English Chess Forum

Most of the chess I play is league chess on weekday evenings. For obvious practical reasons, the playing session tends to be limited to about three hours. This makes it harder to play quality chess. Finishing the game on the night often means a time scramble at the end, whether you play all the moves in one time period (e.g. G/90) or you introduce a time control (e.g. 30/75 + SD/15). Going for a slower rate of play and avoiding a time scramble (e.g. 36/90) means adjourning unfinished games to a second session or sending them off for adjudication, both of which are unsatisfactory.

The issue I want to raise is whether digital clocks with incremental time controls have anything to offer in this situation. Adding up to 30 seconds a move would make it much harder to lose on time. On the other hand, an increment that was too generous would risk taking the session too far beyond the standard three hours.

I would be interested to hear from anyone with experience of using incremental time controls in league chess. What particular time control do you use? What effect does it have on the later stages of your games, and on the length of the playing session? Is there an ideal solution which strikes the right balance between providing extra time and keeping the length of the session within reasonable limits?

Incremental time controls are the future. They also solve problems around rule 10.2. It won't happen with analogue clocks, but I'd hope that once the analogue clocks slowly start to break, clubs replace their supply with digital clocks, which are now cheaper than their analogue equivalents anyway. That said, I do prefer analogue clocks. But then, I prefer analogue music...

I playin 3 different leagues and each league has a different time control my fav is the cleveland league which is 36 moves in 90 mins then back 15 mins i think that is enough time for a quality game.

Next is the local Darlington league that is 36 in 75 mins +15 mins this is ok as the quality of the league is not so high and its not ECF graded

Now to my bug bear league the Durham league it used to be 30 mves in 75 mins +15 which i was happy with then for some reason i still do not understand it became 28moves in 70 mins +20 now i know it does not sound much different but its taken me half a season to get used to the change.

Increments will not come into league chess till all clubs have Digital clocks then will come another argument if leagues tried to impose digital clocks and increments on clubs.IE will all clubs have to buy the same type of clock,Will older members get used to increments, ect ect

William Metcalfe wrote:Increments will not come into league chess till all clubs have Digital clocks then will come another argument if leagues tried to impose digital clocks and increments on clubs.IE will all clubs have to buy the same type of clock

I would have thought that you only needed to make sure all clocks supported the time control mode specified in the League rules. Be aware though that presumably by some bizarre marketing logic, the cheapest digital clocks have one of the main advantages of digital clocks ( increment and delay time controls) removed and you have to pay extra to get a "plus" version which supports increments.

Acceptance of digital clocks will be delayed though because many players hate the feature that when using a move rate of x moves in y minutes plus z minutes, the clocks are usually programmed to not show the correct time remaining after x moves have been made but before y minutes have expired. Leagues may have to switch to all moves in (y+z) minutes but this leads to its own problems such as players running out of time at low move numbers in complex positions and the resulting 10.2 issues.

Roger's point is well made. Displays on digital clocks are often difficult to interpret and hard to read for those of us well stricken in years. I found myself attracted to the 'new' about 15-20 years and bought a DGT clock. I got on OK with it but hadn't reckoned with worsening eyesight in my 40s and 50s making it significantly harder to read the display. You know where you are with an analogue clock - one glance and you get an instant feel for the chunk of time you've got left and can turn your attention back to the board. With a digital clock, particularly when it is an incremental time control, you have to do some mental arithmetic (however trivial) and it becomes a distraction. Digital clocks may make life easier for arbiters (at least the ones who know how to set them!) but I'm not wholly convinced the same is true for (all) players. Since Michael Franklin gets a special dispensation to use descriptive notation, maybe players with imperfect vision should get a dispensation to use an analogue clock

By the same token, I bought a digital watch when they first came out but soon discovered that I preferred analogue (which is more intuitive) and switched back. I don't think I'm alone - I suspect there has been a trend back from digital to analogue when it comes to wrist watches (Incidentally, a few years ago I also got fed up with replacing watch batteries so resumed wearing a wrist watch I was bought for a birthday in the late 1960s and I've worn that ever since. So perhaps the fact that I'm a bit of a skinflint enters into the equation...)

I dare say that the cheapening of technology will eventually mean that electronic chess clocks will include a analogue display. The "clock" on my mobile phone is "analogue".

On the other hand, with Weimar-style inflation and China putting quota's on rare metals, an electronic chess clock might soon be out of the reach of mortal chess players. I don't advise throwing away the old stock just yet !

Weimar-style inflation

what ???? you cannot be serious!!!!

Right-wing internet hyperbole - duly ignore

Matt Mackenzie wrote:Right-wing internet hyperbole - duly ignore

Someone doesn't realise the punchbole is going to get taken away from the party pretty soon

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Right-wing internet hyperbole - duly ignore


Someone doesn't realise the punchbole is going to get taken away from the party pretty soon

Matt Mackenzie wrote:Right-wing internet hyperbole - duly ignore

Someone doesn't realise the punchbole is going to get taken away from the party pretty soon

Ah! This must be some sort of warning about an electoral victory for the Conservatives.

James Toon wrote:The issue I want to raise is whether digital clocks with incremental time controls have anything to offer in this situation.

Yes. Division 1 of the Border League has had them as optional time controls for 6 years, and as the default time control for 3 years.

James Toon wrote:Adding up to 30 seconds a move would make it much harder to lose on time. On the other hand, an increment that was too generous would risk taking the session too far beyond the standard three hours.

A small risk worth taking in my opinion. If you choose an adjournment time control, you have to allow plenty of time for sealed moves to be made, so the notional 3 hours playing session can be much longer than that already, unless you have an extra rule limiting how long you've got to seal a move.

James Toon wrote:I would be interested to hear from anyone with experience of using incremental time controls in league chess. What particular time control do you use? What effect does it have on the later stages of your games, and on the length of the playing session? Is there an ideal solution which strikes the right balance between providing extra time and keeping the length of the session within reasonable limits?

The default time control in the Border League is 85 minutes + 5 seconds. Players can agree 60 minutes + 30 seconds instead. Both result in a minimum of 60 moves in 3 hours. I've yet to see a game go much longer than 3 hours at either of these time controls. Most players in the Border League seem to be unaware that they can agree the second time limit. All but one of my opponents in the last 2 years have preferred it when I've suggested it to them.

Ian Thompson wrote: Players can agree 60 minutes + 30 seconds instead. Both result in a minimum of 60 moves in 3 hours. I've yet to see a game go much longer than 3 hours at either of these time controls.

One of your club members with experience of this reckoned that a clock showing 60 minutes or less remaining concentrated the mind and that games were usually over and being discussed in the bar by about 10pm !

James Toon wrote:I would be interested to hear from anyone with experience of using incremental time controls in league chess. What particular time control do you use? What effect does it have on the later stages of your games, and on the length of the playing session? Is there an ideal solution which strikes the right balance between providing extra time and keeping the length of the session within reasonable limits?

I've been using Fischer Timings - 75 minutes for the entire game + 30 seconds per move.

I have a story from my own experiences to pass on which may interest you.

I've found that the Fischer increments really allow an inexperienced player such as myself to burn up all of his allotted time very early in the game. In the past, reaching the time control and being presented with another chunk of time would avoid this.

I played 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 sicilian as white, reached a pretty strong attack and sensing that I was close to a breakthrough spent alot of time searching for the right (f or g) pawn breaks or sacrifice.

My opponent chose to sacrifice the exchange and removed alot of the complexity, leaving us with a 8-pawn middle/endgame in which he had 40 minutes on the clock to search for piece sacrifices and a breakthrough under his own ideal circumstances, whilst I was left playing blitz chess (30 second increments) for the remaining 60 minutes of the game.

Eventually I won but I learned a big lesson for sure.


I think I do prefer the 30 second increment per move but it's just worth pointing out that the single time + single increment (without any time control) allows a player to "borrow time from the bank" that he would not usually be able to do because it would be held "in custody" until the time control - so to speak.

Roger de Coverly wrote:One of your club members with experience of this reckoned that a clock showing 60 minutes or less remaining concentrated the mind and that games were usually over and being discussed in the bar by about 10pm !

That's pretty accurate. A 30 move game would be over by 10pm, and an average, 40 move, game by 10:10pm.

I find my mind gets concentrated when the display changes from hours and minutes to minutes and seconds, which is not too bad with a DGT clock, but bad news with a Saitek clock.

Ian Thompson wrote:The default time control in the Border League is 85 minutes + 5 seconds. Players can agree 60 minutes + 30 seconds instead. Both result in a minimum of 60 moves in 3 hours. I've yet to see a game go much longer than 3 hours at either of these time controls.

So the "cost" of introducing time increments is a rather sharp speeding up of the game? Compared to the 36 moves you would currently expect to play in a three hour session of London League chess for example.

I'm rather taken with the idea of increments but I'm not sure I'd like to play a game that much more quickly than the 36 in 90 time controls.



Having said that I much prefer the sound of 60 + 30 than the 30 in 75 that was standard in Thames Valley League last few years. I stopped playing in that league because 30 moves is far too few before a game goes to adjudication.



Another issue is that some venues have to be out by a certain time. Guildford used to be very tight on starting the clocks bang on time because they had to leave the playing hall by a given time (may still do for all I know - haven't been there for a few years). This would obviously be a problem if playing sessions were not of a fixed length.