…and delay is far better than nothing, for Regular-rated games.
For Quick and especially Blitz games I ‘get’ the use of very short or zero delay/increment—but the Candidates Tournament has convinced me: In serious rated tournament chess, no player should lose on time simply because it is physically impossible to make enough moves to make time control.
This after seeing Ivanchuk’s last two implosions, just watched the end of Carlsen-Grischuk, while Gelfand-Ivanchuk seems headed for a fourth straight time scramble for Chucky. (maybe Gelfand, too.)
Far better to use increment in games this important, I think: we have the technology—but if the WC match uses no increment till move 61, I guess the Candidates must follow suit. And the top players prefer this control—40/120, 20/60, SD/15, Inc-30 (61) to the similar but oh-so-different 40/100, 20/50, SD/15,Inc-30 (1), according to Mig and others.
I am sure they have their reasons; still it seems to me that a minimum of 30 seconds per move is a good thing at tip-top level—or any level of rated play, if time allows. With the relaxed FIDE regs for norm-approved time controls, I wonder if we will see less increment, more, or about the same.
Anyway, Mr. Ivanchuk lives far removed from the normal course of life on Earth, thus could find a way to lose on time no matter the increment or time control. For the rest of us, the more I think about it, watch games played both ways and occasionally play games each way…increment rules for serious chess.
FIDE keeps changing the rules of the game. If you are going to require that players write down their moves, then increment or delay should be mandated for all time control sessions. It is a big switch to have it only after move 60. These rules changes have a bigger impact it seems on the older players who are having a more difficult time adapting. The “best” time control for candidates tournaments and matches, if you are going to use increment and want to have high quality games, is 40/120, 20/60, Game 60, 30i. Yes, it is a potential 8+ hour session, but the likelihood of 60+ move games is small. FIDE only seems to care about results, not the quality of their product.
Having played increment a bit in Canada, I found that Game 120, 30i was very good. Faster time controls, especially Game 60, 30i seemed rushed and very stressful for older players who were in time trouble early in the middlegame. Once you hit less than 30 minutes on the clock, bathroom breaks, little walkabouts to stretch and relax, were not easy to get. Keeping the body on a continued alert status with adrenaline rushes for an hour or more with no sense of finality is dangerous for us who have aging bones, bladders, and kidneys. That means those over age 45. Stress is a killer. Of course, the Canadians are more civilized and prefer longer time controls, provide all equipment, as well as providing snacks and tea/coffee during games.
The time control at the Candidates’ Tournament can’t be THAT much of an issue. Vassily Ivanchuk’s been playing super-GM level since the days of the analog dinosaurs. Surely, he knows how to play in a six-hour, no-bonus time control better than almost anyone else on earth. I think we’re just seeing “bad Chukky” right now.
This time control isn’t exactly making its debut at this tournament either. 40/120, 20/60, SD/15+30i was the rate of play for the 2011 Candidates’ Matches, and the 2012 World Championship Match.
I can see where one may reasonably argue that FIDE should be a bit more consistent in its rates of play for major events. For example, the Olympiad was played at 40/90+30i, SD/30+30i, which probably plays quite a bit different as the first time control approaches than 40/120, 20/60. (I say “probably” because I’ve never really come close to losing a regular-rated game on time, regardless of the control. )
When the FLC changes on July 1, 30/90+30i, SD/30+30i will be a norm-eligible time control. I hope some US events decide to use it. I think that would be a great control.
Are you sure about that, Boyd? Rule 1.3 in the new rating regulations says “Where a certain number of moves is specified in the first time control, it shall be 40 moves.”
That’s what it says, but 30/90, SD/60 and 30/85, SD/60, d/5 events played in the USA have been FIDE-rated for many years.
Not sure if the organizer asked for and received an exception/exemption, or if the “shall be 40 moves” is more FIDE’s way of saying “Top-tier tournaments will be run this way, but in the backwoods the savages can do what they like within reason as long as we get the rating fees.”
It makes no sense for G/90, Inc-30 or G/120 to be ratable but 30/90, SD/60 not ratable, but that’s the way the regs read, on the books, for now.
Oh, the time control has been around forever. It’s been used in WC matches since at least Anand-Kramnik, if not before. The players are very well used to it—the funny thing to me is that the top players seem to prefer it to having increment from move one.
Mig wrote about this several times; seems it ruffled feathers when Corus switched to increment from move 1 rather than 61, to allow title norms in the C section. (As I understand it, things will change on July 1, but for the past several years all norm-approved controls have either no increment or increment from move one.)
I sorta get the ‘purity’ argument—but if I never again see a red-faced player slamming pieces and the clock in a frenzy to make time control in a serious tournament game, I will be as close to happy as I get.
This is a new thing by FIDE, I think within the last two or three years. It actually does make sense, in that players always know how many moves there will be until time control. It is either sudden death, or 40 moves. Imagine how confused people would be if I ran a tournament at 42/120, SD/60, d/5.
No, Bob, I am actually sure that the time control I gave will be explicitly disallowed on 7/1/2013. But this gives me a chance to rail against this particular FIDE issue I have. Thanks for your help.
I find it difficult to comprehend that a single sudden-death time control of three hours based time with 30 seconds increment would be sufficient for norms, but a primary time control that allows three minutes of reflection time per move would be unacceptable just because it’s a 30 move control.
I understand the concept of standardization. However, players have gotten along for years with the possibility of a primary time control with something other than 40 moves’ duration. I think 30/90+30i, SD/30+30i is a perfect time control, especially for proposed norm events with two-round-a-day schedules. Would norms made in such an event really not be allowed - especially under the current regs?
1.14 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
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 norm events, starting 1 July:
1.13 Without increment the minimum time is 2 hours followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game. With an increment of a minimum of 30 seconds for each move, the minimum time is 90 minutes for the entire game, apart from the increment.
And, yes, the rating regulations, now and after 1 July, state that if a certain number of moves is specified in the first time control, it shall be 40 moves…
I suspect I wasn’t being sufficiently clear in my previous posts. I apologize for that, and will try to clarify my intentions now.
I understand that 30/90+30i, SD/30+30i won’t work for FIDE events, both now and after 7/1/2013. The reason I wrote my initial post in this thread the way I did was to get someone to point out that this control (which I think should be acceptable for both rating and norms, for a number of reasons) isn’t actually allowed. My hope was to make someone ask, “Why not?” in the process of picking nits, because I think the control looks and reads like a perfectly reasonable control. I should have just broached the question directly.
What I’m thinking of, more than anything else, are FIDE-rated or norm-eligible US swisses, many of which have two-round-a-day schedules. Here’s a list of why I think 30/90+30i, SD/30+30i specifically is a good idea for two-round-a-day events.
(1) You get three minutes of reflection time per move in the base primary control (as opposed to 2:15/move in 40/90).
(2) You should still be able to build up a decent reserve of time going into the second control - or at least have a better shot of making the primary control.
(3) Most games won’t go past five hours, and many will end in 4-4.5 - so it would take a pretty extraordinary day for a player to play more than 10 hours in a two-round-a-day format. (10+ hours a day is pretty common right now at 40/120, SD/60, d5.)
(4) Players get more time off between rounds and days, which should help them rest and play better.
(5) If current schedules are maintained, where there are typically 7 hours scheduled between rounds, directors get more time between rounds to do director-type stuff (reset playing hall, double-check pairings/bye requests/drop-out requests, etc.), while still allowing for the remote possibility of a 6.5-hour game without disrupting the tournament schedule at all.
(6) This time control is short enough that it should satisfy most people who don’t like the possibility of 6- or 7-hour games, while still being long enough to allow for a two-stage game (with a short break after the control, unless you’ve budgeted your time horribly).
(7) Events with increment really take away some of the more annoying aspects of the delay-related rules, especially with respect to score keeping.
I’ve discussed it with a few prominent organizers, who have said they would like to have such a control at their disposal. What I’m hoping for here is a discussion of why this is either good or bad. This seemed like a reasonable thread in which to discuss it. I apologize to Mr. Mark if I’m hijacking his discussion.
Your proposed control is not approved for norm events as of now, of course. I am not sure whether it would be norm-approved as of July 1, but I see no reason why it should not be FIDE-ratable for two-round-per-day non-norm events. Using the FIDE magic marker of 60 moves—careful with the smudges—that gives each player three hours for the game—six hours total, and two games in one day that go the distance make exactly 12 hours of play.
Check it out: There are FIDE-rated events in the USA with a primary time control of 30/90. It’s true. If those events get an exemption and/or a shrug from the folks who collect the rating fees, I don’t see why your control should not be treated the same. Talk to the folks in charge of the FIDE-rated 30/90 events you can find in TLAs, maybe.
I am interested to know what US Open Committee Chairman Hal Terrie thinks about this time control (30/90, SD/30 with 30’ inc from move 1). One disadvantage I can see is that this TC does not allow for long-term planning in the endgame. However, the advantages listed can outweigh that for many players.
For what it’s worth, my favorite time control is 40/90, SD/30 with 60’ inc from move 1. I understand that it will only work for one round a day. That’s how I like it anyway. I don’t mind taking a full week’s vacation from work for a chess tournament. If there are 2 rounds a day, then one can forget about long-term planning in the endgame anyway, so the proposed 30/90, SD/30 with 30’ inc from move 1 seems like the best option to me.
I prefer 60’ increment to 30’ (just like IA Stewart Reuben), because neat scorekeeping takes a significant chunk out of 30 seconds for most people, so once low on time, the score sheets tend to become illegible.
I would not favor 30/90,SD/30,incr. 30 for the U.S. Open. I have played a few of these increment time controls and approve of some of them, if they are implemented in a way that does not degrade the quality of play. The control SD/90, incr.30 is an abomination when proposed for serious tournaments; in my view it’s not much better than SD/60,d5.
I have played 40/90,SD/60, incr.30 and found it nearly equivalent to 40/120,SD/60,d5. On balance I prefer the latter but I could accept the former for serious chess, including the U.S. Open. I recently directed a tournament which used 40/90,SD/30,incr.30 and my observation was that while this was mostly a better experience for the players than 40/90,SD/60,d5, it was not acceptable for the most serious chess. So, for example, personally I would not enter a holiday weekend tournament (3 days, 6-7 rounds) which had only 30 minutes base time in the 2nd control. For lesser, two-day local events, I would find it acceptable.
I have no experience of controls with increments of more than 30 seconds. I’m intrigued by the idea of 40/90,SD/30,incr.60 but I would want to try it before accepting it for serious chess.
It should be noted here that I would prefer a five- or six-hour base time control in any event where there is one round a day. I may have, yet again, been guilty of a lack of clarity, for which I apologize. My idea of making 30/90+30i, SD/30+30i norm-eligible is aimed at making two-round-a-day schedules more bearable for both players and directors.
My main bone of contention is this. If G/90+30i is considered a norm-eligible time control, how can 30/90+30i, SD/30+30i be considered worse? If the sole argument against it is that the first time control is not 40 moves, isn’t that a bit dumb?
(The notion of running a norm event at G/90+30i kind of makes me cringe from a purist standpoint - but hey, if masters want it, I sure won’t argue with a shorter day as a director. )
I am not sure about 60-second increments; it would be nice if anyone who might have practical experience with them would report their experience. After trying to decipher Suat Atalik’s score sheets a few weeks ago, I am not sure a 120-second increment would help some players with legible penmanship. My main concern, though, is that the round would be lengthened considerably - and if a game goes past 70-80 moves, it could significantly delay an evening round in a two-round-a-day schedule.
Previous iterations of USCF Sales used to sell the envelopes, the current version does not offer them unless they are listed somewhere other than tournament supplies.
I’m sure you could devise a nice design and print envelopes if time turned backward as there are special punishments for Delegates who break into the museum
BTW, I think increment is better in every mode from personal experience. I never felt like there was time pressure. A few normal quickly played moves adds time to the clock and when you get down to a few seconds, increment just blows delay out of the water. G/60 + 30 was reasonable and almost leisurely. 40/90 SD/30 + 30 felt much slower than 40/2 SD/1 d5. Play 10 quick opening moves and you have 30/95ish
I don’t think nor would ever advocate for delay to go away, but increment should become just as acceptable in the long run. People tend to like what they are used to and dislike the unknown, somethng that can change with experience.
I have some of the old adjournment envelopes and a set of special cards that also can be used for adjournments. They are in a box with all of the different rulebooks, the official handbooks, and the most recent update of the rules. Even have a pack of the old pairing cards on goldenrod heavy duty paper.
I don’t mind increment, but I think it should be used in all time controls. Also prefer just one time control, like Game 120 or Game 90, rather than multiple controls. Given that we are using delay or increment, multiple controls seem to be an anachronism. A three or four hour session is enough for a game.
Yes. Multiple time-controls were just a poor-man’s approximation to increment before the advent of increment-capable clocks. Please note that, for example, G/90 inc/30 is equivalent (in most ways) to 1/90, then 1/0:30, 1/0:30 etc indefinitely (i.e. 1 move in 90 minutes, then 1 move in 30 seconds ad infinitum).
By varying the main time from 25 to 120 minutes, and the increment from 5 to 120 seconds, you should be able to create just about any “look and feel” you want. Surely some combination of nn and ss in “G/nn inc/ss” (25<=nn<=120 and 5<=ss<=120) should suffice no matter what kind of event you are organizing.
The need to speed up just before move 40, followed by the ability to slow down immediately thereafter, has now become a silly anachronism.
I understand the preference for a single time control. However, there are a lot of players who do not like a single time control for a game of 4+ hours.
The reason that I’ve heard more often than anything else is that players like to have a built in break as part of the time control. Also, I’ve heard that players do not like long single time controls because it makes people less likely to resign when appropriate. With the end of a primary time control, according to this argument, people are often more tempted to let go when it’s hopeless.
On a personal level, I think players should be entirely responsible for how they budget their time during a game. If you choose to spend all the 15 minutes of a G/120 time control thinking about the opening, that is your problem. However, from an organizing point of view, as long as players still prefer multiple time controls, they’re not going away.
)
)
