Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Incremental Times
#11
Do agree with Alex and others that increments are the way of the future and an improvement to chess (including Blitz chess). I think virtually all top players agree with that, including the late lamented Bobby Fischer, who thought time trouble blunders were mainly a blot on chess ... he was neither slow, rarely in time trouble and hardly a "dud" at the game either.
Reply
#12
Clement Sreeves Wrote:Most congresses have a time control of 90 minutes for 36 moves, then 30 minutes quickplay. Replacing the 30 minute quickplay by a 30 second increment would mean games could last 96 moves without taking longer than they do at the moment. It is very rare that games last longer than 96 moves.

I guess the simplest way would be to make it 72 minutes for the whole game with a 30 second increment from move 1 which is effectively the same.

Alex McFarlane Wrote:if the increment is less than 30 secs there is no need to record, otherwise you should. I've had to pull up one or two players for failing to do so - all within the last 5 minutes - so it may be a habit rather than defiance of the Law.

Any suggestions for four and a half hour playing sessions?

Would the introduction of an incremental time control to a weekend congress with two rounds a day not be sort of contradicatory and a bit messy?

Are there enough appropriate clocks for a weekend congress to implement an incremental time control across all of the sections?

Any suggestions for using an incremental time control in a one day junior tournament? Or is this just a mad, bad idea?

Final question, would there be any interest in a six round FIDE rated event, spread over three weekends through the season, with one round a day and using the incremental time control Alex mentioned is used in FIDE events?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk">http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#13
Quote:Would the introduction of an incremental time control to a weekend congress with two rounds a day not be sort of contradicatory and a bit messy?


I've played in a tournament in Europe where 2 rounds were played in a day. There were no issues and it was managed quite fine. Without exception all the players in our party took to the incremental time control, all had higher TPR than their then current Scottish grading. This appeared to happen consistently at other european tournaments for us and would suggest that better results occurred under the incremental time control. There may have been other factors at play, e.g. europeans being weaker grading wise than they seem, but we consistantly scooped up grading points.

So I'm all for it, I will also wear my sombrero and drink San Miguel 8)
oops that will be December in Benidorm at the Hotel Bali Big Grin
Reply
#14
David G Congalton Wrote:Any suggestions for four and a half hour playing sessions?
90 mins with 30 sec increments gives 60 moves in 4 hours and 90 moves in 4.5 hours and was one of the 'recognised' time controls.

David G Congalton Wrote:Are there enough appropriate clocks for a weekend congress to implement an incremental time control across all of the sections?
There are enough for a small congress. Some clubs (Hamilton and EK for example) might be willing to lend others.

David G Congalton Wrote:Any suggestions for using an incremental time control in a one day junior tournament? Or is this just a mad, bad idea?
Probably not needed but 20 minutes with 10 seconds per move gives 60 moves in an hour and then 3 moves per minute. I might be concerned that some K+Q v K might go on for a very long time without 10.2 (draw in last two minutes) claims.
Reply
#15
Alex McFarlane Wrote:There are enough for a small congress. Some clubs (Hamilton and EK for example) might be willing to lend others.

What is a small congress? If not enough clocks were available for a larger congress, would it be best to forget the incremental idea or have sections with different time controls? If the latter, which sections use which time controls?

Alex McFarlane Wrote:90 mins with 30 sec increments gives 60 moves in 4 hours and 90 moves in 4.5 hours and was one of the 'recognised' time controls.

So, just so I'm sure, the time control quoted on an entry form could be 60 moves in 90 minutes, with a 30 second increment from move 1, followed by 30 seconds increment per move? Is this okay for grading and would it be acceptable for a FIDE rated event?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk">http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#16
David,

The time control would simply be 90 minutes with 30 sec increments from the start. This time is suitable for any FIDE rated event (indeed even titled events though if you are going down that line 40 in 90mins + 30 mins with 30 sec from move 1 would be a better option).

I’m not sure on the exact number of clocks available but I think it is in the 40s possibly 50 with the sensory boards and the additional clocks there.

I would be loath to use incremental times without some sort of provision for stepping in in a novice event to stop it going for ever in a position that the player had no idea how to win. I would think that a 5 or 10 second increment would be useful in an event for juniors above, say, 800. This might even encourage work to be done on endgame technique as they could no longer win by the opponent running out of time in a complicated position.
I saw a junior game yesterday at Airdrie where an increment might have reversed the result.
Reply
#17
We can cover Divisions 1 - 3 of SNCL with Digi clocks + most of Division 4 so I would estimate we have over 75
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Reply
#18
At present, Chess Scotland has 33 DGT clocks (including those that belong with the sensory boards) and 40 Saitek clocks, all of which can handle incremental time controls. That's 73 in total, enough for a congress with 146 entries - call that 140, to allow for a few malfunctions. If more are needed, there are clubs which own such clocks, and it should be possible to come to an amicable arrangement to borrow some. And if necessary, it is certainly permissible to have a traditional time control in the lowest tournament and incrementals in the higher tournaments, though I would always prefer uniformity.
Reply
#19
Looking at the posibilities for league chess

For the 2 1/2 hour session

Four possible time controls spring to mind,

30+30s
45+20s
50+15s
60+10s

Advantages would be a decrease in disputes as there are no draw claims to worry about!

Would any league be brave enough to try it as an alternative time control?
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Reply
#20
Under the first suggested time control, current laws mean that players would be required to keep recording their moves. The others use increments of less than 30s and moves do not have to be recorded.

Using any of the shorter increments would seem to mean that a lot of games would not be completely recorded. An often suggested method of improving one's play, is to study one's games, especially the losses. If game records are not complete, what is there to study? (Knowing the suggestion doesn't mean that I follow it anywhere near enough.)

To my mind, game in 30 min + 30s per move would mean getting to move 30 in 45 minutes, and spending the rest of the game on the increment. Does that time control even qualify for a standardplay grading? I thought that a minimum of 60 minutes for 30 moves was required for a game to be standardplay graded.

I already find that 30 moves in 60 minutes + 15 minutes is faster than I would like. Any of the suggested time controls would lead me to consider whether to continue playing at all, as even one 5-6 minute think and you find yourself in time trouble.

I do play allegro chess, and my grade is even lower at that, but I take that even less seriously.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)