Incremental time controls

[NickFaulks]

Nick....
Your comment about 50/90..
I presume this means 50 moves in 90 mins... would such games qualify for grading purposes..?
Are you suggesting that a blitz 15 min shoot out should follow, or would adjournment take place, with later resumption.

I'm saying stay with your idea ( not sure that I support it but it's interesting ) but take out the interim time control. I'm not sure what purpose it serves.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Nick, can I ask you what your views are on the 4NCL time control when compared to the time controls being discussed here? I'm asking because I think you were playing on the board next to mine on the Sunday at the recent 4NCL weekend, and it was interesting to observe the way the clocks were handled in both games.

[Reg Clucas]

The phrase 'time management' keeps cropping up in discussions on this subject. I don't think this is necessarily of relevance. Under standard quickplay finish rules, no matter how well both players may manage their time, sooner or later one of them will run out of time. Thus the position on the clock becomes more important than the position on the board. Using an increment, even if only 10 seconds, allows the position on the board to retain its relevance. Of course, the players may still make bad moves when reduced to relying on increments, but this is also true when short of time even under the old traditional time controls.

Anyway, to answer the OP's questions -

1. Our club has only recently acquired digital clocks, but I think it likely we will use increments in our next club championship.
2. If so, it is likely we will use the same time control as the local league, i.e. all moves in 80' with a 10" increment.
3. "Do members enjoy them?" - I don't think 'enjoy' is an appropriate word in this context. The incremental mode is simply a sensible improvement over the quickplay 'guillotine' finish.

[Brian Towers]

Does your club run any kind (standard play or rapid play) tournaments with incremental time controls?

Our club only runs tournaments with incremental time controls.

If so what are the time limits?

Standard: 90+30
Rapid: 20+5
Blitz: 4+2

Do members enjoy them?

You decide -
Last Sunday we ran a FIDE rated 9 round blitz. Because of the football (Barca v Real) numbers were well down.
Only about 26 or 28 players turned up including 2 GMs and an IM (albeit all 3 past their sell-by-date) and a vivacious, young Rumanian WIM who was over on holiday with her boyfriend, didn't speak the language but somehow still heard about the competition and ran away as the comfortable winner with 8.5/9.

Why on earth would you not play with an increment? It solves so many problems.

Example: in the last round I was up against an 11 year old who's rating is about 100 points lower than mine even though he is by now stronger than me (OK, not really relevant. Just thought I'd have a whinge about the unfairness of kiddies' ratings not keeping up). With about 30 seconds left on my clock and 1 second left on his he offered me a draw in a position where all we could do was move back and forwards. With the arbiter at the other end of the room, the kiddy probably not knowing the rules that well (in terms of what he can try and claim) I played on. As you do. In the old days the full point would have been mine in fairly short order but with increment he was up to 10 seconds after half a dozen lightning toing and froings and I reluctantly took the draw. So, obviously I'm against it . Who wants fairness in time pressure when they would win otherwise?

[David Gilbert]

1. Our club has only recently acquired digital clocks, but I think it likely we will use increments in our next club championship.
2. If so, it is likely we will use the same time control as the local league, i.e. all moves in 80' with a 10" increment.
3. "Do members enjoy them?" - I don't think 'enjoy' is an appropriate word in this context. The incremental mode is simply a sensible improvement over the quickplay 'guillotine' finish.

I agree with this, but it’s also worth considering 75'/15" . Our League spent one season using 80'/10", by the end there was a general consensus that 10 seconds was insufficient for speed of thought, or more the lack of it, and physical dexterity. This season we adopted 75'/15", which is more in the players’ comfort zone.

[Martin Benjamin]

As David Gilbert wrote, 75 minutes plus 15 seconds increment per move has been a good refinement of the already successful Central London League incremental time controls, for the reasons he gave. I also play in the London League which has a quickplay finish (or adjournment, but let's not go there again) and increments are a better time control for reasons given dozens of times over the years on this forum, but most notably to get the right result in trivial positions. However, whichever time control is adopted, one simply has to adjust to it and not use it as a comfort blanket for dropping points or half points because of blunders.

[Reg Clucas]

I agree with this, but it’s also worth considering 75'/15" .

There are of course numerous alternatives, but one especially worthy of consideration is 60'/30", the significance of this being that players are compelled to keep score for the whole game, and therefore 50 move and repetition claims can be made without controversy. However, this carries the increased probability that the game may take a longer total elapsed time, which may not always be appropriate in evening leagues.

Do any local leagues use a 30" increment?

[David Pardoe]

Nick....
Your comment about 50/90..
I presume this means 50 moves in 90 mins... would such games qualify for grading purposes..?
Are you suggesting that a blitz 15 min shoot out should follow, or would adjournment take place, with later resumption.

I'm saying stay with your idea ( not sure that I support it but it's interesting ) but take out the interim time control. I'm not sure what purpose it serves.

Nick,
This is traditional to have a first time control in league chess that sets the `standard` rate, and provides a guide for the rate if a resumption is required.
It also provides a break point, which I think might help discourage the `first past the post` mentality, which I think prevails currently...
But your idea of 50 in 90 mins may be fine, with a resumption rate of say 15 in 30 mins...

[Steve Rooney]

Incremental time controls were adopted at our AGM for the Shropshire league last night. It will be an option from the coming season, subject to agreement between both captains, and is all moves in 75min + 15sec a move from move one. Our current time control, and the continuing default option, is all moves in 95min. I was a bit surprised that the vote was so decisive, having put it on the agenda expecting quite a lot of opposition. But the fact that it is optional and not compulsory obviously helped; it was much less contentious than other agenda items about introducing penalties for match defaults and tougher rules on postponement requests.

[Roger de Coverly]

I was a bit surprised that the vote was so decisive, having put it on the agenda expecting quite a lot of opposition.

Once you have got past the premise that you should attempt to complete a game of chess to resignation, mate or agreed draw etc. in an evening session, the exact means of dividing up the three hours or so usually available is less contentious. The January Shropshire Congress is three rounds in a day, three and half hours play per game as I recall. Last weekend I was playing in Sussex at the Weald Congress, not an area normally favouring completion of games inside three hours, at the rate of 80 minutes with 10 second increments. It has the advantage of an earlier finish on the Saturday evening and didn't have the usual Saturday evening mass taking of byes.

[Steve Rooney]

The Weald congress time controls are interesting. Finishing at 8pm looks appealing and particularly if, as you say, it encourages fewer people to take a bye.

[Anthony Higgs]

I played at the Weald Congress, and also the recent Guildford open club championship (same 80+10 limits). The Mid-Sussex League AGM recently also agreed to an (optional if both players agree) 80+10 limit which I was pleased by. It is an excellent balance between ensuring completion of a congress round/club match before kicking-out time, and allowing the playing of an endgame. Highly recommended.