The TLA for the U.S. Senior Open is finally up on the USCF web site. I had been looking forward to attending this event. I have been to a couple of previous tournaments in Boca Raton and they always do an outstanding job; I very much enjoyed the 2008 U.S. Senior there. To my dismay however, I see that the tournament will be using G/90 with 30 sec. increment. This means that I will not be going.
Despite my misgivings, I have played in several events (intended as serious tournaments) with Game/XX controls with a variety of added delay or increment amounts. These experiences confirmed my previous impression: serious chess requires two time controls. Period. So I will not be going to FL.
Sorry USCF (and Chief Organizer Jon Haskel) but your experiment has just cost you an entry.
I am curious: What exactly is the difference between G/90 + 30 sec/move and 30/60, G/30 + 30 sec/move starting on move 1? Regardless of what the time control happens to be, it can’t be that hard for a player to mentally bank 30 minutes for the second time control even if there isn’t one officially.
I suspect your main complaint is that G/90 + 30 sec/move is a modestly fast time control, only about four hours per game. You’d probably prefer 5 or 6 hours thinking time for a long game.
There are those who believe that a player’s way of thinking about moves changes as the first time control approaches. Similarly, many players believe that having the first time control at 30 or 35 moves is much different than having the first time control at 40 moves because of the stage the typical game is in at each of those points, and that has led to some calls to standardize the first time control (when there is one) at move 40.
I don’t think I’m one of those players, I make moves that GM Christiansen would call ‘random’, at best, regardless of the stage of the game or the time control, though time controls faster than G/45 always seem just too fast for me.
With a two time control event, you at least have a chance for a mental as well as a physical break. The given time control normally favors younger players. It places great stress on the players at the 2 1/2 hour mark until the end of the game, not a great thing for seniors on blood pressure medication or those who have to frequently urinate because of other meds and age. I have watched older players suffer because of it. I think Hal is smart to avoid this tournament and protect his health.
I have played this time control before, I can still handle it at the “young” age of 56, but it is not a lot of fun to play. It is an in between time that is harder to adjust. The mindset you use for a G120 or 40/2, G60 and the mindset for a G60 or less can be more readily be accommodated IMO than an in between time control like G75 to G90. In the former time controls you know how many “long thinks” and breaks you can take. In the in between controls, it may not be possible to adjust given game circumstances.
But that would not turn me off from playing in this event. The spending of $2000+ to try to win $1000 clinches it for me. So too is playing in Florida at the hottest and buggiest time of the year. The tournament ought to be called the Affluent US Senior Open. Good luck to all!
I still don’t understand. Let’s ignore increments or delay right now. What exactly is the difference between 40/2, SD/1 and G/180?
It sounds to me that some people use the clock as a crutch to help them manage their time better. If I have used 115 minutes on move 35 and my opponent unexpectedly sacrifices a piece to rip open my king, then playing G/180 would certainly be preferable to the standard 40/2. There’s also no reason at all why I couldn’t get up after move 40 in G/180. If I’m managing my time correctly, I would still have about an hour remaining.
I know there are players who will use all of their clock no matter how much they started with. When the Denker used G/180 a few years back, some of the games were around move 20 (!) after 5 1/2 hours of play. That’s the players’ choice–but don’t complain to me about time pressure blunders in the endgame!
Michael Aigner
P.S. I average 4.5 to 5 hours per game at a typical Goichberg weekend tournament. I think I know a thing or two about lengthy endgames, often because I’m too boneheaded to win more quickly.
The time control is hard on anyone failing to preserve sufficient time for personal breaks. It seems strange to claim a five hour game is easier on older players than one that’s roughly four hours. When you consider events with more than one round a day, it’s seems even stranger. Maybe it’s the problem of adjusting to a different TC that’s harder on some. Dunno.
I’ve played four six-round events (the Canadian Grand Pacific Opens in Victoria) at this TC and it’s by far my favorite time control. We’re starting to use it for other events in this area. And I’ll turn 66 this summer. I agree with you that playing in Florida heat is not my ideal for a great tournament.
You guys just don’t get it. Age/health have nothing to do with my objections to these single time control events. I play 5-6 hour games all the time and think nothing of it. It’s the quality of play I’m concerned about.
For over 40 years, the “gold standard” for the most serious competitions has been 3 minutes per move. The difference between 40/2, SD/1 and G/120 is that with the former, you know absolutely that if you reach 40 moves successfully, you can go on as far as move 60 still using an average of 3 minutes per move. That’s enough to cover most games. If the game goes 75-80 moves, well you just have to suck it up and move faster at the end - but for the majority of the game, you get to play your absolute best. G/120 is just a completely different experience, for me anyway.
The suggestion that one can set a “mental” time control at move 40 and budget time accordingly just doesn’t work for a lot of players. I don’t think I’m a member of a tiny minority in this or that it is true only of older players. I’m convinced that the artificial discipline of two time controls is superior and produces better overall play by all those who are truly serious about their games.
To return to the subject of the U.S. Senior Open, I note that the G/90, 30 sec. increment control (in addition to being a single control abomination) is also likely a “faster” control than 40/2 and is thus doubly inappropriate for a national Championship event. Controls averaging 2.25-2.50 minutes per move are OK for many weekend and club events but not for the U.S. Senior Open. Too bad that I have to cross this tournament off my list for the summer but I will not support with my entry fee the trend in serious tournaments toward faster and lower quality play.
So we lose one entry (or maybe a couple) but we pick up a dozen or more players that just LOVE the time control of G-90 + 30 sec. Games usually finish in 4 hours, scoresheets are mostly complete, no big blunders can be blamed on 5 sec “idiot chess” and here in Oklahoma people just rave about this “new” time control. They also like the new digital clocks and NOT carrying around chess pieces in cigar boxes with stiff boards that folded in half like we did in the 1950s and 1960s.
Time to move forward.
For the U.S. Senior Open, why is it a big deal for the games to finish within four hours? Has anyone said that they wouldn’t play in the tournament anymore because the games were taking too long?
Actually, I had originally tried to schedule the Senior Open for 2 time controls each round, but the ballroom was not available long enough each day. As you have mentioned, while we may lose a few players we will probably pick up more (especially from those players who work and live locally, and will be able to get to sleep early enough at night to make it to work the following morning).
The ballroom was not available long enough??! The rounds are at 7:00 PM. What else did they need the ballroom for way late in the evening? Or is it just that they’re sending all their staff home at that hour and want to empty the building of non-guests? Either way, what bozo signed a contract for a USCF national event knowing that the ballroom would have to be vacated each day after four hours or so?
I wanted to respond to Frank Berry as well but after much thought I have determined that it is not possible to do so without violating the AUG. So I’ll have to let it go.
Get used to it. I have opinions like anyone else and now that I have shed most of my USCF volunteer positions, I will not be shy about voicing them.
One of the first things discussed during a hotel negotiation (of which I have done many) is the hours a function room is needed each day. Failing to establish that a ballroom is available for the needed time each day is a beginner level blunder. If you can’t get the hours you want, you look for another hotel. If they promise you the hours you want, you make sure it’s in the contract before you sign. I do not know exactly how this happened but I cannot envision any scenario in which the USCF negotiator(s) would not be mostly to blame.
I would like to answer the question posed by fpawn. I played in my first USCF tournament in 1970. ALL TOURNAMENTS had a time control of 40/2, followed by other time controls. I won all five games in the 1976 Atlanta Championship at a time control of 40/ 2 1/2, followed by other time controls.
40/2 has been considered the ‘standard’ time control since FIDE lowered it from 40/2 1/2 many years ago. Some GM’s had a hard time adjusting to the faster time control; Jan Smejkal comes to mind.
Organizers started to experiment with other time controls, such as 45, or 50/2; then 35 or 30/90, etc., but most players preferred 40/2.
A first time control at move 40 has proved itself to be ‘best by test’. 35 or 30 comes too early in middle game, while 45 or 50 comes too late. I have discussed this with MANY players over the last FOUR DECADES, and almost all agree.
The only thing we Seniors have going for us is that we are too old to die young. The older I become, the more I understand the old saying about not being able to teach old dogs new tricks. A time control with a break at move 40 is one with which we have becomed accustomed. I am willing to wager that a majority, a VAST majority, of Seniors will agree with me on this. I do not look forward to sitting at the board with my bladder about to burst, not being able to go to the men’s room. It takes Seniors longer to walk to and from, not to mention the problems once we get there! We are at an age where we are slowing down, yet it seems some expect us to ‘pick up the pace’.
The tournament to which we refer is, after all, the US Senior! It should be a tournament FOR Seniors!
I have written extensively on Senior chess here on the forum and the BaconLOG. (baconlog.blogspot.com blog.chess.com/nocab )
My positions should be fairly well known. I would like to say I concur with Hal Terrie, and applaud him for sharing his views. I just wish more Seniors would speak out, whether in power or not.
I am appalled, by the post left by the President in which he writes, “So we lose one entry (or maybe a couple)…” EVERY member should count, especially the dwindling Senior members! I took it as a personal affront. I am, though, not surprised by the comment, coming as it does from an organizer pleased with last year’s turnout of 52 for the US Senior. That, it would seem, is the problem.
My membership expires at the end of the month. I have been considering whether or not to renew. On the one hand I have been a member for quite a long time. I refused to join as a life member many years ago, telling anyone who would listen that it would not be a good thing for the USCF; being better to pay each year. It cost me more money, but gave more support to the USCF.
Last year I paid $29 for membership, sans magazine. This year I will have to pay $34 for the same thing. The main reason for becoming a member is to play in tournaments, and I’m not doing that these days. And with an attitude like the one shown by the remarks of the President, it would seem I will not be playing in any Senior tournaments in the near future.
For my money I would be getting access to CHESS LIFE via the internet. The fact is that the magazine has become uninteresting. I read New in Chess and Chess Monthly. They cost more, but then, thay are worth every dollar! I print-out copies of the excellent articles on the Chess Cafe and Chessbase, and they are FREE! Even the articles on USChess online are more interesting than Chess Life, and, they too are free. After spending all that time on these excellent sites, and with those excellent magazines, I find I hardly spend any time at all actually reading Chess Life. Simply put, USCF should PAY ME to read the thing! Reading the response by Mr Berry has made up my mind. I will NOT renew my membership. Maybe he can “pick up a dozen or more players” from Oklahoma to offset the loss of my membership in what I now consider to be the United States Scholastic Chess Federation.
Michael Bacon
This response doesn’t address my specific question. What exactly is the difference between 40/2, SD/1 and G/180? Earlier I had asked the same question comparing G/90 + 30 sec/move with 30/60, G/30 + 30 sec/move starting on move 1.
If a player wants, he can easily keep track of 40 moves in the first two hours (or 30 moves in an hour), then get up to go to the restroom and finish the game with plenty of time for the endgame. To me, all of the arguments presented in this thread amount to lack of time management skills; players who spend 160 of their allotted 180 minutes on the first 40 moves should not wonder if they run low on time in a complicated endgame.
The historical analysis is nice, but we must be willing to look past history when new innovations come up (e.g. digital clocks with 30 sec increment).
I’m neither for or against any of these, but I would think the difference would be one of equality in the situation you describe above. If you take and manage your time to make 40 moves in two hours and your opponent doesn’t, instead he or she uses much more time, then they aren’t going to lose by not making the 40 move time control.
So the game dictates a completely different reality. So I would say that there is a difference, but I would also say “So what?”
G/180 will involve a much higher percentage of games where one player uses close to or 3 hours. 40/2, SD/1 will have more early resignations as players reach the first time control and realize that their position is hopeless (especially as their opponent has at least that third hour on their clock). So G/180 will on average have longer games (in terms of real time) than 40/2, SD/1.
As an organizer, if there is enough time for the 2nd control to be an hour, then I think that is preferable to Game/xx.
