Increment Timing Tournament Scheduling

Running Chess Tournaments
1

In Peoria, Illinois we are looking at using increment instead of delay on our next 2 events and a question or 2 has arisen.

The first tournament is our Greater Peoria Open which is a 2 day event having 3 rounds on the Saturday and 2 on Sunday of that weekend.

The second is our Peoria City Championship which is held over a number of weeks on Monday evenings, our club meeting night. Our games start at 7:30 pm for our club meetings.

The weekend event, GPO, has been G/120, d/5 for many years now. I understand that G/90, i/30 is the comparable increment timing for this.

The city championship games have been G/90, d/5 last year and G/80, d/5 before that due to the constrictions of our meeting place back then. We are thinking G/70, i/30 or G75, i/30 should be the equivalent time control for this. Do you TDs agree?

For total game time control, how long do the above increment time controls normally last?

And, do you do anything about adjourning games that go on and on?

If a game went 120 moves in the GPO G/120, d/5 timing the maximum game time would be something like 4 hours and 20 minutes. That same game with G/90, i/30 would last 5 hours. That extra 40 minutes makes the scheduling of rounds difficult at best for a weekend event.

In the Monday night scenario, we are concerned that the games not go too late into the night.

What are your experiences about these times?

If we do have our weekend event with G/90, i/30 how would you time the rounds for both Saturday with its 3 rounds and Sunday with its 2 rounds?

Also, does G/70, i/30 feel the same as G/90, d/5 from the player’s perspective or does it feel faster or even slower?

2

I haven’t hosted a G/90, i/30 event myself yet, but I can tell you the round times that were used at the Winter Open this January here in Chicago which used G/90, i/30.

Saturday (3 rounds): 9am, 1:30, 6:00
Sunday (2 rounds): 10am, 2:30

There have been a couple games that weren’t completed in that time, but for the most part it works.

Sevan uses these times for a 3 round quad with a G/60, i/30 time control:

10am, 1pm, 4pm.

3

Ron -

We do 90 30 quads on a Saturday with times of 10, 2, and 4. In practice it comes out to be about 10, 2:30, and 5. We’re usually out by 10 at the latest.

The Tim Just Winter Open also does 3 rounds of 90 30 and the last round there on Saturday starts at 6.

Of course there is always the issue of the one game that goes for 100+ moves and throws things off kilter.

Mind you I also do 4 rounds of 90 30 once per month. Yeah those nights get out later and the 4th round is played on fumes which makes people win, lose, or draw faster.

4

I actually talked with Sevan earlier today on the phone about this. He said he just waits for the games to finish before getting the next round started with no adjournments.

I started this thread to find out what others have experienced and found what works.

Thanks for giving the round times though. That actually will help us quite a bit in scheduling.

5

To deal with that rare long game at the Winter Open I thought that 9-2-6:30, 10-3 might address the issue. My fellow organizer(s) are not so sure.

6

Tim, do you find enough games going over 4 1/2 hours to make a difference?

Understand that I am working and talking with at least three others about both events.

Some of their concerns and questions actually assumed the need for adjournments.

When you have had those exceptionally long games, how late did they make you and how frequent are they?

7

Long games have happened twice in the last few years, once in 2014 and then one more time in 2015. In 2015 the round got delayed by 1 hour. While in 2014 it was suppose to delay the next round by only 30 minutes (we had a computer software problem that further delayed the next round).

If the rounds are spaced out further, and there is no long game, players have a long wait between rounds. Without a long time between rounds (with g/90 + 30 we have been using 4.5 hours, which worked fine for several years) the organizer is betting that in the 3 day schedule those early round pairing mismatches will not end in long games. Like I pointed out, I am thinking about 5 hours between games. That would not have taken care of the one hour challenge in 2015, but it would have mitigated it somewhat. It also adds an hour to the entire 3 game playing schedule. BTW, I have to revise what I said earlier: 9 - 2 - 7 would be the schedule for the first day ( not 9-2-6:30). The announced schedule all depends on how important starting at the announced time is to the TD/organizer and players VS the inconvenience of long times between rounds and a late last round each day.

Adjournments are a possibility, if the TD knows how to do that old time task without adjournment envelopes. Of course now players have time to thoroughly analyze the position. And a computer program analysis will now be believed to be possible, even it does not happen.

A TD could also consider just guessing at the outcome and having the pairings ready the instant the game is over. Of course sometimes I can imagine the actual result may differ from the guess. I am of the opinion that just waiting for that one result, entering it, and printing it does not take that much longer than guessing the results–well, if one has a pairings program.

The counter argument I hear is that my wanting to schedule longer times between rounds may be an over reaction to those two long games in two different events VS no problem with the schedule over the several years before that.

8

One could always try a shorter increment. G/90, d15 won’t be much different in terms of playability than G/90, d30, but the round should be ~30 minutes shorter.

Of course, there is the trade off that move-by-move score keeping can’t be required. But it might be a good way to get a three-round day in without too many issues. (This assumes that the base time is not negotiable.). Just a thought, anyway.

9

The other trade off is if they are attempting to FIDE rate that section and there is a player 2200+ FID. Then 90 30 is the minimum requirement for that specific section.

10

The fastest time control with increment I have played was Game 60, 30i in a tournament in Canada. The rounds were at 10 am - 1 pm - 4 pm - 7 pm. Games were generally over in 2.5 hours, with only a couple finishing about 5 minutes before the next round started. It seemed similar to playing in a Game 75, d5 tournament, though being not fully familiar with increment, I felt rushed at this speed. I am sure if I played in a few of these I would adjust to it.

For a two day tournament, Game 90, 30i, looks pretty attractive. Rounds at 10 - 2:00 - 6; 10 - 2:30 should give the vast majority of players enough time between rounds, get everyone out early enough on Sunday, and allow for FIDE rating if that is what the organizer wants.

Not sure if norm tournaments would allow it, but a 3 day holiday tournament could have 9 rounds of Game 90, 30i. That would be a lot of chess for amateur players. If 9 rounds seems too much, an 8 round tournament could be finished before 6 pm on the last day, plenty of time to get home.

11

No, norm tournaments have the specification of no more than 2 rounds per day. 9 rounds in the minimum for a norm tournament (with some special exceptions for some Official FIDE events).

Non-norm tournaments, I’ve done over the Thanksgiving weekend 3 rounds of 90 30 each. It’s a lot of chess in a weekend but doable.

Now with the changes in the FIDE rating regulations, you can do 4 rounds in a single day at 60 30 if all players are under 2200 FIDE. Before it was a hard limit of 3 rounds per day regardless, now that hard rule was removed and only total daily playing time and rating of players makes the difference.

12

Norm tournaments may have a maximum of two rounds per day.

13

If FIDE sees money in it, they might go to three games a day for norms in the future. It certainly would be a more attractive prospect for organizers as they could save money on renting a venue. 5 day or more tournaments are popular in Europe because they have more vacation days than is usual in the US.

I remember when 7 and 8 round events over a three day weekend were more popular. More chess for the buck for the players. Some state championships used to have that format, but most had 6 rounds in three days. I see a greater frequency of optional 3 day/two day events with a possible round on Friday night, which is good for local players.

14

That’s been discussed numerous times. Previously it was 1 game per day for norm tournaments. That was changed to two games per day because of the costs associated with running a 9 day event. I’ve argued for 3 per day for IM norms and below but that didn’t get anywhere unfortunately.

The requirements for GM were increased higher now where 1 of the GM norms must be done over a long schedule of 6 days at least.

So it’s going in the opposite direction.

15

I have never understood why nobody uses a combination approach, which combines elements of the above two ideas, along with a quasi-Kashdan idea, without actually adjourning anything.

It would work like this:

  • TD walks up to the long-running game, stops both clocks, and informs both players that it is time to make next round’s pairings.
  • TD emphasizes that the game is not being adjourned, but instead will continue, and that (a) if a result is agreed upon within the next 5 minutes, that result will be used to make pairings, or (b) if no result is agreed within 5 minutes, both players will be paired as wins.
  • TD tells the players to continue playing, restarts the clock, and retires to the TD room.
  • TD waits in the TD room for 5 minutes or until the players report a result, whichever occurs first. He then makes and posts the pairings.
  • Games begin, except that the games involving these two players will have a delayed start while they finish their long game.

Bill Smythe

16

Yep. This idea worked well in the old days. All I had to do was set the adjournment envelope down within sight of both players. Amazingly most games came to a quick conclusion.