Warwick 2015 (British Championships)

[Roger de Coverly]

An alternative is that it was simply forgotten about.

Little trust can be placed in chess administrators who simply forget about the implied prizes in the events they are running. The real change is that they have decided to go for 90 30 for the four hour morning sessions. That's the decision that needs to be justified as it causes the knock on effect of postponing the afternoon session to 3pm with the consequent need to reduce the session length to five hours. Those playing in the British Championship should be taking it seriously and playing only one round a day. They shouldn't be having their schedule mucked about by those playing two rounds a day.

The other point of criticism is why the changes were announced after the ECF AGM, instead of before, so that views could be expressed. I expect it was for the usual reason to be able to announce it as a fait accompli.

[Simon Ansell]

Let us discuss Roger's comments sensibly.
It is obvious they have changed the playing time from 7 hours to 5 in order to follow the worldwide trend. This has happened bcause the increment of 30 seconds means players use their time more efficiently.

It may be a worldwide trend in Open events, where it is often necessary to play two games a day, but how many national championships use a 5 hour session (I have no idea of the answer)?

The second quoted sentence isn't true in my case. I'm regularly in what I consider to be mild time-trouble at incremental time controls, but very rarely at 40 in 2. The place for increments is the final time control IMO, but I know a lot of players disagree with me.

The chance of me playing in Warwick was slim in any case, but now it's zero. Despite its many shortcomings, the single attraction of the British for me would have been the chance to play one seven hour game a day. Now that's gone too.

[Adam Raoof]

One of the sponsor's requests for the forthcoming Brambles events at Hampstead was that the time control be longer, and one game a day, to offer precisely this increasingly rare opportunity. However I do note that this is against the general trend, and also slightly less practical in terms of annual leave and costs for the average player.

I've now experienced increments first hand, and I can only say that they are a huge advance over guillotine finishes!

[Mick Norris]

but how many national championships use a 5 hour session (I have no idea of the answer)?

Via TWIC

74th Italian Championship - Time Control: 100:50:15+30spm(1)

85th German Championship - Time Control: 100:50:15+30spm(1)

67th ch-RUS Superfinal - Time control of 90 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 30 minutes before the end of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from the first

[Simon Ansell]

but how many national championships use a 5 hour session (I have no idea of the answer)?

Via TWIC

74th Italian Championship - Time Control: 100:50:15+30spm(1)

85th German Championship - Time Control: 100:50:15+30spm(1)

67th ch-RUS Superfinal - Time control of 90 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 30 minutes before the end of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from the first

For long games (>60 moves), the first two are significantly slower than the 5 hour session if I've read the notation correctly. I'm surprised the Russian Champs is so quick, though.

edit: really not sure I have read the notation correctly, can someone clarify? I'd assumed 40 moves in 100 mins then 20 in 50, then 15 mins to finish with 30 second increment starting from move 1.

[Roger de Coverly]

edit: really not sure I have read the notation correctly, can someone clarify? I'd assumed 40 moves in 100 mins then 20 in 50, then 15 mins to finish with 30 second increment starting from move 1.

That's almost certainly what they mean. It's the incremental equivalent of 40 in 2, 20 in 1 and then half an hour to complete. The British Championships used it for many years until switching more recently to the incremental version. The 4NCL has gone for the slightly shorter hybrid of 40 in 100, then 50 to finish, with the 30 second increment.

[Stewart Reuben]

Simon your interpretation is absolutely correct.
By the way, it should indeed be 40 moves in 100 minutes, not 90. As Michael Adams said, 'Who stole our 10 minutes?'
The only proof that seven hour games lead to better chess than five can surely only be investigated by comparing the games of players who play both types. I have no faith in the idea of degree of computer choices matching. Thus it would have to be left to the investigations by strong players. That's out of my league.
Seven hours seems a very long time and must lead to mistakes because of tiredness. Of course, as people age, that factor becomes more pronounced. Of course 5 hours followed by adjournment used to be the standard for higher quality chess.
We have all observed that the ratings at the top has gone up quite noticeably. There used to be effects that were inflationary; the 2205 rule for 50% in the Olympiad; the minimum rating being set at 2200. That latter effect is replaced by 1000 now. It is then very far removed from the top players, though still there. Thus my opinion that people are playing better chess for, of course, several reasons. One is the time control.
Indeed the 40/100, 50 to finish + 30 seconds per move from the start, as used in the 4NCL, is a good 6 hour compromise.

[NickFaulks]

I have no faith in the idea of degree of computer choices matching.

I believe that John Nunn would disagree with you. He used computer analysis extensively to unearth well played endings in the preparation of his excellent book "Understanding Chess Endgames", and found that at the G90+30" time control they were almost non-existent.

[Mick Norris]

Via TWIC

74th Italian Championship - Time Control: 100:50:15+30spm(1)

85th German Championship - Time Control: 100:50:15+30spm(1)

67th ch-RUS Superfinal - Time control of 90 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 30 minutes before the end of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from the first

For long games (>60 moves), the first two are significantly slower than the 5 hour session if I've read the notation correctly. I'm surprised the Russian Champs is so quick, though.

edit: really not sure I have read the notation correctly, can someone clarify? I'd assumed 40 moves in 100 mins then 20 in 50, then 15 mins to finish with 30 second increment starting from move 1.

The German website has

Die Bedenkzeit beträgt 100 Minuten für 40 Züge,
sodann 50 Minuten für die verbleibenden Züge sowie 30 Sekunden je Zug von
Beginn an. Remisvereinbarungen vor dem 40. Zug sind nur mit Zustimmung des
Schiedsrichters zulässig. Die Wartezeit beträgt 0 Minuten

[Graham Borrowdale]

Irrespective of the advantages and disadvantages of various time controls, which to some extent must be subjective, surely the issue here is that the ECF appears to have made these significant changes unilaterally, without canvassing opinion amongst players. Someone please correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

[Sean Hewitt]

Irrespective of the advantages and disadvantages of various time controls, which to some extent must be subjective, surely the issue here is that the ECF appears to have made these significant changes unilaterally, without canvassing opinion amongst players. Someone please correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

I'm not sure what leads you to conclude

...the ECF appears to have made these significant changes unilaterally, without canvassing opinion amongst players.

I believe a player survey was conducted at Aberystwyth and at Torquay on both time control and number of rounds. I understand that the ECF were considering reducing to 9 rounds. The players response showed that they wanted it to remain as 11 rounds. The event is therefore 11 rounds long. Far from acting unilaterally and without consultation the Home Director has taken exactly the opposite approach. Rather than castigating him, we should be congratulating him. There are other Directors who could take a leaf out of his book in that regard.

[NickFaulks]

Irrespective of the advantages and disadvantages of various time controls, which to some extent must be subjective, surely the issue here is that the ECF appears to have made these significant changes unilaterally, without canvassing opinion amongst players. Someone please correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

I can think of at least two explanations for the ECF's behaviour - which could apply equally well to other federations, or to some extent to FIDE. One is that they view faster time controls as the way of the future, and the players as a reactionary group standing in the way of progress. Another, which tends to be my default, is that they have made a choice which is convenient for the arbiters.

edit: I have read Sean's post above. The decision on the number of rounds is commendable, and in marked contrast to FIDE's changes to the Olympiad, but we learn nothing about the survey results regarding time controls. Did the players really ask for faster games?

[Roger de Coverly]

Far from acting unilaterally and without consultation the Home Director has taken exactly the opposite approach.

Why not announce the proposed changes as part of the report for the AGM then? Starting the afternoon rounds at 3pm and reducing them to a five and a bit hour session was not put to the players and potential players.

(edit) Anyone with a link to the 2014 survey and the results? I'm fairly sure they've been online at some stage, but are now difficult to find. That tells its own story, that anything connected to the ECF should be backed up for fear that it will be suppressed if it doesn't support the assumed narrative. (/edit)

[Graham Borrowdale]

Irrespective of the advantages and disadvantages of various time controls, which to some extent must be subjective, surely the issue here is that the ECF appears to have made these significant changes unilaterally, without canvassing opinion amongst players. Someone please correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

I'm not sure what leads you to conclude

...the ECF appears to have made these significant changes unilaterally, without canvassing opinion amongst players.

I believe a player survey was conducted at Aberystwyth and at Torquay on both time control and number of rounds. I understand that the ECF were considering reducing to 9 rounds. The players response showed that they wanted it to remain as 11 rounds. The event is therefore 11 rounds long. Far from acting unilaterally and without consultation the Home Director has taken exactly the opposite approach. Rather than castigating him, we should be congratulating him. There are other Directors who could take a leaf out of his book in that regard.

I really don't know why I bother posting on here. What I said was "the ECF appears to have made these significant changes unilaterally, without canvassing opinion amongst players". This does not constitute "castigating" the Home Director; it was simply an observation, specifically around the issue of time controls, not the number of rounds, and it was suffixed with a polite request to correct me if I was wrong. You have corrected me. Thankyou.

[Jon Mahony]

Well I’m personally looking forward to going, just working out my schedule now, I intend to stay for the first 9 days, warm up in the rapid play, play in the U140 championship and finish off by playing the Soanes weekender - just mulling over upgrading to gold membership and getting slaughtered in the week 1 PM open, or just watching the GM games.

I know the venue isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but staying over will be comparatively much cheaper than the usual seaside resorts