G/3;inc2 is meant to be roughly equivalent to G/5;d0 but this is based on a game lasting 60 moves. Since a higher percentage of games go around 40 moves, G/3;inc3 would be more equivalent to G/5;d0. However, when choosing a blitz time control with increment, is 5 minutes of “total playing time” the amount of time we should be basing things on?
Rule 5C tells us the total playing time per player needs to be greater than or equal to 5 minutes and less than or equal to 10 minutes to be blitz rated, with the primary control (minutes) greater than or equal to 3. G/3; inc. 3 is blitz-ratable. The FIDE standard is G/3; inc. 2; many players in my area are used to that.
Maret, you need to change your ‘greater than’ and ‘less than’ to ‘greater than or equal’ and ‘less than or equal’.
With inc/2, anything from G/3 inc/2 through G/8 inc/2 is blitz-ratable. With inc/3, anything from G/3 inc/3 through G/7 inc/3 is blitz-ratable. Main time (mm) must be at least 3, main time plus increment (mm+ss) must be between 5 and 10 inclusive.
In blitz (especially at G/5 inc/0), many games go beyond 40 moves that would have ended sooner in non-blitz, because players will often play on in a hopeless position, trying to win on time.
Anybody who has actually played G/3 inc/2 will probably tell you that G/3 inc/2 “feels” slower than G/5 inc/0, because the former gives you more time when you most need it. There doesn’t seem to be any good reason to slow things down even more with G/3 inc/3.
Bill Smythe
Yes, indeed. “Inclusive.” Thanks. Need my AM coffee before I answer these.
While that can happen, my experience would be that games are much less likely to go 40 (at straight G/5) because either someone flags or someone gets so far down in time that they grossly blunder or try a desperation swindle facing almost certain loss on time. Where G/5 really gets silly is with someone playing on in a dead drawn position to exploit a sometimes minute advantage on the clock—with the increment controls, drawn games will usually be agreed drawn, and that’s a good thing.
I understand what the rules are in regards to what time controls are blitz ratable. My questions are 1) if you are trying to use a time control with increment that gives around 5 minutes of “total playing time”, wouldn’t G/3;inc3 make more sense than G/3;inc2 since a significantly higher percentage of games go around 40 moves? 2) is it best to base an increment time control on what gives roughly 5 minutes of “total playing time”.
I’d think these were only valid questions if G/5;d0 usually ended up using almost all of the time. In a significant minority of the blitz games I’ve played using that control I and my opponent still have more than 40% of our times remaining. Very few games get down to less than 20 seconds for both players, and those seem to be the ones that went long and were well into an endgame.
Based on that, any blitz-ratable increment (or delay) time control already gives more time than is used in most blitz games I’ve seen.
Yes, I know – I was responding to your post and somebody else’s post with a single composite reply.
G/3 inc/2 is better, for several reasons, one of which is that it is already the international standard, and another of which is that some clocks (DGT for example) have G/3 inc/2 as a preset.
Given that G/3 inc/2 already “feels” slower (at least to me, and probably to anybody else who has actually ever played G/3 inc/2) than G/5 inc/0, I’d have to say no.
Amen – regardless of whether “minute” is pronounced “MIN it” or “my NUTE” in your sentence above.
Bill Smythe
The international standard is 60 moves, based not upon an average game, but a typical “long” game. That mainly has to do with keeping to something of a predictable schedule. Of course, for a double blitz tournament, the “schedule” is likely to be ASAP, and a single long game is much less likely to affect the schedule anyway since in a double round tournament, you’re unlikely to have the same pair of players have two overly long games back to back, so for scheduling, you probably wouldn’t see that much of a difference by adding the extra second increment.
However, as Bill Smythe points out, the difference between G5;d0 and G/3;inc2 (in favor of the latter) is much more obvious much earlier in the move count than it is in longer controls (with delay vs longer delay or increment) mainly because you actually have increment and know that you have increment.
5 minutes is pretty much universal for “blitz”, isn’t it? It’s not clear that you would be doing your members a favor by tweaking the T/C in favor of something longer and non-standard.
I don’t see these points as very persuasive arguments.
In my experience players find that G/3;inc2 “feels” faster since they usually end up getting less than five minutes for most games and since they only start with three minutes of base time.
Then a time control with increment should be constructed in a way that gives around 5 minutes of “total playing time” for as many games as possible, and this is G/3;inc3.
FWIW, I’ve had great success with G/5;+2.
Alex Relyea
The “weird” factor outweighs the “it’s more likely to come out to five minutes per player” factor. G/3 inc/2 is a recognized standard. If you want 5, well, play G/5 d/0. There’s a club in Chicago that insists on that. None of this increment or delay business for them.
If I was to deviate from the standard, I might do G/7 d/0, which has become the unrated blitz norm for the blunder-prone at our club, where we are constantly resetting clocks from G/7 to G/5 and vice versa. Or I might do G/5 d/5, which would still be blitz-ratable, though weirder than usual, because of rule 5E. But come to think it, your G/3 inc/3 throws 5E under the bus anyway, and 5E is a recommendation rather than a strict requirement.
In other words, you can do whatever the heck you want, as long as it adds up to something between 5 and 10, inclusive.
That would (basically by definition) be G/5;d0 which gives 5 minutes of total playing time for every single game.
The same thing could have been said about G/3;inc2 in the past.
A player won’t know how it “feels” until he has played a game or three at G/3 inc/2. Before somebody has played his first G/3 inc/2 game, he would reason as you did, that G/3 inc/2 should “feel” faster. Once he gets into it, he will realize that, as long as he plays each move in 2 seconds or less, he will always have at least as much time after each move as before it. This comforting realization will cause the player to “feel” that G/3 inc/2 is slower, because he will always have the escape hatch of playing several moves in less than 2 seconds each until he catches up.
Bill Smythe
I was talking about what I’ve seen from players who have played G/3;inc2.
Let’s see if I have this straight:
-
The standard method of evaluating a time control is based on the base time and delay/increment over 60 moves.
-
Micah doesn’t agree with that standard.
-
Based on that belief, Micah thinks it’s a good idea to try a different time control based on the standard he thinks should be used (40 moves).
-
Micah believes an unspecified number of players who say G/3 i/2 feels faster. Other organizers report their players expected that but found the opposite to be true, also based on an unspecified number of players.
-
Micah’s preferred time control, while unusual, is ratable.
1-3 are contrary to Micah’s views. 4 is arguably neutral, but since it does come from his player base it’s somewhat in support of his views. 5 is squarely in his favor.
I don’t agree with much of his reasoning, but my advice to Micah is “Try it and see what the players like in your area”. You’ve had a penchant for preferring things many organizers disagree with you on. If that’s been working well for you, keep on trying new things, as you have no reason to doubt your judgment. If has been working out badly for you, you might try listening to the opinions of your experienced colleagues. If you’re like most organizers, some things you’ll try will work and some won’t, and either way you’ll be wiser and better.
Perfectly fine for Micah to try it.
Trying to convince others to do things the way you want them to do things (the statement I bolded) is where the argument gets difficult.
Agreed. Your players will vote with their feet. You’ll know pretty quickly whether or not this works for the players in your area.