I’m trying to decide between 40/90,SD/30;inc30 and G/120;inc30 for several tournaments with two rounds per day. Which do you think is better and why?
The first. I don’t think a single T/C segment (particularly in an “amateur” tournament) should be longer than four hours. If the target is 5-7 hour sessions, split it up and enforce at least some pace to the play.
For me, that’s a tough call. Part of me says that, with a 30-second increment, there is no longer much point in having two time controls.
Furthermore, two time controls can cause problems. For one thing, clocks differ in when they add the extra 30 minutes. Does the clock add time when it thinks 40 moves have been played, or only when the entire initial 90 minutes is used up?
If the clock adds time at move 40, the move counter must be accurate, or complications will develop. “What do you mean, I’ve overstepped the time control? Yes, I know my opponent’s and my scoresheets both show only 39 moves, but the clock shows 40, and it’s already added 30 minutes!”
OTOH, if the clock adds time only when the first control runs out, the players may become confused. “Hey, I just played my 40th move, but the clock didn’t add 30 minutes. What gives?”
Add to this the fact that at least one popular clock, the DGT North American, can do it either way, depending on how it is set originally – i.e. whether it is told how many moves are in the first control, or whether it is just left at zero. And, this same clock does not actually display the move count, even when it uses the move count to trigger the next control. The counter could be off by a move or two without either player even realizing it.
(Yes, I know you can see the move count on the DGT – by pressing the “plus” button momentarily, I think – but how many players even know this, or would dare try it in practice, especially in time pressure?)
So, if the total time (main time mm plus increment ss) is 120 or less, I’d say it’s a slam dunk – use just a single control, e.g. G/90 inc/30.
But when the total time is 150 (main time 120 plus increment 30), it can get tedious. I hate it when a hopelessly lost opponent continues to play, and on top of that takes his own sweet time, just because he has a lot of time left.
Personally, I would never use either of the time controls you are asking about. With a 30-second increment, I’d keep the main time to no more than 90 minutes, such as G/90 inc/30. These days, that’s considered a “slow” control.
So, struggle on – sorry I can’t help you with this one.
Bill Smythe
While they may appear to provide almost equivalent time, the 40/90, SD30;inc.30 time control is brutal on the players. The stress of rushing to make 40 moves and the likelihood of having to endure a second fast time control is unhealthy for older players.
Having two time control sessions is an anachronism. My preference as an organizer and as a player is to have only one time session. It is easier to know when the games will likely end so that I can figure out how much time to put between rounds so that the players can refresh themselves. If we have a time restriction on use of the facilities, long games will put us up against the limit. As a player, I feel I can better manage my time when there is only one time control session.
Have you considered using G/60;+60?
I think someone recommended 40/80,SD/40;inc30 as a better way to break down a 5 hour session.
Back when I was editing the Nebraska chess magazine, one of our masters wrote an excellent article on what happens right around a time control. It was his belief, which he documented with a number of games, that critical errors are made as the first time control approaches.
What’s not clear is whether those same errors would have been made had the event had just a single time control.
As I recall, the reason that 30 second was selected for increment time controls was the thought that a typical player should be able to make a reasonable move and maintain an accurate scoresheet in 30 seconds. But there could be some advantages in a 60 second time control as it would give more thinking time for every move.
FM Langer has posted that the Austin Chess Club has a G/90;+60 tournament twice a year.
Alex Relyea
G/90+60?? (The target seems to be five hours).
Yeah, but if I’m running a ‘serious’ chess event, I’d like the players to have an hour between rounds. G/90;+60 would probably need rounds 5 1/2 to 6 hours apart to include a rest/meal break.
I strongly, if you look at the tournaments I organize it is obvious, prefer the former. There are two significant advantages: first, most games that are lost in the first 15 moves will end in about four hours. Players who would spend every available second trying to find SOMETHING will have to use up the base time that much faster. Second, it gives players who habitually use all their time very quickly a chance to catch their breath. It is a terrible thing to see someone who gets tripped up in the opening have to make all moves after move 12 on the delay (unusual, but between 20 and 25 is very common).
Additionally, it restores the importance of endgame play.
Finally, I did a tournament once, some here may remember, that was G/60;+30. There were players who got into time trouble very quickly, and never got a chance for a reprieve. They would instead be anchored to the board from somewhere in the teens. It was very unpleasant.
Alex Relyea
Rounds are six hours apart. FWIW, I’d suggest Mr. Smith do the same with either recommended control.
Alex Relyea
With rounds 6 hours apart your patrons might be there for 12 hours for two rounds of chess. That raises stamina issues, as well as patience issues, for both players and officials. (The TDs are always the first to arrive and the last to leave, and I KNOW I don’t have the stamina for 14 hour days any more.)
The worst patience issues are for those who finish the morning game in 15 minutes and don’t live close enough to go home before the game 5:45 later.
Alex Relyea
Gee, I would have said the worst patience issues were the ones who sat at a board for an hour waiting for their no-show opponent, then had to sit around for another 5 hours waiting for round 2.
I think it was the US Open in Boston in 1988 where I had TWO no-show opponents over the course of a 12 round event. Now the good news, I guess, is that I finished in the money. (My prize check was something like $13.85.)
How many clocks can even do inc/60? Some may have a max increment of 59 seconds.
Bill Smythe
We have a number of tournaments at the Portland Chess Club that use G/90;inc30 now (due to me pushing that time control 
). However, I thought it would be good to have at least one tournament with a 5-hour time control as I know some players who don’t like anything faster than a 5-hour time control.
All of the clocks listed here that do increment, pdxchess.org/wp-content/uploads/ … rement.pdf, can do inc60 except the Leap PQ9912/Wholesale Chess Advanced which allows a maximum increment of 59 seconds.
It would be interesting to see if Mr. Smith’s players prefer one or two time controls. There are very few multi-day tournaments in my area with one time control.
Alex Relyea
The whole point of me wanting to use one of these time controls is to have a few tournaments with a roughly 5-hour time control since most of the multi-day tournaments in my area use a 4-hour time control. A good percentage of games go around 40 moves which means 40/90,SD/30;inc30 will essentially end up being G/90;inc30 for a lot of games. Therefore, I’m currently leaning towards using G/120;inc30.
You seem to be missing the point of the two segment time control.