U.S. Senior Open

I think somewhere up-thread Jon Haskel stated that the hotel was only available up to a certain time each day and thus the one game per day schedule.

I still haven’t seen a coherent answer to Mr. Aigner’s question. Let me take a stab. The difference between 40/2 SD1 and G/180 is that the former creates a forced time pressure point prior to move 40 and the latter does not. Some people perceive that as an advantage (once you make time control you can take a breather). Others say (what’s the point in having two potential periods of time pressure instead of one. I fall in that camp.
Having a time scramble in the middle of the game just increases the probablility of the game being decided by a blunder in my view.

Simply put, everyone has their own preferences, and the reasons why their preferences are more logical than the other guy’s are crystal clear to them. The real question is not “what’s the difference”, it’s “does the difference make it better or worse”? One can give pros and cons, but the answer is personal taste. It’s wise not to play in an event where the time control makes you uncomfortable. My view is totally opposite from Hal’s and Nocab’s. We’re all right.

Not quite true. From an organizer’s standpoint G/180 is undesirable since it will result in a larger number of games going for six hours when they should have been decided at the first time control. There is also a frustration factor for the opponents of a player who likes to use up all his time in every game. This doesn’t mean that G/180 is unworkable, but I think it’s clearly inferior to 40/2, SD/1.

A very rational observation.

From a player’s standpoint, also. I’d be extremely reluctant to play in any event with a primary time control any longer than 2 hours. There’s always that occasional opponent who refuses to resign a lost position, and takes his sweet time on each hopeless move. That’s BO-O-O-ORING.

Bill Smythe

. .

Link: THIN & CALM time-control is arguably the best (see END of Nov2009 article in bruce125.pdf)

Fundamental problem: There is no way to know how many move-pairs a chess game will last. Could be 19, could be 100. Traditional chess time-controls are engineered as if oblivious to this unpredictable aspect of chess.

Yes the single-segment time-control of Game/90 is a poor design in my personal judgment, because it is a “FAT” style of control.
But for the same underlying reason, a two-segment time-control is only a little better than the poor single-segment control.

The overall description of a THIN and CALM :bulb: time-control is at the bruce125.pdf link, at the End of the article.
. .

You present some interesting ideas, but you are also making several implicit assumptions. In particular, you write, “Chess play should be free from the more extreme effects that the clock can have on the game. Frantic time scrambles, with less than 10 seconds remaining to start a turn, are a symptom of a failed. time control.” That’s a valid philosophical argument, but it certainly wasn’t what Fischer and others who raised the idea of time-delay back in the 70s had in mind. Those players accepted that time management was part of the game, and if you used up more time in order to gain some other advantage you should have to pay the penalty. What Fischer had in mind was avoiding situations in which it was physically impossible to make the remaining moves by giving the player a minimum of five seconds. If you give the player significantly more time (as FIDE currently does), you are distorting the game. Whether this is good or bad is, of course, a matter of opinion, but it is by no means as black-and-white as you seem to suggest.

I agree that Gene’s idea is interesting. I would definitely be willing to try a tournament with 20/40 min. + 30 sec., repeated either indefinitely or (say) twice followed by SD/X. I’m not absolutely certain how it would “feel” but I’d try it.

– Hal Terrie

Hal, do you mean you’d be interested in PLAYING in such an event or in ORGANIZING one?

Playing it of course. I probably would not organize an event with it until I was sure it was likely acceptable to others like me who are generally two time control traditionalists. That’s why I’d want to try it myself first.

– Hal Terrie

If nothing else people would have to learn how to set their clocks without pre-sets. That’s worth something!

I wouldn’t mind trying such a time control. I’ll try anything once.

If I’m reading things correctly (and after a few 12 hour workdays I’m not guaranteeing it), it seems like the Northwest Chess example referred to a 40 move time control as thin and at the beginning he referred to it as fat. I guess it’s relative - compared to G/2 it’s thin, compared to 20/40 it’s fat.

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
:laughing:

Who is Dana Mackenzie?

Alex Relyea

Game/30 also does this even faster.

And here I thought the tournament was for the players. Silly me.

This year’s U.S. Senior in Boca Raton:

uschess.org/tournaments/2010/senior/

Costs $122 a night for hotel (and they practically call you a heel in the advertisement if you stay anywhere else), plus at least $95 EF plus $40 to attend the awards banquet. So to attend this event, it would cost $867 plus tax, plus travel expenses.

Our U.S. Senior last year in Tulsa cost about $250 per person to attend, over $600 less. Plus, the first prize is less than it was last year.

I was thinking about going this year to the U.S. Senior, but it is too expensive for me. Note also that they give free EF to GMs. Since this is an Open national championship, this is favoritism to certain players, and unfair to non-GMs (something we avoided last year in Tulsa). Yet another reason not to go.

Hardly an “Open” tournament when, practically speaking, only rich people and GMs can play! :laughing:

Of course it’s favoritism to GMs. That’s because they’re, pardon the expression, better than we are. They’re better players. Their games are almost always of higher quality and worthy of preservation. Their presence lends status to the tournament. If you don’t feel that way, you are of course free to adopt a different policy at your tournaments, but I doubt you will make many converts.

Your point about the overall cost may be well-taken, but keep in mind that it applies to almost all large tournaments outside a player’s local area. TANSTAAFL.

Your point about the overall cost may be well-taken, but keep in mind that it applies to almost all large tournaments outside a player’s local area. TANSTAAFL.
John Hillery

My POINT is that it - for a player flying from Chicago or New York, say - it will be approx $600 more expensive to play 2010 Florida Sr Open than it cost to play the 2009 Tulsa Sr Open. :laughing:

You “avoided” giving free EF to GMs last year, because that would be unfair to non-GMs?

You “avoided” giving free EF to GMs last year, because that would be unfair to non-GMs?
[/quote]

Yes, that sounds about right. :laughing: