PDA

View Full Version : ACP time control proposal to fide



Garvinator
16-09-2007, 06:46 PM
Just put up on chessbase, I have put this thread in the rating section because of its implications for fide rating of tournaments in Australia.

The full article can be viewed here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4117

In Australia, it is common for fide rated tournaments to be played under a time control of 90 minutes per player plus 30 seconds per move from move one.

This allows three rounds to be played in one day, so a seven round tournament can be conducted over a long weekend.


The acp proposal that is relevant to this thread:


Section I: Digital clocks

Classical

Short: 90 min for 40 moves 30 min for remaining moves 30 sec increment from move one
Long: 90 min for 40 moves 50 min for 20 moves, 15 min for rest 30 sec increment from move one
The ACP advocates using the above mentioned time controls in all official FIDE tournaments, as well as in all FIDE-rated tournaments. Both the "shorter" and "longer" time controls for classical chess would be equally possible. Tournaments, in which different time controls are used should not be calculated for rating and title purposes, starting from the 1st of July 2008.

To use the short time period for weekend fide rated tournaments in Australia would be mean reducing the number of rounds to 6, as only 2 rounds could be played in a day.

I understand the purpose of the acp proposal, but I do wonder how far they really did discuss this?

Thoughts from others, or have I missed something from a quick read.

CameronD
16-09-2007, 10:14 PM
Grandmaster Chess Move by Move by John Nunn (pg272)

"... but the key difference ... you are likely to have 30 seconds per move for the remainder of the game. This effectively makes a well-played endgame an impossibility and a quick look through the games played ... shows the destruction wrought on endgame play. It is indeed a pity to see grandmasters who are indoubtedly capable of playing an excellent endgame having their talents crippled by the need to move every 30 seconds. Had Rubinstein, Capablanca and Smyslov been forced to play so quickly, we would be deprived of many of the endgame masterpieces which have delighted generations of chess players".

I agree and have seen many FIDE games in the above situations which is rediculous. All FIDE tournaments should be 120/40 + 60/20 + 30 + increment or similar equivilent.

Though not related to this thread. I once won an ACF rated game against a far superior (1000 v 1750) opponent solely on the 10s increment, I won a lot of undeserved points on this fluke.

eclectic
16-09-2007, 10:26 PM
I agree and have seen many FIDE games in the above situations which is rediculous. All FIDE tournaments should be 120/40 + 60/20 + 30 + increment or similar equivilent.

Why this need to have a time control at move 40? If you want great endgame play why not combine the first two time controls and have 180/60? plus 30 sec increment?

I think Nunn misses the point about the 30 sec increment; it's there to force players to write their moves. Moreover it's most ironic of him to complain of players being forced to move quickly when most likely under the old time controls such players if in time trouble would be moving every second, not recording their moves and as such playing far worse endgames.

Miguel
16-09-2007, 10:41 PM
I can appreciate wanting to standardise time controls, but I don't really understand the desire to keep "analog" time controls (e.g., 90 min for 40 moves) when using digital clocks. Why not just use simple incremental time controls, such as:
Short: 90 min + 30 sec increment
Long: 120 min + 60 sec increment

(There's nothing special about these time controls, I've just chosen them arbitrarily as an example.)

Incidentally, I don't think the PGN standard (section 9.6.1) supports the ACP's suggested time controls. This may not be a significant concern, but it could require rewriting software to handle any changes.

Denis_Jessop
17-09-2007, 10:40 AM
I agree with the views on the 40 move point. The idea of having a time control of, say, 40 moves in 2 hours (the old international standard when tiime limits were longer - the World Championship standard was 40 in 2 1/2 hours)) was that, at that point, the game was adjourned and play resumed later. Now that there are no adjournments such time controls have no meaning in my view. As for Nunn's point, many a game has been lost in the past in the scramble to reach the 40 moves in time, sometimes well before the endgame. He seems to assume that players in the endgame will have budgeted their time so that they will have nothing "in the bank" when the endgame comes.

DJ

Garvinator
17-09-2007, 05:22 PM
Hey Gunner,

You have been trying to get a thread where no body replies to the thread you start. Is having a thread where no one has replied to the main point raised in the original post close enough? :doh:

In this thread, the main point of the original post was the ramifications of the acp proposal on fide rated weekenders.

CameronD
17-09-2007, 07:47 PM
By equivelent, I was referring to total time a player has.

90 + 30sec = 120 minutes for 60 moves or 140 minutes for 100 moves compared to the traditional time controls which give 180 minutes for 60 moves or at least 210 minutes for 100 moves (plus a potential increment.)

Maybe games at lesser controls should have a reduced K factor and norms can not be obtained.

Basil
17-09-2007, 09:49 PM
You have been trying to get a thread where no body replies to the thread you start. Is having a thread where no one has replied to the main point raised in the original post close enough?
Alas no! A true winner will be so nebulous or unexciting that no-one could muster any semblance of a desire to post. That is my quest.

The trick appears to not go out of one's way to achieve this end, else it will invite the cranks. I believe it is a most delicate art.

Only a rare few have managed it. They are heroes.

Denis_Jessop
17-09-2007, 11:16 PM
Hey Gunner,

You have been trying to get a thread where no body replies to the thread you start. Is having a thread where no one has replied to the main point raised in the original post close enough? :doh:

In this thread, the main point of the original post was the ramifications of the acp proposal on fide rated weekenders.

I think that what has happened here is that nobody can comment on Garvin's original post because nobody knows what the ACP is up to and, in particular, how much consideration they gave to their proposal. It dates back a couple of years. As they are (one assumes) highly rated chess professionals they probably don't give a damn about the ramifications of their proposal on amateur weekenders thousands of km away if they even bothered to think about them.

That being the case the lads of the CCF have resolved to talk about something else that seems more interesting. As the Gunner points out at least it hasn't yet attracted nutters though Murphy's Second Law of Posting ensures that now it will. :P ;)

DJ

Miguel
17-09-2007, 11:47 PM
Only a rare few have managed it. They are heroes.
You have much to learn (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6567), Grasshopper. :cool:

CameronD
17-09-2007, 11:55 PM
Alas no! A true winner will be so nebulous or unexciting that no-one could muster any semblance of a desire to post. That is my quest.

The trick appears to not go out of one's way to achieve this end, else it will invite the cranks. I believe it is a most delicate art.

Only a rare few have managed it. They are heroes.



You've got no chance. I've heard that a secret chesschat committee has been formed with members tripled rostered to make sure it wont.

Aaron Guthrie
18-09-2007, 12:58 AM
You have much to learn (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6567), Grasshopper. :cool:I almost replied to that one (when you originally posted it). I decided against it.

EGOR
18-09-2007, 06:36 AM
Only a rare few have managed it. They are heroes.
Thank you.:D

Davidflude
19-09-2007, 08:35 PM
Just put up on chessbase, I have put this thread in the rating section because of its implications for fide rating of tournaments in Australia.

The full article can be viewed here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4117

In Australia, it is common for fide rated tournaments to be played under a time control of 90 minutes per player plus 30 seconds per move from move one.

This allows three rounds to be played in one day, so a seven round tournament can be conducted over a long weekend.



To use the short time period for weekend fide rated tournaments in Australia would be mean reducing the number of rounds to 6, as only 2 rounds could be played in a day.

I understand the purpose of the acp proposal, but I do wonder how far they really did discuss this?

Thoughts from others, or have I missed something from a quick read.

I would like to go back to the original posting.

I have played the old fashioned way with play in the afternoon, 2.5 hours for forty moves and then seal the move and adjourn. Then you came back the next morning and played on with additional time controls. Basically it meant one round per day.

As far as I am concerned with the availability of clocks that allow increments
there is no reason to have a time control after a specific number of moves. The way to go is so much time plus a time increment after each move sufficient that players need to continue scoring. Furthermore there should be sufficient flexibility built into the system to suit a wide range of tournaments.

For instance longer time controls might be used when playing a match than in a weekend swiss.

eclectic
19-09-2007, 08:56 PM
i wonder too if with increment games a move limit should be imposed especially when long games cause delays to the next round

what percentage of games get decided before move 60, move 120, move 180?

it could mean that adjudication is reintroduced to deal with those games which go the distance

ideally where there is more than one round per day those rounds should not tailgate each other and that some time should be available for players to do some preparation by studying their opponent's games once the draw is known

i'm probably off topic but what the .... :rolleyes:

CameronD
19-09-2007, 09:45 PM
it could mean that adjudication is reintroduced to deal with those games which go the distance

Most grandprix events here are arbitered by a 1266 rated player. How would you feel having a judication decided by such a rated player (nothing against the arbiter or their abilities).

Could players play slowly to reach an adjudication?

Garvinator
19-09-2007, 09:52 PM
it could mean that adjudication is reintroduced to deal with those games which go the distance

Most grandprix events here are arbitered by a 1266 rated player. How would you feel having a judication decided by such a rated player (nothing against the arbiter or their abilities)
I was going to make a slightly different comment ;) One of the main reasons for having increments is to keep the arbiter out of the game as much as possible.

This topic really has been debated to death. If the option is between adjudication and guillotine, guillotine is much more preferable.

eclectic
19-09-2007, 10:00 PM
i believe the uscf used to have a limit of 180 moves for its games at which point it was declared a draw