I wish some organizers would take note of the G/90+30 secs time control which makes for significantly shorter playing days and allows you to enjoy your time a lot more. GM Pascal Charbonneau – 9 Sept 2010 at Chess Life Online 
Wayne Clark and I just ran the Illinois Open with that time control and the players enjoyed it a lot.
GM Charbonneau, a 27 year old Canadian, is not eligible to play in the US Senior Open yet, so his views on time controls aren’t all that relevant to THIS thread.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t his ineligibility based entirely on his age? I believe Canadians could play but were not eligible for a spot in the World Senior, should one have won.
I don’t know if Canadians are eligible or not, but he won’t be 50 for around 23 years, by which time his views on time controls and the amount of time and energy he’s willing to expend at a tournament each day may well have changed. 
The TLA (July 2010 Chess Life page 49) states “Open to USCF members born before Aug. 23, 1960”.
So, since it is open only to USCF members, would that mean that foreign GMs and IMs who are old enough to qualify would have to be USCF members?
One has to be a senior to comment on the viability of a time control being discussed in a Senior Open thread? His opinion should certainly be evaluated in the context of his age, but that doesn’t make it inappropriate. Unless you think that the benefit of shorter playing days would be of interest to the younger crowd but would be undesirable to seniors, of course.
I rather doubt that GM Charbonneau had the US Senior Open in mind.
Unless I misread this whole thread, it was about the choice of time controls and round schedules for the US Senior Open and how that affected whether or not someone would play in it. What time controls and schedules are desirable for other events may be interesting enough to deserve a separate thread (if not several of them), but is still not all that relevant in this one.
Perhaps we should request the Scholastic Council’s report on what was discussed about time controls at the National Elementary, too. After all, some of those players will eventually be 50 years old too.
Following are two online surveys sent by email to the CCA mailing list. I am convinced that G/180 is a very poor way to run a 6 hour control, G/150 an inferior way to run a 5 hour control (I gave up G/150 after the 2007 survey), and G/120 the most popular way to run a 4 hour control. Apparently the slower the control, the more concerned are players that their opponents will drag out hopeless positions. Also, 40/120, SD/60 is by far the most popular control overall, as it was on many surveys I conducted by mail and at tournaments before doing them online.
According to the 2010 survey, seniors prefer 40/120, SD/60 to the other controls listed by a somewhat larger margin than younger players.
Bill Goichberg
JUNE 2007 ONLINE EMAIL SURVEY
Excellent=4, Above average=3, Average=2, Below average=1, Poor, would not play=0
515 responses
40/120, SD/60 2.8
30/90, SD/60 2.3
G/180 2.1
G/150 2.1
G/120 2.1
MAY 2010 ONLINE EMAIL SURVEY, WITH BREAKOWN BY AGE
Excellent=3, Good=2, Fair=1, Poor=0
AGE 19/UNDER (89 responses)
40/120, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.7
40/90, SD/60, 30 seconds increment 1.4
30/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.6
40/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.4
G/90, 30 seconds increment 1.3
30/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.4
40/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.3
G/120, 5 seconds delay 1.6
G/90, 5 seconds delay 1.6
G/60, 5 seconds delay 1.3
AGE 20-34 (54 responses)
40/120, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 2.3
40/90, SD/60, 30 seconds increment 1.3
30/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.6
40/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.4
G/90, 30 seconds increment 1.3
30/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.2
40/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.1
G/120, 5 seconds delay 1.6
G/90, 5 seconds delay 1.6
G/60, 5 seconds delay 1.3
AGE 35-49 (138 responses)
40/120, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 2.1
40/90, SD/60, 30 seconds increment 1.4
30/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.7
40/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.4
G/90, 30 seconds increment 1.4
30/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.2
40/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.0
G/120, 5 seconds delay 1.5
G/90, 5 seconds delay 1.5
G/60, 5 seconds delay 1.1
AGE 50-64 (188 responses)
40/120, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 2.0
40/90, SD/60, 30 seconds increment 1.5
30/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.6
40/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.4
G/90, 30 seconds increment 1.3
30/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.1
40/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 0.9
G/120, 5 seconds delay 1.5
G/90, 5 seconds delay 1.4
G/60, 5 seconds delay 1.0
AGE 65/UP (57 responses)
40/120, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 2.1
40/90, SD/60, 30 seconds increment 1.2
30/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.4
40/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.1
G/90, 30 seconds increment 0.9
30/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.1
40/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 0.9
G/120, 5 seconds delay 1.2
G/90, 5 seconds delay 1.1
G/60, 5 seconds delay 0.6
ALL (526 responses)
40/120, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 2.0
40/90, SD/60, 30 seconds increment 1.4
30/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.6
40/90, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.4
G/90, 30 seconds increment 1.3
30/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.2
40/60, SD/60, 5 seconds delay 1.0
G/120, 5 seconds delay 1.5
G/90, 5 seconds delay 1.4
G/60, 5 seconds delay 1.1
Nice stats for CCA events and the players that support them. I wonder what the stats would be for other organizers? Or, the rest of the USCF?
I would like to see this too. I think time controls that players have used will tend to score better than those they have not used, and those on our email list have played more 40/2, SD/1 than the average USCF member.
However, I also believe that if USCF does a survey, 40/2, SD/1 will easily beat the other time controls, because that is what happened when I did a survey sent by mail to randomly selected USCF members.
I used to use mostly faster controls, but settled on 40/2, SD/1 for most events about 1992 as a result of player surveys.
For my next online time control survey, I intend to include questions regarding which time controls the player has actually used, and also ask whether the player has played in CCA tournaments. Anyone can sign up for the CCA mailing list and some of them have never played in CCA tournaments, while others have seldom played in them.
Bill Goichberg
[/quote]
Excluding scholastic players, I assume, or else G/30 an G/60 would easily be the most popular. With the number of juniors in adult tournaments, I am surprised that G/45 or G/75 type time controls aren’t more popular.
Mr. Goichberg, what is the average rating of your survey responders? I would speculate that higher rated players are more likely to reply, meaning fewer juniors.
Michael Aigner
I think it all depends on the circumstances.
In my case, for a major tournament at a hotel, 40/120 SD/60 d/5 is fine, as is G/90 inc/30.
But, for a one-day event at a club, I would definitely go for G/60 d/5, or even quick chess.
If a lot of other players agree, then I would guess the CCA survey would underestimate the popularity of G/60, due to the nature of tournaments CCA runs.
Bill Smythe
A good alternative to 40/2, SD/1, (or 40/115, SD/60, delay-5), is the control FIDE uses at the Olympiad and once tried to make standard for all serious events.
I write it as 40/90, SD/30, Inc-30, though it’s not really Sudden Death with 30 seconds per move. This is closer to the standard CCA long control than is G/90, Inc-30. Some players agree
with Hal Terrie, who noted near the top of this thread that serious chess requires two time controls.
We started to use the “Olympiad” increment control at our club over the summer, as an alternative to the standard slow night control 40/90, SD/60. Early feedback is 100% positive; the question would be how to set analog clocks to a comparable control in a large tournament where players supplied their own equipment.
How many games were played with analog clocks set for G/150 at the Illinois Open last year?
You can see by the numbers listed for each age group that not that many juniors (89 out of 526) participated in the survey. Those who did preferred slower time controls, but by a narrower margin than older players.
The 2010 survey was basically about 5 round weekend tournaments, not a comparison of 1-day time controls. The 2007 survey compared some of these controls. I might try a survey of the 1-day formats again and include G/45.
The 2010 survey specified that the 6 hour controls and 5 hour controls played one game Friday night, two Saturday and two Sunday, the 4 hour controls and 3 hour control three Saturday and two Sunday, and the 2 hour control one day only.
The 2007 survey offered G/60 as either 4 or 5 rounds in 1 day or 5, 6 or 7 rounds in 2 days, and G/30 as 5 rounds in 1 day. The winner was G/60 with 1 day and 4 rounds, but not overwhelmingly.
Here is the 2010 survey broken down by rating.
A= 40/120, SD/60, 5 second delay, 3 days.
B= 40/90, SD/60, 30 second increment, 3 days.
C= 30/90, SD/60, 5 second delay, 3 days.
D= 40/90, SD/60, 5 second delay, 3 days.
E= G/90, 30 second increment, 2 days.
F= 30/60, SD/60, 5 second delay, 2 days.
G= 40/60, SD/60, 5 second delay, 2 days.
H= G/120, 5 second delay, 2 days.
I= G/90, 5 second delay, 2 days.
J= G/60, 5 second delay, 1 day.
2200/OVER (40 responses):
A 2.1, B 1.5, C 1.8, D 1.2, E 1.4, F 0.9, G 0.8, H 1.3, I 1.1, J 0.9
2000-2199 (70 responses):
A 2.3, B 1.6, C 1.6, D 1.3, E 1.2, F 1.1, G 0.8, H 1.3, I 1.1, J 1.0
1800-1999 (106 responses):
A 2.3, B 1.5, C 1.7, D 1.5, E 1.4, F 1.1, G 0.9, H 1.6, I 1.3, J 0.8
1600-1799 (106 responses):
A 2.0, B 1.4, C 1.5, D 1.3, E 1.2, F 1.0, G 0.9, H 1.5, I 1.4, J 0.9
1400-1599 (98 responses):
A 2.0, B 1.4, C 1.7, D 1.6, E 1.3, F 1.4, G 1.3, H 1.6. I 1.6, J 1.2
1200-1399 (52 responses):
A 1.7, B 1.3, C 1.3, D 1.3, E 1.5, F 1.5, G 1.5, H 1.8, I 1.9, J 1.6
Under 1200 or unrated (55 responses):
A 1.6, B 1.2, C 1.3, D 1.3, E 1.1, F 1.3, G 1.2, H 1.5, I 1.6, J 1.3
So for players under 1400 or unrated, G/90+5 was the most popular of these controls. But only 5 of the 52 1200-1399 respondents was age 19 or below, and only 17 of the 55 under 1200/unr respondents. The 17 who were both age 19/below and under 1200/unr liked fast time controls:
A 1.1, B 0.9, C 1.2, D 1.0, E 0.9, F 1.7, G 1.6, H 1.7, I 1.9, J 1.7
This survey appears to support a time control of G/90+5 for Under 1400 and lower sections. However, I am still using 40/2, SD/1+5 in the Under 1400 and Under 1200 area, with faster controls only for Under 1000 and below, because 40/2, SD/1+5 only loses narrowly here, and when I try a fast control for U1200, I hear from players who say they are not entering because the control is too fast, while when I use a slow control for U1200, no one complains. In general, those favoring slow controls seem to feel more strongly than those opposing them.
Also, even though low rated kids like fast controls, it’s good for their development to learn to play slower.
Bill Goichberg
Another reason against using a faster control for U1200 than for the higher sections could be that a bunch of friends may have come to the tournament in the same car. Those under 1200 wouldn’t want their games finishing a lot sooner than the others, because they’d just have to sit around and wait for their ride home.
Bill Smythe
Indeed, that seems fairly comparable. The other increment-based control of G/90, inc/30 seems more comparable to 40/90, SD/30.
For a single-control event, I believe USCF has suggested adding 30 minutes to the main time in games played with analog clocks. In my opinion this addition over-compensates for the lack of increment. It may cause some players to furnish analog clocks in order to get the extra time.
Better would be to add just 15 minutes for the analog games. Players should be encouraged to bring proper equipment, rather than being rewarded for failing to do so.
As I recall, at the 2009 Illinois Open no games were played with analog clocks at all, at least not in the Open section. (I may be thinking of another tournament, though.)
Bill Smythe
Players seem to understand the concept that main clock time for all time controls, in minutes, plus delay or increment time, in seconds, should add up to the same number, no matter what kind of clock they use. That’s the one non-silly argument I have heard in favor of deducting time to compensate for delay/increment.
That’s how I arrived at 40/90, SD/30, Inc-30 to complement 40/90, SD/60, apart from the FIDE precedent. I think Alex Relyea has posted that he also used that control for a large weekend Swiss. Maybe next time I will propose something a bit more increment-clock friendly. Hmmmm…
Tim, I’m curious, can you estimate roughly what percentage of players had clocks that could handle the increment, vs only delay?
Thanks.