Norway Chess 2014

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Yeah, that was, um, unfortunate. I hope this prompts a debate about the use of increments at this level

I don't follow. Are you saying that you think it would have been better if there had not been an increment? How would that have been fairer or otherwise preferable?

I should have been clearer. I don't like seeing games so obviously decided by blunders like that. I would prefer to see longer increments or some other way to balance the need to obtain a result with getting a fair result. I'd also like to see the world's best players have the time to play high quality endgames.

[David Sedgwick]

Yeah, that was, um, unfortunate. I hope this prompts a debate about the use of increments at this level

I don't follow. Are you saying that you think it would have been better if there had not been an increment? How would that have been fairer or otherwise preferable?

I should have been clearer. I don't like seeing games so obviously decided by blunders like that. I would prefer to see longer increments or some other way to balance the need to obtain a result with getting a fair result. I'd also like to see the world's best players have the time to play high quality endgames.

Thank you. Now I understand.

The 30 second increment has been a kind of industry standard ever since the FIDE World Championship Knock Out in Groningen in 1997. I believe that Stewart Reuben, who was involved in drawing up the regulations, now regrets not having suggested a 1 minute increment.

With the 30 second increment now so well established, I can't see the situation changing.

[Clive Blackburn]

Turns out Giri slipped by letting Karjakin back in to a forced mate routine!

Yeah, that was, um, unfortunate.

What is even more unfortunate was that Giri had apparently missed a beautiful win earlier with 120. Qd7! putting black into zugswang.

Danny King discusses this in his video (about 12 mins in):-

http://youtu.be/tB1gsrgBAtI

[MartinCarpenter]

Don't actually feel sorry for Giri this time. He very obviously set out to try and drag the game out as long as possible and to subsequently settle it on increment, so can't really complain when that rebounded on him in the end.

[Jonathan Bryant]

With the 30 second increment now so well established, I can't see the situation changing.

Me neither. I can see why you’d prefer increment over something like 'all the remaining moves in an hour', but why increment of 30 seconds per move rather than getting an extra x minutes every y moves (an hour every 20 moves, say)? I’ve never really understood that.


Talking about preferences, wasn’t Karjakin complaining about the absence of increments at a tournament recently? (The candidates’ perhaps).

[Roger de Coverly]

but why increment of 30 seconds per move rather than getting an extra x minutes every y moves (an hour every 20 moves, say)? I’ve never really understood that.

One reason is that it could be more work for arbiters, given that players wouldn't need to keep score in the last five minutes. If you are a "paid" arbiter that might be good, but not if you are a volunteer.

Adding an hour every 20 moves is the way it was done when games were allowed infinite time with adjournments. Games could and would last a very long time under those rules.

Something like 10 minutes every 20 moves would be equivalent to 30 second increments. It wasn't part of the programming of the first versions of DGT clocks that you could have variable timings across the game. Arbiters and organisers, wanting to both force games to conclusion and avoid having to express opinions about whether a win was possible, were constrained in the mid 1990s by what DGT had designed into the clocks. Also as DGT had paid money to be the "official FIDE" digital clock, they couldn't specify that another model of clock be used.

[Barry Sandercock]

Should be some interesting games to come, tomorrow and Friday. Does anyone know if there will be a playoff, if first place is shared?

[Jonathan Bryant]

Adding an hour every 20 moves is the way it was done when games were allowed infinite time with adjournments. Games could and would last a very long time under those rules.

Isn’t it the case that many games go on and on precisely because of the increments? A speculation on possibility of an opponent’s time shortage where you’d probably not bother if you knew there was enough time to find the right moves?

[Barry Sandercock]

Should be some interesting games to come, tomorrow and Friday. Does anyone know if there will be a playoff, if first place is shared ?

[Roger de Coverly]

Isn’t it the case that many games go on and on precisely because of the increments? A speculation on possibility of an opponent’s time shortage where you’d probably not bother if you knew there was enough time to find the right moves?

The practical choice, outside of some very odd English leagues, is between play to a finish with or without increments. I would agree that increments allow games to continue, but the reason is because you have enough time to win technical positions. By contrast if the position is level and you have more time, that is worth a lot less with increments. Without increments, provided you can plausibly keep the game going and a win is possible by "normal means", a player with more time can potentially win just by flagging the opponent, with the only defence a 10.2 appeal and a well-disposed arbiter.

My personal experience of playing under increments is that expecting to win because opponents won't have enough time is a delusion. In practice there are enough opportunities for forced moves, that it can be easy enough for a defender to roll back from 10 seconds remaining to a far more comfortable two or three minutes.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

My personal experience of playing under increments is that expecting to win because opponents won't have enough time is a delusion. In practice there are enough opportunities for forced moves, that it can be easy enough for a defender to roll back from 10 seconds remaining to a far more comfortable two or three minutes.

Once you are experienced enough playing under the constant pressure of increment, yes, the need to build up time reserves becomes part of your play, but some players never manage to adopt this approach. My personal experience of playing under increment is that the quality of the play in complex positions nosedives for the players having to make the moves swiftly. If both players are playing close to the increment-only level, then anything can happen and if a 'level but not-easy' game is not agreed drawn then a blunder will almost certainly decide the game. If I needed to win, I would adopt the approach Jonathan mentioned above and play on, hoping for a blunder from my opponent. Hence he is correct, that increments can prolong 'drawn' (or level) positions.

(What we are talking about here are positions that are complex enough that even gaining 2-3 minutes is not enough time to work out an adequate defence).

Roger, what is the longest number of moves you have played under constant increment pressure?

[Leonard Barden]

Should be some interesting games to come, tomorrow and Friday. Does anyone know if there will be a playoff, if first place is shared ?

From the tournament regulations:

In case of shared first place, there will be a blitz match to decide the winner.
If two players share first place, there will be a 2 game match with the same time control as in the blitz tournament: 4 min + 2 sec increment for each move. If this match ends in a tie, there will be an Armageddon game where white has 5 min+2 sec increments and black has 4 min+2 sec increment with draw odds. 

If more than two players share first place, there will be a double round robin with the same tiebreak rules as the opening blitz tournament.
The remaining players in this blitz tournament will share their money prizes.

[Barry Sandercock]

Any predictions for the results today ?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Although I've been following the tournament, its lack of grip is such that I don't know who is playing and will only find out when the games start. But although unable to predict the results for that reason, I will hazard a prediction that Aronian will play a second rate opening and draw, Topalov will get a good opening position and struggle to draw, Kramnik will get a good position but not quite enough to win, Agdestein will draw however he plays, whilst Kariakin, Svidler and Giri will all play quite forgettable chess. So if there is to be any impressive chess and decisive result it will likely involve Caruana or Carlsen.

I also suggest there is little point in staying up on Saturday night to watch Italy v England

[Christopher Kreuzer]

You forgot Grischuk...