I recently sent an email back to my home state of Georgia, informing them I have decided to not play in the upcoming Georgia Senior. I wrote, " I want to support Senior chess, especially in the South, but now is not the most propitious time." Although there are many reasons, the main one is the time control. Although the organizers changed it from the FIDE time control of G/90 with 30 seconds added, to G/100 with 30 seconds added, I am simply not comfortable playing a totally new time control with which I have no experience.
Since I was told by a FM from Tennessee, a man whom I beat when he was a NM, I might add, that my opinion carries little weight because of my low rating, with him going on to tell me to “raise your rating, and you will have then have credibility,” I will let others speak on the matter.
I sent out emails to many players, most Seniors, others who will be Seniors in the future, asking if they had played in a tournament with a G/90+30 seconds added time control. I received only one, that from Rex Blalock, a Master, via chess.com/. Rex is originally from the great state of Georgia, and will be returning next year. This is what he had to say: “You mention in one entry that an event was going to have G/90 but with 30 sec increments from move 1 and asked if anyone had ever played such a control. I have often played with that time control here in Europe in fide events. It is one of the 2 most popular controls here for Open tournaments. The other is G/2 hours. I can tell you from experience that G/90 +30sec normally equals about 4 hours/game. There is no significant difference in it and G/2 hours imo. Like you, I am upset that the game is speeding up but here I usually dont play more than 1 round a day so its not as bad as when you play more than 1 round a day.”
Rex
This was posted as a reply on the USCF website in reply to my post: Teaching old dogs new tricks, by Thomas Magar, a NM from Pa.: “I played in several tournaments in Canada with the increment time control. The increment is fine for juniors, but it tends to lead to extended periods of time pressure or perceived time pressure. This can lead to potentially disastrous consequences for senior players.One tournament was at Game 60 + 30sec. Many of the players disliked it as there seemed to be little time to think because of the requirement of having to write out your moves. It seemed like time pressure lasted for about 45 minutes of the game and was very stressful. The tournament that was at Game 90 + 30sec was a little better, but the last half hour left some players exhausted. There was general agreement that the most fair time control with increment was Game 120 + 30sec. This would provide a 4 1/2 to 5 hour session with time for the normal number of “thinks” necessary to play a quality game. I don’t think it is healthy to stress seniors out with a fast time control. We would like to play a good game rather than one filled with time pressure blunders. FIDE’s messing around with traditional chess is insane.”
Finally, I would like to submit a question to, and the answer by GM Yasser Seirwan in an interview on jeremysilman.com/:
Do you like the trend towards faster time controls, or do you long for the good old days when 40 in 2 was the norm?
“I strongly dislike the faster time controls. I prefer Blitz, Rapid and Classical controls. For the latter, 40/2, 20/1, 15 + 30 seconds is best. 90+30 seconds, the time control used in Bled is an abomination. It completely ruins the endgame and hence the whole quality of the games. Unfortunately, this fast time control of 90+30 is ideal for organizers as the rounds end quickly and efficiently. Unless the players revolt and explain that the games are being ruined, the organizers will contentedly keep this time control. There are very few memorable games played at this time control.”
So what is your personal opinion? It’s fine that there is one player, whoever he is, who doesn’t like it, but it’s proven a popular time control in Oklahoma. Would you prefer GAME/90 or GAME/120?
By the way, if you never play at a new time control, they’ll always be unfamiliar to you.
Alex Relyea
For the record, the time control at the GA senior is NOT G/90 +30 seconds. It’s G/100 +30. The event is Oct 3-4, if anyone from neighboring states wants to come give it a try.
Designing a time control to satisfy all seniors is an impossibility, because there are competing values. Some seniors are concerned about their ability to play well in a time scramble (OK, we ALL are to one extent or another). Others are more concerned about their stamina towards the end, particularly in a 5-hour time control. Then there’s the “2 games/day is too much” vs. “I can’t afford more than a weekend”.
My opinion is that a significant enough numbers are concerned about stamina that 2 5-hour games in one day is not tenable for a senior event. I also believe that enough seniors will appreciate the increment and having at least enough time to think for each move in the later part of the game, assuring them that they can at least win decisively winning positions. There are plenty of seniors who would disagree with me. We shall see what the players think at the tournament.
For the record: I grew up “old school”, with mechanical clocks, and time management was an actual, bonified, part of the game of chess. Tying up the board to make your opponent actually think and use up his time was an actual stratagy against higher rated opponents.
I like delay time controls, but not incremental time controls much. That’s party because with incremental, it can all but impossible for anybody to run out of time.
Once, I was testing 2+12 against two chess engines, and after 140+ move draw, the final time was 3min 28 seconds for black, and 4 min 6 seconds for white.
Have you ever seen a chess engine lose on time? I haven’t. Their time management is, well, not human.
I haven’t played with an increment, but I have played with a 15 second delay. I didn’t really like 15 second delay because they took took 10 minutes off the first time control and 5 minutes off the 2nd time control 40/90 SD/45 became 40/80 SD/40 with delay. That’s a whole different topic! I think I would actually like G/90 with a 30 second increment. I’ve played G/90 with no increment, and sometimes have time issues at the end. I don’t miss 40/2 20/1 20/1 etc. 6 hours is more then enough time to play a game.
Yes I would qualify for the GA Senior and would be happy to play G/100 +30, but I’m working that weekend, not to mention I’m traveled out.
I don’t like any time deductions. For my increment tournaments, I’ve added time for analog clocks, but not so much as to make them appealing to players with a choice.
Alex Relyea
I know chess engines never lose on time, but I forgot to mention that in the course of 140+ moves, the actual time used between the 2 engines was over 90 minutes… on a time control of 2+12.
Taking the hyperbole to the next level (ya, my example was a bit of hyperbole) a game of 100+30 for human opponents would really mean the game could last for many hours. I don’t see how the tournament could schedule more than a couple rounds a day, and the last game could wrap up after 9pm.
Yes, that’s one downside of incremental time controls. FIDE seems to feel the upside outweighs the downside, as they appear to be moving in the direction of REQUIRING incremental time controls in order to earn FIDE norms.
When I first joined the USCF, I was in the Army, based in Ft. Hood, TX. They had a chess club that met every saturday. I usually went a couple times a month when I could. Thats when I first got a rating, about 1100.
So, we’d usually play quick chess. Most games being 5min, sometimes up to 15min. But once a month, the guy running the club would run rated games at a rather leisure pace of 3 time controls.
First control: 90min for 30 moves
Second control: 60 min for 20 moves
Third control: SD 30 minutes.
On occasion, both me and my opponents would be in a time scramble on the last time control !!!. I haven’t played a game that lasted over 90min since my college years. But I have fond memories of games going for close to 6 hours.
I have PAINFUL memories of a game at the 1975 US Open going some 100 moves before it was drawn, at around 1AM.
I have run three Master events, 9 rounds (over 5 days), providing norm opportunities.
The first one I had was 40/2, SD/30 (5s delay) and the games were 6 hours apart, 2 rounds/day apart from the final day. No major problems other than a couple of games running late in the morning/afternoon rounds meaning I had to start a couple of games late in the evening rounds so the players could have a decent rest/break before their next game.
The second event I tried the G/90 +30 time control with a 6 hour break between rounds. It went very well, with most games finishing around the 3½/4 hour mark, apart from one game that was well over 100 moves and finished after about 5½ hours. The problem was that there was no break for the players involved in that long game and they both lived on their increments for the last 1½ hours or so, meaning no bathroom breaks if they needed it, etc.
For the third event I went back to 40/2, SD/30 (5s delay) but with a 7 hour break between rounds (11am and 6pm). It ensured all the games finished within a reasonable time and every player had over an hour to get ready for their next game. It also provided an opportunity for a break after 40 moves and the rounds did not seem so rushed.
As a side note, nobody seemed to mind the SD/30 finish as oppose to the more common SD/60 finish in either of the events. If I run another such event I’m definitely going for option 3 again.
Concerning the ‘no bathroom breaks’ comment…I was actually asked by someone involved in putting on a Senior tournament with the so-called FIDE time control of G/90+30 seconds added, “How fast can you pee?”
Unless one wants to use what fighter pilots and NASCAR drivers use, it is obvious this time control is just what GM Seirwan called it…
G/90 plus 30 seconds increment (as opposed to delay) is not a bad time control, especially when one has to play two games in a day. It does take some getting used to: I played in a 9-RR earlier this year with this time control, and did not manage my time as efficiently as my stronger opponents. (It is probably a good habit to allocate fifteen seconds to identifying all candidate moves even in obvious positions: this is a luxury one does not have in a 5-second delay time scramble.)
As with any sudden death time control, management of one’s fluid intake & outflow is a very real concern. I drink lots of water during play until my time is down to 30 minutes, then try to take a bathroom break in the next 15 minutes.
The 2009 Illinois Open was G/2 hours plus 30 seconds increment: fatigue was not a major issue for me, but it might be for many over-50 players. That’s an even better time control.
I would like to see 30/90, SD/30 with 30 second increment. The advantage of having a first time control is that blowouts don’t take overly long.
For norm events the following are the only allowed time controls as of today:
The tournament must be played by using one of the following rates of play:
90 minutes with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from first move
(This time control is valid only until 30.6.2010.)
90 minutes for 40 moves + 30 minutes with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from the first move
100 minutes for 40 moves followed by 50 minutes for 20 moves, then 15 minutes for the remaining moves with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from first move
40 moves in 2 hours followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game
40 moves in 2 hours followed by 60 minutes for the rest of the game
40 moves in 2 hours followed by 20 moves in 1 hour followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game
For non-norm events the following minimum time controls are currently required:
For a game to be rated each player must have the following minimum periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves.
Where at least one of the players in the tournament has a rating 2200 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes.
Where at least one of the players in the tournament has a rating 1600 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes.
Where all the players in the tournament are rated below 1600, each player must have a minimum of 60 minutes.
My comments:
My first three FIDE events were 40/2 SD/1 with a 5-sec delay. Nice long time control but if more than 1 round a day it is draining for the players, the organizer, and the arbiter. I personally dislike this time control.
After this I switched to G/90 + 30/sec increments and will continue to use those until the cut off of June 30, 2010 and then move to the 40/90 + 30 minutes + 30/sec increments (of course there is no pre-set for this on clocks that I can find). I agree with Bill in 30/90 SD/30 + 30/sec increments is a good TC as it, generically, allows 3 minutes per move in the first time control and makes numbers uniform (all multiples of 3).
For non-norm events it’s up to the organizer as long as the FIDE rating per player is taken into consideration and you don’t go above 3 rounds per day (norm tournaments only 2 rounds per day allowed). I ran a FIDE futurity with the time control of G/60 + 30/sec increment and it was fine.
One also has to keep in mind that not all event participants will be happen with how the event is organized, whether be time control, prize fund, location, etc. It’s about doing what is possible for the masses rather than the exception, but listening to the exception to see if there can be tweaking done to improve. Some requests are just not possible.
Speed chess ruins the ‘purity’ of the game. This is the headline of an article in the Telegraph. IM Malcolm Pein gives his views on faster chess:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6227396/Speed-chess-ruins-the-purity-of-the-game.html
The link didn’t work a minute ago.
It was corrected–never mind.
The link is interpreting correctly. However, it just doesn’t exist at the Telegraph site.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6227396/Speed-chess-ruins-the-game-html
Nocab, go to the site and display the page. Cut/paste the link into a message here, then highlight it and click on the URL button above the window.
Eureka! I FINALLY got it right!
I think the idea of multiple time sessions has to be rethought. The original “classical” 40/150, 20/60, 20/60 etc events were designed for the world championship and later adopted by tournament organizers. This format was liked by Capablanca, so it became a standard. Players played one game a day and were used to adjourning games.
With the advent of digital clocks and time delay, we kept the multiple sessions as a compromise, but then had to make new rules on time usage, insufficient losing chances, etc. Multiple sessions lead to more headaches for players and TDs.
Single session events are easier to plan for organizers. Rounds can get started on time. Players have less difficulty setting clocks. I believe for major events that the time control should be G/120 with either a delay or increment. That should provide a maximum session of 5 hours. That should provide players plenty of time to have some long “thinks”, as well as time to go to the loo. Such a time control would not wear out seniors nor overtax fidgety youngsters.