The first time control gives a maximum of 1:50:00 for 40 moves and the second gives a maximum of 2:03:20 for 40 moves. This is essentially the time control for the entire game for a lot of games since a good percentage of games don’t go much past move 40. I see people getting into time pressure all the time when playing with these time controls. I regularly noticed the top players at the Millionaire Open, which was played with 40/120;SD/30;d5, getting into time pressure to make the first time control. Therefore, I don’t believe these time controls give enough time for 40 moves.
I can live with 40/120;SD/30;d10 (which gives a maximum of 2:06:40 for 40 moves and the 10 second delay mitigates time pressure better than 5 second delay does) but I am advocating use of G/120+30. This gives a maximum of 2:20:00 for 40 moves, the 30 second increment mitigates time pressure, and it is still overall around a 5-hour time control. It’s true that games that go over 40 moves could get into time pressure but it’s better to let the small number of games that go past 40 moves to get into time pressure than to let a good portion of the games that go around 40 moves get into time pressure. Also, if the game does go past 40 moves and you do get into time pressure, you still have at least 30 seconds per move.
While your conclusion may well be valid, your premise is flawed. To conclude that because players get into time trouble the time control must not be long enough is unsound. As Jon Tisdall once lamented after yet another time pressure loss, “If they gave me a week for 40 moves I would still get in time trouble”.
That said, I also prefer increment. But as one senior pointed out to me once, with increment the game can go on forever without ever building up enough time that you can afford to go to the bathroom!
I agree with having only one time control, as long as there is increment and the main control is 120 minutes or less. Multiple controls were simply a poor man’s way of implementing increment (sort of) before the clocks could do it.
The same senior I cited before advocated two time controls because it guaranteed a midgame period when you had time on your clock for a bathroom break. Not saying that’s a GOOD argument. I’ve always favored better time management and hitting the facilities when I get down to 30 minutes whether I need to or not. And not drinking water thereafter.
Sorry, strongly disagree. It is not that an artificial barrier of forty moves causes time pressure, but rather that it mitigates time pressure. In my time control, if you get into time pressure at, say, move 35, or 28, or earlier, at least you eventually get out of it. With your time control, once you hit time pressure you’re stuck.
If you want to run a tournament like that, go ahead. If you’re waiting for someone significant to switch to it, you are likely to wait a very long time.
BTW, didn’t you already start a thread about single vs multiple time controls? Isn’t this just a rehash of that?
As a director, two or more time control periods are a pain. There are usually more rules issues to deal with and clock problems. Players often don’t set the second time control correctly or fail to reset the second time control from a previous tournament to the correct one. In addition, there are two time pressure periods to have to watch. Players also complain more about more things. In one control session tournaments, the players set their clocks as I tell them to, we have fewer clock problems. There is usually an exodus about the 30 minute mark to the bathroom before the end of the game.
As a player, I can deal with either two time control or one time control sessions. Each type of time control has its own set of time management problems. I prefer one session events, especially if they are Game 90 or longer. What I do not like is the new mode of having only 30 minutes for the second session in two time control period tournaments. This throws you almost immediately into time pressure with little chance for a break and trip to the loo. For older players having a bathroom break or two in a long game is critical as stress affects the bladder. You can limit your fluid intake, but the bladder still shrieks for attention. Younger players don’t have this problem unless they guzzle down a gallon of sweet tea, Gatorade, or water. I find myself avoiding this type of event as 30 minutes is not enough time to figure out a complicated endgames or a complex late middlegame. The 30 minute session is only for the organizer’s convenience but is terrible for the players.
Strongly, strongly disagree. Based on what I’ve seen, having to make 40 moves in around 2 hours often does cause time pressure. Allowing more time for 40 moves will often get rid of time pressure from the entire game since a lot of games don’t go much past move 40. Sure, there are games that will go past move 40 and get into time pressure but most of those games won’t put the players in time pressure for many more moves than the players are in your time control to get to move 40. Also, in your time control, players may get out of time pressure at move but then get back into time pressure in the second time control.
Alex and Micah are both right, sort of. A time check at move 40 creates time pressure (if the player manages their time poorly) and mitigates it (since after mover 40 you get a new block of time). How much time pressure occurs at move 40 is a function of how much time is allowed to reach that point, including delay/increment, the extent to which the player manages their time wisely and the complexity of the position (which obviously influences the previous factor).
If there is a secondary time control, then move 40 represents an end to the time control. If there is no secondary time control and a player does get into time trouble, they will virtually never get out of time trouble. Even if a position arises where they can make 10 straight instant moves and they are playing with 30 seconds, the player will only add five minutes to their clock. That can be brutal.
Based on what I’ve seen in adult tournaments, there are players who will use the time available and then play in time pressure regardless of the amount of time available. The first time pressure may come as early as move 20 in a 40/90 session, with temporary relief from time pressure coming after move 40. A single time control can mean time pressure from move 25 through the end of the game.
I remember the year (2006) when the Denker time control was G/3 instead of the more common 40/2 G/1. Two particular juniors who I knew were time pressure freaks managed to get paired. I expected them to get into some sort of time scramble. Alas, I didn’t expect them to be on move 20 (!) after more than five hours, thanks to a sharp and unusual opening line.
People who frequently get into early time pressure (perfectionists who strive to play the opening phase as correctly as possible) will use as much time as they are allocated, no matter what that may be. That Denker game eventually reached a lengthy and interesting endgame, played with under 10 minutes on both clocks. At least they used 5 second delay and not 30 second increment!
I agree with this. I’ve always need a cup of coffee mid-game to stay sharp and, of course, this exacerbates the bathroom problem. So, leaving enough time for a quick dash (or two) to the can has a higher priority than finding the optimal move. The increasingly common 30 minute second session is a strange little blop of time – why not just add it to the first (and only) control?
I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re saying here. Suppose we have an intended five hour session using a 30 second increment. A single segment would be G/120. The most popular two segment would probably be 40/90,SD/30. If you’re playing the latter and you handily make the 40 moves, then there is no effective difference between the two. If you’re playing the former and you don’t make 40 in 90, then you’re in worse shape for playing a complicated endgame/late middle game. It sounds like the complaint is more about cutting the session length from six hours to five than about two vs one segment T/C’s.
As I said, each type of time control has its own time management problems. I am used to playing games at 30/90, Game 60, d5. This is the standard setting for our chess league. Over time there were other settings, but this one was at one time set up to be compliant with FIDE when we FIDE rated league games. In any event, if you average three minutes a move, you can play a 50 move game. This setting give you a chance to have bathroom breaks at the 20 move mark or two hours into the game, and at least one break in the second session. Sometimes I take a trip to the loo after the first dozen moves, especially in relatively complex openings just to reorient myself as we enter the middle game so that I can have a fresh view of the position. Tension and stress as well as how hard a position is help to determine how long I want to sit at the board. I also have to get up periodically to stretch out a bum knee.
The extra hour in a two session game is important. It is not only for a bathroom break. You need time to refresh yourself, grab a snack, and gird yourself for the intensity of the coming critical positions that are going to arise. A little mental health break and a bit of food is more than helpful. Kids have boundless energy, but adults do not. We have to manage the ebb and flow of mental and physical energy. A half hour of playing time is not enough to do that. If you are trying to have a quality game experience, the extra hour can help you to focus better. I prefer to see games determined by the moves, not by the lack of time. These 30 minute sessions are only good for the TD/organizer to get the games over with. As a TD, I don’t have to care how bad the games are, I just want to get the games over with so that I can do the next round pairings posted on time. The TD’s interest is not the same as that of the player.
In one session controls, like Game 30 or Game 60, you may have to sit it out for the whole game, as there is little time to do anything else. It is tension all the way to the end. You have to make sure to go to the bathroom before the game and limit your fluid intake. You have to determine when and how much you eat as it takes time for the food to kick in and help. A Game 75 or Game 90 time control gives you a chance to run to the bathroom and maybe do a little walkabout to relieve tension and get the blood more oxygenated from the exercise. You also have the opportunity for a couple of deep thinks, something which is not possible in shorter time controls. These deep thinks, which are common for two controls sessions, allow you to explore sacrifices, “little tactics” that improve the position while providing extra problems for your opponent to solve, and long complicated endgame lines. Without them, you are reduced to “two move tactics,” and routine positional themes which lead to junkier looking games. A coffee jolt in the middle of the game might carry you through to the end of the game, but you have to balance that out with the need to run to the bathroom more frequently.
I’m wondering how a time control of 30/90, SD/60, d/5 can be compliant with FIDE when section 1.3 of the FIDE Rating Regulations states: “Where a certain number of moves is specified in the first time control, it shall be 40 moves.”
That rule requiring forty moves in the first segment of a mixed time control is itself a fairly recent change, probably within the last five years. I would personally not be willing to hold my breath waiting for it to change back.
The Pittsburgh Chess League predates FIDE Rating Regulation 1.3. I believe that specific regulation was implemented in 2010, maybe 2006. The PCL was no longer FIDE rated by the time I started playing in it (2003 or 2004).
Our league changed its time control to 30/90, Game 60, d5 become compliant with the FIDE rating rules applicable at that time. We had a number of very strong players in the Pittsburgh Chess League, including GM Alex Shabalov who still plays. We tried to incentivize more FIDE rated players to compete and hoped that more players would get a FIDE rating. After a couple of years, FIDE changed its rules to speed up the game as well as increase its rating fees, so we dropped the idea of continuing to FIDE rating the event, but kept the time control. The previous time control was 35/90, Game 60, d5. The change we made to the present time control was minor but welcomed by the players. An earlier time control, when the League started in 1960, was 50/120, 25/60 with adjournments or submission for adjudication. That time control changed in the early 1980’s when Allegro time controls appeared which allowed us to dispense with the adjudication and adjournment processes.