Incremental Time Controls

[David Pardoe]

Alan,
I take your point...but remember `that advantage does apply both ways`. And I`d say that in many non trivial endgames, the Fritz effect would soon ware off, and you`d be back on your own after a few moves.
By setting 50 moves minimum for the first playing session, I reckon you`d be down to 95% games completed, so I`d be surprised if players had more than one or two resumptions a season, at max....and that would only apply to those who actually played good numbers of league games.
I`ve had some fascinating adjournments in past years, and they do provide some good study material for endgames.
I rate this as better than the blitz alternative, but I know that there are players who like the adrenaline buzz of the blitz shootouts, and happy to get things finished in one session.

[Alan Walton]

This is going of the discussion slightly

But spending an hour or so doing preparation with a computer before a game knowing your opponent helps significantly, even when you don't know what line they are going to definitely play

If you put a position into a computer, nowadays it would evaluate the position pretty accurately and give you all possibilities for said position, it would take a bad move to get out of the computer analysis and then it should be easy to play yourself a win accordingly

It doesn't matter if it is one adjournment a year (still one too many), the game has just become a shoot out on who's got the best chess engine and most powerful computer, and interpreting any analysis (which normally help the stronger player)

I also had good adjournments in the past, but once I realised I was just playing computer analysis then it doesn't become "real" chess

My advice is just speed earlier in the game so you have the time to win the endgames

[LawrenceCooper]

Alan,
I take your point...but remember `that advantage does apply both ways`. And I`d say that in many non trivial endgames, the Fritz effect would soon ware off, and you`d be back on your own after a few moves.
By setting 50 moves minimum for the first playing session, I reckon you`d be down to 95% games completed, so I`d be surprised if players had more than one or two resumptions a season, at max....and that would only apply to those who actually played good numbers of league games.
I`ve had some fascinating adjournments in past years, and they do provide some good study material for endgames.
I rate this as better than the blitz alternative, but I know that there are players who like the adrenaline buzz of the blitz shootouts, and happy to get things finished in one session.

50 moves minimum sounds like a long playing session unless you use a very fast time limit.

[Stewart Reuben]

Very few adjournments now actually take place. e.g. Recently I adojurned in what I thought was a favourable position. The match had been decided long before the end of the first session. I looked at the game on Fritz and my advantage was tiny. So I offered a draw and it was accepted.
In the London League you can either adjourn or have a quickplay finish. The team order is decided on the preferences.
The reason I won't play quickplay finishes is because there is no arbiter present and also I am too old.
I would play one session with an increment of 5-10 seconds. That would also do away with most obcene time scrambles in the first period.
I was horrified to discover recently that some leagues still have the possibility of adjudication.
As Geurt Gijssen said, 'The introduction of increments is the best development in modern chess.'

[Roger de Coverly]

50 moves minimum sounds like a long playing session unless you use a very fast time limit.

50 moves in three hours followed by adjudication or adjournment is an improvement on 36 moves with the same outcome. The objective though should be to set playing conditions such that the game is resolved in a single session without actual or potential engine intervention.

[LawrenceCooper]

50 moves minimum sounds like a long playing session unless you use a very fast time limit.

50 moves in three hours followed by adjudication or adjournment is an improvement on 36 moves with the same outcome. The objective though should be to set playing conditions such that the game is resolved in a single session without actual or potential engine intervention.

I don't think that many club players would want to play 50 moves followed by a rapidplay finish in an evening but agree that it's preferable to adjournment/adjudication.

[David Pardoe]

50 moves minimum sounds like a long playing session unless you use a very fast time limit.

50 moves in three hours followed by adjudication or adjournment is an improvement on 36 moves with the same outcome. The objective though should be to set playing conditions such that the game is resolved in a single session without actual or potential engine intervention.

Roger....
Finishing all games in one playing session, I agree, would be good, but it depends whether you want those blitz shootouts and lottery finishes.
My compromise at least minimises the number of potential adjournments, whilst also significantly reducing the blitz shootouts and lottery finishes, I believe.
A high percentage of my league games have gone into these blitz shootouts this season...games quite often reduced to pot luck shootouts.
Do we really want to end up playing pot luck chess, where `fastest on the button` pulls the points. Three hours of sensible chess followed by `bang, crash, and wallop`...?

The `engine intervention` isn't in practice a major issue, since, for one thing, it is the same for both players, and in practice, you`re soon back to your own devices in most non trivial endgames on resumption. Its a better option than the blitz pot luck, lottery finishes that we currently face, in my opinion.
Loz, this move rate is indeed quick, but not nearly as quick as the current league rates, which are open ended, and imply a potentially unlimited number of moves in those blitz finishes.

[Ian Thompson]

In the London League you can either adjourn or have a quickplay finish. The team order is decided on the preferences.
The reason I won't play quickplay finishes is because there is no arbiter present and also I am too old.
I would play one session with an increment of 5-10 seconds. That would also do away with most obcene time scrambles in the first period.

That would have been easily possible in the London League a few years ago at clubs whose normal playing session was 3.5 hours. Unfortunately, that club was pressurised into reducing its playing session to 3 hours. That's still long enough to play 99.99% of games with increments, but then you need a rule to terminate the very occasional game that is extraordinarily long.

I can see no reason why all leagues should not have a rule allowing games to be played with increments if both players and team captains agree.

[Roger de Coverly]

Finishing all games in one playing session, I agree, would be good, but it depends whether you want those blitz shootouts and lottery finishes.

You avoid these by playing the game at a fast enough pace throughout. For a three hour session, play the first thirty at around two minutes a move and then the remainder of the game at one minute a move. If you are confident the game can be finished inside forty moves, you can go a bit slower. If to play faster you need a higher standard of opening and middle game knowledge, the so be it. Equally, you need to be practical about the merits of individual moves when there's nothing sharp going on, to make a choice quickly.

[Alan Walton]

The `engine intervention` isn't in practice a major issue, since, for one thing, it is the same for both players, and in practice, you`re soon back to your own devices in most non trivial endgames on resumption. Its a better option than the blitz pot luck, lottery finishes that we currently face, in my opinion.

What is your evidence of this, I presume you have some.

[Greg Breed]

Most leagues try to get a move rate simlar to 3 minutes per move. Some go down to 2½ minutes per move. But 50 moves in 90 minutes is less than 2 minutes per move. It's a sufficient drop in time per move to be noticeable i think. In the UK I would say evening league chess is the most prevalent and we all have our own opinions on how best to conduct the time controls for it.

A few years ago my local league changed the time controls
from:
3 hour sessions
Standard 30 moves in 90 minutes then adjourn, 2nd session 24 moves in 60 minutes followed by 15 minute QPF;
QPF30 moves in 75 minutes then 15 minutes QPF;

2½ hour sessions
Standard 30 moves in 75 minutes then adjourn, 2nd session 24 moves in 60 minutes followed by 15 minute QPF;
QPF 30 moves in 60 minutes then 15 minutes QPF;

to:
3 hour sessions
Standard 42 moves in 90 minutes then adjourn, 2nd session 28 moves in 60 minutes followed by 15 minute QPF;
QPF35 moves in 75 minutes then 15 minutes QPF;

2½ hour sessions
Standard 35 moves in 75 minutes then adjourn, 2nd session 28 moves in 60 minutes followed by 15 minute QPF;
QPF28 moves in 60 minutes then 15 minutes QPF;

We can see the change from Standard 3 minutes per move, QPF 2½ minutes per move; to a more uniform 2.142 minutes per move across the session lengths and game end types. The idea being to placate the old school players favouring adjournments (who mostly did not use computers) whilst also trying to reduce the number of adjournments by increasing the number of moves in the first session. It has worked well. So we have found a way.

A few years back I tried to get QPF made the default for Division 1 and got trounced, however a prominent and well respected player suggested we adopt the London League system of alternating defaults of Standard and QPF. This was trialled and fully adopted a season later.

As digital clocks are slowly creeping in to clubs and leagues around us, incremental time controls will need to be factored in as options. Most clubs I know of do have strict close times so a 3 hour session from 19:30 is the max.

What are the incremental options available for that? What move rates are they based on?

[Mike Gunn]

I suggest 75 minutes plus 10 seconds per move (gets you to 90 moves in the 3 hours).

[Stewart Reuben]

There are very few increment examples with 10 seconds available. Gibraltar in the morning has all in 110 + 10 seconds per move. That works perfectly well as far as I know. It was introduced to avoid quickplay finishes in an extrenely international event. Different countries have different understandng of winning by norml means, although the British inroduced the concept.
Mike Gunn's suggestion 75 + 10 is probably as good as it can get for a 3 hour game.

[David Pardoe]

I guess these days that players probably want to get the game finished in one session. Convenience, reduced travel, and Fritz/chess engines are the main quoted reasons, and I can appreciate these points..
However, I look at the other trade offs of quality v blitz shootout potluck finishes.
Its not always the case that this scenario applies, I accept..
In the majority of games, one player gets the upper hand and by dent of skill and knowledge, will win within the standard 30 - 40 move window..on a league night.
And of course, many games are close battles, which can turn on single move errors/miscalculations....then of course there are those hard fought draws, which in many cases can be just as lively and interesting as the wins.
Then, there is that other group of games, which can run to anything between 36 and 90 moves, where the time element can be pivotal, where, quite often the player with a ten minute or greater clock advantage will hold the ace card and prevail, even from positions where they are clearly not actually winning, nor even necessarily drawing the position, but can play out to wins in these `blitz clock finishes`.

So, you come down to whether you`re happy to let the chess take its course in the current blitz climate, or whether to go for the suggested time control modifications, which, in practice might result in a very low percentage of actual resumed games, but lift the quality factor back into prominence in determining results.
I think the latter option is worth a shot, and gives the added incentive of potentially producing some very interesting endgames, which, in themselves are quite satisfying, and can be useful experiences.
Its for individual leagues and players to decide what they want, but these factors certainly give quality events like 4NCL, and to a fair extent the County chess platforms, quite a lot of clout, albeit, not necessarily recognised in county chess offerings. Many congresses also offer the chance for longer playing sessions with more relaxed time controls.

[Roger de Coverly]

Many congresses also offer the chance for longer playing sessions with more relaxed time controls.

As a general rule for weekend congresses, those with Friday evening rounds offer a four hour session or nominal incremental equivalent. Those with three rounds on a Saturday offer three and a half hours or nominal incremental equivalents. If it's a Bank Holiday weekend or working week Congress, five hour sessions or incremental equivalents can be offered. It's only with one round a day that six or seven hour sessions can be offered, although the ECF have abandoned them with the British Championship. The format of the Open at the London Chess Classic in December has yet to be announced. The 4NCL is a nominal six hours, whilst the format of the Hastings 2015-16 has also yet to be announced.