FIDE General Assembly adopts resolution on shorter time controls: What it means

[John Upham]

FIDE General Assembly adopts resolution on shorter time controls: What it means

The FIDE General Assembly has formally supported a resolution based on a proposal by the Icelandic Chess Federation concerning shorter time controls in classical chess. However, the adoption of the resolution does not mean that the regulations change immediately. Under the FIDE Charter, the General Assembly is empowered to approve general guidelines for FIDE activities, while amendments to specific rules and regulations fall within the competence of the FIDE Council.

The Council will therefore prepare and submit a framework for discussion and approval that implements shorter time controls while allowing for further analysis of their impact. Under the proposed approach, the use of 60 minutes plus 30 seconds per move (60+30) would no longer require special approval. In certain cases, 45+30 would also be permitted.

At the same time, two important limitations would remain in place: no more than two games per day for tournaments counting towards titles and norms, and no more than one norm obtained in a tournament played with a shortened classical time control.

Two different sets of requirements

Chess regulations distinguish between two sets of requirements that are often confused.

For titles and norms, no more than two games per day are permitted. The reason is straightforward: playing more than two classical games in one day inevitably affects the quality of play, while classical chess, by definition, requires sufficient time for deep thought and considered decisions.

For rating purposes only, the restriction is different: no more than 12 hours of play per day. Within this limit, more than two games may be played.

This distinction is important. Titles and norms represent some of the most valuable sporting achievements in chess, which is why they are subject to stricter requirements than games submitted for rating alone. In other words, the two-round-per-day limit applies to titles and norms, not to rating as such.

Background

Traditionally, the minimum time control for high-level classical tournaments has been 90 minutes for the game plus 30 seconds per move (90+30).

In 2026, FIDE introduced a one-year pilot project allowing tournaments, subject to approval by the Qualification Commission, to use 60+30 and, in certain exceptional cases 45+30 while still having the games rated as classical.

The pilot responded to practical considerations, including the need to reduce organisational costs and make classical tournaments easier to organise for both players and event organisers.

At the same time, an important restriction was introduced: a player may count a maximum of one title norm obtained in a tournament with a shortened classical time control. The remaining norms must be achieved under the regular 90+30 control.

The Icelandic Chess Federation proposal and the General Assembly decision

The Icelandic Chess Federation proposed two major changes:

making 45+30 a standard classical time control that would not require special approval;
allowing three games per day.
The Qualification Commission opposed the proposal and recommended that it should not be supported. The FIDE Council instead proposed a compromise: 60+30 would become a guaranteed time control, while 45+30 would remain an exception.

Nevertheless, the General Assembly formally supported the Icelandic proposal, with 33 votes in favour, and the resolution is therefore considered adopted.

There is, however, an important procedural distinction. The General Assembly sets the general direction, while specific regulatory changes are developed and approved through the FIDE Council.

It is also clear that fundamental permanent changes of this kind require broad consensus. FIDE represents more than 200 national federations, and any long-term reform of classical chess regulations should therefore be considered through wide consultation across the chess community.

What the FIDE Council plans to propose

The Council’s approach is based on a simple principle: the requirements should reflect the level of the tournament and the quality of play that can reasonably be expected.

60+30 as a general rule
The Council proposes making 60+30 a guaranteed classical time control, requiring no approval from the Qualification Commission or any other body. Any organiser would be able to use it without requesting special permission.

45+30 for FIDE Circuit tournaments
The Council proposes automatically permitting 45+30 for tournaments included in the FIDE Circuit and meeting its requirements. These are established, high-level competitions featuring professional players, and the Council considers that a shorter control in such events would not undermine the integrity of classical chess. Organisers would nevertheless be encouraged to take into account the views of players and the specific circumstances of each event.

45+30 for tournaments without players rated 2400 or above
The Council also proposes automatically allowing 45+30 in tournaments where no participant has a rating of 2400 or higher. Such events may already use 60+30 under the current framework, so this would represent a moderate adjustment rather than a fundamental change.

No special approval required
In the cases above, the shorter time control would apply automatically, without a separate decision by the Qualification Commission.

Two games per day for titles remain
For tournaments counting towards norms and titles, the two-round-per-day limit would remain in place. FIDE considers that it is difficult to maintain the necessary quality of classical chess if players are required to play more than two serious games in one day.

Direct Titles under review

The FIDE Council has also asked the Qualification Commission to review the requirements for tournaments awarding Direct Titles.

The concern is that norms may become easier to obtain under shorter time controls. A norm achieved at 45+30 is not necessarily equivalent, in sporting terms, to one achieved at 90+30.

The Commission will therefore consider whether requirements such as minimum ratings, the number of participants, and the treatment of norms obtained under faster time controls should be adjusted in order to protect the value of international titles.

Openness and next steps

The FIDE Council confirms that the General Assembly resolution is being respected and that work on its implementation has already begun.

In the near future, the Council intends to approve a formal amendment making 60+30 a guaranteed classical time control.

On the remaining issues, the Qualification Commission will be asked to present the arguments both for and against the proposed changes. In line with FIDE’s policy of openness, these materials will be published, interested parties will be invited to submit their views, and the proposals will be discussed publicly in advance.

The outcome could then be submitted for final approval, for example, at an extraordinary online General Assembly towards the end of 2026.

A formal decision on the broader use of 45+30 and the possible introduction of three games per day will be taken after this consultation.

Why balance matters

Two realities need to be balanced.

On the one hand, modern life is moving faster, computer-assisted preparation has changed the way players work, and there is clear demand for more compact tournament formats. Shorter classical time controls and two rounds per day can, for example, allow a classical tournament to be completed in five or six days instead of nine.

On the other hand, if classical chess is accelerated too much, it risks losing the very quality that defines it. Classical chess is the form of the game in which players have sufficient time to think deeply about a position and make considered decisions.

FIDE’s task is therefore to find the right balance between practicality and the essential character of classical chess.

FIDE will keep the chess community informed as the discussion develops and further decisions are made.

[JustinHorton]

Apparently this resolution was passed on an inquorate vote?

[Roger de Coverly]

If this has actually gone through it would make things easier for the organisers to get their weekend tournaments FIDE rated. Under the current rules if you want to use a time control faster than a notional four hour session, 90 minutes plus 15 second increments or 60 minutes plus 30 seconds for example you have to either declare the tournament restricted to players under 2400 or tell any such players and their opponents that the games will not be rated. It would be allowed for a FIDE rated tournament to have three rounds at a move rate of 100 minutes plus 20 minutes without increment or even 90 30. I don't think anyone in Britain does this any more. Instead the tournaments with three rounds on the Saturday target notional three and a half or three hour sessions.

On the face of it 60 30 and presumably variants with a shorter increment can now be rated for everyone.

For a while FIDE seemed to resist the idea that you could achieve the rating requirements for IM and GM titles by playing in fast weekend tournaments.

Norm requirements are irrelevant to weekend tournaments because of the shorter tournament length.

[Alex Holowczak]

Apparently this resolution was passed on an inquorate vote?

Correct.

At the moment, we have:
1. What the regulations say
2. What FIDE Council decided to have an "experiment" on, which they did without consulting Member Federations on, and without changing the regulations
3. The Icelandic proposal, which clearly shows there is an appetite from some Federations to be consulted on

All three overlap and in several cases appear to contradict each other. So even putting aside that the meeting was inquorate at the time, it is a mess.

[Matt Mackenzie]

So more of the same where FIDE is concerned, then.

[Alex Holowczak]

So more of the same where FIDE is concerned, then.

To be fair, the new administration felt it appropriate to publish that summary, and apparently invite further contributions to the discussion to reach a proper decision. It remains to be seen whether or not this will generate a sensible result, but let's see what happens. Benefit of the doubt for now.

[JustinHorton]

Did they accidentally forget to mention the inquorate thing, or does the term "formally supported" assume in the reader an understanding that it may not mean what it says?

[Alex Holowczak]

Did they accidentally forget to mention the inquorate thing, or does the term "formally supported" assume in the reader an understanding that it may not mean what it says?

There is currently a debate online where one very respected delegate attending the meeting believes the meeting was inquorate and it was not passed, and another very respected delegate attending believes it was passed and only then was the meeting deemed inquorate.

"Formally supported" is possibly some carefully chosen words in the circumstances. I did say it was a mess.