A Third Rating....

[Joey Stewart]

It occoured to me that there is a GOOD way for players to get access to a rating which was unblemished by quickplay finishes in leagues - why not have a third rating for everybody, based on the games played in long time controls (I.E. 5+ hour weekend games or adjourned games).

As we all know, the vast majority of players play better with more time to think about their moves and yet many of their ratings are afected by some of the unfortunate nights when they might be ill or especially tired from work and have to play a league game against a well booked up and fresh faced opponent - not a fair contest whatsoever! - this would give them the opportunity to avoid such games from dragging their rating into the mud, and mean they now have the opportunity to have a rating which reflects how well they perform at the peak of their abilities rather then as a collection of all the good bad and ugly games of the year rolled into one.

Secondly, it would mean that the rest of us who are able to play out a quicker game are not getting their 'medium play' ratig tarnished by someones exhaustive analysis in an adjourned game, as the two time controls would confer different ratings. It also means that, should the resumption be especially inconvenient, it would be possible to resign without knowing it is going to put a dent in the rating that you care about - the pure rating, which reflects only your personal skill over the board.

Lastly, it would put a stop to the complaining of adjournments here and give us room for some new topics!

[David Pardoe]

Interesting points Joey.
I suspect it balances itself out, to some extent. ie, all the players will be `fresher` at w/e events, at least potentially, so in theory all the players will be at there peak, and playing `stronger` at the w/e events. But you have to also consider the other hastle factors, ie, travel to events, other w/e distractions/domestic issues, etc, that might effect performance.
However, I have noticed with w/e chess, you can get that Saturday morning `blues` feeling, when sitting down to play, particularly if you have a tough Friday evening match. I do wonder whether that Friday night half point `bye`is a good tactical option for many players, as well as saving on travel/accomodation costs.
However, your point about players being perhaps more jadded during league matches due to fategue, etc, is probably true, and may lead to players losing concentration.
For this reason, I suggest that players should consider taking a few minutes break in the latter stages, and get up for a stretch, and some fresh air..clear the head, etc.
Also, I think the current QPF style is not particularly good for quality chess. I`d prefer to see a hybrid finish, ie, say 35 moves in 75 mins, followed by say, 20 moves in 20 mins, then either an adjourrnent, or maybe adjudication, if players have problems with a continuation...and maybe opting for neutral venues if travel distances between clubs is prohibitive. This would ensure a first playing session of at least 55 moves, which should ensure that 95% of games finish in the first session anyway.
It might also ease the current problem whereby many players with a time advantage just play on (tactically) regardless of position, hoping to run there opponent off the clock in the QPF stage, or force an error due to time shortage.

[Roger de Coverly]

Also, I think the current QPF style is not particularly good for quality chess. I`d prefer to see a hybrid finish, ie, say 35 moves in 75 mins, followed by say, 20 moves in 20 mins, then either an adjourrnent, or maybe adjudication, if players have problems with a continuation...and maybe opting for neutral venues if travel distances between clubs is prohibitive. This would ensure a first playing session of at least 55 moves, which should ensure that 95% of games finish in the first session anyway.

Personally I think the logic of move rates in league chess should be determined as follows:-

(1) How long have we got to play a game? - 3 hours
(2) Divide it in two and set the clocks to 90 minutes each

If you have a bit of flexibility on end of session, then set the clocks to 80 or 85 minutes each with a 5 or 10 second increment.

Many players like an x in y time control so as to give themselves a pace of play. If so then introduce an intermediate time control 15, 20 or 30 minutes before the end of the 90.

[Alex Holowczak]

Go uses a system of Canadian overtime.

Basically, you get x minutes for the game, then when they have expired, you must make y moves in z minute blocks until the game is completed. This is impossible to do (on a practical level) with analogue clocks.

For example, a three-hour session might be 60 minutes for the game + 10 moves in 5 minutes. A 60-move game therefore has a theoretical maximum time of three hours. In reality, you probably didn't do nothing for the first 60 minutes, and actually played 25-30 moves. The game would therefore take between two and three hours, depending on how much overtime was used.

I would be interested to see that used in chess (to see if it works), but given it would need digital clocks, I doubt it's going to happen any time soon.

[IanDavis]

Alex, I have seen Go players use digital clocks for Canadian overtime, look around, you'd be surprised just what settings are available.

Canadian is normally done in practice with analogue clocks (see below). You could do it in chess too with analogue. All you would need is a trustworthy scoresheet - but I really can't see it catching on though! The aged clocks can have somewhat unpredictable flags.

What actually happens is the flag falls, the clocks are stopped. Player counts out stone allowance while opponent adjusts clock. Play restarts.
(I had somebody abuse this procedure in my game, by pointedly looking at his position while slowly counting out 30 stones one by one. Cheeky. :p)

To return to the topic, don't correspondence ratings already exist?