Experience using time increments for league matches

[Angus French]

Although the situation is similar to the traditional adjudication one, under the time limit suggested you would be forced to make 90 moves in the time allocated (3 hours plus 10 minutes clearing up time) and I think this makes all the difference. Also although adjudication still exists it becomes a very, very rare event.

I know of a new Summer league which will start this year. All matches will be played at the same venue and the playing session will last three hours and thirty minutes. The rules are not yet set but I understand it's possible the time limits will be 60' + 30". This will allow for a minimum of 90 moves with time to think for and record each move (which might be useful for threefold repetition and 50-move draw claims). If the game is unfinished after 90 moves and if the players can't agree a result it will be adjudicated.

Some game length stats from my database (which does contain some duplicates):

GameLengths.png

[David Williams]

This is season three. We don't even bother suggesting it these days.

Because nobody takes it up or because there’s no need to suggest it because other teams want it too (or at least you know which will and which won’t)?

Because in season two there just seemed to be so much messing about to decide on a board by board basis for something most people weren't too bothered about that the whole thing rather fizzled out, and we just play a straight 90 minutes. It's still in the rules as an option, no doubt it will happen some day.

[Mick Norris]

We have discussed this before on here, but the Stockport League uses 80 10 as an alternative to g90

The Manchester League is now using 80 15, although some clubs are sticking to the old time controls even if they have digitals (like my club Bury)

[Kevin Thurlow]

Surrey's QP option is 30 in an hour, then 20 minutes for all moves. Then the Fischer option was added of all in 75 minutes + 10 seconds a move. So once you have agreed the QP option, you can further agree to Fischer timing. Ironically, Surrey initially said you could refuse to use digital clocks, but this was anti-Coulsdon spite, as they were first to use digital clocks. Shortly after sense prevailed, the Fischer option was introduced. What players frequently don't understand is that the Fischer option is slower - if you only play 30 moves, you have had 80 minutes to do so. If you play 60 moves, you have had 85 minutes, whereas with QP, you would have had to squeeze them into 80 minutes! In our internal competitions, we introduced an option of 70 minutes for all moves + 10 seconds a move, the slightly quicker option having the obvious advantage that you still finish about 1030 pm (usually).

I think the Fischer method is much better, mainly because you don't get in the situation that you have to play 10 moves in one minute, as you're gaining time every time you move (admittedly not much).

And you can try to emulate Jack Rudd and have more time at the end of the game than at the start, although with only 10 extra seconds, even he might struggle.

[Alex Holowczak]

The Birmingham League uses 30/70+G/10+10' as its incremental time limit, because it was the closest equivalent to 30/75+G/15, which is the quickplay time limit. There have been no problems caused by this time limit with overshooting.

[Roger de Coverly]

The Birmingham League uses 30/70+G/10+10' as its incremental time limit, because it was the closest equivalent to 30/75+G/15, which is the quickplay time limit.

With digital clocks, intermediate time controls with ten or fifteen minute add ons are best avoided. This is because of the zone of uncertainty where the clock shows an incorrect time remaining.

[Alex Holowczak]

The Birmingham League uses 30/70+G/10+10' as its incremental time limit, because it was the closest equivalent to 30/75+G/15, which is the quickplay time limit.

With digital clocks, intermediate time controls with ten or fifteen minute add ons are best avoided. This is because of the zone of uncertainty where the clock shows an incorrect time remaining.

I agree.

In a rare display of pragmatism on my part though, to introduce increments at all into the Birmingham League - and thus not be subjected to adjournments all the time - I decided it was the lesser evil.

I expect that in due course, other people will realise that and the time limit will change naturally.

[E Michael White]

I would certainly much prefer to play with increments in my games rather than any other method of play, but it strikes me that it’s problematic for league chess. It may well be the case that most games finish inside the usual time limit as Roger and Mike say, but what do you do for the one in 600 that doesn’t?

It's only really a potential problem when a venue has a strict closure policy. I did wonder whether bastions of adjudication and adjournment might not prefer 60 minutes with 30 second increments coupled with adjudication at 3 hours or 60 moves or extra time if adjourning. They might still have to play 60 moves in an evening which some might consider too fast.

Rather than filling out adjudication slips in the car park the simplest course is to declare the winner, after 3 hrs of increment play, to be the player with more time left on their clock, with a minor adjustment if its B to move.

This is the result which would have occurred if the game had been G90. In this hybrid system players would be encouraged to play faster earlier in the game when increments apply at the same time as finishing within the 3hrs.

[NickFaulks]

With digital clocks, intermediate time controls with ten or fifteen minute add ons are best avoided. This is because of the zone of uncertainty where the clock shows an incorrect time remaining.

Another reason is that from next season three hour games between <2200 players, played in any competition, can be FIDE rated. However, if there is an intermediate time control it must be after 40 moves, which most people feel is inappropriate for three hour games, so better avoided altogether.

I realise this is unlikely to be of much relevance in England, where the FIDE rating of games is discouraged in other ways.

[Stewart Reuben]

Mike Gunn and others > I suggest that if a game goes 10 minutes over the 3 hours/ 60 move time you send the position for adjudication.<

If you use adjudication it is NOT in the Laws of Chess, nor a permitted variant. So you are not playing chess. One of the urposes of being a chess administrator is to help players become better at the game. Adjudication does the reverse. Referring to it kindly, it is an abortion.

80 minutes + 5 seconds increment. Gives you 3 hours playing time minimum for 120 moves. If that frightens you, 75 minutes + 5 seconds increment and you get in 135 moves. I have been playing competitively for 65 years and have only had one game of that length.

[NickFaulks]

If you use adjudication it is NOT in the Laws of Chess, nor a permitted variant. So you are not playing chess.

I don't think that many people would accept that logic, particularly in England.

There has long been a school of thought within FIDE that games with adjournment are not chess. If these ceased to be permitted under the Laws it would mean that they could not be submitted for rating, which they aren't anyway, and would otherwise make not a blind bit of difference.

[Stewart Reuben]

I forget which FIDE VP had the opinion that one small deviation from the Laws meant it was not chess. Probably Ali from Turkey.

Adjournments and Quickplay finishes will not be FIDE Rated in July 2021 when it is intended that ALLrated games be played with an increment. of course it will be possible to challenge that in 2020.

[NickFaulks]

Adjournments and Quickplay finishes will not be FIDE Rated in July 2021 when it is intended that ALLrated games be played with an increment.

I've heard that idea proposed, but is it written anywhere? I don't think it would be very popular.

[Matt Mackenzie]

If you use adjudication it is NOT in the Laws of Chess, nor a permitted variant. So you are not playing chess.

I don't think that many people would accept that logic, particularly in England.

Then more fool them, quite frankly. Adjudications are an abomination

[Nick Grey]

Sounds like a good reason not to merge ECF grading with Fide grading. A lot of increments dependent on venue time, & digital clocks.
I prefer adjournment, if not a quickplay finish, if not adjudication.
The London League system without adjudication seems fine by me.