Rate of Play

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
Maria Yurenok
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:09 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Maria Yurenok » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:43 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:One time control I was unaware of sounded interesting when I read about it the other day. It is called "time delay" mode.
I've played with a time delay clock in the US and I'm a bit indifferent to it, maybe because I'm not used to it. I think it's not unusual for the US tournaments to use time-delay mode on the clocks although I'm not sure if it's popular anywhere else. I think in general, incremented time limit should be the way forward as it seems to be the standard for many international tournaments in Europe and for all the official FIDE tournaments like the Olympiad, etc.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:57 pm

Maria Yurenok wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:One time control I was unaware of sounded interesting when I read about it the other day. It is called "time delay" mode.
I've played with a time delay clock in the US and I'm a bit indifferent to it, maybe because I'm not used to it. I think it's not unusual for the US tournaments to use time-delay mode on the clocks although I'm not sure if it's popular anywhere else. I think in general, incremented time limit should be the way forward as it seems to be the standard for many international tournaments in Europe and for all the official FIDE tournaments like the Olympiad, etc.
What I wondered was whether games would be longer or shorter under time delay as opposed to increment. Not in theory, but in actual practice. Does anyone familiar with its use in US chess know how long they allow for rounds using this system. Obviously, if FIDE are set on incremental instead, it will be practically impossible to change, but if organisers had the option, would they try this time control? Can FIDE-rated tournaments even be run using time delay modes, or do the FIDE regulations not allow for this?

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Alex McFarlane » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:07 pm

The last couple of Scottish Lightning Championships were played at 3 mins +3 sec Bronstein (time delay). This is quicker than incremental as you cannot increase your time beyond that at the beginning of a move.

For a fun tournament there was some reluctance with some players at the start but it gained general acceptance as being preferrable to the 10 second buzzer event it replaced.

This has been suggested for league matches with a 'chucking-out' time as it is more difficult to play extra long games.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:14 pm

Alex McFarlane wrote:The last couple of Scottish Lightning Championships were played at 3 mins +3 sec Bronstein (time delay). This is quicker than incremental as you cannot increase your time beyond that at the beginning of a move.

For a fun tournament there was some reluctance with some players at the start but it gained general acceptance as being preferrable to the 10 second buzzer event it replaced.

This has been suggested for league matches with a 'chucking-out' time as it is more difficult to play extra long games.
When would the Bronstein time delay kick in? After the first time control, presumably (and after all the time remaining from the first time control has been used up). I wonder how 10.2 claims work under this sort of timing system?
Last edited by Christopher Kreuzer on Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maria Yurenok
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:09 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Maria Yurenok » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:14 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: What I wondered was whether games would be longer or shorter under time delay as opposed to increment. Not in theory, but in actual practice. Does anyone familiar with its use in US chess know how long they allow for rounds using this system. Obviously, if FIDE are set on incremental instead, it will be practically impossible to change, but if organisers had the option, would they try this time control? Can FIDE-rated tournaments even be run using time delay modes, or do the FIDE regulations not allow for this?
I only have a vague recollection of how the time-delay works. My impression was that it wasn't designed to be any longer than the fixed time limit (at least in the tournament where I was playing). It just seemed to be a different way of allocating the same amount of time - that's why I was a bit indifferent to it. I'm pretty sure some players used time-delay clocks while others used normal mechanical clocks in the same tournament. And that happened because in the US you have to bring your own clocks and boards to the tournament! The tournament was FIDE rated, but it wasn't a norm tournament.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3338
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Richard Bates » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:22 pm

Maria,

I'm afraid your time trouble woes aren't going to be cured by speeding up the time control! :wink:

Fortunately the general opinion in England remains suspicious of any European nonsense!

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:31 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:I wonder how 10.2 claims work under this sort of timing system?
If I told you the title of Article 10 was "Quickplay Finish", would that answer your question? :wink:

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 8806
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:41 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:I wonder how 10.2 claims work under this sort of timing system?
If I told you the title of Article 10 was "Quickplay Finish", would that answer your question? :wink:
Sadly not, as I don't know what qualifies as a Quickplay Finish. I would (before I learnt a little bit more than I did before) have called increment play after the first time control a form of Quickplay Finish, but 10.2 doesn't apply there as you gain time. I would presume that under forms of time delay where enough time is given to write down the moves, 50-move claims are still possible, hence no 10.2 claims. But for the more rapid time delay settings, you wouldn't require moves to be written down, hence 10.2 claims would still be needed. Possibly. (If you increase the time delay to the point where you have time to write down the moves, say 30 seconds, it is still not quite the same as Fischer timing, as you don't have the option of rapid moves to increase your time for later thinking).

What I was hoping was that this time control is explicitly mention in the Articles somewhere, and that someone would be able to say something about that. Or are the Articles vague enough to cover several types of time control?

Maria Yurenok
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:09 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Maria Yurenok » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:44 pm

I've found explanation of how different chess clocks (including time-delay) work on the Monroi web-site for anyone really interested:
http://monroi.com/chess-blog/chess-expe ... -time.html

Richard, it's a bit of a paradox - but I think I've been playing slower at the 4NCL recently as compared to quicker incremented time limits! It could be because I'm so used to incremented time limits that I don't have to think too hard about time-management. I certainly don't have worse time-troubles with 1hr30min for 40 moves plus 30 mins to finish and 30sec increment as compared to the 4NCL.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3338
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Richard Bates » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:48 pm

Maria Yurenok wrote:
Richard, it's a bit of a paradox - but I think I've been playing slower at the 4NCL recently as compared to quicker incremented time limits! It could be because I'm so used to incremented time limits that I don't have to think too hard about time-management. I certainly don't have worse time-troubles with 1hr30min for 40 moves plus 30 mins to finish and 30sec increment as compared to the 4NCL.
You just need to stop swanning about on European chess jaunts. Europe is for holidays. England is for serious chess. Mix the two at your peril! ;) Come to Sheffield!

On the comparison between the two - the appropriate question is not "under which time control do you get into the most time trouble?", but "under which time control do you play the better chess?" (until you blunder all your pieces in the time scramlble 8) )

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:55 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:I wonder how 10.2 claims work under this sort of timing system?
If I told you the title of Article 10 was "Quickplay Finish", would that answer your question? :wink:
Sadly not, as I don't know what qualifies as a Quickplay Finish. I would (before I learnt a little bit more than I did before) have called increment play after the first time control a form of Quickplay Finish, but 10.2 doesn't apply there as you gain time. I would presume that under forms of time delay where enough time is given to write down the moves, 50-move claims are still possible, hence no 10.2 claims. But for the more rapid time delay settings, you wouldn't require moves to be written down, hence 10.2 claims would still be needed. Possibly. (If you increase the time delay to the point where you have time to write down the moves, say 30 seconds, it is still not quite the same as Fischer timing, as you don't have the option of rapid moves to increase your time for later thinking).

What I was hoping was that this time control is explicitly mention in the Articles somewhere, and that someone would be able to say something about that. Or are the Articles vague enough to cover several types of time control?
I refer you to Article 10.1: "A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time."

A Bronstein time control doesn't fulfil 10.1, so you can't claim a 10.2.

Maria Yurenok
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:09 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Maria Yurenok » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:56 pm

Richard, yes - I'm a chess tourist! :D I love visiting new places and play a bit of chess! I wouldn't accuse a Russian of not being serious about chess though ;)

Richard Bates
Posts: 3338
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Richard Bates » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:04 pm

Maria Yurenok wrote:I wouldn't accuse a Russian of not being serious about chess though ;)
Of course not. You've chosen to live in England and you even turn out for matches in London League Division 2.

On a serious note, the strongest argument for adopting 90 min + 40 min +30" is that not doing so it puts English players at an arguable disadvantage when they venture into European competition. It's not much of a convincing argument for better quality chess or for those of us who rarely venture into Europe though. So hopefully general opinion will remain in favour of the 7 hr time controls (with or without increments).

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:16 pm

Richard Bates wrote:On a serious note, the strongest argument for adopting 90 min + 40 min +30" is that not doing so it puts English players at an arguable disadvantage when they venture into European competition. It's not much of a convincing argument for better quality chess or for those of us who rarely venture into Europe though. So hopefully general opinion will remain in favour of the 7 hr time controls (with or without increments).
If it were feasible - and I don't think it is - it would be good if the junior events at the British had the 5 hour time control. That would prepare them much better for what they'll get in Euro/World Youth Championships. At the moment, qualifying players might never have even played with an increment before.

Maria Yurenok
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:09 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Maria Yurenok » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:17 pm

Richard Bates wrote: Come to Sheffield!

On the comparison between the two - the appropriate question is not "under which time control do you get into the most time trouble?", but "under which time control do you play the better chess?" (until you blunder all your pieces in the time scramlble 8) )
Yes, I'm thinking about Sheffield... although I've been there enough times for work!

You made me laugh about the other comment - I think I should just stop getting into time trouble altogether! I honestly don't know under which time control I play better chess. I used to think it was with the longer time control - but now I'm not so sure, especially in relation to the middlegame, despite having 10 mins less before move 40 with the typical incremented time limit as opposed to the 4NCL. Of course, there is an occasional endgame when I think that a bit more time would have been useful - for that reason I'm not completely decided on whether there should be 30 mins or 1hr allocated after move 40, but I don't think having yet another 30 min (i.e. 1hr 30 mins after move 40 like in the 4NCL) adds to my quality of play.