Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3390
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:24 pm

"Is it not possible for pairing print outs to be in landscape in a much larger font? "

You would think so - and obviously Alex agrees. I have even played Seniors events where the font was too small. One guy had his glasses off and nose pressed against the notice whilst a disorderly queue formed behind him!

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4101
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 am

Going back to the original question. The point of using an increment, or delay, is that such as all the moves in two hours, is unpopular. Because the game may be of 150 moves. A 5 second increment is adequate. If you can't mate with bishop and knight againt a bare king in that time, you don't seserve to win. Or have rook against rook and bishop, you don't deerve to draw.
In the US they are obsessed with over-runs. Thus the use of delay mode. But it is not common practice elsewhere, so use an increment.
All the moves in 90 minutes + 5 second increment, leads to a 3.5 hour game only after 180 moves. I have never seen a genuine game as long as that.
So, if you have 4 hours, 100 minutes would be possible.
People prefer a 10 second increment? All the moves in 90 minutes + 10 second increment cn be done in 4 hours.
People do not have to keep score if, at some stage, their thinking time drops below 5 minutes.

I don't know why FIDE are obsessed with keeping score anyway. Few games in local leagues are kept for posterity. I regard that as a pity.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1889
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by Michael Farthing » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:50 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 am
I don't know why FIDE are obsessed with keeping score anyway. Few games in local leagues are kept for posterity. I regard that as a pity.
All of Morecambe's are!
Rejoiner

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4101
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:30 pm

Michael >All of Morecambe's are!
EXCELLENT. Are they then all available on a website?

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1889
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by Michael Farthing » Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:25 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:30 pm
Michael >All of Morecambe's are!
EXCELLENT. Are they then all available on a website?
No not currently, but they are all regularly circulated to all club members. It currently stretches back about 8 years. I have to say that the original concept, as I understand it, was that it provided a local preparation tool. I shall consult with our archivist on the principle of public dissemination. He has in the past come to the Aid of the Public (by supplying a lot of Ian Wells' games).
Rejoiner

NickFaulks
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 am
I don't know why FIDE are obsessed with keeping score anyway.
For norm events, it is some kind of a check on legitimacy. Otherwise, I did once question at a Rules meeting why players should be required to keep score, provided they accepted the attaching loss of rights if they didn't. As so often, this was simply treated as unworthy of an answer.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:36 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 pm
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 am
I don't know why FIDE are obsessed with keeping score anyway.
For norm events, it is some kind of a check on legitimacy. Otherwise, I did once question at a Rules meeting why players should be required to keep score, provided they accepted the attaching loss of rights if they didn't. As so often, this was simply treated as unworthy of an answer.
The "loss of rights" point may not even be totally relevant anyway, since it isn't clear to me why the rights should be lost. For example, I don't understand players need to keep score in the World Championship match. There are more arbiters than players, it's on a liveboard and recorded on various cameras... If the table collapsed and you needed to re-establish where the pieces were, you've got three sources to do that - how many more do you need?

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4101
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sun Jan 27, 2019 11:55 pm

Alex. Geurt Gijssen suggested to Karpov and Timman for their FIDE World Championship match that they not keep score. They decided they would prefer to continue what they are used to.
I suggested in the last edition of my 'Chess Organiser's Handbook' that the equipment include more than a clock. It would show the times and also the last 3-5 moves played. Also it could indicate whether 3 fold occurrence and 50 move rule had happened. It would then be up to the player to decide whether to claim.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1751
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:37 am

Thank you to everybody who has commented in response to my original question. Obviously I can't reveal individual comments I've received from Yorkshire players regarding increments but the consensus seems to be in favour of increments, although there has been some hostility. My own feeling is that the best compromise would be 110+10 where even if a game goes 150 moves it would be completed in four and a half hours.

It is worth noting that the Yorkshire league is a slightly unusual beast in that teams have to travel a considerable distance on occasion and some matches take place in the winter months where driving conditions may be unpleasant - there are players who will just want to play their game and get away without the risk of the game dragging on beyond the usual 18.30 finish (assuming, as one person pointed out to me, clocks are started promptly at 14.30). This differs slightly for a congress when some people might be commuting but are more likely staying locally with limited plans for the evening.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18517
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Incremental controls - the `unlimited` game.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:21 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:37 am
My own feeling is that the best compromise would be 110+10 where even if a game goes 150 moves it would be completed in four and a half hours.
My experience of playing 80 10 and other increments of under 30 seconds is that they are sufficiently slow that won games can be won. It may discourage those in lost positions playing on in the hope of a win on time. It's also fast enough to discourage attempts to win drawn positions if there's nothing really there.

This is 80 10, but a local league found it easy to have a rule which said that if you had a late start or required an on time/early finish, or both, that up to 15 minutes could be subtracted from each player's time. Unlike x in y time controls, this doesn't introduce any need to define what x-a in y-b should be.

Post Reply