So basically what you’re saying is, two-stage time controls such as 40/2, SD/1 force players to assess their position close to move 40 and resign positions with poor winning chances, while players in a G/180 might cling to a weak position way past two hours and waste everyone’s time?
The argument over the lowering of the quality of chess with faster time controls is not a new one. For many players there is a difference [just look at regular and quick ratings] in their quality of play when given more overall time to think during a game. Although I have never done so, I have seen many players with notes next to moves to indicate how much time has been used.
There has been trouble some years in even finding someone to run the US Senior, although with a spot for the winner in the US Closed at stake that has become less of a problem. There is also the various views of the potential senior players on time controls and rate [# of rounds] of play. The problem has always been that generally “Senior” players would prefer a 1 round a day format at a slow time control, while the organizer is typically hindered by the site requirements for what time control can be used and how many rounds in a day. (Possibly) stupid question time: Why not run the US Senior as a 1 game a day event during the day during the US Open? Also, what is the goal for the turnout for the US Senior? In 2000 the US Senior had 18 players [I know, as I ran it in Chicago area] and almost did not even happen. A total of 52 players in last years event, and that was considered a success. What does the USCF (AND THE PLAYERS) want for this event to become?
Back to the question of single versus multiple time controls. Basically if you are using a single time control [G/90, etc] then there is no need to manage your time just finish the game in the time allowed. With multiple time controls there can be a need to manage your time. Also, I would ask if any tournament in the US that uses multiple time controls and the accumulate/FIDE [+30 seconds] time setting? Do remember that the original idea behind the Fischer time controls was that it would virtually eliminate games being decided by time. Not really true, but the concept was there at first.
What it really comes down to is what a player is comfortable with as a time control. Back when G/90 and G/30 were the more commonly used controls I always had trouble with G/60 as a time control. To this day I still will sometimes avoid tournaments with that control. Also, I always felt that 30/90, SD/1 made little sense [who flags in 30/90?] and that it should just be G/150; so I have always refused to play in any tournament that uses that time control. Again, it is personal opinion and that can effect the turnout for a tournament.
Larry S. Cohen
Mr. Bacon should note that the above post was not made by the USCF president, but by his twin brother.
To answer Mr. Cohen’s question, the New England Open this year will have a time control of 40/90, SD/30 with a 30 second increment (from move one). As I am not supplying clocks, analog clocks will use 40/90, SD/60. Personally, I think that’s a much better choice.
Alex Relyea
Isn’t the difference between 40/90 and 40/90 + 30 inc pretty drastic?!
Perhaps, but the two time controls are:
Digital Delay Clock: 40/90 SD/30, 30 seconds increment
Analog Clock: 40/90 SD/60.
If the game goes 60 moves and both players use up all their time, then the total time would be 150 minutes for each player regardless of whether it was played on a digital delay or an analog clock.
I did notice that difference, but it was indicated that the increment was in place from move 1. Compared with the 40/90 no-increment analog clock user, the 40/90 increment-capable digital clock user could practically play his game reclining in a deck chair with a glass of iced tea.
40/90 + 30 seconds increment is essentially the same as 40/110.
Quite honestly, I don’t see a LOT of difference between those time controls.
relyea wrote: Mr. Bacon should note that the above post was not made by the USCF president, but by his twin brother.
Duly noted. While visiting the US Open last year, I was talking to one of the brothers when the other appeared, put both hands on my chest, and shoved me. Now I’m not sure which one. Maybe one of them could let me know so there’s no case of mistaken idenity…
Five time US Champion Lev Alburt in the Just Checking column in the most recent 2010/3 New in Chess, the best chess magazine in the world, was asked, “If you could change one thing in the chess world, what would it be?”
His answer, “Go back to the 3-year World Championship cycle as designed in 1948; 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, followed by adjourning.”
Michael Bacon
Hm, good point – a fixed number of moves means a fixed amount of added time.
But in that case, why wouldn’t it be 40/90 + 30 inc for owners of increment-capable delay clocks and 40/110 for owners of analog clocks? Why 40/90 for both? That’s just punishing the analog owners for having analogs. Or rewarding the digital owners for having digitals.
You’d have to ask the organizer that question, but it struck me as a reasonable way to deal with the situation that also encourages players to get a digital delay-capable clock. As such, I consider it to be a pro-active and somewhat innovative solution.
Perhaps the USCF will even consider making that as a recommended option in a future edition of the rulebook.
Or, the Delegates could implement such a rule right now.
With 40/90 G/30 inc30 there are the options of 40/90 G/60 or 40/110 G/40.
Having an analog clock with a secondary time control not being an integer number of hours may not be a situation the organizer wants to face (some players resetting forward, some back and some forgetting).
I wanted to make the time control such that no one who had the choice between an analog and a digital clock would choose an analog. Please note that the TLA even includes the correct Chronos setting to use. I also didn’t want to cripple those who had no choice. It seemed like a happy medium. Also, players using an analog clock will be directed (in pre-round announcements, followed by a personal announcement, if necessary) to set their analog clock to 4:30. This means that for everyone using an analog clock, first time control will be at 6:00 and second will be at 7:00. I think anything other than an hour for the secondary time control is very undesirable, for reasons explained above.
Please note that some players having the choice between playing GAME/60 with an analog clock and GAME/55 with a five second delay will choose the former, thinking that would give them more time. I want to eliminate that at this tournament, at the same time not wanting to make people with analog clocks feel unwelcome, or wanting to have to supply everyone with digital clocks.
Alex Relyea
5 minutes = 300 seconds = 60 moves@5 seconds each.
Thus, if the players make some moves in less than five seconds or if the game goes less than 60 moves, Game/60 can indeed give them more time than Game/55 + 5 seconds delay.
Well, at least you’re frank about it.
Mike Nolan wrote:
40/90 + 30 seconds increment is essentially the same as 40/110.
Quite honestly, I don’t see a LOT of difference between those time controls…
When you’re down to seconds on your principal time without an increment you’ll SEE A LOT of difference… big time!
In Oklahoma we like the game to be decided on the board (with an increment) instead of having the game turned into a clock-slapping contest with pieces flying all over the table and on to the floor…
Quote from a new book: top page 88 Alexis Shirov - Fire on Board – part 2: "After I made this move I had almost no time left, but with the extra 30 seconds per move I was still able to stand and fight! "
This is exactly why I love the 30 second increments, but we rarely see them in tourneys around here (says the guy who lives a 15 minute drive from the tourney that inspired this thread - but I’m too young to play in it). But even in “normal” tournaments without the 30 second increment, I’ll refuse to play without the 5 second delay.
On the other hand, this thread is about the Senior Open. Introducing a faster time control, even with the 30 second increment, amounts to trying to teach an old dog new tricks. This is one tourney where not messing with what they’re used to might be the best policy.
How many time do I have to say it? This has NOTHING to do with the fact that seniors are involved and everything to do with the overall quality of play. As I posted in another thread where Frank is pushing this nonsense:
“As for pieces flying around in time pressure, having a little of that is far superior to a situation where, if the game goes much beyond 40 moves, both players are forced to play the entire remaining game at 30 sec. per move. The “gold standard” for serious play is 3 min. per move - for all but the longest games. 40/2, SD/1 can accomodate games up to 60 moves, which is usually enough. G/90, 30 sec. incr. does not provide that and contributes to superficial, low quality play in the endgame.”
– Hal Terrie
“This time control (G/90 + 30 seconds per move) is absolutely great for spectators. Most of the games come to a critical position at about the same time, and you don’t have many endgames that drag on and on. Everything ends at a reasonable time, and you can go out and get something to eat or get ready for the next round or whatever. Also, you don’t have to wait forever to find out who won the prizes.” Dana Mackenzie (“senior player”) 
We had a lot more compliments (than complaints) on the faster time control and 2-rd a day scheduling of the 2009 Senior in Tulsa. Yes, it could be that the complainers skipped the event… but a lot of players played that said they couldn’t make a longer event. Frank Berry, TD and Organizer
Curious why this years Senior Open is a one game a day tournament??? An alternate 2 game a day schedule makes sense to me. The US Open has a 4 day option, requiring only a 3 night hotel stay. Some of us cannot afford to play and stay for 6 days. Who makes this desion?