Incremental Time Controls

[Martin Benjamin]

Does anyone have experience of setting or playing in evening games using incremental time controls?

Play in the London Civil Service Chess League consists of three hour session based on either 36 moves in 90 minutes followed by adjudication or (if both players agree) 30 moves in 75 minutes followed by a 15 minute guillotine quickplay finish. I find both unsatisfactory (the latter being the lesser of the two evils) and I am proposing a third option of 70 minutes per player plus a 30 second per move per player increment from move 1. If my maths is correct, this guarantees at least 40 moves in a 3 hour session - in practice, one player is likely to have few minutes in hand, and so 45 moves or more are likely to be fitted in, which should go a long way towards eradicating the scourge of adjudications without having to resort to quickplay finishes. The latter sometimes cause disputes (e.g. claims about "winning by normal means" or people just shuffling bits in order to win on time), lead to games being won in a hopeless position or culminate in the result being determined by whoever can physically move the pieces and press the clock more quickly.

Personally, I would be happy with something like 60 minutes plus 30 second increment to guarantee a 60 moves, but I was looking to strike a balance between a "proper" game and quickplay. Any views on what best constitutes such a balance?

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'd set the time control so that you can get 60 moves in a session without a problem.

[Matthew Turner]

Martin,
I would be very wary about introducing the use of increments into local leagues. some questions that you might want to consider

1. Do teams have enough DGT's?
2. Do they have spares if one malfunctions, or runs out of batteries mid game?
3. What happens in the event of a illegal move?
4. What happens when someone fails to press their clock before the other person moves?

This is just off the top of my head, I am sure there are other questions.

[Roger de Coverly]

Does anyone have experience of setting or playing in evening games using incremental time controls?

You could consult the rules of the Surrey Border league at http://www.borderleague.org.uk/local/pd ... tution.pdf. I believe they've being using incremental rates in some matches for a few seasons now.

As well as Matthew's comments, you should note that incremental move rates can encourage players to continue playing where in a sudden death finish a draw might be agreed through mutual lack of time. So whilst you can fit 60 moves inside 90 minutes with 60 30, you can get games that go (well) past this. This means that you need your venues (and players) to be able to accommodate a 105 to 120 minute session.

With a 30 second increment, it is required to continue scoring so the 50 move rule or 3 fold repetition will eventually terminate the game. With 5 or 10 second increments, scoring isn't needed so in theory there is no way to terminate a (drawn) game. I believe the Border league reinstate 10.2 ( unable to win by normal means) if the game goes past move 120.

If you have the digital clocks and critically people who know how to set them, you could consider a hybrid solution - that you play a traditional x in 75 minutes plus 15 minutes with the proviso that at 5 or 2 minutes remaining you substitute
(by compulsion or option) a digital clock with a 5 or 10 second increment (or delay). This rules out the 10.2 "adjudication" to ensure the game is determined by the skill (or lack thereof) of the players.

[Jonathan Bryant]

This is just off the top of my head, I am sure there are other questions.

Well there's also the question of what happens if you get to a rook ending or a queen ending or something similar and the game goes on and on.

A few months ago I was talking to a Surrey League player who's club uses incremental time controls in their internal competitions and he told me that it was not unknown for a game to go on until midnight or nearly that. I got the impression that it was rare but nevertheless if that sort of thing can happen even once you have to ask the questions ... can the venue stay open indefinitely and does the person who has to lock up mind staying?


As a curiousity many years ago I played in a one day blitz tournament that used incremental time controls. I don't remember the control exactly but it was something like 5 minutes plus 3 seconds from move 1. It had a big first prize so there were many strong players in the event - Mickey Adams won it and if memory serves he was rated fourth in the world at the time.

Anyhoo, midway through the event the organiser asked for a show of hands as to feelings around using the Fischer style controls. Most of us in the plebs section preferred it to the traditional clocks. A surprise to me was most of those in the elite group seemed to prefer a normal old clock.

I wonder if it would be different now that incremental time controls are much more common.

[Matthew Turner]

Jonathan,
Just think about it, Mickey was number 4 in the World, so the question is, Would you like to continue playing with things that you are the fourth best on the planet with, or try something different? eh, a no-brainer I would suggest.
I am concerned about the spread of increment (I appreciate that I am not speaking from an unbiased position). It seems to me that increment is used to help arbiters, with the aim of reducing contraversial decisions and distributing critical moments more evenly across the playing schedule. This is a noble aim and it may even be successful! However, if you go to chess tournaments, people gather to watch time scrambles - Are we sacrificing excitement in order to make arbiters' lives' easier? In my opinion, this is not the way to go.

[Roger de Coverly]

Play in the London Civil Service Chess League consists of three hour session based on either 36 moves in 90 minutes

You could just propose that the adjudication cut off be moved to 60 moves. This might flush out those in the pro-adjudication lobby whose real problem is not so much quick play finishes but that they cannot or will not play endings without the assistance of an adjudicator.

[Sean Hewitt]

The problem with 30 second increments for an evening league is what do you do at closing time? I am assuming that not all venues allow indefinite play, nor that all players would want that. You'll find that more games go on later with this kind of time control, and you have to have some way of dealing with the game at some fixed time. If you are going to adjudicate at that juncture then you have completely defeated the object! If not adjudication, then what?

We are experimenting with a new time control for our County Championships this summer - 30 moves in 60 minutes, then 20 minutes to finish, plus 10 second increments (replacing 35/70+20). This eliminates the 10.2 situation, and we think will encourage more players to play on when previously there would be a mutual time scramble draw agreed. Most importantly, even a 120 move game would only go on for 3 hours 20 mins, which our venues can accomodate.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Jonathan,
Just think about it, Mickey was number 4 in the World, so the question is, Would you like to continue playing with things that you are the fourth best on the planet with, or try something different? eh, a no-brainer I would suggest.

Well yes I'm sure you're right.

The reason why I found it surprising - and still do to a lesser extent - is than incremental time controls are usually presented as rewarding ability rather than luck. No more loses on time in winning positions. No more failing to win a position that is easily won but takes many moves to actually force mate etc etc.

I'm sure the reason why the elite group favoured the traditional clocks was simply that they had much more experience using them than the rest of us. Hence my query as to whether things would be different now they're much more common.

[Jonathan Bryant]

The problem with 30 second increments for an evening league is what do you do at closing time?

Indeed. This is the reason, I think, why incremental time controls will never be universally used in club chess. For the most part you simply need to know the boundaries within which the game's can be expected to finish.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... if you go to chess tournaments, people gather to watch time scrambles - Are we sacrificing excitement in order to make arbiters' lives' easier? In my opinion, this is not the way to go.

Justin Horton is, I think, away from his computer for a few days so I'll make a point on his behalf.


Justin has much more experience using incremental time controls than I do. He suggests, I think, that rather than eliminating time scrambles fischer clocks can keep you permanently in them once you run out of your 'base time.

[Matthew Turner]

Jonathan,
Yes I can understand the point, but I don't really think I believe it. I think a more important consideration is that increment tends to lead to less chaos eg pieces being knocked over etc. This is important if games are being electronically transmitted over the Internet.

[Richard Bates]

I think one reason why many of the "elite" players don't like increments is that they have given organisers carte blanche to introduce a huge range of different time controls (and also, under cover, significantly speed up the games as well). This is something which i think is being changed in July - FIDE are prescribing a small number of time controls which can be used.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I think one reason why many of the "elite" players don't like increments is that they have given organisers carte blanche to introduce a huge range of different time controls (and also, under cover, significantly speed up the games as well). This is something which i think is being changed in July - FIDE are prescribing a small number of time controls which can be used.

Richard, Do you think then it;s still the case that most stronger players (say IM or perhaps FM up) prefer traditional time controls to increments?




One thing about digital clocks - which I suppose is not actually directly related to increments - is seeing my time slip away by the second. Somehow I can handle my flag hanging knowing it could drop any moment. Not sure why but I can just ignore that situation and play. When I've got a few minutes left on digital clocks there's something about seeing my time actually get closer and closer to zero that stops me concentrating on the board!

I'd hate to have that happen time and time again when I was down to 30 seconds a move. Once a game is more than enough thankyou.

Perhaps I'd get used to it if it happened a lot more than it currently does but it's not the sort of thing I'd really like to get used to.

[Martin Benjamin]

Thanks to everyone for their comments. Please forgive me for not addressing all the comments made (which would be de trop), but here are a few thoughts.

I believe incremental is the right way to go for the future, as it avoids the disputes surrounding quickplay finishes and may attract people back to the game. I played in a 4NCL team event last summer (appearing by kind permission of wife and children) organised by Neville Belinfante and David Welch, and most players I talked to found the time control (20 minutes plus 10 second increment) much more satisfactory than a 30 minute rapidplay. (Lawrence Cooper reported on the event on the 4NCL website). It was also a factor in luring both William Watson and Richard Holmes to come out of chess retirement, thereby giving me the childish satisfaction of being able to see Holmes and Watson heading the teamsheet for the Metropolitan Police.........Any chance of the event being held again? It would certainly get my support and anything which gets William back to the board has to be worthwhile.

The London Civil Service League has consistently resisted attempts to move to anything faster than 36 moves in 90 minutes (even 42 in 90 minutes) or to introduce a quickplay finish. My proposal is an attempt to give people another option, so as to entice them towards the idea that games need not necessarily be decided by adjudication on move 36, without having to go to the opposite extreme of a quickplay finish. A first step in the right direction.

Although the evil of adjudication will still be present, I don't think (pace Sean), that the idea completely defeats the object. We would still have a three hour session with adjudication (far from satisfactory), but we would get at least 40 moves in, and probably nearer 50. Approximately 25% games are being adjudicated (either officially or de facto) at the moment after 36 moves. 40-50 moves would bring this down considerably, and as I said, this is the first step.