English Chess Forum

The ECF Calendar now has the entry form for the Southend Easter Congress. Nothing exceptional in that except the Congress is under new management after a threat that it might not take place. Here's the form
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... yForm2.pdf

The move rate caught my eye. Whilst round times of 10 am and 3 pm are standard stuff, they are using 90 10 rather than 90 30. I cannot help feeling that's a fast rate for a double round Easter Congress as league experience with 80 10 suggests that games are usually finished just about inside three hours. 90 10 as against 80 10 is only twenty minutes longer.

So asking players who've played both, is there a difference between 80/90 10 and 80/90 30 which makes the 30 second games longer in terms of move count? I'd suspect there is, since with the aid of repetitions, a useful reserve of time can be built up with the thirty second increments. Ten second increments feel like the usual last five minute rush to play as quickly as possible, as well as being the measured but fast "vite to play, black to play" from the Alex Niedzwiedski tape loop.

The Easter WECU Congress is also using ten o'clock and three o'clock start times, but is sticking to a four hour session with 40/100 + 20. Previously it used 36/90 + 30 but wasn't FIDE rated.


The WCU (Welsh) Easter Congress varies with round times at 10.15 am and 4.30 pm. They go for the five hours + rate of 40/90 + 30 with a 30 second increment. This is also a seven rounder but has a morning off for Easter Sunday, meaning a much later finish on the Bank Holiday Monday. You have to be plausibly Welsh to play the Championship, but the other/second section is open and there are relatively attractive prices both for early entry and hotel accommodation. I think the hotel was used for a 4NCL once back in the 1990s. It's OK but "convenient for travel" means that it's on a major road junction.

(edit) If you read the thread, the idea is actually to use 90 30 for the seven round event and 60 30 for the five round. (/edit)

I'm confused. Leaving aside the fact that the proposed Southend time control is ridiculous, surely it is not legal for FIDE rating purposes?

I thought that FIDE required a minimum of 120 minutes for sixty moves for games involving players rated higher than 2200. 90'+10" is only 100 minutes for sixty moves.

Richard Bates wrote:I'm confused. Leaving aside the fact that the proposed time control is ridiculous, surely it is not legal for FIDE rating purposes?

That does rather rule it out, for the FIDE rated section anyway. Perhaps the entry form is just misdrafted, a dodgy copy and paste perhaps.

Hi all
In my bid to retain a congress at Southend as no one wanted to organise it I have made some errors on the form. Apologies to all. It is on the cusp of being completed correctly. Some changes were needed from previous years and i literally had very little time to get the form done from scratch. When it has been finalised, I will let you know immediately. I am happy to send you a correct version if you email me directly ([email protected]).
Thank you for your interest and look forward to seeing entrants.

Does 90 + 10s still require you to record all your moves?

The 90 + 15s used at the Witney Congress is just adequate to do this, 10 seconds would be problematic imo.

yes.

Nick Burrows wrote:Does 90 + 10s still require you to record all your moves?

Once you are first down to five minutes remaining, then no. A way of playing is to treat it like a five minute game, but where you can pause to reflect every so often. With thirty second or longer increments, you continue scoring.

I'm not sure what should happen if say that ending that Keith Arkell had at Hastings arose at ten or fifteen second increments. That was Knight against two Bishops , the winning plan being to capture the Knight within 50 moves, the drawing plan for Keith being to prevent this. If playing on a sensory board, would an arbiter accept the computer evidence?

It is probably one of those small mercies in life that Keith never seems to play Southend; else the tournament in the past would probably have ended on the Wednesday.

Nick Burrows wrote:Does 90 + 10s still require you to record all your moves?

Gavin Strachan wrote:yes.

No, Gavin, you only have to record until you are down to 5 minutes. After that there is no requirement. If you are organizing you need to be aware of this.

The relevant section from the FIDE rulebook states:

FIDE Rules wrote:8.4  If a player has  less than five minutes  left on his clock at some stage  in a period 
and  does  not  have  additional  time  of  30  seconds  or  more  added  with  each 
move,  then  for  the  remainder  of  the  period  he  is  not  obliged  to  meet  the 
requirements of Article 8.1. 

Roger de Coverly wrote:
I'm not sure what should happen if say that ending that Keith Arkell had at Hastings arose at ten or fifteen second increments. That was Knight against two Bishops , the winning plan being to capture the Knight within 50 moves, the drawing plan for Keith being to prevent this. If playing on a sensory board, would an arbiter accept the computer evidence?

In that case Keith should, once the BBvN ending arises, stop the clock and call the arbiter and quote:

FIDE Rules wrote:8.5  a. If  neither  player  keeps  score  under  Article  8.4,  the  arbiter  or  an  assistant 
should  try  to be present and keep  score. 

and then he should request that the arbiter or an assistant write down the moves. After all, he has paid his entry fee for a competition run under FIDE rules.

Just to clarify, the time control for the FIDE Open will be 90 minutes per player plus 30 seconds a move for the game (4 hours). The time control for the weekenders will be 60 minutes plus 30 seconds a move throughout (3 hours). Both players will be expected to record the game throughout, and submit a signed scoresheet at the conclusion of the game. There will be one hour's break between each game.

The entry form has been completed and ready to rumble.

I am well aware of the 5 min rule. You still have to record moves before you reach that and I am happy to watch someone sit on move 1 until they reach the 5 mins if they want to invoke it

I like the word try.

Brian Towers wrote:

Roger de Coverly wrote:
I'm not sure what should happen if say that ending that Keith Arkell had at Hastings arose at ten or fifteen second increments. That was Knight against two Bishops , the winning plan being to capture the Knight within 50 moves, the drawing plan for Keith being to prevent this. If playing on a sensory board, would an arbiter accept the computer evidence?

In that case Keith should, once the BBvN ending arises, stop the clock and call the arbiter and quote:

FIDE Rules wrote:8.5  a. If  neither  player  keeps  score  under  Article  8.4,  the  arbiter  or  an  assistant 
should  try  to be present and keep  score. 

and then he should request that the arbiter or an assistant write down the moves. After all, he has paid his entry fee for a competition run under FIDE rules.

If the Arbiter does this then Law 12.6 comes into play:

FIDE Rules wrote:12.6 ... [The arbiter] shall not indicate the number of moves completed, except in applying Article 8.5 when at least one flag has fallen. ...

The player hoping for a draw will get one if 75 moves are played without the Knight being captured, but he won't be able to ask the arbiter how many moves have been played to work out whether or not he can claim a draw after 50 moves.

I suppose he could claim a draw under Rule 9.3 anyway and then rely on the arbiter's scoresheet to determine whether or not he was right. One would hope, if the claim was wrong, that the arbiter would reject it without disclosing to the player how many moves had been played.

Gavin Strachan wrote: I am well aware of the 5 min rule. You still have to record moves before you reach that and I am happy to watch someone sit on move 1 until they reach the 5 mins if they want to invoke it

According to Adam, the move rates are going to be the conventional 90 30 with 60 30 for the five rounder. So scoring is required throughout in both events.

I have removed "Experimental" from the thread title.

Gavin Strachan wrote:You still have to record moves before you reach that and I am happy to watch someone sit on move 1 until they reach the 5 mins if they want to invoke it.

Since the issue of Southend time controls has been settled I’ll move this thread on to the question of 10s increment time controls.

So you dip below 5 minutes and stop recording the moves ... and then you play a clatter of moves in a row and get above 5 minutes. I’m told you don’t then restart recording (which would be absurd), but you could well be in a position where you have more time than your opponent and yet you are not recording while s/he is (also absurd).

Even if that doesn’t happen, if an arbiter were to come past and tell you to record the moves because you had more than 5 minutes how would you prove that you’d dipped under the cut-off point and didn’t have to any more?

I’ve never understood the appeal of 10s increments other than situations they are required for practical reasons (e.g. a rapidplay tournament or an evening league when 30s increments might risk a game going on for too long). Aside from the (perhaps theoretical rather than practical) problems above, it seems to me 10s increments have the drawback of 30s increments - games can go on forever - without bringing any of the benefits that 30s has