4NCL FIDE Rated Congress 30 Jan-1 Feb 2015

[Mike Truran]

Details on the 4NCL website: www.4ncl.co.uk/fide/information.htm

[NickFaulks]

It appears to me that nearly all tournament chess in England, even in prestigious events, is nowadays played to a time control of "game something". Considering that widespread pressure, some of it from England, led FIDE to abandon this "dumbing down" policy, I find this terribly disappointing.

[Roger de Coverly]

It appears to me that nearly all tournament chess in England, even in prestigious events, is nowadays played to a time control of "game something".

How else would you organise a weekend tournament? With digital clocks, there is an advantage in having a single time control, because of arbiter reluctance to program clocks to show the time remaining at all stages of a game. If you've got a whole day to play, having five hour or longer sessions is feasible, but not so much when you are trying fit in two games. Three even if you don't want to play on a Friday evening.

[David Sedgwick]

It appears to me that nearly all tournament chess in England, even in prestigious events, is nowadays played to a time control of "game something". Considering that widespread pressure, some of it from England, led FIDE to abandon this "dumbing down" policy, I find this terribly disappointing.

I agree with Roger's conclusion, although not his reasoning.

One game a day chess in England has intermediate time controls.

Also, for instance, is 30 moves in 75 mins plus all moves in 15 mins plus 30 secs per move throughout really superior to all moves in 90 mins plus 30 secs per move throughout?

If you think it is, you know what you have to do, don't you?

(For the benefit of those who may not know: The FIDE Qualification Commission, of which Nick is Secretary, has to scrap the requirement that in a FIDE Rated event any initial time control has to be after 40 moves.)

[NickFaulks]

How else would you organise a weekend tournament?

How about the way they were organised perfectly well for thirty years, before FIDE got everyone obsessed with 30 second increments?
If you want four hour games, use 40/90 then G/30. If you have digital clocks, I would always add an increment of 3 or 5 seconds to avoid nonsense at the death. if you're bothered about a few minutes, then start 40/85 in that case. By the way, this really does produce four hour games, whereas with G/90+30" there's always the danger of one game in any round taking over five hours.

[Mike Truran]

What's wrong with an increment? When you get to my age, it's a comfort to know that you've always got a few seconds in hand, over the chess board if nowhere else. Having an absolute time limit (like the all moves in 90 minutes rule in the Oxfordshire Chess League) reminds me uncomfortably of dying (particularly when I'm in a bad position); I know I'm going to run out of time and there's nothing I can do about it. An incremental time limit gives me the comfortable illusion that I can cheat mortality in at least one small area of my life.

[NickFaulks]

What's wrong with an increment?

I don't mind the increment in itself, although I certainly don't find that it gives me anything like 30 seconds' worth of good thinking time. I resent the lack of an interim time control, which allows me to regoup in preparation for the rest of the game.
Before the first Olympiad which used 90/30, GM Pavel Blatny was in Bermuda, and passed on his experience of this new idea. His key piece of advice was "never forget that with this control, you are in time trouble from move one". He was right, and I do not enjoy it at all.

[NickFaulks]

(For the benefit of those who may not know: The FIDE Qualification Commission, of which Nick is Secretary, has to scrap the requirement that in a FIDE Rated event any initial time control has to be after 40 moves.)

Indeed, but once established these rules are always difficult to remove. The original impetus for this one did of course come from England.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I resent the lack of an interim time control, which allows me to regoup in preparation for the rest of the game.

I really do not understand this argument. I mean, for example, if the time control is 120 minutes for the whole game then nothing stops you from playing as if the time control was 90 minutes for 40 moves + 30 minutes qpf after that. Why do you want to force the intermediate control on your opponent as well?

[Roger de Coverly]

If you want four hour games, use 40/90 then G/30.

Similar rates such as 40/100 + 20, 36/90 + 30 and their equivalents for three and a half hour sessions are still the norm for the majority of tournaments in England, the ones not rated by FIDE. It was only the e2e4 tournament series that introduced 90 30 to the UK scene around six years ago. Adam Raoof uses 60 30 for his under 2200 weekenders to be able to fit three rounds into a Saturday. With the apparent demise of e2e4, the 4NCL tournament is the only likely user of a 90 30 move rate except perhaps Southend. Rather stupidly, 90 30 has been adopted for the morning sessions of the British. All the one round a day events will have the intermediate move 40 time control even with increment.

I'm not sure whether it's a real or theoretical danger, but with short increments and no need to keep a game score with under five minutes remaining, how do you ever claim a draw under the 50 move rule or three fold repetition?

[NickFaulks]

I really do not understand this argument.

Yes, you do understand it. I have been used to a break point in the game for my entire playing career, over fifty years, and I do not find it easy to adjust to losing that. All the same, I would be much happier with G/120 than 90/30, simply because it is half an hour longer. Some players do seem to have retrained themselves to get into the 30 second rhythm, but I value the increment very little.

[NickFaulks]

Similar rates such as 40/100 + 20, 36/90 + 30 and their equivalents for three and a half hour sessions are still the norm for the majority of tournaments in England, the ones not rated by FIDE.

Really? I'm going to be based in London soon, and looked for tournaments that were not game something. I didn't find much. The London Classic Open, supposedly England's premier open Swiss, is G/105. Is this something to do with Malcolm's Kasparov connection?
By the way, 40/100 + 20 is fine for FIDE rating. The equivalent 36/90 + 30 is not, and I freely accept that is absurd.

[NickFaulks]

I'm not sure whether it's a real or theoretical danger, but with short increments and no need to keep a game score with under five minutes remaining, how do you ever claim a draw under the 50 move rule or three fold repetition?

It is undeniable that this is a real potential problem. All I can say is that we survived it somehow for thirty years. Practical arbiting helps.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The London Classic Open, supposedly England's premier open Swiss, is G/105.

What metric are you using to judge "premier" here? It's not the one with the strongest entry; that's Gibraltar. It's not the longest-running; that's Hastings. I don't think it's the biggest; that's probably Gibraltar again (of course, both are dwarfed in total entries by the British Championships festival, but that's split over many more events).

[Roger de Coverly]

The London Classic Open, supposedly England's premier open Swiss, is G/105. Is this something to do with Malcolm's Kasparov connection?

105 minutes with 30 second increments. Probably because they are playing two rounds a day on the final weekend. In past years it was 40/90 + 30 with 30 second increments. Also because of the Junior events, they don't start play until 4.30 in the afternoon during the week. 90 30 is four hours plus, so 105 30 becomes four and half hours plus.