Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Alex Holowczak]

There has been a Leong attempt to allow two hour games to be rated, but that was kicked into touch by the PB.

Why?

It seems odd to me that the FIDE rating list for "standardplay" chess restricts games played under standardplay rules. There are no similar restrictions for rapidplay and blitz.

Why shouldn't a game where each player has an hour be worthy of FIDE-rating?

If you think players shouldn't be expected to risk their rating an a 1-hour each game, then this will be reflected when no one enters such a tournament.

[NickFaulks]

England was one of the last bastions of the appalling 90/30 time control, justifying it as the "official FIDE time control" long after that ceased to be close to the truth. Does anyone else remember the Liverpool disgrace?

What on earth are you talking about? The first British events to even use 90 30 were the e2e4 events, which only started within the last five or six years. The only Liverpool events were the 2 EU Championships and the China match in the middle year. From memory, they used something like forty moves in eighty minutes with an added twenty, but with one minute increments. So what was the "Liverpool disgrace"? When FIDE and the ACP attempted to reduce the number of allowed move rates for Norms, the one minute increment had to be abandoned. For a weekend tournament, of which there are quite a number in the UK, the session lengths of four hours and a bit which 90 30 creates works reasonably well. The increment prevent arbiters having to do 10.2 claims and the requirement to keep score enables repetitions and 50 move claims to be made.

I've looked this up. The time control in the China match and the attaching Open was G/120 with a 30 second increment. The players hated it, and John Saunders naturally blamed FIDE, writing "It really is time we all collectively got together to scream the word 'dunderheads' in the general direction of FIDE headquarters". I tried to explain to him that FIDE didn't care what time control was used, and it was entirely the organisers' decision, but got nowhere.

David Robertson did get the message, and was furious with the arbiters for telling him this was a FIDE requirement. He wrote "Three ludicrous decisions though:
3) the time limit: it's ruined several games and distorted results. No players want this time limit, only well-lunched controllers.

http://johnchess.blogspot.com/2007/09/c ... rpool.html

[NickFaulks]

There has been a Leong attempt to allow two hour games to be rated, but that was kicked into touch by the PB.

Why?

It seems odd to me that the FIDE rating list for "standardplay" chess restricts games played under standardplay rules. There are no similar restrictions for rapidplay and blitz.

Why shouldn't a game where each player has an hour be worthy of FIDE-rating?

If you think players shouldn't be expected to risk their rating an a 1-hour each game, then this will be reflected when no one enters such a tournament.

The argument would be that players who are good at quickish chess could get FIDE ratings which overstate their strength in "proper" chess. I take that view myself.

[JustinHadi]

I have no idea why the director of home chess is suggesting using one hour time controls for a standard play event. Given serious chess (4NCL etc) is at least two hours each per game (90 30 equates to about that) there is a huge difference between this and one hour chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

The argument would be that players who are good at quickish chess could get FIDE ratings which overstate their strength in "proper" chess. I take that view myself.

In which case, is 1 hour each the right cutoff between Standardplay and Rapidplay?

I have no idea why the director of home chess is suggesting using one hour time controls for a standard play event. Given serious chess (4NCL etc) is at least two hours each per game (90 30 equates to about that) there is a huge difference between this and one hour chess.

Because the Director of Home Chess knows what the Laws of Chess say. 1 hour each is a standardplay game according to the Laws, and it is eligible for ECF-grading accordingly. The Junior 4NCL uses 50 minutes + 10 seconds/move, for example.

The vast majority of chessplayers in this country will play games of approximately 3-3 1/2 hours in length, whereas the British Championship has a 7-hour session. These are probably different again from a 2 hour session. Yet they're all ECF-graded in the same list. Perhaps you don't view this as "serious chess".

There's probably a huge difference between a game which is 15 minutes each compared with a game that is 59 minutes each. Both are eligible for ECF and FIDE Rapidplay grading and rating, however.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have no idea why the director of home chess is suggesting using one hour time controls for a standard play event.

ECF grading goes down to 61 minutes (or is it 60?) for the whole game. International rating for events without a rating restriction requires a minimum standard of 120 minutes for the whole game, which leaves a gap between rapid-play and standard play. 90 minutes each or its incremental equivalent is allowed for under-2200 tournaments.

Some "expert" seemed to think that faster time limits would be a pre-requisite for televised chess. The idea of edited highlights didn't seem to occur to them.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt37.pdf

[Alex Holowczak]

I have no idea why the director of home chess is suggesting using one hour time controls for a standard play event.

ECF grading goes down to 61 minutes (or is it 60?) for the whole game. International rating for events without a rating restriction requires a minimum standard of 120 minutes for the whole game, which leaves a gap between rapid-play and standard play. 90 minutes each or its incremental equivalent is allowed for under-2200 tournaments.

I do wish you'd read others' posts before replying yourself. You'd find that the things you say have already been said, sometimes even answering the questions you pose.

I'll quote myself anyway:

1 hour each is a standardplay game according to the Laws, and it is eligible for ECF-grading accordingly. The Junior 4NCL uses 50 minutes + 10 seconds/move, for example.

[Roger de Coverly]

I've looked this up. The time control in the China match and the attaching Open was G/120 with a 30 second increment. The players hated it, and John Saunders naturally blamed FIDE, writing "It really is time we all collectively got together to scream the word 'dunderheads' in the general direction of FIDE headquarters". I tried to explain to him that FIDE didn't care what time control was used, and it was entirely the organisers' decision, but got nowhere.

120 30 and the current day standard of 40/90 + 30 30 are near equivalent with the only difference that the version without the intermediate control allows the middle game to be played at a slower pace if you want to risk it. I could well imagine that players at that time were inexperienced with that move rate, as British organisers were very slow to adopt four or five hour sessions with increments, or increments in general. It's only this year that the 4NCL have adopted increments, using a six hour session to be different.

It's somewhat pointless to have a four hour session when you've got the whole day, which is presumably why the FIDE standard eventually became a five hour session. You can just about schedule two six hour sessions into a day, but it requires an early start and potential late finish.

So if you want to combine
(a) not having arbiter intervention under 10.2 or its successor
(b) a move rate slow enough to allow continued scoring and thus enabling 50 move and repetition claims
(c) a move rate fast enough to not overrun sessions excessively
I'd suspect that having 30 second increments is needed, if not necessarily from the first move.

As to what the rest of the move rate should be, that's down to what you want the total length of a game to be, presumably anything from two hours to over seven. If some events are elite, either for rating or titles, restricting the eligibility of shorter sessions is necessary unless there's a desire to allow title qualification from near rapid-play.

I wouldn't regard England as a last bastion of 90 30, rather one of the last to adopt it. I don't think we did our juniors any favours for International competitions by having all their domestic training and squad events at move rates like 30/75 + 15.

[JustinHadi]

The vast majority of chessplayers in this country will play games of approximately 3-3 1/2 hours in length, whereas the British Championship has a 7-hour session. These are probably different again from a 2 hour session. Yet they're all ECF-graded in the same list. Perhaps you don't view this as "serious chess".

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's not good statistically that this occurs but the ECF take into account that people are pressed for time in evening leagues and so have shorter playing sessions. People usually take time off work for internationally rated chess and so there's usually a longer session bringing it closer to the rates held in professional tournaments, or at least tournaments where professional players play. This is in my view serious chess and is reflected with an international rating.

For the record I was talking about FIDE standardplay rather than ECF standardplay. I can't believe 1 hour each FIDE rated standardplay events would be credible. EDIT : for the reasons given by Nick.

There's probably a huge difference between a game which is 15 minutes each compared with a game that is 59 minutes each. Both are eligible for ECF and FIDE Rapidplay grading and rating, however.

It's widely thought that rapidplay is less serious than standardplay, so this doesn't matter that much in my opinion.

[JustinHadi]

The argument would be that players who are good at quickish chess could get FIDE ratings which overstate their strength in "proper" chess. I take that view myself.

In which case, is 1 hour each the right cutoff between Standardplay and Rapidplay?

There doesn't need to be a cutoff point with rapidplay one side and standard play the other side. To take a funny example in the olympics, long distance running is 5000 metres+ middle distance 800 metres and 1500 metres, sprints are 100 meters 200 metres 400 meters. In chess you could have anything from 15 minutes to an hour rapidplay, 90 30 and longer standardplay. Maybe that's what already happens, I don't know.

[Roger de Coverly]

There doesn't need to be a cutoff point with rapidplay one side and standard play the other side.

As far as the ECF are concerned, all serious chess can be graded. From 15 minutes to 59, it goes in the rapid-play list and above that in the standard play list. FIDE and thus by extension the ECF also have Laws of Chess with subtle differences depending on whether an event was rapid or standard. So you need a line and sixty minutes was chosen. For reasons best known to themselves, the USCF are prepared to rate down to thirty minutes as standard play, but also duplicate the processing of the result by including it in a rapid-play list as well.

[Alex Holowczak]

The vast majority of chessplayers in this country will play games of approximately 3-3 1/2 hours in length, whereas the British Championship has a 7-hour session. These are probably different again from a 2 hour session. Yet they're all ECF-graded in the same list. Perhaps you don't view this as "serious chess".

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's not good statistically that this occurs but the ECF take into account that people are pressed for time in evening leagues and so have shorter playing sessions. People usually take time off work for internationally rated chess and so there's usually a longer session bringing it closer to the rates held in professional tournaments, or at least tournaments where professional players play. This is in my view serious chess and is reflected with an international rating.

For the record I was talking about FIDE standardplay rather than ECF standardplay. I can't believe 1 hour each FIDE rated standardplay events would be credible. EDIT : for the reasons given by Nick.

I'm saying that whether a game lasts two hours, three hours, seven hours, or even longer (perpetual adjournments?), or even adjudication; the games go into the ECF grading list without prejudice. FIDE could do the same.

FIDE could be clever with their k-factors to get around the credibility problem. For a projected 6-hour session or longer, k = 20. For a 4-hour session, k = 15. For a 2-hour session, k = 10. That would reduce the impact of quicker players only playing 2-hour stuff. I've no idea if these k values are statistically sensible, but you will get the concept.

[JustinHadi]

Maybe it's only me who takes longplay more seriously than rapidplay then.

"FIDE could be clever with their k-factors to get around the credibility problem. For a projected 6-hour session or longer, k = 20. For a 4-hour session, k = 15. For a 2-hour session, k = 10. That would reduce the impact of quicker players only playing 2-hour stuff. I've no idea if these k values are statistically sensible, but you will get the concept."

I get the concept, but I don't agree with it. It suggests that there is a linear relationship between time and seriousness of chess. For me anything around 2 hours each (including 90 30) and above is serious longplay and anything below and club matches where there is noise/disturbance is not serious. That is why my FIDE rating is considerably higher than the ECF converted equivalent! Time to enter some rating restricted tournaments.

[Alex Holowczak]

Maybe it's only me who takes longplay more seriously than rapidplay then.

"FIDE could be clever with their k-factors to get around the credibility problem. For a projected 6-hour session or longer, k = 20. For a 4-hour session, k = 15. For a 2-hour session, k = 10. That would reduce the impact of quicker players only playing 2-hour stuff. I've no idea if these k values are statistically sensible, but you will get the concept."

I get the concept, but I don't agree with it. It suggests that there is a linear relationship between time and seriousness of chess. For me anything around 2 hours each (including 90 30) and above is serious longplay and anything below and club matches where there is noise/disturbance is not serious. That is why my FIDE rating is considerably higher than the ECF converted equivalent! Time to enter some rating restricted tournaments.

Except, when you look at your results, that isn't the reason at all.

You played 19 graded games in 2012/13, of which 18 were in FIDE-rated tournaments. The one non-rated game was indeed a loss: Against IM Colin Crouch in the London League.

I note, without comment, that four of these games were played in one of Adam's FIDE-rated U2200 Hampstead tournaments, notable in that they have a three-hour playing session.

You were fortunate that none of your games were against rated opposition, thus preserving your rating, while having an impact on your grade.

[JustinHadi]

Hampstead was a fun event but didn't seem very serious and quite noisy. But you're right - it was three hours. As for non-graded opponents, I'm not sure because as I said it seemed to be a fun tournament, more serious chess - better results. I mentioned this to Adam during the event. Rapidplay at Golder's Green I did much better - generally it's quiet. No excuses though!

EDIT: Also the ECF grade is based on 30 games rather than 19 right? Some of which will be club matches.