increment I am forced to play at a rate of 60 moves per hour to play a 90m game.

If I don’t play at that rate (60moves per hour) I am loosing on time slowly.

In a 90m fixed time game I play at a slower pace about 40 moves per hour.

This is based on average of up to 60 moves to complete a game. Also remember that you can play a loosing game from your second move.

Well I better finish for tonight as I have to prepare a talk for tomorrow in the Launceston School for Seniors speaking for pleasure class.

Would you please put it on the web after you read it please?

Didn't go last night. New computer won't let me send a message.

Regards Leo

Gattaca
15-03-2007, 04:39 PM
Okay, I may as well give my own comments on Leo's original essay. Let me preface this by saying that I agree with the logic presented by Ian Rout and found his post on the topic very clear and well thought out. My comments were written some time ago in reply to Leo and before Ian posted, so there may be some duplication. Leo's essay is in black and my annotations in red.

SUBJECT: TIME INCREMENTS IN THE GAME OF CHESS
Some time ago I upset some people with my comment about increments and now I am taking the opportunity to clarify my statement. At this stage it is only a draft and I intend to expand on it at some later stage.
To start the discussion about increments let us try to understand not only the game of chess but also its purpose. When the increments were introduced, that I don’t know.

My view of Chess
As a very young boy I started to learn chess from my father and always was thought that chess was a visual game, through which I could learn self-discipline, observation, adjust to the situation and many other things. In the army we used to play chess for similar reasons, observation, to be alert and quickly analyse the situation and respond in the shortest possible time. In short it is a not only skill but also a character training game.

I don’t disagree with these comments, but they are irrelevant to the debate over increments. 30 second increments, which are normal, give you very little time to think once all your other time is used up. They simply ensure that you always have some time to think and sensibly distinguish between the total thinking requirements of long games (that might go over 100 moves) as opposed to short games.

Therefore in my opinion increments completely change the purpose of the game of chess.

The word “therefore” conveys the idea that the preceding comments make a cogent argument that increments “completely change the purpose of the game of chess.” However, no such argument can be found in those comments and the statement is not correct. Increments by comparison to gullotine better preserve at least one purpose of the game, that of determining the more skilful player.

For various reasons I had a brake from chess for about 40ty years. Since I came back and joined the club and entered tournaments I heard far too many arguments about this or something else.

That is an observation about the author's dislike of arguments. It has no bearing on the veracity or otherwise of the said arguments. The arguments about “something else” are not relevant to this debate.

Further comments:
So far I have not heard any explanation to convincing me to change my mind on increments. Psychologically increments give you a wrong impression that you have a better game.

There is nothing psychological about increments.

The idea behind increments is to ensure that a player always has a prescribed minimum amount of time for any given move. People who believe that increments are better than guillotine finishes have many reasons for their belief, not the least of these being that they believe it is undesirable for a random variable (the length of a game) to have a huge bearing on the quality of play at the end of the game and in many cases a decisive bearing on the actual result, rather than the overall quality of chess moves deciding the result.

If that is your idea, it’s OK with me.
I enter a tournament for the sake of playing a game with an unknown opponent to test my skill, and if I loose a game for whatever reason, time, wrong move or any other reason then I am not as good as my opponent.

I see this as irrelevant. What the author says here is equally true or false with or without increments.

Even if I lost a game but I enjoyed it that’s what counts.

Irrelevant. Has no bearing on the question of increments.

Scoring the game I consider as being essential for future analysis and study.

Yes, Leo makes a good argument for increments here. In a gullotine finish in many cases both players have to stop scoring.

In my view a chess tournament is to test your skills in the game of chess ‘like a swimmer or runner in a race tests his skill in endurance, strength or tactics.

Another good argument, but again for the opposing side of the debate. The author doesn't want the game decided because someone lost on time a Queen up, 5 seconds before his opponent’s flag fell. Neither do the supporters of increments. It appears we all agree that a test of chess skill is what we want.

Personally I take part in a tournament for participation, meeting with another fellow chess player regardless whether the times are as you called them “SUDDEN DEATH” or have increments, but not to “win at all costs”. Given reasons for increments gave me the impression to win at all costs.

Absolutely the opposite is true. The guillotine finish encourages “win at all costs” behaviour, as it doesn’t matter how badly you are losing you can try to hustle a win on time. Increments are an attempt to let chess ability decide as many games as possible.
When Leo states, “Given reasons for increments gave me the impression to win at all costs”, he should state the source of those reasons, as those (unspecified) reasons almost certainly don’t accurately represent people who prefer increments. Winning at all costs is not a reason that any supporter of increments has advanced to my knowledge.

Therefore in my mind the argument against the so called sudden death finish, psychologically can be expressed as ‘sudden death syndrome’.

In my opinion the author has neither presented nor addressed "the argument" (in point of fact there are many arguments) against sudden death time limits, so it’s not clear what point he is making here.

Having advantage in both time and position, I lost the games on time, because somehow I could not see the winning moves, and I would have lost them on time regardless of increments.

Let me clarify the fundamental difference that increments produce in certain situations. If you are a Queen for a rook up with a few pawns each but only 30 seconds left in a guillotine finish, you are going to lose on time. It’s not a matter of finding the right moves, as even if you find them within a few seconds you will still lose on time. The person with the rook would probably have resigned except for the guillotine finish, which enables them to play on to win (or draw) on time. With an increment it is always possible for the side with a winning chess position to win if their technique is good enough.

You could argue that the player with only 30 seconds left should have moved quicker earlier on, but what if the situation I described arose on move 150? How was the player supposed to know on move 30 that the game would go for 190 moves and that they in reality had less than 30 seconds for every move?

One of the key reasons why increments are to be preferred is because they acknowledge the difference between a very short game and a very long one. To have the same amount of time for a 25 move game as a 170 move game makes no sense and Bobby Fischer recognised this when he first proposed the increment idea.

Basil
15-03-2007, 06:26 PM
Guy

I appreciated and enjoyed your post, as I invariably do. Certainly both forms have their place and I am proposing neither as better.

My reason for writing is to balance (I hope) your (agreeable position). Isn't this whole concept semantics anyway (grass court vs clay court)?


One of the key reasons why increments are to be preferred is because they acknowledge the difference between a very short game and a very long one. To have the same amount of time for a 25 move game as a 170 move game makes no sense and Bobby Fischer recognised this when he first proposed the increment idea.
True indeed on its merits (and also as to fact) but not a winning argument that defeats the counter proposition, because what 'we' (a myriad of individual tastes) want from chess cannot be determined by someone else, even by Bobby Fischer; viz;



In the army we used to play chess for similar reasons, observation, to be alert and quickly analyse the situation and respond in the shortest possible time. In short it is a not only skill but also a character training game.

I don’t disagree with these comments, but they are irrelevant to the debate over increments.
I disagree that the issue is irrelevant. It is entirely relevant. We are all entitled to play chess for different reasons and offer different value weightings to the various aspects of the game; and Leo's assessment on the value of guillotine is based in part on his perceived value and purpose of the game. I don't believe anyone can extricate that perspective from another's evaluation.

As I did with Ian's post, I appreciate and support your stated position, but can't agree that it defeats the counter perspective. Back to the tennis match:

A five set championship match (or an early first round if your prefer); part of the joy :eek: is an upset which can occur (if sufficient presence of mind exists) on the smallest of errors. If the reigning champ had a slip-up in the first two (it only takes a point or two - a slightly inaccurate move, if you will) and was out-played in the third, let the under-dog have his day and take the match. But add the increment (not an exact anology, I grant you), and the champ will win the 10 set match every time.

I appreciate the point about the game being unforeseen as lasting 130 moves, but I counter that by noting that the conditions are present for both sides, and yet again, Leo's position of 'unforeen circumstances' has weight. Further increments permit a marginally worse position which would/ may otherwise be lost on guillotine, to be saved on increment - placing a far greater emphasis on a different aspect of the game. One day cricket v test.

I don't for moment propose the above position as any more valid than that asserted by you. I do however strenuously assert that it is an equal and meritorious one that can in no way sit below yours!

Regards
Howard

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2007, 06:57 PM
[COLOR="Red"]Let me clarify the fundamental difference that increments produce in certain situations. If you are a Queen for a rook up with a few pawns each but only 30 seconds left in a guillotine finish, you are going to lose on time.

That depends on the arbiter's interpretation of article 10.2. In some, perhaps most, but not all, such positions I would award a draw to the player with the queen if it was correctly claimed. Some arbiters are stricter and only award it if the only way to win is a helpmate or in certain well known cases like KR v KR or KQ v KQ but following the test suggested by Reuben in his book (which is whether a loss on time in the position brings the game into disrepute) an arbiter certainly can award a draw, at least between strong players.

Of course, the player with the strongest position is still only getting a draw for a position which, with increments, they would most likely win.


Further increments permit a marginally worse position which would/ may otherwise be lost on guillotine, to be saved on increment - placing a far greater emphasis on a different aspect of the game. One day cricket v test.

Yes, I have noticed this too. Defenders in inferior positions (the sort that are lost with best play but not trivially so) can put up far stiffer resistance under increments. They can play on and on for hours in positions which would quickly get sucked down the drain in time trouble in a guillotine game.

Desmond
15-03-2007, 08:06 PM
Yes, I have noticed this too. Defenders in inferior positions (the sort that are lost with best play but not trivially so) can put up far stiffer resistance under increments. They can play on and on for hours in positions which would quickly get sucked down the drain in time trouble in a guillotine game.I have no problem with this being the case. In such position, I tend to think that they are closer to a draw than a decisive result, even though it may be objectively winning. If the outcome is a draw, then I don't think it unfair.

antichrist
16-03-2007, 11:35 AM
.........

Yes, I have noticed this too. Defenders in inferior positions (the sort that are lost with best play but not trivially so) can put up far stiffer resistance under increments. They can play on and on for hours in positions which would quickly get sucked down the drain in time trouble in a guillotine game.

That is what I have been saying all along, the person with the positional and/or time advantage deserves that advantage and why have it diminished by increment?

Why be forced to play out a long, boring increment game that will very likely end up with the same result but unnecessarily more tiring the winner. Let the winner be off relaxing and enjoy observing other games till the next round - no bulldust of increment having to sit down with inferior players.

Phil Bourke
16-03-2007, 09:44 PM
That is what I have been saying all along, the person with the positional and/or time advantage deserves that advantage and why have it diminished by increment?

Why be forced to play out a long, boring increment game that will very likely end up with the same result but unnecessarily more tiring the winner. Let the winner be off relaxing and enjoy observing other games till the next round - no bulldust of increment having to sit down with inferior players.
Whoa there, if the game requires a long drawn out ending to decide the winner, perhaps the opposition wasn't that inferior to begin with.
I don't like the idea of a player getting into a better position on the clock and then sitting it out to win the game on time, I much rather the use of increments which allow the game to be decided on skill. If both players are skilful enough to play a draw, then so be it.

antichrist
19-03-2007, 11:41 AM
Whoa there, if the game requires a long drawn out ending to decide the winner, perhaps the opposition wasn't that inferior to begin with.
I don't like the idea of a player getting into a better position on the clock and then sitting it out to win the game on time, I much rather the use of increments which allow the game to be decided on skill. If both players are skilful enough to play a draw, then so be it.

Don't yo think I am reading through your and other similar messages.

You can't just sit out a better position on the guillotine clock unless quite an advantage, whether time or material/positon. Repeating, one has earnt that.

We know before the game begins that it is either (for eg) 60 min flagfall or approx 70-80 mins increment. With flagfall you just factor the flagfall factor into your mental clock/psychology and there is no need for any (what I reakon) wasting time of the superior player.

As stated earlier, apparently the same players are winning under both systems (or 95% are at least) so the increment is just a waste of time giving false hope to losers and wasting the time/energy/concentration of good time users like myself.

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2007, 11:58 AM
You can't just sit out a better position on the guillotine clock unless quite an advantage, whether time or material/positon. Repeating, one has earnt that.

I'm not sure this is accurate. A lot of games "spiral". The opponent is in mild trouble on the board. They get in time trouble trying to fix the trouble they're in on the board. They fail and get in worse trouble on the board because of the time trouble they're in, they then get in worse time trouble trying to fix that, and so on. Of course this stems from bad time management (because the opponent is better off playing moves that hold the position at slightly bad without getting into time trouble) but you don't need a big advantage to start using the clock to win.

antichrist
19-03-2007, 12:04 PM
I'm not sure this is accurate. A lot of games "spiral". The opponent is in mild trouble on the board. They get in time trouble trying to fix the trouble they're in on the board. They fail and get in worse trouble on the board because of the time trouble they're in, they then get in worse time trouble trying to fix that, and so on. Of course this stems from bad time management (because the opponent is better off playing moves that hold the position at slightly bad without getting into time trouble) but you don't need a big advantage to start using the clock to win.

For once in my life I actually earnt Board 1 (trouble was had been to 4-day Lebo wedding to 4am during nights after games), got behind in time and material, fought back to equality in both but lost think due to pressure if remembering correctly, that was guillotine finish (before D clocks invented).

When thinking now with increment I may have done better?

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2007, 07:08 PM
The clock may be the 33rd piece but it should not be another king! Yet in a non-blitz game, allowing a situation where one player can win simply by a clock race in a totally sterile position distorts the game. Increments avoid this nonsense.

My club (Logan) got rid of situations requiring Article 10:2. I was strongly in favour of this even though I was not only the arbiter but also the strongest player by far. Although this should be the ideal situation for adjudicating games, I still don't think the arbiter should have this power. The arbiter's job was always enforcement of the laws; assessment of a position, apart from some clearly defined cases, was never in the job description till guillotine finishes.

Basil
10-04-2007, 07:26 PM
Yet in a non-blitz game, allowing a situation where one player can win simply by a clock race in a totally sterile position distorts the game.

Like a war when both armies are beat and the battlefield can't decide :doh: Then the weather or other factors come into play. There's none of this
"Look fellas, we don't have time to process the tactics you're employing, so can we call it a draw and go home for tea and cakes?" or
"Look, it's obvious you're going to win this, which isn't on, so how about you give us some more time to sort ourselves out, and then we can win!"

Although I wouldn't be surprised if the Italians and the French tried that one or twice.

The quicker you brainiacs remind yourselves that chess is not just about 64 squares and 32 men, the quicker you'll accept narrowness of what you purport.

There are pros and cons for both increments and guillotine. Now stop making me look intelligent and move on! ;)

CameronD
10-04-2007, 09:03 PM
I've seen games where people have been lost and won on time solely on guilotine, never minding drawn games. There's room for chess for all time controls. I've won a lot of games against better players because of patience, this wouldn't have happened in guilotine.

Personally I enjoy chess for the long games where I can sit and think, chess becomes frustrating and a burdon when having to play rushed games. I don't have any interests in anything under 60+10. Others enjoy blitz and lightnning or guilotine, I see the beuty and skill in all time controls, and play in the ones I enjoy.

If you enjoy guilotine... then play guilotine. If you dont... then dont play those. And vice versa. Thats why I dont play in my clubs lightning tournament, I get frustrated and dont enjoy it, but I still support the club running the event as part of their calender.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2007, 03:27 AM
The arbiter's job was always enforcement of the laws; assessment of a position, apart from some clearly defined cases, was never in the job description till guillotine finishes.

Just for clarity although I assume you already know this (it bears repeating at every opportunity to make sure there are as few mistakes as possible, though half the audience never seem to get it) - the arbiter is not assessing whether the position is drawn. They are assessing whether it can be won by normal means which, once the concept is grasped, is much easier.

And there are other and more difficult contexts in which an arbiter sometimes has to assess a position. For instance when deciding whether a draw offer in that position is unreasonable and hence a distraction, or if deciding whether playing on rather than agreeing a draw in a position brings the game into disrepute.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 10:36 AM
Just for clarity although I assume you already know this (it bears repeating at every opportunity to make sure there are as few mistakes as possible, though half the audience never seem to get it) - the arbiter is not assessing whether the position is drawn. They are assessing whether it can be won by normal means which, once the concept is grasped, is much easier.

Yes, I did know this but thanx for making it clear. I had to make such decisions in the Logan club a lot. Doesn't mean I liked it, so I was happy to switch to increments.

Here, the strength of the players may come into it. What would be ridiculously abnormal means for masters could be normal for lower club players.


And there are other and more difficult contexts in which an arbiter sometimes has to assess a position. For instance when deciding whether a draw offer in that position is unreasonable and hence a distraction,

I think only a repeated draw offer would be a distraction, presuming that the draw is offered according to the rules (a lot of players offer draws improperly). A much higher rated player will sometimes offer a draw if he found himself in a lost position, in the not-unreasonable hope that a respectful lower rated player might take the 1/2 point in the hand.


or if deciding whether playing on rather than agreeing a draw in a position brings the game into disrepute.

Wouldn't that be similar, since this would again be whether the position can be won by normal means?

CameronD
11-04-2007, 01:41 PM
I've never read the laws of chess, but it seems that they need to make them laws a lot simpler. I was an official national umpire in another sport until players started sueing the umpire for incorrect decisions and winning significant amounts through the court (similar to Grand Prix 2 level).

The same can certainly occur at chess, thats why the ruling body needs to make the rules simple and straightforward. Just note that the other sport have trouble finding umpires these days.

Basil
11-04-2007, 01:44 PM
Arbiter and administrator knocking is quite common in chess. I expect it to decrease as:

1) The game matures int his country
2) I get round to conversing with each of the bashers

Your post and observation is a good one IMHO.

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2007, 06:21 PM
Here, the strength of the players may come into it. What would be ridiculously abnormal means for masters could be normal for lower club players.

This is a tricky issue at very low levels because in unrated junior games KQ vs KQ (which is a no-brainer draw under 10.2) is quite frequently won, because the kinds of blunders considered not to be "normal means" do actually happen at that level. However at those levels, 10.2 claims generally don't happen anyway. In the kind of position where a 1200 might mess up and lose but a GM never would, it is best to just say play on anyway - GMs would have already agreed a draw. Gijssen reckons the strength of the players should be considered irrelevant. I don't quite agree with that but I think the relevance of it is easily overstated.


I think only a repeated draw offer would be a distraction, presuming that the draw is offered according to the rules (a lot of players offer draws improperly). A much higher rated player will sometimes offer a draw if he found himself in a lost position, in the not-unreasonable hope that a respectful lower rated player might take the 1/2 point in the hand.

Yes, or if one player only needed a draw to acheive a particular objective such as winning the tournament. But if there are no extenuating circumstances apparent then an unreasonable single draw offer can be a distraction and the Laws don't clearly indicate that the offer must be repeated to qualify.


Wouldn't that be similar, since this would again be whether the position can be won by normal means?

It is quite similar. But I would only invoke the disrepute rule if it was clear to me that the player knew the position was unwinnable by normal means but was still playing for a win on time in a case where a draw was the only other outcome for either side.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 12:27 PM
It is quite similar. But I would only invoke the disrepute rule if it was clear to me that the player knew the position was unwinnable by normal means but was still playing for a win on time in a case where a draw was the only other outcome for either side.

Thanx Kevin. BTW, what do you think of this (from Grandmasters I Have Known by Hans Kmoch: Frank James Marshall (1877-1944) (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kmoch07.txt)):


An incident at the last round of an American tournament well
illustrates Marshall's sense of humor as well as his merciless
efficiency in chess competition. His game was adjourned in the
first session, and the position promised nothing but prolonged
maneuvering leading nowhere. Marshall's opponent, anxious to
catch a train that day, offered a draw when the game was resumed,
explaining that he needed to get home. Marshall wanted to know
whether it was very important. On being told that it was, Marshall
made his move, punched his clock, and said, "All right, go home."

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2007, 08:39 PM
Marshall wanted to know
whether it was very important. On being told that it was, Marshall
made his move, punched his clock, and said, "All right, go home."

:lol: Classy stuff.

Can't really comment without seeing the position but even if a position is very drawish a player is entitled to try while there is still the slightest vestige of life in it. Cases where playing on is clearly vexatious would include stuff like KR v KR, KQ v KQ, KNN vs K etc.

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2007, 09:41 PM
People need to realise that the fact that a position is theoretically drawn does not automatically mean it cannot be won by "normal means".

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 11:45 PM
Can't really comment without seeing the position but even if a position is very drawish a player is entitled to try while there is still the slightest vestige of life in it. Cases where playing on is clearly vexatious would include stuff like KR v KR, KQ v KQ, KNN vs K etc.

Or K+RP v K where the defending K is clearly not coming out of the corner. Or as stated, "position promised nothing but prolonged maneuvering leading nowhere"? That's if Mr Kmoch's assessment was right and not just hyperbolic.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 11:46 PM
People need to realise that the fact that a position is theoretically drawn does not automatically mean it cannot be won by "normal means".
Yeah, the latter might be called "sterile", like some of Kevin's examples above.

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2007, 12:46 AM
Or as stated, "position promised nothing but prolonged maneuvering leading nowhere"?

Well, that might apply to quite a lot of endgames that are clearly drawn at top level barring blunders but where it's not that unreasonable to play on. Use of the disrepute rule should only be considered for completely ridiculous cases (and yes I agree with your other example, throw in a bishop of the wrong colour too if you like).

Aaron Guthrie
18-04-2007, 03:56 AM
His game was adjourned in the
first session, and the position promised nothing but prolonged
maneuvering leading nowhere.If they bothered to adjourn it I guess it wouldn't yet be in the class of positions that the arbiter can determine as a draw.
Marshall wanted to know
whether it was very important. On being told that it was, Marshall
made his move, punched his clock, and said, "All right, go home."Marshall was making a stand for Chess! His opp should come under disrepute for thinking there are things more important than Chess ;)

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2007, 05:01 PM
Well, that might apply to quite a lot of endgames that are clearly drawn at top level barring blunders but where it's not that unreasonable to play on. Use of the disrepute rule should only be considered for completely ridiculous cases (and yes I agree with your other example, throw in a bishop of the wrong colour too if you like).
That sounds reasonable. Interesting you should mention that additional one. In my last game in the QLD Open before I got food poisoning, I had wrong-coloured B + KRP + Q-side outside passer v B + KRP. My opponent didn't realise that he couldn't lose by the normal method because he could simply sac his B on the outside passer. Instead he allowed a B swap, seeming not to recognize that I would simply make a bee-line for his lone pawn.

Jesper Norgaard
11-11-2009, 05:41 PM
we have not worked out what to call a/an guillotinist yet? Herodist maybe?
I would recommend guillotimaniac. If antichrist will self guillotine over that, then it deserves it's purpose. :whistle:

... ahh, but wait, that was only if the pope could get people to mass?

Thunderspirit
12-11-2009, 05:33 PM
I was just talking to Shaun Press about this issue last night!

Shaun strongly argued that it was the players who wanted the introduction of increments. It is a a way of stopping the dodginess of players who play on in lost positions (but who in a way are trying to make progress) and so win on time. (the second sentence is my analysis, not Shaun's opinion).

As a player I've never liked increments, and I'll be honest it for all the wrong reasons. Yes, I'm one of those players, at least I admit it.

As an arbiter, in the beginning I liked increments. For a start it does help in the quest in letting the chess doing the talking and letting the true result show. For those who might think that I'm being inconsistent, I'm not, but the first statement is made as an over competitive rabbit and the other a DOP.

The problem with increments is two-fold. The first is, the increment really needs to be 30sec or more to have the effect it was designed to. It is often difficult even for titled players to win complex games with 10 sec per move. The increment was never designed to help players who mismanaged their time, but unless it is 30 seconds or ideally a minute, it loses much of its value.

The other issue is the scheduling of rounds. Almost every event I have been to with an increment, has had a round that has gone over time. This makes it unfair on everyone. Unfair on the players who have arrived for a 7pm game that starts at 7:25pm, unfair on the players who have the long game, as they either have no break or a very short one, partially agreed by a nice opponent, and it’s unfair on the DOP's who end up staying until 1:15am in the morning. Increments are certainly better in events with one game per day.

Guillotine finishes are still common in European weekenders. An example is 40/105 and 15 mins to finish, so it's not seen as being as a problem in Europe, and the rounds finish on time and everyone receives at least 30 mins break.

Another concern I have is that incremental time controls encourage in my opinion, lazy arbitering. I not suggesting that lazy arbiters wanted increments, but it's a cop out to say, you have an increment if the position was drawn, you could have drawn it. It's the same with computer pairings. "Swiss Perfect says that the pairing, so I'm going with it." It's weak arbitering: Pass me a bucket. While a player enters an event knowing the conditions, where possible you should try to minimise such possibilities.
Increments are here to stay, we need to manage them and try were we can to minimise problems. With guillotine finishes, the responsibility falls back to the player. On Saturday at Street Chess (g/15) I reached a position where I had K+R and 2 pawns, where one was on the 7th and the other on the 6th. My opponent had K+R (no pawns) and his Rook was behind my pawn on the 7th. He had no winning chances at all, but with 30 seconds left (after mucking around of 2 mins, I couldn't find a win. - I'm sure it was there, but again I missed it). Rather than formally offering a draw, I looked at my opponent and merely said "Draw". He said, "Is it?" This is in a sense the dodginess that I am guilty of myself. He was hoping that I would play on and loose. This player knows me well, so by now knows, that it's pointless. I called Shaun, played a few more moves and the game was drawn. The responsibility falls on the player to know the rules. I saw an IM, Australian Champ and Olympiad rep bugger up this situation as he didn't know how to claim here. As a result he lost a game; he should have never lost, partially on the disgraceful behaviour of another IM colleague. He came 2nd, instead of equal first and it was a small weekender where 1st was heavily stacked and
2nd didn't cover fuel.

That's me...

CameronD
12-11-2009, 05:46 PM
Personally, I will never play in an event without increment (unless they have extra periods). I just dont enjoy it, i play chess to sit back and think, not be rushed.

Id be surprised if in queensland a guilitine event wouldnt have a disaster turnout (im talking classical, not blitz.)

antichrist
12-11-2009, 08:14 PM
Personally, I will never play in an event without increment (unless they have extra periods). I just dont enjoy it, i play chess to sit back and think, not be rushed.

Id be surprised if in queensland a guilitine event wouldnt have a disaster turnout (im talking classical, not blitz.)

Surely you can tailor your moves to keep reasonable time within the framework played, allowing for an occasional time detrement when necessary but hopefully catch up later or win the game outright.

I can't recall ever having time trouble - just not an issue, esp in G60 games.

Extra period after 60mins each denies 7 rounds over two days. 7 rounds is a better comp than 6 and 2 days is better than 3. We only did it for about a hundred years before increment clocks were invented - did those old timers have something over us - old timers that is what they had.

CameronD
12-11-2009, 09:11 PM
Surely you can tailor your moves to keep reasonable time within the framework played, allowing for an occasional time detrement when necessary but hopefully catch up later or win the game outright.

I can't recall ever having time trouble - just not an issue, esp in G60 games.

Extra period after 60mins each denies 7 rounds over two days. 7 rounds is a better comp than 6 and 2 days is better than 3. We only did it for about a hundred years before increment clocks were invented - did those old timers have something over us - old timers that is what they had.

I get into time trouble with 90+30/40 then 30+30.
G60 woould be impossible

Thunderspirit
12-11-2009, 09:19 PM
I get into time trouble with 90+30/40 then 30+30.
G60 woould be impossible

The fact you get into time pressure, obviously means that g/60 isn't for you, but I think those events should exist.

Another thought. Have you ever considered why you get into time pressure?

a.) inexperience in your openings
b.) confidence
c.) mistrust of calculations
d.) too many smokes

if there is a reason, it might help. This isn't meant to sound critical, of course preference is a big part.

CameronD
12-11-2009, 09:25 PM
Inexperience as Ive only being playing chess for 4 years, so find it all complecated and need time to work things out.




The fact you get into time pressure, obviously means that g/60 isn't for you, but I think those events should exist.

Another thought. Have you ever considered why you get into time pressure?

a.) inexperience in your openings
b.) confidence
c.) mistrust of calculations
d.) too many smokes

if there is a reason, it might help. This isn't meant to sound critical, of course preference is a big part.

antichrist
19-11-2009, 02:44 PM
I was just talking to Shaun Press about this issue last night!

Shaun strongly argued that it was the players who wanted the introduction of increments. It is a a way of stopping the dodginess of players who play on in lost positions (but who in a way are trying to make progress) and so win on time. (the second sentence is my analysis, not Shaun's opinion).

As a player I've never liked increments, and I'll be honest it for all the wrong reasons. Yes, I'm one of those players, at least I admit it.

As an arbiter, in the beginning I liked increments. For a start it does help in the quest in letting the chess doing the talking and letting the true result show. For those who might think that I'm being inconsistent, I'm not, but the first statement is made as an over competitive rabbit and the other a DOP.

The problem with increments is two-fold. The first is, the increment really needs to be 30sec or more to have the effect it was designed to. It is often difficult even for titled players to win complex games with 10 sec per move. The increment was never designed to help players who mismanaged their time, but unless it is 30 seconds or ideally a minute, it loses much of its value.

The other issue is the scheduling of rounds. Almost every event I have been to with an increment, has had a round that has gone over time. This makes it unfair on everyone. Unfair on the players who have arrived for a 7pm game that starts at 7:25pm, unfair on the players who have the long game, as they either have no break or a very short one, partially agreed by a nice opponent, and it’s unfair on the DOP's who end up staying until 1:15am in the morning. Increments are certainly better in events with one game per day.

Guillotine finishes are still common in European weekenders. An example is 40/105 and 15 mins to finish, so it's not seen as being as a problem in Europe, and the rounds finish on time and everyone receives at least 30 mins break.

Another concern I have is that incremental time controls encourage in my opinion, lazy arbitering. I not suggesting that lazy arbiters wanted increments, but it's a cop out to say, you have an increment if the position was drawn, you could have drawn it. It's the same with computer pairings. "Swiss Perfect says that the pairing, so I'm going with it." It's weak arbitering: Pass me a bucket. While a player enters an event knowing the conditions, where possible you should try to minimise such possibilities.
Increments are here to stay, we need to manage them and try were we can to minimise problems. With guillotine finishes, the responsibility falls back to the player. On Saturday at Street Chess (g/15) I reached a position where I had K+R and 2 pawns, where one was on the 7th and the other on the 6th. My opponent had K+R (no pawns) and his Rook was behind my pawn on the 7th. He had no winning chances at all, but with 30 seconds left (after mucking around of 2 mins, I couldn't find a win. - I'm sure it was there, but again I missed it). Rather than formally offering a draw, I looked at my opponent and merely said "Draw". He said, "Is it?" This is in a sense the dodginess that I am guilty of myself. He was hoping that I would play on and loose. This player knows me well, so by now knows, that it's pointless. I called Shaun, played a few more moves and the game was drawn. The responsibility falls on the player to know the rules. I saw an IM, Australian Champ and Olympiad rep bugger up this situation as he didn't know how to claim here. As a result he lost a game; he should have never lost, partially on the disgraceful behaviour of another IM colleague. He came 2nd, instead of equal first and it was a small weekender where 1st was heavily stacked and
2nd didn't cover fuel.

That's me...

Doesn't this post seem logical to everyone else as much as it does to myself?

It represents my views from Day One of increment.

Jesper Norgaard
19-11-2009, 03:27 PM
Doesn't this post seem logical to everyone else as much as it does to myself?

It represents my views from Day One of increment.
Not sure which views you are talking about since the post expresses a lot of views. Among them the arbiters view (increments abolish 10.2 and makes life easier for arbiters, except the fact that some games will prolong). And the "dodginess that I am guilty of". Is that what you are referring too? If dodginess is the motivation behind keeping the guillotine games, then I agree completely with the post myself. It speaks volumes why there is still large sentiment to keep the guillotine, especially in Blitz - its about keeping that poker-element that you can always win a game no matter how lousy you play.

To me the post in fact appears as a good argument for abolishing the guillotine, whether this was intended or not (it probably wasn't). But I know we all read with different glasses on.

Thunderspirit
19-11-2009, 07:51 PM
Not sure which views you are talking about since the post expresses a lot of views. Among them the arbiters view (increments abolish 10.2 and makes life easier for arbiters, except the fact that some games will prolong). And the "dodginess that I am guilty of". Is that what you are referring too? If dodginess is the motivation behind keeping the guillotine games, then I agree completely with the post myself. It speaks volumes why there is still large sentiment to keep the guillotine, especially in Blitz - its about keeping that poker-element that you can always win a game no matter how lousy you play.

To me the post in fact appears as a good argument for abolishing the guillotine, whether this was intended or not (it probably wasn't). But I know we all read with different glasses on.

The aim of my arguement was to be fair to both sides. My personal preference is that with the exception of events that have one or two rounds per day, more events should be guillotine.

As for events that are currently g/60+10 where a 4 rounds day is ok, I argue that some events for the guillotine should be g/60 and some can stay with the increment.

Jesper Norgaard
23-11-2009, 02:33 PM
The aim of my argument was to be fair to both sides. My personal preference is that with the exception of events that have one or two rounds per day, more events should be guillotine.
Fair enough.


As for events that are currently g/60+10 where a 4 rounds day is ok, I argue that some events for the guillotine should be g/60 and some can stay with the increment.
One thing that spurs my curiosity, why are so many chesschat members comparing g/60+10 and g/60 and feel there is a difference (there is of course), when what would be more sensible to compare would be g/60 with g/50+10 because the latter corresponds better to g/60 than g/60+10 (in fact you are in average giving 20 minutes extra per game for a 2-hour game, not even taking into consideration games that last more than 60 moves)?

As a comparison, in 2008 the World Blitz Ch. was using 5 minutes flat, while this year it was 3 minutes with 2 seconds increment - the formula to determine equivalence according to FIDE is

OldFixedTime = NewFixedTime + 60*(increment) e.g.

5 min. = 3 min. + 60*(2/60 min.) = 3+2 min.
60 min. = 50 min. + 60*(10/60 min.) = 50+10 min.
(I assume here that 2 seconds is the same as 2/60 of a minute)

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2009, 02:47 PM
I'm not a big fan of that FIDE conversion formula, by the way. The average game is considerably shorter than 60 moves and in any case much of the thinking in a guillotine game occurs well before move 60. According to that formula 30/30 is equivalent to G60 flat but I remember Shaun Press tried a tournament with 30/30 and reckoned that 40/30 would be a better approximation because in 30/30 the middlegame is more rushed and it feels more like a rapid.

Garvinator
23-11-2009, 03:05 PM
One thing that spurs my curiosity, why are so many chesschat members comparing g/60+10 and g/60 and feel there is a difference (there is of course)Part of the reason for the comparison between 60g and 60 + 10s is that this is what is normally played. 50 + 10 is rarely played. The reason for the use of either 60g or 60 + 10 is that both are long time control rateable under the ACF rating system, where 50 + 10 is regarded as rapid and so would be rated on the rapid rating list.

As we all know, your long time control rating is a person's only really rating ;) :whistle:

Jesper Norgaard
23-11-2009, 07:04 PM
I'm not a big fan of that FIDE conversion formula, by the way. The average game is considerably shorter than 60 moves and in any case much of the thinking in a guillotine game occurs well before move 60. According to that formula 30/30 is equivalent to G60 flat but I remember Shaun Press tried a tournament with 30/30 and reckoned that 40/30 would be a better approximation because in 30/30 the middlegame is more rushed and it feels more like a rapid.
I often use a good deal of my thinking time up before move 40 in guillotine games (maybe 70-80%) unless it's a really short game. Therefore the 30/30 seems way overdimensioned for the odd long endgame, while ending up in time-trouble on the fixed time occurs fast. That really has nothing to do with FIDE's formula, it has to do with the relative weight of fixed time versus increment time, which again decides when you will essentially be in time-trouble on the fixed time and therefore "riding the increment".


Part of the reason for the comparison between 60g and 60 + 10s is that this is what is normally played. 50 + 10 is rarely played. The reason for the use of either 60g or 60 + 10 is that both are long time control rateable under the ACF rating system, where 50 + 10 is regarded as rapid and so would be rated on the rapid rating list.
I wonder how that definition runs of long time control for the ACF rating system. It is a pity that a different definition than FIDE is used for what is a Normal game and a Rapid game - but you are still using FIDE rules to regulate the tournaments and following FIDE laws of chess? That means that while you are playing ACF Rapid game you must use FIDE Normal game rules for the 50+10 time control? I assume you don't have ACF laws of chess?

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2009, 08:29 PM
I wonder how that definition runs of long time control for the ACF rating system.

It runs like this:

Games using increments in the time control will be accepted for rating -

(a) in the normal list provided they are of the form G/Xmins + Ysecs per move
from move 1 where X and Y are 30 or greater or where X is 60 or greater; or

(b) in the Rapid list if they are of the form G/Xmins + Y secs per move where X
is 15 to 29, irrespective of the value of Y, or where X is 30 to 59 and Y is
less than 30.


It is a pity that a different definition than FIDE is used for what is a Normal game and a Rapid game - but you are still using FIDE rules to regulate the tournaments and following FIDE laws of chess?That means that while you are playing ACF Rapid game you must use FIDE Normal game rules for the 50+10 time control? I assume you don't have ACF laws of chess?

Yes we still use FIDE laws for games that FIDE counts as normal but we don't count as normal.

One of the reasons we do not count 50/+10 as a normal game for rated purposes is that in a 50/+10 the players cannot be compelled to score for the entire game. [EDIT: see below]

CameronD
23-11-2009, 09:29 PM
Unless I misunderstood your response. In any game with an increment under 30sec, players dont score when under 5 minutes. So under the ACF recording for the entire game is currently not required.



It runs like this:

Games using increments in the time control will be accepted for rating -

(a) in the normal list provided they are of the form G/Xmins + Ysecs per move
from move 1 where X and Y are 30 or greater or where X is 60 or greater; or

(b) in the Rapid list if they are of the form G/Xmins + Y secs per move where X
is 15 to 29, irrespective of the value of Y, or where X is 30 to 59 and Y is
less than 30.



Yes we still use FIDE laws for games that FIDE counts as normal but we don't count as normal.

One of the reasons we do not count 50/+10 as a normal game for rated purposes is that in a 50/+10 the players cannot be compelled to score for the entire game.

Kevin Bonham
23-11-2009, 09:40 PM
Unless I misunderstood your response. In any game with an increment under 30sec, players dont score when under 5 minutes. So under the ACF recording for the entire game is currently not required.

You're right. What our rule does is enforce scoring through the game for normals where the base time is <60 mins, but for those where the base time is >=60 mins it does not do this.

On my reading of the current FIDE laws, in 50/+10 a player can be required to score until they are down to 5 mins.

Jesper Norgaard
24-11-2009, 12:13 PM
You're right. What our rule does is enforce scoring through the game for normals where the base time is <60 mins, but for those where the base time is >=60 mins it does not do this.

I don't get you here. Through the entire game? In fact I believe (may be wrong) that your rules enforce nothing because the rules that enforce when it is necessary to score are the FIDE rules, not the ACF rules.

Without going much into your argumentation, which you may well make me understand some day, I would say these ACF rules are seriously flawed. If you have a game with 29 minutes fixed time and 3 min. increment per move (the latter I believe Fischer once suggested, although he had not tried it out) so Y is 180 secs. A 60 moves game where both players use up almost all of their time would take 209 minutes for each player, or 3 hours and 29 minutes per player. A 7 hour game, almost. Yet ACF would still call it a rapid game. Hilarious!

In other variants of X and Y there are still discrepancies between FIDE and ACF of when it is normal or rapid, that I think the ACF definition is only doing a disservice to the poor tournament organizer.


On my reading of the current FIDE laws, in 50/+10 a player can be required to score until they are down to 5 mins.
Correct, so a G/60 is in fact no different to a G/50+10 in this respect.

Bill Gletsos
24-11-2009, 01:12 PM
I don't get you here. Through the entire game? In fact I believe (may be wrong) that your rules enforce nothing because the rules that enforce when it is necessary to score are the FIDE rules, not the ACF rules.

Without going much into your argumentation, which you may well make me understand some day, I would say these ACF rules are seriously flawed. If you have a game with 29 minutes fixed time and 3 min. increment per move (the latter I believe Fischer once suggested, although he had not tried it out) so Y is 180 secs. A 60 moves game where both players use up almost all of their time would take 209 minutes for each player, or 3 hours and 29 minutes per player. A 7 hour game, almost. Yet ACF would still call it a rapid game. Hilarious!

In other variants of X and Y there are still discrepancies between FIDE and ACF of when it is normal or rapid, that I think the ACF definition is only doing a disservice to the poor tournament organizer.Actually it was simply decided that for games with less than a 60 minute base time a minimum increment of 30 seconds per move along with a minimum base time of 30 minutes was ensured whilst stopping essentially stupid time controls like 29 mins + 180 sec increments or 59 mins with 1 second increments.

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2009, 01:39 PM
I don't get you here. Through the entire game? In fact I believe (may be wrong) that your rules enforce nothing because the rules that enforce when it is necessary to score are the FIDE rules, not the ACF rules.

My use of "normals" in the bit that you quoted meant "games that are rated on the ACF normal list" rather than "games that are counted as normals under the FIDE Laws".

I'm really not sure what the fuss is about here since there are many games that are played at normal (for Laws purposes) time controls that FIDE refuses to rate on its normal rating list. For instance, you can't rate G60 flat on FIDE's rating list unless every participant in the tournament has a mickey-mouse FIDE rating (sub 1600) or is unrated.

Jesper Norgaard
24-11-2009, 05:43 PM
Okay I think I'm beginning to understand what you were trying to do. "We want to protect the ACF normal game ratings from non-serious time controls. All undesired time controls will become rapid games". So you are comparing apples and pears, and to get the best apples in the apples basket, you are quite prepared to put apples in the pears basket. You don't care that 7 hour games are rated as rapid games, as long as minimum requirements are fulfilled to rate them as ACF normal games.


Actually it was simply decided that for games with less than a 60 minute base time a minimum increment of 30 seconds per move along with a minimum base time of 30 minutes was ensured whilst stopping essentially stupid time controls like 29 mins + 180 sec increments or 59 mins with 1 second increments.
These two examples may be silly time controls. Unfortunately your definition also wrecks the very sensible attempt to mimic G/60 by adding something to the increment by subtracting something from the base time. So G/50+10 sec. or G/40+20 sec. is not normal but rapid. Only when we get down to G/30+30 sec. (with requirement to score the game throghout the game) you allow it as a normal game, but in this case I think there is a serious feeling of this as a rapid game because you will only get half the supposed thinking time up front, and if the game lasts few moves it would only allow each player a little more than half an hours play. So the consequence is that "riding the increment" happens a lot earlier.



You're right. What our rule does is enforce scoring through the game for normals where the base time is <60 mins, but for those where the base time is >=60 mins it does not do this.
My use of "normals" in the bit that you quoted meant "games that are rated on the ACF normal list" rather than "games that are counted as normals under the FIDE Laws".

Regardless what definition of normals you use, you are only enforcing scoring through the game if the increment is in fact 30 seconds, so in fact first when the base time is less than 60 min it will only take place when it is actually less than or equal 30 min (assuming that total time is 60 min).



I'm really not sure what the fuss is about here since there are many games that are played at normal (for Laws purposes) time controls that FIDE refuses to rate on its normal rating list. For instance, you can't rate G60 flat on FIDE's rating list unless every participant in the tournament has a mickey-mouse FIDE rating (sub 1600) or is unrated.

The fuss is about that you are forcing tournaments that want to use G/60 games but with increment in effect make the games longer, or accept they are now rapid games. And therefore these tournaments have accepted and converted to G/60+10sec (making total game time 20 minutes longer for each round in average) than the more sensible G/50+10sec. (having fixed 2 hours total game time as an average assuming 60 moves). All of this could have been avoided by just sticking with the FIDE definition of normal/rapid game length.

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2009, 06:33 PM
Okay I think I'm beginning to understand what you were trying to do. "We want to protect the ACF normal game ratings from non-serious time controls. All undesired time controls will become rapid games". So you are comparing apples and pears, and to get the best apples in the apples basket, you are quite prepared to put apples in the pears basket. You don't care that 7 hour games are rated as rapid games, as long as minimum requirements are fulfilled to rate them as ACF normal games.

Well we don't see why anyone in their right mind would want to hold a tournament at a bizarre time control like 29/+180. That's not an "apple" to us, it's a gooseberry. :D No one has ever shown the slightest sign of wanting to run tournaments under a time control anything like that in this country. If there was a serious proposal to hold such a tournament and a valid reason for the time control being proposed, we could always consider quickly changing the rules. But I just can't imagine what such a reason would be.


These two examples may be silly time controls. Unfortunately your definition also wrecks the very sensible attempt to mimic G/60 by adding something to the increment by subtracting something from the base time. So G/50+10 sec. or G/40+20 sec. is not normal but rapid. Only when we get down to G/30+30 sec. (with requirement to score the game throghout the game) you allow it as a normal game, but in this case I think there is a serious feeling of this as a rapid game because you will only get half the supposed thinking time up front, and if the game lasts few moves it would only allow each player a little more than half an hours play. So the consequence is that "riding the increment" happens a lot earlier.

Well I don't think G50/+10 or G40/+20 really mimic G60. They are faster than G60 outright for the bulk of games, and even for those for which they are not faster, players have much less flexibility in how they spend their time in the middlegame.

I don't think G30/+30 really mimics G60 either but at least it has the benefit that if a player reaches a good position they will always have 30 seconds/move to convert it.

Having G30/+30 rateable on the main list (while 50/10, 40/20, 29/31 etc are not) is a bit odd but isn't causing any problems since as far as I'm aware it is virtually never used, beyond that one initial trial I mentioned. The uncertainty about finishing time means it's a more or less pointless proposition for many-games-a-day weekenders, and the small base time makes it pretty silly for anything else. If it was a serious issue I'd be happy to support moving the cutoff up to 40 mins base time for a main-list so that G40/+30 was main-list-rateable but G30/+30 was not.


The fuss is about that you are forcing tournaments that want to use G/60 games but with increment in effect make the games longer, or accept they are now rapid games. And therefore these tournaments have accepted and converted to G/60+10sec (making total game time 20 minutes longer for each round in average) than the more sensible G/50+10sec. (having fixed 2 hours total game time as an average assuming 60 moves). All of this could have been avoided by just sticking with the FIDE definition of normal/rapid game length.

But as I have explained I don't think G50/+10 or G40/+20 are sensible equivalents to G60 flat. I think they are effectively faster time controls whatever FIDE's dodgy conversion formula says otherwise, and should therefore be rated as rapids.

Basically, if you want to give players a game that has substantial increments and that is not significantly more compressed than G60 flat, then organisers simply have to allow more time for the game, and play 6 x G60/+10 for a weekender instead of 7 x G60 flat if they are under time constraints. If they just want to kill off 10.2 then play G60/+2 and the rounds won't be significantly longer.

Jesper Norgaard
30-11-2009, 05:06 PM
I'm not a big fan of that FIDE conversion formula, by the way. The average game is considerably shorter than 60 moves and in any case much of the thinking in a guillotine game occurs well before move 60. According to that formula 30/30 is equivalent to G60 flat but I remember Shaun Press tried a tournament with 30/30 and reckoned that 40/30 would be a better approximation because in 30/30 the middlegame is more rushed and it feels more like a rapid ...

Well I don't think G50/+10 or G40/+20 really mimic G60. They are faster than G60 outright for the bulk of games, and even for those for which they are not faster, players have much less flexibility in how they spend their time in the middlegame.

I don't think G30/+30 really mimics G60 either but at least it has the benefit that if a player reaches a good position they will always have 30 seconds/move to convert it.

I think the FIDE conversion formula works fine. The turning point is 60 moves, where you will effectively get *more* time than the fixed game control after move 60. My average game length for rapid games is 41.3 moves. Take G50/+10, in this average game of 40 moves I would thus get 56.66 minutes which I think is not something that should make anyone feel that the game is "considerably shorter". If the game is 120 moves then you will get 70 minutes for it, e.g. 10 minutes extra compared to G/60 flat. Anybody can win a winning position with 10 seconds increment if the win is merely a matter of technique. But if you need 40 moves to finish that technical win, there won't be any maniac rush just because you only have 35 seconds left on the clock (guillotine).

The problem is rather G/30+30 and examples with even less fixed time combined with even bigger increment (G/29+180 was my constructed example, a bit extreme, but Fischer suggested something along that). In my opinion they have never become popular because they go against the common sense that you should have most of your time up front available to manage, and only a minor part as increment - or else you are approaching the other extreme, where you have to finish each move when "time is up", each move in 1 minute flat. That is simply against human nature, which will play 1.e4 and 2.Sf3 almost instantly, while use a big portion of time in a complicated middlegame position, and comparatively less in the endgame per move. So if fixed time is nothing and increment contains everything, you are completely deprived the right to longer thoughts on more difficult moves, and to save up time on easier moves. The right mix of fixed time vs. increment time is therefore to give a clear majority to the fixed time but not too little to the increment. In my opinion the G/90+30 is reasonably divided, the fixed time is the heavy part for instance when playing a 60-move game, 1½ hour for general administration, and ½ hour added as increment (ratio 75%/25%). This time was perhaps also designed that way to enable an increment (30 seconds) that would allow for demanding to be able to score all of the moves. I would suggest that on mimicking G/60 it will no longer make sense to demand scoring for all moves, so increment can be considerably shorter than 30 seconds then, I would suggest 10 seconds is sufficient. If we go from there, I suggest the following rules instead of current ACF rules:

============== New suggested ACF rule ================
Games using increments in the time control will be accepted for rating -

(a) in the normal list provided they are of the form G/Xmins + Ysecs per move
from move 1 where X is 60 or greater, or X is between 50 and 59 and Y is greater than or equal to 10; or

(b) in the Rapid list if they are of the form G/Xmins + Y secs per move where X
is 15 to 49, irrespective of the value of Y, or where X is 50 to 59 and Y is
less than 10.
============== New suggested ACF rule ================

============== Current ACF rule ================
Games using increments in the time control will be accepted for rating -

(a) in the normal list provided they are of the form G/Xmins + Ysecs per move
from move 1 where X and Y are 30 or greater or where X is 60 or greater; or

(b) in the Rapid list if they are of the form G/Xmins + Y secs per move where X
is 15 to 29, irrespective of the value of Y, or where X is 30 to 59 and Y is
less than 30.
============== Current ACF rule ================

In your current rule, you are practically not allowing normal games with X less than 60 - the only exception is the apparent "cutting between two curves" with exactly 30 minutes and exactly 30 seconds increment, a misdesigned time in my opinion much like a camel with elephant feet. In the case of shorter fixed time than 60 it automatically becomes a rapid game - a pity for those who want a best approximation to G/60, but with increment included. With the new rule if at least 10 seconds increment is used, down to 50 minutes fixed time is allowed for.

In both rules G/29+180 becomes a rapid game - that's OK with me. Of course FIDE says it's a normal game, but in fact it is more like a mosquito riding on an elephant's back - or a gooseberry as you put it. We both have no mercy on that misconstruct.


Well we don't see why anyone in their right mind would want to hold a tournament at a bizarre time control like 29/+180. That's not an "apple" to us, it's a gooseberry. :D No one has ever shown the slightest sign of wanting to run tournaments under a time control anything like that in this country. If there was a serious proposal to hold such a tournament and a valid reason for the time control being proposed, we could always consider quickly changing the rules. But I just can't imagine what such a reason would be.

Well I don't think G50/+10 or G40/+20 really mimic G60. They are faster than G60 outright for the bulk of games, and even for those for which they are not faster, players have much less flexibility in how they spend their time in the middlegame.

I don't think G30/+30 really mimics G60 either but at least it has the benefit that if a player reaches a good position they will always have 30 seconds/move to convert it.

Having G30/+30 rateable on the main list (while 50/10, 40/20, 29/31 etc are not) is a bit odd but isn't causing any problems since as far as I'm aware it is virtually never used, beyond that one initial trial I mentioned. The uncertainty about finishing time means it's a more or less pointless proposition for many-games-a-day weekenders, and the small base time makes it pretty silly for anything else. If it was a serious issue I'd be happy to support moving the cutoff up to 40 mins base time for a main-list so that G40/+30 was main-list-rateable but G30/+30 was not.

Basically, if you want to give players a game that has substantial increments and that is not significantly more compressed than G60 flat, then organisers simply have to allow more time for the game, and play 6 x G60/+10 for a weekender instead of 7 x G60 flat if they are under time constraints. If they just want to kill off 10.2 then play G60/+2 and the rounds won't be significantly longer.

Actually it was simply decided that for games with less than a 60 minute base time a minimum increment of 30 seconds per move along with a minimum base time of 30 minutes was ensured whilst stopping essentially stupid time controls like 29 mins + 180 sec increments or 59 mins with 1 second increments.
So to stop an "essentially stupid time control" like G/59+1 to kill off 10.2 when let's play an intelligent one like G/60+2?? He, he, I had a good laugh there. Of course I know it is a bit unfair to compare Kevin's and Bill's statements and putting them up against each other, they did not come from the same person, but still I would say that G/50+10 is a far better time than any of those, and mimicking an improved G/60 much better than those.

By the way disallowing a given time control and then argumenting that it would not be useful because nobody is using it, is not what I would call a very coherent argument. In fact I would say G/50+10 would make a lot of sense for a 7 round weekender, compared to 6 rounds G/60+10.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2009, 10:15 PM
I think the FIDE conversion formula works fine. The turning point is 60 moves, where you will effectively get *more* time than the fixed game control after move 60. My average game length for rapid games is 41.3 moves. Take G50/+10, in this average game of 40 moves I would thus get 56.66 minutes which I think is not something that should make anyone feel that the game is "considerably shorter".

My use of the expression "considerably shorter" referred to number of moves so it is not accurate to quote it back in the context of time used.

If the average game is around 40 moves long then a better conversion formula would be one that made each second of increment equivalent to 40 seconds off the base instead of 60, eg the nearest equivalent of G60 would be not G50/+10 but G50/+15 or G53/+10. It may be only three minutes but a line has to be drawn somewhere; otherwise one could by the same token say G57 flat is not much shorter than G60 flat and so on.


The problem is rather G/30+30 and examples with even less fixed time combined with even bigger increment (G/29+180 was my constructed example, a bit extreme, but Fischer suggested something along that).

Apart from G30+30 (which virtually nobody uses anyway) these are not rateable by the ACF anyway.

That said something like G40/+30 does have its uses. For instance, it is quite a good time control to use for training tournaments for juniors if you want games to be finished reasonably quickly but at the same time want them to record the whole game for subsequent analysis, and yet don't want the time pressure from the outset to be too extreme.


I would suggest that on mimicking G/60 it will no longer make sense to demand scoring for all moves, so increment can be considerably shorter than 30 seconds then, I would suggest 10 seconds is sufficient. If we go from there, I suggest the following rules instead of current ACF rules:

============== New suggested ACF rule ================
Games using increments in the time control will be accepted for rating -

(a) in the normal list provided they are of the form G/Xmins + Ysecs per move
from move 1 where X is 60 or greater, or X is between 50 and 59 and Y is greater than or equal to 10; or

(b) in the Rapid list if they are of the form G/Xmins + Y secs per move where X
is 15 to 49, irrespective of the value of Y, or where X is 50 to 59 and Y is
less than 10.

I definitely wouldn't support this.

If there was any actual demand for it I might support:

(a) in the normal list provided they are of the form G/Xmins + Ysecs per move from move 1 where X is at least 40 and X+(Y/1.5) is greater than or equal to 60

That would get rid of the relatively pointless G30/+30 while allowing for G40/+30, G50/+15 and G55/+10.


So to stop an "essentially stupid time control" like G/59+1 to kill off 10.2 when let's play an intelligent one like G/60+2?? He, he, I had a good laugh there. Of course I know it is a bit unfair to compare Kevin's and Bill's statements and putting them up against each other, they did not come from the same person, but still I would say that G/50+10 is a far better time than any of those, and mimicking an improved G/60 much better than those.

I don't have any trouble having my statement put alongside Bill's here because we have always considered G60 flat main-list rateable (it used to be a very common time control and is still used by a few organisers).

The point of the idea that adding a very small increment is an acceptable way to kill off 10.2 is that by the very nature of 10.2, if your claim would be upheld then you should be able to defend your position without more than an instant's thought. If you have to actually think to defend your position, then you might get that thinking wrong, and that means your opponent might win by normal means. There is some debate about whether an average of two seconds a move is enough or whether it should be three (especially in tournaments with older players with slower physical reflexes), but the basic principle applies: only a very small increment is needed to kill off 10.2 in a manner that is sufficient for the principles of that Law, especially if players manage their time with a modicum of care instead of running themselves down to next to nothing.

A one-second increment, however, is clearly not enough to protect a player from unjust losses on time in certain positions, and in a rating system that already rates G60 flat, G59/+1 is obviously silly. It reduces the base time insignificantly while providing a completely meaningless increment to dodge 10.2.


By the way disallowing a given time control and then argumenting that it would not be useful because nobody is using it, is not what I would call a very coherent argument. In fact I would say G/50+10 would make a lot of sense for a 7 round weekender, compared to 6 rounds G/60+10.

If organisers really want us to shift the definitions because of the demands of their particular tournament they can always send us a proposal. Would probably take them all of ten minutes to email it to somebody who could table it for discussion, if that. Since we went over to the current formula (which was quite a few years ago) I can't remember any state delegate or ACF exec member proposing any change to it.

Jesper Norgaard
01-12-2009, 03:07 AM
...
If there was any actual demand for it I might support:

(a) in the normal list provided they are of the form G/Xmins + Ysecs per move from move 1 where X is at least 40 and X+(Y/1.5) is greater than or equal to 60

That would get rid of the relatively pointless G30/+30 while allowing for G40/+30, G50/+15 and G55/+10.

That sounds as a reasonable compromise. Also G/60+2 is not that bad (and definitely better than G/60 flat) but the above 3 mentioned are better since there is more increment to actually play an endgame that is not merely technique, but could contain careful maneuvering.

antichrist
21-04-2013, 12:14 PM
there are probably almost no analogue clocks in use now, no comps run on them - but really has the game progressed?

One other person and myself stated the lateness of arriving home after increment time plus long travel time - this still deters me, it stuffs up the next day (at least when you get older it does). It is okay if no responsibilities.

The arbiters can sit on their back sides and less controversy but completely changes the aspect of the game for someone who was good at time and hated losing that natural advantage. They can play without me.

antichrist
29-07-2013, 10:55 AM
Pretty bad afternoon for Australia.

After 2 hours the A team's match was looking quite good, with Liu and Dale an hour ahead on the clock and with excellent positions and Smirnov equal. (Cheng was outprepared and always in trouble.) Dale threw everything away with four bad moves, and Smirnov was outplayed, but Liu was winning almost until the last moment when he blundered in time trouble.

Team B hada similar sad story. Loh drew fairly quickly and Puccini won, while Narenthran had a winning position against an opponent who had scored 7/7 and Gu managed to win a piece at the expense of some counterplay. However time trouble hit both girls the time limit offers no second time control so by move 40 most of the Australians tend to be playing on the 30 second increment. Shirley knocked back a draw and then walked into a mate while Narenthran lost her extra pawns and was tricked a few times before losing.

So fourth place is now the best Australia A can hope for and the B team can only hope for non-Chinese team in the last round.

AC
so the games were still decided by the clock essentially, so if you are behind on the clock it will be the same result with no tangible benefit I can see.

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2013, 01:43 PM
so the games were still decided by the clock essentially, so if you are behind on the clock it will be the same result with no tangible benefit I can see.

The difference is that if you are behind on the clock but clearly winning you will still win. Being behind on the clock with a dicey or bad position tends to produce the same outcome as before (though with long increments those who are behind but not completely lost can fight better.)

Kerry Stead
30-07-2013, 08:38 AM
so the games were still decided by the clock essentially, so if you are behind on the clock it will be the same result with no tangible benefit I can see.

The concept of time trouble is also very different with increments.
Under a guillotine control, you would have a short amount of time (say 2 minutes) to play an undetermined number of moves, so there was always some sort of issue about how long to think about a single move.
Using increments the number of moves is still unknown, but you now have certainty that you will have at least 30 seconds to think about each move, although there is now the added proviso that you need to record the previous move within this 30 second allotment.
The general principle of managing your time still applies, but with increments I have seen players like Junta Ikeda have under 2 minutes on their clock for over an hour, while outplaying their opponent at the same time! It's not all bad AC!

antichrist
30-07-2013, 10:51 AM
after all this time it is the first time I have seen KB's good argument, or put clearly anyway. I appreciate your point also for top players it is a breakthrough.

When I played comp I consciously don't let myself get behind on time, knowing that further down the track I will be in deep trouble. If I lost due to being outplayed within guillotine control I just accepted it and thought I have to improve theory or middle game and intensity. You could do the post-mortem afterwards and improve for it, instead of refusing to concede the game and it going forever under increment.

Before digital increment time was brought in there was no problem with this format. The hurry up to get those first 40 moves in was also a bonus to get the game moving. We cant be there all day on one game when there is a tourney to get through,toilet breaks, coffee and lunch breaks, then public transport.

I have no idea but look at the attendance for the NSW Open (or closed whatever), only eight, my lowest for SEC (whilst clashing with Doeberl) under guillotine was 3 times greater than that - I must have been doing something correct.

Rincewind
30-07-2013, 11:36 AM
I have no idea...

I agree.

Trent Parker
30-07-2013, 02:07 PM
I have no idea but look at the attendance for the NSW Open (or closed whatever), only eight, my lowest for SEC (whilst clashing with Doeberl) under guillotine was 3 times greater than that - I must have been doing something correct.

NSW Championships (Not Open) is a closed tournament which is restricted to a number of players. Your SEC is no comparison for the NSW championships.

OK.... Yes lets compare your SEC (which had guillotine) to the NSW Open (which had increment).

Hmmm lets say 30 for sec v over 120 for NSW Open, 140 in some years.

So therefore in your world increment is better due to the fact that over 4 times the amount of people that went to SEC went to the NSW Open........

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle: LOL