New Time Limit in Correspondence Chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

New Time Limit in Correspondence Chess

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:30 pm

Well, I know most of you won't care, but... I was recently recruited to play in a new event and I found it used "Triple Block Time Control", this wasn't explained but my match captain helpfully forwarded this "explanation". (For info, I started with 50 days, get 3 days extra each move, and have a bank of 75 days. Yes, that's what I thought.)

"The Triple Block Time Control

Triple block is an experimental time control introduced by ICCF in 2017; ICCF plan to run some test tournaments to determine how acceptable this time control is to players and organisers.
The time available to a player over the course of a game is allocated in three blocks:
Block 1: The Clock
This is the usual 'clock' we are used to. It is the amount of time a player has available at any given moment during the game. As usual, it counts down one day for every reflection day used.
This is always set at 50 days per player at the beginning of a game, no matter what the scheduled duration of the event.
This is, by analogy, like 'the money in your pocket to spend'. It is what you have to spend that is immediately available to you.
Block 2: The Increment
The second block is called the 'increment'. This is additional reflection time that becomes available automatically after each move made (like a 'paycheck', after earning the new income, it replaces some of what you already spent, with any remaining going into the bank).
The increment replaces the current 'buffer' time that rounds reflection time up to the nearest full day.
The number of days in the increment is exactly determined by the tournament organiser’s decision concerning the length of the event.
The increment is similar to a Fischer clock except for two things:
The increment only applies for the first 50 moves of the game, not indefinitely
The increment is only added to a player’s clock if the clock has gone below 50 days. A player’s clock cannot be greater than 50 days, ever. Increment time is not lost, however, as any extra goes to the third block, the 'bank' (by analogy: what you do not need to replace in your pocket spending money goes to your savings)
Block 3: The Bank
The bank replaces 'leave time'. There will no longer be any concept called leave time.
Players can 'take leave' any time they wish, but they can never stop their clocks! Players can only replenish their clocks from their banks, until the bank is empty.
Players can even take more than 50 days on a single move, but only by moving time from the bank to the clock within the initial 50 days. If the clock hits zero, the player loses/defaults, no matter what remains in the other two blocks.
Duration of tournaments
Triple block is not intended to speed up play!
Tournament organisers have a great deal of flexibility in setting tournament duration, this can be anthing from 300 days to five years or more.
The advantage of Triple Block is that the total amount of time available to players is determined before the start of the tournament, end dates can be predicted exactly, and adjudications are no longer neccessary except in the case of withdrawals.
Possible future enhancements
One of the concerns raised about Triple Block is the risk of 'sudden death' endings, where a player gets into time trouble after the fiftieth move and no longer recieves any increments; until the test tournaments have been completed, we don't know whether or not these concerns are justified. A possible future enhancement of the system is 'Sudden Death Protection' (SDP), which guarantees a minimum amount of time for each move, however this is not yet implemented and would involve a trade off against the predictability of end dates."

David Robertson

Re: New Time Limit in Correspondence Chess

Post by David Robertson » Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:03 pm

I'm baffled. Where's the problem? You get your 50 days + 75; then you get your 3-day increment per move. Three days must surely be enough time to set your engines on the case, consult your local IM, email a regiment of under-employed and starving Ukrainian GMs, 'reflect' on their advice, and move

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: New Time Limit in Correspondence Chess

Post by Michael Farthing » Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:36 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:03 pm
Three days must surely be enough time to set your engines on the case, consult your local IM, email a regiment of under-employed and starving Ukrainian GMs, 'reflect' on their advice, and move
Bloody amateur!

[I'm not kidding - that's how the correspondence chaps and chapesses would react. 3 days is - well not quite blitz - but definitely rapid]

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: New Time Limit in Correspondence Chess

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:07 pm

You only get the +3 days for the first 50 moves, so I think it is basically 275 days for the whole game. There are no holiday days either. I quite like 5 days a move as I can leave all the games for a week when I get bored!

I would point out that although computers are legal, (because you cannot prevent it), it is considered cheating to ask a human for advice (although you cannot prevent that either).

My feelings on the new system are (a) it is really complicated and (b) nobody bothered to explain it to the players beforehand. "Normal" CC starts counting the time double after 15 days, so if you take 17 days on one move, it counts as 19 days. Also if you don't move for 40 days, you lose, presumably as your opponent will be bored witless by then. (OK, you might be anyway.)

My favourite bit of the rules for this competition

"This tournament allows claims based on the six piece tablebase. The 50-moves-rule is not applied in positions with seven or fewer pieces." So you don't need to know endings in CC any more...

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: New Time Limit in Correspondence Chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:38 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:07 pm
So you don't need to know endings in CC any more...
Don't you need to know the verdict, even if you can look up the technique?



White to move

I had this position recently. I knew it should be a draw, but I still had to recall the technique of proving so.

From time to time I get similar positions with the extra pawn. There's no progress to be made. Perhaps simplifying to the 5 piece ending is the best choice, just to check the defender's technique.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: New Time Limit in Correspondence Chess

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:36 pm

Yes, you have to be careful in 7-piece endings. If you get down to 7 or 8 pieces, you just set up Nalimov to look at the 6 piece possibilities, to make sure you don't exchange into the wrong one, if there is a wrong one. I guess they're being practical, knowing that most players will look up Nalimov to play the ending, so ICCF says, "just claim it". Last time I had a won 6-piece ending, I didn't claim it, as I tried to work out the right move, before checking it of course, but the opponent quickly resigned anyway.

Tim Harding
Posts: 2318
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: New Time Limit in Correspondence Chess

Post by Tim Harding » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:24 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:36 pm
Yes, you have to be careful in 7-piece endings. If you get down to 7 or 8 pieces, you just set up Nalimov to look at the 6 piece possibilities, to make sure you don't exchange into the wrong one, if there is a wrong one. I guess they're being practical, knowing that most players will look up Nalimov to play the ending, so ICCF says, "just claim it". Last time I had a won 6-piece ending, I didn't claim it, as I tried to work out the right move, before checking it of course, but the opponent quickly resigned anyway.
Haven't you guys heard of the Lomonosov (7-man) bases? They mean you have to be careful in NINE (sometimes ten) man endings.

For example R+2 v R+1 is solved, so if you are heading towards R+3 v R+2 for example it is time to check the 7-man endings that may arise.

See also Karsten Mueller's recent blog https://en.chessbase.com/post/endgame-b ... eller-961e based on one of my recent ICCF endings. The real hard work came slightly earlier when I had pawns on g7 and h7 and I had to realise that his last move 47 h2-h4 could and should be met by ...g5.



The game continued 47...g5 48 Ra6 (very tricky in an OTB game!) 48...Nf7 49 hxg5? Kxg5 (Nxg5 loses.) 50 Kg3 h5 (only move) 51 Ra7 reaching the position Mueller showed.

After my opponent took on g5 I did a lot of my own analysis to be sure I understood WHY it was a draw before I continued.

White had to try 48 or 49 h4-h5 to avoid reducing to a tablebase draw, and after this it's not easy to determine whether or not Black has a fortress.

So a lot of high-level endgame play in CC now revolves around foreseeing what 7-man endings may arise and steer towards them or away from them.

In ICCF you cannot claim adjudication until a 6-man (or fewer) endgame arises.
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: New Time Limit in Correspondence Chess

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:36 am

Tim is right. Actually, I had another think about Roger's comments and I won a CC game a couple of years ago, by ignoring the computer in a bishop ending (many pawns) and playing what I thought was best. Luckily I was right.