Time Equivalents

[Ron_Suarez]

I was just having a discussion with Wayne (wzim) over supper and now I have a tournament issue:

What are the equivalent game times for standard, delay and increment?

From another thread, I became intrigued with the increment option. I asked Sevan about it and, as I said, I talked quite a bit with Wayne.

The considerations come from a TD point of view. The first is the time a game will normally take for round scheduling. The second is what increment times would be rated as what type of game.

In looking at the various time controls, I figured G/60 with a 30 sec increment is a similar to G/90 with a 5 sec delay. I know that Sevan is promoting this time control. In his longer tournaments he uses G/90 with a 30 sec increment.

Using 60 moves as a “standard” game move length, the following most used times for our tournaments calculate:

G/30, 5 sec delay → G/35 or a total of 1 hour, 10 minutes ← G/15, 20 sec inc (G/5, 30 sec inc!)

G/45, 5 sec delay → G/50 or a total of 1 hour, 40 minutes ← G/25, 30 sec inc

G/60, 5 sec delay → G/65 or a total of 2 hours, 10 minutes ← G/35, 30 sec inc

G/75, 5 sec delay → G/80 or a total of 2 hours, 40 minutes ← G/50, 30 sec inc

G/80, 5 sec delay → G/85 or a total of 2 hours, 50 minutes ← G/55, 30 sec inc

G/90, 5 sec delay → G/95 or a total of 3 hours, 10 minutes ← G/65, 30 sec inc

G/120, 5 sec delay → G/125 or a total of 4 hours, 10 minutes ← G/85, 30 sec inc (G/90, 30 sec inc is popular here)

Do these numbers seem right to you other TD’s that use increment?

Also, what specifically are the rating requirements and standards (Quick and/or Regular) for submitting to the USCF?

[tmagchesspgh]

There are a greater range of variance in the length of games using the increment. I have played in several tournaments that used the increment. A G60, i30 event seemed rather fast; playing time for each player ranged from 70 to over 90 minutes. Many players complained of feeling they were in time pressure very early. A G90, i30 event seemed more “normal” and most players finished within a 4 hour total elapsed time. Increment favored younger players; older players tended to take more longer thinks. The increment events seemed to be more tense and fatiguing.

I also notice one major problem with the increment. In one event two players contrived to play a 160+ move game. They used up most of their 60 minutes and then proceeded to add time through a series of repetitions, random moves, and king shuffles before drawing a completely blockaded position because of the 50 move rule. As a result the last round of the event started about 90 minutes late, annoying many of the participants, but to the amusement of the two players. One of the anarchists withdrew.

[nolan]

As far as the rulebook and ratings are concerned Game/XX + up to 15 seconds of either increment or delay is considered the same as Game/XX.

[Ron_Suarez]

How would it go for Game/XX + >15 seconds?

For instance, could we rate a G/20 + 30 sec inc both quick and regular?

[Ron_Suarez]

@tmagchesspgh

There are a greater range of variance in the length of games using the increment. I have played in several tournaments that used the increment. A G60, i30 event seemed rather fast; playing time for each player ranged from 70 to over 90 minutes. Many players complained of feeling they were in time pressure very early. A G90, i30 event seemed more “normal” and most players finished within a 4 hour total elapsed time. Increment favored younger players; older players tended to take more longer thinks. The increment events seemed to be more tense and fatiguing.

I also notice one major problem with the increment. In one event two players contrived to play a 160+ move game. They used up most of their 60 minutes and then proceeded to add time through a series of repetitions, random moves, and king shuffles before drawing a completely blockaded position because of the 50 move rule. As a result the last round of the event started about 90 minutes late, annoying many of the participants, but to the amusement of the two players. One of the anarchists withdrew.

This is an interesting point which did cross my mind. The first 20 moves with the 30 sec increment would add 10 minutes to the time. If a player decided to get a couple of long thinks in in those first 20 moves, I can see how they could run short of time.

[nolan]

Game/XX + up to 15 seconds of increment or delay is quick ratable only if XX is at least 5 minutes but less than 30 minutes, dual ratable if XX is between 30 and 60 minutes, and regular ratable only if XX is greater than 60 minutes. (One TD put in an event with a time control of Game in 29.9999 minutes, it was treated as quick ratable only.)

For these purposes, if there are multiple time controls with a sudden death final time control, the sum of the minutes in each of the time controls is added together and used as XX in the determination of what rating systems apply. In other words 30/30, SD/30 is dual ratable because the total time is 60 minutes.

In addition, Game/XX + 16 or more seconds increment or delay is always regular ratable only, regardless of the value of XX (which must, in any event, always be at least 5 minutes.)

See uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf

That may not be what the original poster meant by ‘time equivalents’, but that’s what matters as far as the rules are concerned. For planning purposes, eg, scheduling rounds, organizers are on their own.

[Ron_Suarez]

That’s exactly what I wanted to know in regards to the rating part of the topic.

Thanks Mike.

It is beginning to appear that increment is best suited for longer time controls, especially since all increments giving enough time for scorekeeping and such are well over 15 seconds.

Time management for tournament directing still gives some options like G/40, 30 sec inc. This would make the normal round time to be like a G/60, 5 sec delay.

[nolan]

It is beginning to appear that increment is best suited for longer time controls, especially since all increments giving enough time for scorekeeping and such are well over 15 seconds.

That raises an interesting (to me, at least) question:

Suppose we have a time control of G/5 + XX seconds increment. (I’d say G/zero + XX seconds increment but that’s not USCF ratable at this time.)

What’s the smallest value of XX where players would feel they had enough time to take notation for the entire game?

[Harold_S]

Using 60 moves as a “standard” game move length, the following most used times for our tournaments calculate:

While I’m not aware of any “standard”, the average length of moves in my own games is 35-40 moves. Because 30i adds a minute per move, one long game can throw off a scheduled round easily.

I would agree that an increment time control is best suited for longer time controls.

[Sevan_Muradian]

@Harold S.

Using 60 moves as a “standard” game move length, the following most used times for our tournaments calculate:

While I’m not aware of any “standard”, the average length of moves in my own games is 35-40 moves. Because 30i adds a minute per move, one long game can throw off a scheduled round easily.

I would agree that an increment time control is best suited for longer time controls.

FIDE uses the standard of 60 moves to determine base time for ratable games based on player rating. That’s where the 60 moves comes from.

[Sevan_Muradian]

@tmagchesspgh

There are a greater range of variance in the length of games using the increment. I have played in several tournaments that used the increment. A G60, i30 event seemed rather fast; playing time for each player ranged from 70 to over 90 minutes. Many players complained of feeling they were in time pressure very early. A G90, i30 event seemed more “normal” and most players finished within a 4 hour total elapsed time. Increment favored younger players; older players tended to take more longer thinks. The increment events seemed to be more tense and fatiguing.

I’ve seen older players play better with increment than younger players in my experience. I can’t say increment games are more tense, but they can be more fatiguing. I’d rather have 30 seconds to think of my next move in time scramble than 5 seconds. 5 seconds seems more tense.

@tmagchesspgh

I also notice one major problem with the increment. In one event two players contrived to play a 160+ move game. They used up most of their 60 minutes and then proceeded to add time through a series of repetitions, random moves, and king shuffles before drawing a completely blockaded position because of the 50 move rule. As a result the last round of the event started about 90 minutes late, annoying many of the participants, but to the amusement of the two players. One of the anarchists withdrew.

Where was the TD to step in for the better of the tournament and the players?

[LaughingVulcan]

@Ron Suarez

That’s exactly what I wanted to know in regards to the rating part of the topic.

Thanks Mike.

It is beginning to appear that increment is best suited for longer time controls, especially since all increments giving enough time for scorekeeping and such are well over 15 seconds.

Time management for tournament directing still gives some options like G/40, 30 sec inc. This would make the normal round time to be like a G/60, 5 sec delay.

In the shorter-time-control category I believe that 3+12 was [still is?] a popular choice for internet blitz. (10 plies add two minutes, so forty moves make it equivalent to G/11. 2+12 yields G/10 - maybe I’m misremembering, since I historically haven’t played blitz.)

[jjamesge1]

I know that the FICS/ICC standard of 2min + 12 seconds can last a very long time.

[nolan]

Is that 12 seconds of increment or 12 seconds of delay?

[dive2depth]

@Sevan Muradian

@tmagchesspgh

I also notice one major problem with the increment. In one event two players contrived to play a 160+ move game. They used up most of their 60 minutes and then proceeded to add time through a series of repetitions, random moves, and king shuffles before drawing a completely blockaded position because of the 50 move rule. As a result the last round of the event started about 90 minutes late, annoying many of the participants, but to the amusement of the two players. One of the anarchists withdrew.

Where was the TD to step in for the better of the tournament and the players?

Hmm. During the game? And do what, exactly? I’d be reluctant to invoke 20L because their intent doesn’t seem to be to skew the results. And “for any other reason” is too uncomfortably vague for these shenanigans. As is 20A. Please know I’m not challenging you. I’m just a rookie TD seeking advice.

Not to say, though, that I wouldn’t scoop them together after the match and verbally – and likely openly – thrash them about the head-and-shoulders for being “stupid in public, without a license.” And then certainly withdraw their welcome mat for future tournaments.

[wzim]

The TD could have adjourned the game to keep the tournament on schedule.
You ask each player the result that they are playing for and score them that for pairing purposes. If they both happen to say they are playing for a draw, I think that might resolve the issue then and there.

[jjamesge1]

@jjamesge1

I know that the FICS/ICC standard of 2min + 12 seconds can last a very long time.

@nolan

Is that 12 seconds of increment or 12 seconds of delay?

Incremental. As far as I know, neither FICS or ICC is able to do delay time controls. The programmers say its possible, but is pretty hard to implement, since the games (regardless of time control), have a variable delay feature used to compensate for internet lag.

I guess the bottom line is that if the servers had delay time controls when they were originally programed, they’d have it, but its not worth the effort to reprogram the coding to include it. (Unless someone really rich wanted to donate the $$ to have it done, I suppose).

I’d think a low increment like +2 seconds would be somewhat equivelent of a +5 delay.

In any event, 2+12 seconds is the internet standard, and neither FICS or ICC feel a need to change that.

I personally like delay but not incremental games, just for the fact I’ve been in many games where my opponent would whip out a bunch of moves (in a closed game), which didn’t alter the position much, but they’d quickly rack up a couple more minutes to their clock, and I’d still have to look over the position to see if its still drawish or they’re actually getting some sort of positional advantage… which means I’d be using up my clock while thier time is going north by 12 seconds every move.

[tmagchesspgh]

Adjourn a game? And allow the players to access their computers? In the incident I cited the players did not appear to be outwardly making the game a mockery. Their behavior was perfectly correct. Only someone who watched it closely would have been suspicious after seeing the number of king shuffles, etc. The TD was present but was loath to interfere in a game. The flaw of the increment is that you can have games of this sort happen. With the delay, the shuffling doesn’t help very much.

I have also seen some class players use the increment to be able to add time so that they could watch rivals for prizes and then determine whether to offer draws or play on. There are many ways to game the system. Not every Bobbby Fischer idea was stellar. They were usually posited to benefit himself alone, other players and organizers be hanged.

[Sevan_Muradian]

@tmagchesspgh

Adjourn a game? And allow the players to access their computers? In the incident I cited the players did not appear to be outwardly making the game a mockery. Their behavior was perfectly correct. Only someone who watched it closely would have been suspicious after seeing the number of king shuffles, etc. The TD was present but was loath to interfere in a game. The flaw of the increment is that you can have games of this sort happen. With the delay, the shuffling doesn’t help very much.

I have also seen some class players use the increment to be able to add time so that they could watch rivals for prizes and then determine whether to offer draws or play on. There are many ways to game the system. Not every Bobbby Fischer idea was stellar. They were usually posited to benefit himself alone, other players and organizers be hanged.

Was this a game to decide on $$$ or other prizes?

[tmagchesspgh]

It was a 5 round swiss event; the game was in the fourth round and likely would have affected the last round pairings and therefore prize chances. The game ended in a draw, but if the TD stopped the game and paired both players as having won, there would have been griping by other players. These two guys were fairly strong, ranking in the top 10 on the crosstable. They never played for draws and were bitter enders according to bystanders. I think there was some back story with their annoyance with the TD about some previous event and that they were not thrilled with the idea of the increment experiment becoming a standard in their area. Perhaps their play was a form of protest.

Even in the “old days” before delays, increments, or pairing programs, I never saw a 4th round game adjourned and played after a final round. All adjournments had to be finished before final round pairings were made. That is another reason to avoid adjournments.