Rate of Play

Venues, fixtures, teams and related matters.
Mick Norris
Posts: 10328
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:37 pm

Yesterday for the third Sunday out of 4 in the Northern League I was last to finish

Yes, the room ended up clear of players, but I'd certainly say that 6 hours is needed by me and possibly 7 hours, and that is one of the attractions of playing

I would be happy with incremental time controls, but aimed around a 6 or 7 hours session
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:56 pm

Maria Yurenok wrote:Even if we don't go for increments, has anyone tried to collect the stats of how many games go over 6 hours long at the 4NCL? I might be completely wrong here, but I would wildly guess no more than 5-10%?
I don't know that anyone keeps stats on the elapsed time of games, but it's easy enough to check for game length. So using the collected game file of 2009-10 games from the 4NCL site, it contains 2422 games. Of these 208 got to move 61 and 32 move 80. Four got past the 100 mark. That's the scored length, the actual game lengths could have been longer where players can abandon scoring with less than five minutes. As a guess, the longest games may also have been match critical.

There's no good answer. You don't want 10.2 claims, so 60 moves before the possibility of a claim reduces that compared with 40. You can eliminate 10.2 claims by using increments, but that runs the risk of players playing for ever because they can do so.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Joey Stewart » Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:09 pm

I am a big fan of quick games, and I think they do have their place, but the 4ncl is not one of them. The long time controls help to ensure that everybody has a fair chance of playing a good quality game without being under any pressure and forced to play infreior moves - very few people actually need all their time (my own games tend to finish around the 4 hour mark) but chopping the time down to the first control seems to just favour those players who spend alot of time learning theory and playing quickly and reduces their opponents chances of finding the correct responses against unknown positions.

Perhaps the second and third time controls might be a bit shorter, but definately the two hours for the first 40 moves is needed by a vast number of players and, ultimately, the british national league should feature good high quality chess and not be a showcase for the opening buffs and swindlers (not that there is anything wrong with either, but the 4ncl is known for pure chess and the long time controls help to keep it that way)
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Mike Truran » Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:39 pm

We did do a survey a couple of years ago. I can't remember exactly when it was or what the detailed results were, but I do recall that that there was no clear consensus for moving to an incremental 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 7:32 pm

Alan - I did think it could be closer to 5% too but decided to be safer with my estimates! :) Thanks about Stephen's example too.

Roger - thanks for the stats information, this means that in the last season there were about 8.5% games over 60 moves and probably a bit fewer games lasting 6 hours (because even if you play 60 or more moves you can do it in under 6 hours if both or one of the players play quickly). Can you remind me what 10.2 claim is please?

Mike - thanks, did the survey ask about reducing the time limit as a separate question apart from introducing increments? Is it worth doing another survey at the 4NCL weekend in May? I can understand 7 hour time limits in an open (Hastings, British) when you don't have to travel vast distances like at the 4NCL. So, reducing the time limit to lets say 6 hours would benefit not only the arbiters but the players as well.

I'm not even sure about the so called quality of chess with 7 hours time limit, because I doubt anyone can maintain the same level of concentration for the full 7 hours. At least I find it very hard and feel totally exhausted and brain-dead when I have a 7 hour game. I suspect some people start making mistakes precisely because their game goes on so long and their brain isn't as sharp as they'd like it to be. Clearly, I'm not comparing quality of chess between 4 and 7 hour time limit, but more like between 6 and 7 hours where I don't think the quality would be much different at all. And with only 8.5% (or even less) games lasting more than 6 hours, it's hard to see the reasons for keeping 7 hour limit.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10328
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:34 pm

Maria

Some of us take 4 hours to warm up because we are rusty and don't play much!
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Alan Walton
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Alan Walton » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:47 pm

On the Saturday this weekend, in the main playing room I believe there were only 2 games still going on after 6 hours, I remember this as I saw an almighty time scramble in the Almond-Trent game, both these games finished quite quickly after the 6 hours passed

I have to admit I would prefer a slightly quicker time control 40 in 90 plus 30 with an 30sec increment, but if that is too radical maybe dropping the last 30min addition is not that great a deal

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

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:49 pm

Maria Yurenok wrote:At least I find it very hard and feel totally exhausted and brain-dead when I have a 7 hour game. I suspect some people start making mistakes precisely because their game goes on so long and their brain isn't as sharp as they'd like it to be.
I find this to be very true. League chess suits me down to the ground because the games are 3 hours long. Games which are longer are no benefit to me; I can't maintain concentration for such periods of time for the extra time to be of any benefit. In 4-hour plus chess, my record is horrible, as my FIDE-rating will show at the end of the 4NCL season. :oops:

LozCooper

Re: Rate of Play

Post by LozCooper » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:00 pm

I also find the thought of playing for six or seven hours to be too much for someone of my advanced years :oops:

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 8:05 pm

I've played several games of over 6 hours, and I too find my concentration does wane somewhat, but I also find that if you are aware of this, you can take breaks and walk around and try and keep going, or double-check calculations. You also need to be aware of when during a game you need to concentrate the most, and when you can conserve energy by playing quicker. I do rather enjoy the longer games, especially if the advantage swings from player to player, or you are grinding out a win. Being on the losing side or trying to hold an inferior position can be hell for over 6 hours, but very satisfying if you get a draw at the end of it!

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

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:39 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:I've played several games of over 6 hours, and I too find my concentration does wane somewhat, but I also find that if you are aware of this, you can take breaks and walk around and try and keep going, or double-check calculations.
I spent most of the 4NCL games I played this season watching other people's games. I think even Jack spent more time sat in his seat than I did... :shock:

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:47 pm

Maria Yurenok wrote:Can you remind me what 10.2 claim is please?
A claim that can be made in the last 2 minutes of your time that your opponent either isn't able or isn't trying to win by normal means. Under increments such a game is decided by agreed draw, resignation or later by 50 moves or repetition. Without increments the arbiter has to decide. :?

A topic which arises so regularly that it could have its own forum area.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:13 pm

Maria Yurenok wrote: And with only 8.5% (or even less) games lasting more than 6 hours, it's hard to see the reasons for keeping 7 hour limit.
The experience of playing with 30 second increments at e2e4 and other events is that games last longer, because they can. If you have a small edge in a drawn position there's nothing much to stop you forcing your opponent to defend the full 50 moves.

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 9:24 pm

One time control I was unaware of sounded interesting when I read about it the other day. It is called "time delay" mode.

The idea is that once you get down to a certain amount of time left, you are given a free 3 seconds to make each move. So (say) you get down to only a minute left, you can make as many moves as you like, provided you make each of them within 3 seconds. Clearly the clock would have to display this three seconds separately to the main time left, but I think most digital clocks include this mode.

The article where I read this was from years ago (a collection of old Chess Cafe.com articles), and Kasparov and Kramnik apparently tried it out and Kramnik favoured 1 min/3s and Kasparov 1 min/2s or something (can't remember the exact figures). But it sounds interesting. For lower levels of chess, you might need to increase both the "store" of time that is eaten up if you exceed the delay time, and the delay time itself, maybe something like 5min/5s, but that is one way to make sure games finish faster.

The disadvantage is that you can't keep score, unless you increase the delay to include that.

Has this mode ever been discussed here or elsewhere? This is the first I'd heard of it, so presumably it never caught on.
Last edited by Christopher Kreuzer on Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:38 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Has this mode ever been discussed here or elsewhere? This is the first I'd heard of it, so presumably it never caught on.
It was, perhaps still is, popular in the USA. I cannot think of any British or even European tournaments that have tried it. It's sometimes known as Bronstein timings as he suggested something similar in his writings.

Post Reply