12-09-2012, 10:09 PM
Quoting from the Olympiad thread:
One of the major complaints against increments that has some merit behind it is that 90 mins + 40 x 30s = 1 hr 50 mins for 40 moves rather than the "normal" 2 hours for 40 moves. So your opponents would have less time with increments, meaning your dodgy attacks work better
I also wouldn't underestimate the pressure having only 30 seconds a move makes.
I've been playing with increments for all my chess the past few years in Finland and I like them. I have also still managed to win on time with them, but the main thing as Alex points out is that in the technical phase of the game there is enough scope to play well without clock time being a major factor. So games head more to their logical conclusion, and you can continue to probe in objectively drawn positions without risking anything.
One other nice feature I like is that players must continue writing down every move rather than stopping when they get short on time. On the other hand, I have seen some people ignore this rule (including arbiters who also play) so perhaps I am imagining it!
andyburnett Wrote:I much prefer the non-incremental controls: if my opponent uses up most of their time dealing with my dodgy attacks then they shouldn't be given 30 seconds extra per move to show how dodgy they were - he should gracefuly lose on time and allow me to write articles about how clever I was!
One of the major complaints against increments that has some merit behind it is that 90 mins + 40 x 30s = 1 hr 50 mins for 40 moves rather than the "normal" 2 hours for 40 moves. So your opponents would have less time with increments, meaning your dodgy attacks work better
I also wouldn't underestimate the pressure having only 30 seconds a move makes.
I've been playing with increments for all my chess the past few years in Finland and I like them. I have also still managed to win on time with them, but the main thing as Alex points out is that in the technical phase of the game there is enough scope to play well without clock time being a major factor. So games head more to their logical conclusion, and you can continue to probe in objectively drawn positions without risking anything.
One other nice feature I like is that players must continue writing down every move rather than stopping when they get short on time. On the other hand, I have seen some people ignore this rule (including arbiters who also play) so perhaps I am imagining it!