Rate of Play

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

Rate of Play

Post by Maria Yurenok » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:59 pm

I can see there is a good discussion going on about reverting 4NCL back to 11 rounds all-play-all in the new season. Well how about updating the time limit to something a bit more modern from the start of the new season?

I've played in a lot of international chess competitions in the past 1.5 years and I haven't come across 7 hour time limit in any of them, although Hastings is pretty close to that. I think that the time limit at the British Championship is the same as at Hastings although I haven't played there. However, that may be non-existent time limit outside England if my experiences are anything to go by, so are we going to keep up with the rest of the world or stay firmly entrenched in the tradition?

Is it viable to introduce incremented play, are there enough digital clocks available at least for the 1st division? I don't think I've played any non-incremented chess abroad in the past 1.5 years. My preferred time limit would be something very popular these days like 1:30hr for 40 moves plus 30mins to finish with 30 sec added after each move. Or could we at least cut last 30 mins from 4NCL to be 2hr for 40 moves plus 1hr to finish?

Peter Shaw
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Wakefield

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Peter Shaw » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:04 pm

Definitely disagree with this, keep the current rate or change it to 40/100+20/50+15 with a 30 sec increment (with I'd prefer).

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 3:17 pm

Maria Yurenok wrote:Is it viable to introduce incremented play, are there enough digital clocks available at least for the 1st division? I don't think I've played any non-incremented chess abroad in the past 1.5 years. My preferred time limit would be something very popular these days like 1:30hr for 40 moves plus 30mins to finish with 30 sec added after each move. Or could we at least cut last 30 mins from 4NCL to be 2hr for 40 moves plus 1hr to finish?
I shan't reply to your first point because it'll end up in a ramble about a lack of modernisation in chess and adjournments!

For this point, incremental time controls were - I believe - discussed, and rejected, because people were afraid of playing games that could go on and on and delay the catching of trains and things. A very real threat if you're playing Keith Arkell. :)

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

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Alex McFarlane » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:24 pm

Maria,
Hastings, the British Championship and the Major Open do use incremental times. I agree that they are the slowest permitted by FIDE for title events, but the choice is limited if you want people to have title norms.

The fastest incremental time - used by the e2e4 events, has been under continual threat from FIDE since the current time restrictions were introduced.
This despite it being the best available for 2 round per day events.

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

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Maria Yurenok » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:47 pm

Alex H - I agree, adjournments is my other big bugbear and a big discussion topic in its own right :) Yes, I can see how people can worry about incremented game going on for a long time, but what are the chances of a game exceeding 7 hours with the 1:30hr + 30min +30sec increment time limit? Must be close to non-existent.

Alex M - I don't like the shortest allowed limit used at e2e4 events, but what I'm proposing is something between the shortest and the longest possible options which tends to be a very common time limit these days.

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 3:55 pm

Maria Yurenok wrote:Alex H - I agree, adjournments is my other big bugbear and a big discussion topic in its own right :) Yes, I can see how people can worry about incremented game going on for a long time, but what are the chances of a game exceeding 7 hours with the 1:30hr + 30min +30sec increment time limit? Must be close to non-existent.
Oh, I agree. I suggested using 40 mins + 5 secs/move instead of G/45 for a junior tournament, and was told no for fear of the infinite game... :roll:

If you use the standard FIDE time control (40/90 + 30 + 30s/move), then the games will last 4-5 hours on average.
Last edited by Alex Holowczak on Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 3:55 pm

Maria,

The longest game I had at the incremental time control you mentioned was in the last round in Malaga last year

The game last around 100 moves, and we both had less than 2 minutes each at the end, so this equate to approximately five and half hours (we were the last game to finish by around an hour), therefore to get a game to last the full 7 hours you would have to play around 145 moves (i would let somebody else to do the stats around the occurances of these games)

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

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Alex McFarlane » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:59 pm

Maria's suggestion is effectively a 5 hour session, the British/Major Open is currently 7 hours.

Comments on which is better? My own choice would be for one with increments approximating to a 6 hour session but FIDE don't allow that for title norm events.

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 4:01 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: For this point, incremental time controls were - I believe - discussed, and rejected, because people were afraid of playing games that could go on and on and delay the catching of trains and things. A very real threat if you're playing Keith Arkell. :)
Very much so. There had also been a Nick Pert game at Hastings which went past 10pm.

The choices now are (I think) a 7 hour session (as currently used), a 7 hour plus session as used at Hastings, the British and the Major Open, a six hour session (40/120 + 60) , a five hour session (40/120 +30) , a five hour plus (40/90 + 30 with 30 second increments) or four hour plus (G/90 with 30 second increments).

The 4NCL has elected to continue with the longest sessions available, I think by player choice. Within that you can choose increment or non-increment. Non-increment is preferred despite the 10.2 risk because it minimises the risk of team dinners or travel home being totally arkelled.

Adding increments to seven hour sessions makes them longer as was shown by "you know who" in the British. The Norm rules restrict the choice. There is a Scottish norm which will depend on the legality of 40/90 +15 with 30 seconds.

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 4:05 pm

One of the benefits of the incremental system would be that of the assistance to the arbiters, as we all know you have to continually notating whenever there is an increment

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 4:08 pm

Alan Walton wrote:One of the benefits of the incremental system would be that of the assistance to the arbiters, as we all know you have to continually notating whenever there is an increment
Not quite right; you only have to keep writing if the increment is 30 seconds or more. But you're right that the arbiters could leave the players to it while they get on with other things.

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 4:09 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Alan Walton wrote:One of the benefits of the incremental system would be that of the assistance to the arbiters, as we all know you have to continually notating whenever there is an increment
Not quite right; you only have to keep writing if the increment is 30 seconds or more. But you're right that the arbiters could leave the players to it while they get on with other things.
Fair enough, but I thought to be FIDE rated the increment has to be a minimum of at least 30 secs?

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4818
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Rate of Play

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:12 pm

Alan Walton wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Alan Walton wrote:One of the benefits of the incremental system would be that of the assistance to the arbiters, as we all know you have to continually notating whenever there is an increment
Not quite right; you only have to keep writing if the increment is 30 seconds or more. But you're right that the arbiters could leave the players to it while they get on with other things.
Fair enough, but I thought to be FIDE rated the increment has to be a minimum of at least 30 secs?
The exact rules for FIDE rating are:
The FIDE Handbook wrote: 1.1 For a game to be rated each player must have the following minimum periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves.
Where at least one of the players in the tournament has a rating 2200 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes.
Where at least one of the players in the tournament has a rating 1600 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes.
Where all the players in the tournament are rated below 1600, each player must have a minimum of 60 minutes.
1.2 Games played with all the moves at a rate faster than the above are excluded from the list.
1.3 Where a certain number of moves is specified in the first time control, it shall be 40 moves. Players benefit from uniformity here.
So there's no restriction on the length of the increment for FIDE rating purposes. However, the only valid time controls for title norms have increments of zero or 30 seconds/move.

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

Re: Rate of Play

Post by Maria Yurenok » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:24 pm

Has anyone asked 4NCL players what time limit they would prefer? Is it worth doing a survey? I know I would have said no to changing the time limit a few years ago, but now I've had several years to get used to the shorter and incremented time limits I think they are better. I wonder if a lot of people have shifted their attitude to the shorter time limits in the same way that I have.

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 think it would make a big difference to most people if the time limit was cut to 40 moves in 2 hr plus 1 hr to finish but the arbiters will benefit from a shorter day!

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 4:28 pm

Maria,

A year or so ago we had to wait for Stephen Gordon to finish a long game (unfortnately at Sunningdale), and I think this lasted nearly the whole seven hours, and the venue did seem to represent a ghost town, and most probably only a small handful were still going on after the 6 hours, so I would agree it is most likely to be around 5% of games

Jack,

Thanks for clearing that up and for 4NCL purposes you would assume the 30 secs increment would be as standard for the whole league