Incremental time controls

[David Pardoe]

The guy I played certainly was no rust bucket, even though he hadn't played any graded chess for over 12 years...according to records.
It may be that I fell into one of his pet lines in the Kings Indian.. its a very popular defence.
To suggest that I didn't clock manage correctly, by failing to keep pace with a player who was rattling moves off at the rate of 1 per min, for the first 35 moves is, I think, a bit off beam... and I could see no flaws in his play.
As I said, after 35 moves the position was pretty level...a typical minor pieces and equal pawns late middle game...with plenty of options for both players. With 8 mins left, I had no margins for deep analysis...the clock just ran its course.
I`ve not come across any other opponent who could manage to sustain accuracy and still play at that pace. I accept that many opening specialists will be able to maintain a high standard in the opening 12 - 15 moves, using next to no time... If he was in that category, I`d expect his true grading to be nearer the 180 - 200 mark.
I just don't play any `serious` chess at that sort of pace, except for Rapidplay...and I`m not planning to change that.
I`m used to getting to the first time control with a few mins in hand for the `speed` finish, but once your clock goes below about 8 mins time is starting to run out. If by that stage, you`ve made circa 40 moves, you`re certainly not playing slowly by most norms... but if you find your opponent has 20 mins plus in hand, you stand a high chance of hitting clock trouble and losing by time outs or blunders...

[David Pardoe]

The guy I played certainly was no rust bucket, even though he hadn't played any graded chess for over 12 years...according to records.
It may be that I fell into one of his pet lines in the Kings Indian.. its a very popular defence.
To suggest that I didn't clock manage correctly, by failing to keep pace with a player who was rattling moves off at the rate of 1 per min, for the first 35 moves is, I think, a bit off beam... and I could see no flaws in his play.
As I said, after 35 moves the position was pretty level...a typical minor pieces and equal pawns late middle game...with plenty of options for both players. With 8 mins left, I had no margins for deep analysis...the clock just ran its course.
I`ve not come across any other opponent who could manage to sustain accuracy and still play at that pace. I accept that many opening specialists will be able to maintain a high standard in the opening 12 - 15 moves, using next to no time... If he was in that category, I`d expect his true grading to be nearer the 180 - 200 mark.
I just don't play any `serious` chess at that sort of pace, except for Rapidplay...and I`m not planning to change that.
I`m used to getting to the first time control with a few mins in hand for the `speed` finish, but once your clock goes below about 8 mins time is starting to run out. If by that stage, you`ve made circa 40 moves, you`re certainly not playing slowly by most norms... but if you find your opponent has 20 mins plus in hand, you stand a high chance of hitting clock trouble and losing by time outs or blunders...

Returning to an earlier point about adjournments for league chess, and `quality` issues..
Roger made the point that players don't like adjournments partly because they allow outside consultations...
This is true, but under my suggested approach, where leagues would play a first session of up to 50 or 55 moves, very few games would fall into a resumption situation..
More importantly, it could be argued that 50 or 55 moves does give players adequate opportunity/time to demonstrate any playing advantage/superiority, should one player be `better` than his opponent. But, access to outside support is available to both players..so it is at least an equal advantage in an adjournment situation..
More importantly, it preserves the `quality` element and allows league chess to open a new window by actually facilitating the endgame as a meaningful part of the game. Note also, this gives players who are interested, a chance to do some meaningful endgame analysis/homework.
As I said, once you get into a resumption, you soon hit uncharted territory, and players find themselves having to rely on there own resources, except in cases where games have a more obvious conclusion, where resumption may not be needed.
So this opens up a great opportunity for our UK players to strengthen there endgame play, which , who knows, might even lead to our top players doing better in the major tournaments in future.
I definitely think this merits consideration over the current lottery, speed chess endgames we currently face..
With the AGM season fast approaching this may be an opportune time to put this on agendas for discussion...

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I definitely think this merits consideration over the current lottery, speed chess endgames we currently face.."

But doesn't it just replace a QP finish with a QP middle game?

I tend to play better in real tournaments than league chess - it's a question of whether you can put up with the fast time limits or not in the evenings.

[David Pardoe]

Not really Kevin...
What these proposals do is to replace a lottery shootout, open ended middle game and end game, with a more considered option, removing the huge `chance` element, and replacing this with modules that enable a more `quality` approach, which I think should produce better chess, better results and a more satisfactory playing experience for league chess..

[Michael Farthing]

David,

The clock is part of the game.
Imagine the same arguments in any other sport:

It's not fair, he only won the 1500m because he used less time than me!
The fencing match wasn't fair - my opponent made lots of moves in the first few seconds!

If you want a slow pace and evening study between moves then the medium exists - correspondence chess, or nowadays the internet equivalent.

[David Pardoe]

Michael,
I wouldn't describe an evenings `quality` league playing session with up to 55 moves as `slow`....but if the `lottery shootout` and pot luck results is your forte, fair enough...
I`m just suggesting that players and leagues might give these options some careful thought...as we hit the AGM season..
After all, we are all trying to make our chess club/league offerings more attractive...

[NickFaulks]

Another option that I think leagues might consider is an accelerated QP finish, whereby the first playing session takes say 35 in 75 mins, then followed by say 15 moves in 15 mins (taking the game up to 50 moves in the first session)

Why is this better than just 50/90?

[Roger de Coverly]

With the AGM season fast approaching this may be an opportune time to put this on agendas for discussion...

In many organisations it would be instantly thrown out. You play the match over one session for very good reasons. Not all club players have infinite time for chess and infinite availability of transport.

[David Pardoe]

Roger..
Infinite time...and infinite transport...??
Not really... I suspect that less than 5% of games would reach adjournment.. Certainly a few years ago, I can recollect very few actual resumptions under the old rules. With these modifications to ensure a playing session of at least 50 moves, that figure would be even lower....and, what fascinating encounters it could produce, along with a return to `quality chess`, or something like...
If the buzz of the adrenalin rush means that players prefer the lottery shootout, with consequential random outcomes...so be it. I don't buy this argument that a whole evenings good chess play can be thrown up into the air, and rubbished by time errors in blitz finishes, when other, better options might be available..

At the end of the day, its down to the leagues and players...but if numbers do continue to dwindle in league chess, as has been suggested, others will be left to pick up the pieces..

Nick....
Your comment about 50/90..
I presume this means 50 moves in 90 mins... would such games qualify for grading purposes..?
Are you suggesting that a blitz 15 min shoot out should follow, or would adjournment take place, with later resumption.

[Roger de Coverly]

Not really... I suspect that less than 5% of games would reach adjournment

It doesn't matter. The problem is when the 5% includes players who have neither time nor transport. Whisper quietly, but there are also players who will adjourn, rather than resign, in order to attempt to draw or win on technicalities. There are even those who would force their opponent to travel miles there and back for the sake of a couple of moves. Originally leagues introduced adjournments as an option to adjudication as a means of preventing the gamesmanship of those who would cease moving as soon as they had reached a time control. It did become apparent that this enabled other form of gamesmanship in exploiting players who lacked time or transport.

I presume this means 50 moves in 90 mins... would such games qualify for grading purposes..?

Not under FIDE, but under the ECF rules, anything over 60 minutes counts for grading. Move rates don't matter. But a well defined league rule has to say what the second session time rate should be. The traditional approach with adjournments was that the time control and session time would coincide. This would be for the very practical reason that you don't adjourn in the middle of a time scramble.

[David Pardoe]

I`m aware that there are those who will abuse rules and try any type of gamesmanship in these situations..
My league experience goes back to the glorious Fischer years. In that time I`ve had my fair share of adjournments, and I have to say that some have produced some fascinating endgames..
These days, if a player is just two moves from losing, Fritz or some other beast will flag it and this can be communicated to other team captain, and I`m sure in most cases an honourable resignation would follow...but I take your point about unsporting behaviour..

[Christopher Kreuzer]

With the AGM season fast approaching this may be an opportune time to put this on agendas for discussion...

In many organisations it would be instantly thrown out. You play the match over one session for very good reasons. Not all club players have infinite time for chess and infinite availability of transport.

The argument about time available is valid, but the transport argument has always seemed particularly weak. You get around that by requiring the person who chooses adjournment to travel to the other player's club. I presume players shouldn't have problems getting to the venue of the club they play for...

[Roger de Coverly]

You get around that by requiring the person who chooses adjournment to travel to the other player's club. I presume players shouldn't have problems getting to the venue of the club they play for...

That discriminates against players who rely on lifts for away matches. It means that if they meet one of the "play slowly and never resign" brigade, they may have to concede a draw in a winning position through lack of transport. You shouldn't assume either that all clubs have London style public transport availability.

The only sensible rule for adjournments is this:

Before play commences, the players agree on a date, time and place of any potential resumption. In the absence of such agreement, the game is determined on the night.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The only sensible rule for adjournments is this:

Before play commences, the players agree on a date, time and place of any potential resumption. In the absence of such agreement, the game is determined on the night.

I agree with you there. Though there are advantages to being able to chose between adjudication or adjournment at the end of the session, there are disadvantages as well. There are some games where you realise halfway through the game it would be better to have a quickplay finish (e.g. for swindling chances if you are in a worse or losing position). There are some games where things are the other way round, when you are better but behind on time and you wish you'd chosen the adjournment option instead. If you chose adjudication at the start (as you can in some leagues), then it is even worse if you fall behind on material.

Really, of course, you should just play chess on the board, which is why my order of choice is nearly always: adjournment, then quickplay and adjudication a very distant last. Computers can affect adjournments, but not as much as people think, in my experience.

[Roger de Coverly]

The latest New in Chess 2015/2 has a report on this year's Zurich Chess Challenge. In it the organiser/sponsor indicates that he would like the world's top players to use a variation on English league move rates at next year's event. His proposal is 40 moves in 60 minutes with half an hour to finish the game. No increments. He doesn't say whether Appendix G would apply.

I think he has it wrong though. The problem he is trying to solve is to retain spectator interest where a player doesn't move for half an hour or longer. The solution to that is to give a short initial time allowance and then much longer increments. So an initial twenty minutes plus two and half minutes a move still gets you to move 40 in 120 minutes. Unless you want a really slow endgame, you then speed up the increments.