I don’t know why I’m having such a hard time dredging up this information, but I’m not finding it on the FIDE website, and I’m not finding it here.
The FIDE rules specify one specific time control for its “most important” tournaments: 40/90, SD/30 : 30. What I can’t find, though, is a list of other accepted time controls, although I’m sure I recall reading that only the time controls in that list are permitted by FIDE. All I can find is a reference stating that any tournament that includes a player rated 2200+ must have a total of at least 120 minutes of base time, any tournament that includes a player rated 1600+ must have a total of at least 90 minutes of base time, and any tournament that includes only players rated under 1600 must have a total of at least 60 minutes of base time. This reference doesn’t even mention increment.
Am I misremembering the existence of this alleged list of time controls, or does it truly exist somewhere? If so, where?
There is a list for norm tournaments. Other than that, you are mostly correct, except that it doesn’t refer to base time. It refers to time based on the games lasting 60 moves. For example, GAME/60, increment 30 seconds would be fine for players up to 2199, as it would give each player 90 minutes for 60 moves. Other things: if there are multiple controls, the first must be based on 40 moves. No more than three games per day, and no more than twelve hours of play per day. I think that just about covers it.
I’m assuming your concern is really the first link, not the second one.
So as an example my 2nd NA Amateur Closed has players only under 2200 FIDE so I have to provide a time control of minimum 90 minutes of think time. Using increment and based on 60 moves, I can do G/60 + 30/sec increment since 30/sec increment on 60 moves is another 30 minutes so the 90 minute requirement is met. I do 3 rounds per day which is the maximum under the rating regulation. Using the 60 move consideration with the increment I will have 12 hours of total play. Could the games go longer than the 12 hour time frame? Yes they can but all calculations are based on 60 moves, even if the games go for 120 moves.
Ah! That second link includes the list I was thinking of. (No wonder I couldn’t find it – I was searching for the phrase “rate of play,” but the only reference on that page is to “rates of play.” Stupid nitpicky search box.) Also, I didn’t realize that the first link implicitly includes increment time, so that explains that. But I’m not looking to run a FIDE-rated tournament (if that were the case, the first link would be what I was looking for) but rather contemplating long time controls for extended events and thinking that it might make sense to align to FIDE standards. Thanks for finding the right cite.
G/60 + 30 inc and G/90 + 30 inc will gain steam once players try them more, I think.
For “long time control” extended events G/90 + 30 inc is worth a try—we tried the next-slowest FIDE norm control, 40/90, SD/30, Inc-30 at a club where I play, but about the fourth game to use that control lasted 90 moves and well over five hours and ended after 1 a.m.
That put a damper on that one…I like 30 second increment, as it banishes insane time scrambles, but the downside is that it can make a very long endgame last “forever.” At a club night event it keeps you there till 1 a.m., at a weekend Swiss it can delay the next round—and the only ‘solution’ is adjournment, which is one of the reasons SD rated play came to be in the first place. (Avoiding adjournments, that is.)
No free lunch and so on. Also be prepared to set clocks for these controls—even for playes who own increment-capable clocks themselves…
I believe that several of the posters here have something valuable to share on a related subject at the Continental Chess forum that is available at ccaforum.com The subject I am most interested in is the topic entitled “30 seconds increment controls are unsound” Right now it looks as though I have refuted Bill Goichberg’s arguments, but I don’t really think so. It would be better if some of you write your comments there or encourage the discussion there to come over to this USCF forum. As you know, Mr. Goichberg is the most influential open tournament organizer in the USA.
Time will tell. This issue will be decided in practice and not in Forum debates. Point is that now most serious players in the US have been exposed to increment and can try it, if they like. Took long enough…
Bill G. did not want to switch from his standard time control of 40/2, SD/1, delay-5 from move one. He and regular players in CCA events got used to that—and it’s a fine time control, for two-game-a-day long weekend tournaments.
As you likely know, FIDE recently decided to stop recognizing title norms from events that use five-second delay. Thus, Bill switched to the “Olympiad control” of 40/90, SD/30, Inc-30 for his biggest events. (Those with nine rounds in the Open section, the minimum for norm chances.)
For reasons that are not clear to me, he started the thread filled with comments from “anonymous” on his own forum site, to rally for 5-second delay and talk smack about 30-second increment. Of course, there is no free lunch: There will be trade-offs with any delay or increment—or neither—of any length, whether used from move one or in the ultimate control.
I say let’s try a bunch of different time controls and ideas over the next year or three, now that anyone who wants to can afford to buy and learn to set an increment-capable clock. In friendly but rated games I have already used both 15-second increment from move one and five-second delay only in the ultimate control. (in separate games, to be clear)
Let the players and TDs decide what works best. The issue is uniformity…and here it will be a battle, forever perhaps, between a national/world governing body that wants to instill order on the one hand and the quirks and instincts of the typical chessplayer on the other. I just KNOW we should only use increment in the ultimate control, and that 10-second increment is better for fast games and 60-second increment for very slow games in big events…and now and then we throw in a five-second delay event to compare. Etc.
Not to mention the question of what to do with analog clocks. That is one reason Bill G. favors delay over increment, I reckon. With a five-second delay time control, you can pretend players using analog clocks are playing under roughly the same conditions as those with digital clocks. With a 30-second increment, it’s a whole 'nother game.
And so it goes. Time will tell. This issue will be decided in practice and not in Forum debates.
I have played under the increment controls in several events. In a 5 day event of Game 2 hr., 30i with two rounds per day; in a tournament with Game 90, 30i with two rounds per day; and in a Game 60, 30i with three rounds on Sat. and two on Sun. Of the three, I preferred the first method. The games were on average about 4:45 min. in length. Few ran beyond 5 hours. There were 7 hours between round starting times, plenty of time for the players and the TDs. The second method was okay but just a little rushed at times. As an older player, I could feel the stress of time more. This time control favored younger players but only a little more. The third method was rough. All of the players felt rushed. The older players complained about having little time for a bathroom break during the round, and very little time to rest or grab a snack after the game. Even the TDs were rushed to get the pairings up on time on Sat. It was a long day. It is important to note that in all of the events the organizer provided the equipment: sets, boards, and preset chess clocks (all clocks were of the same make).
The FIDE time control for norm tournaments is okay for pros, especially the young pros who only care about winning and shrug off quality of play. Older players in the last time control are at a disadvantage physically against a young opponent with a good bladder. Training to be an Olympic athlete is no longer so much fun when you have creaky knees, a slower metabolism, and kidneys which have their own time control. The stress of these events for the avid tournament player are enormous. Not a big fan of seeing people die at the board because of stroke or heart attack - afflictions that have been killers of top players historically.
If increment time controls are to be implemented in US tournaments, then organizers should have to provide the clocks, at the very least, for the event in order to have equal playing conditions. Not all digital clocks are increment capable. How many organizers will want to shell out the money for a couple of hundred clocks? Not many. As a player, I can understand that other players will just avoid these tournaments rather than spend money on buying another clock.
I have not been a fan of delay or increment. But I have adjusted to them. The problem with delay is that it is too short. The original delay idea was that one would get 15 to 30 seconds. Organizers completely ignored that. People claimed that under the old non-delay tournaments, the games were reduced to players becoming “clock bashing monkeys.” 5 second delay has not alleviated that much. We all have seen games where there is virtually no time on each side of the clock and the players move, knock over pieces, and bash the clock buttons. Disturbs other games, often leads to disputes between players, and the need for a TD to be at several places at once. If delay was a standard 10 or 15 seconds, there might be less of the noise and bashing as the players actually would have the time to make a move and press the clock.
Increment has always seemed an odd way to go. As David Bronstein pointed out, why should the player get something for nothing? It was a time system that Fischer offered because he knew that it would favor him. So we went to a time control system based on one player’s ego needs? A guy everyone thinks was a bit looney? Increment time controls are a bit of a problem for organizers who want to set up an event and wants his rounds to start on time. There is no reason to use it in a 4 round, one day Swiss on a local level. I doubt such an event would be FIDE rateable (wasting money on FIDE rating the event is another issue). One or two games of extraordinary length can mess up the whole day for the players and the TD. And there is almost always one of those games. Increment is okay for one game a day or two game a day tournaments, but three or four games of that a day is, for the older player, a little dangerous for the blood pressure and the heart.
I’m pretty sure Bill Goichberg’s problem is not so much with increment vs delay, as it is with 30 seconds vs 5 seconds.
A 120-move game could last an entire hour longer than a 60-move game. It would take only one of these to delay the next round for hundreds of players.
On the other hand, I wonder if this possibility may more theoretical than actual. I’ve played in several medium-size (100 players or so) 30-second increment tournaments, and there has never been a problem.
As for what to do about players with analog clocks, again this is a 30-vs-5 problem more than an increment-vs-delay problem. As far as I’m concerned, no organizer should worry about analog clocks anymore. Just let them play the same base control (e.g. G/90) but without the increment – serves 'em right. Nowadays it’s highly unlikely that both players will bring an analog clock to the tournament, anyway.
The stress of these events for the avid tournament player are enormous. Not a big fan of seeing people die at the board because of stroke or heart attack - afflictions that have been killers of top players historically.