FIDE Time Controls

[Richard Bates]

Just noticed this on Chessbase:

Standardisation of time controls
The following standard has been set for classical games:

a) (G-90') + 30"
b) (90'/40 + G-30') + 30"
c) (100'/40 + 50'/20 + G-15') + 30"
d) 120'/40 + G-30'
e) 120'/40 + G-60'
f) 120'/40 + 60'/20 + G-30'

Tournaments, in which other time controls are used, shall not be taken into consideration for title purposes (GM, IM, WGM, WIM norms) starting from the 1st of July 2009.

Where does this leave Hastings and the British (and Gibraltar?) - both of which i think use Fischer limits which are significantly better than FIDE's quickplay, no endings, no toilet after move 40, nonsense?

[David Robertson]

It leaves them free to carry on as now - until June 30th 2009. Thereafter, no Fischer or no FIDE-rating. I guess DGT didn't pay over the ransom required

David
Atticus CC

[Richard Bates]

It also possibly calls into question the future of 2 round a day FIDE-rated tournaments.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The British uses (f), so is safe on those grounds.

The South Wales International, which has some days with two rounds, uses (d).

[Richard Bates]

The British uses (f), so is safe on those grounds.

The South Wales International, which has some days with two rounds, uses (d).

That is true, on both counts. My mistake.

[Sean Hewitt]

It leaves them free to carry on as now - until June 30th 2009. Thereafter, no Fischer or no FIDE-rating. I guess DGT didn't pay over the ransom required

David
Atticus CC

I think you've misunderstood David. Options (a) ; (b) and (c) are Fischer time controls, albeit 30 second increments.

Where this leaves something like Gibraltar or Hastings which currently use 1 minute increments is anyones guess. I guess they'll have to change.

[Maxim Devereaux]

Yes, I'm surprised that Stewart hasn't also brought this one to our attention already. I recall him saying how when he proposed incremental limits, he always envisaged using 1 minute, but FIDE have got on the 30 sec bandwagon and now seem to want us all to dance to this tune, if I can mix my metaphors a little.

Having used both, I know I much prefer a minute of increment - 30 sec is simply perpetual time trouble, especially given that you are forced to record.

[Richard Bates]

It leaves them free to carry on as now - until June 30th 2009. Thereafter, no Fischer or no FIDE-rating. I guess DGT didn't pay over the ransom required

David
Atticus CC

I think you've misunderstood David. Options (a) ; (b) and (c) are Fischer time controls, albeit 30 second increments.

Where this leaves something like Gibraltar or Hastings which currently use 1 minute increments is anyones guess. I guess they'll have to change.

I don't think David's misunderstood. I think his post implies he has no regard for the former three options for serious tournament play.

[David Robertson]

Dead right! The 30-second increment is preposterous. Better players than I can speak with more authority on the matter, but having played the one-minute increment for the first time in tournaments these past three years, I can absolutely attest that 30-second increments must be a nonsense - if, that is, one's objective is the sustainability of quality in chess.

As a promoter, should the chance arise again, I'd have serious reservations about inviting the best players to submit to such a regime. Surely one major point about arranging tournaments is that we should be about improving quality in the game. That means providing players with the best possible conditions in which to apply their skills. Great players will likely beat good players whatever the increment, but that hardly makes a case for simply slapping down the moves and scuttling through the game. Aesthetics and arguably science must surely be part of our considerations. There is little worse than a great match or tournament's historic record disfigured by gross flaws in games between fine players - flaws caused, as they will be, by a crass time-limit.

I get the impression that changes like this are made, as so often at every level in the game, by administrators who simply don't play chess very well, and consequently don't understand the short- and long-term damage they do.

David
Atticus CC

[JustinHorton]

Well, in and of itself it's not "preposterous", of course, as opposed to the possibility that there may be better alternatives. It's tough, but it's better for the standard of chess than the system that preceded it. It may well be employed because time is sometimes a consideration when it comes to the availability of a venue - such is the case in some of the competitions in which I play, which use the 90 + 30s time limit.

[Roger de Coverly]

Standardisation of time controls
The following standard has been set for classical games:

a) (G-90') + 30"
b) (90'/40 + G-30') + 30"
c) (100'/40 + 50'/20 + G-15') + 30"
d) 120'/40 + G-30'
e) 120'/40 + G-60'
f) 120'/40 + 60'/20 + G-30'

Tournaments, in which other time controls are used, shall not be taken into consideration for title purposes (GM, IM, WGM, WIM norms) starting from the 1st of July 2009.

As well as the 60 second increment, these standards also rule out the Corus rate
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/corus ... #more-5059

New rate of play in 2009
As from January 2009, the rate of play in Grandmaster groups A, B and C will change. The rate of play will be: 40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour, followed by 15 minutes with 30 seconds per move increment to finish the game.

as used in the world championship
http://www.uep-chess.com/cms_english/in ... &Itemid=11

3.5 Time control.

3.5.1 The time control for each game shall be: 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, 60 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes for the rest of the game plus an additional 30 seconds per move starting from move 61.

You don't get non GMs in the world championship, but you do in Corus C.

It's strange that a rate of play used in the most recent world championship will become non-accepted for title norms within a year of its use.

I've long thought it logical that you don't really need increments during the "x in y" phases of a game, but that it usefully avoids 10.2 issues during the all moves in z phase. Designers of digital clock software evidently didn't see it as a requirement because it's only the most recent and expensive of the DGT clocks that supports it. In a sporting sense ,at the Corus rate, the length of play is six hours (20% of a test match) with "extra time" of 15 30 if the game is unfinished by move 60. From memory, this rate was used in the 2000 KvK match with the proviso that a "clock substitution" had to take place at move 61. Notwithstanding or perhaps because of all those Berlins, none of the games got that far.

[David Sedgwick]

I was present at the meetings of the FIDE Qualification Commission in Dresden at which this issue was discussed, so I can provide some explanation and background.

I wasn't in Dresden for the later stages of the process at the Executive Board and the General Assembly. Stewart Reuben has mentioned elsewhere that FIDE have yet to publish the final versions of the new Title Regulations and the new Rating Regulations and I'd intended to refrain from comment until I'd seen them. The document which has occasioned this thread is a report by GM Bartlomiej Macieja of the Association of Chess Professionals. I've no reason to doubt the factual accuracy of his report and I'm responding accordingly.

I imagine that the reason that Stewart has been concentrating on the time default issue is that that is one area where we (the chess public) may still be able to influence the outcome. In other areas, such as the present topic, the decisions have been taken, even if we don't yet know exactly what they are. Obviously it would be helpful if the FIDE Secretariat were to publish the new Regulations as soon as possible.

The ACP have been pressing FIDE for well over a year to introduce some standardisation of time controls. I have considerable sympathy with the underlying objective. Twenty years ago, after the Campomanes reforms of the mid-1980s, 40 moves in 2 hours was a virtually standard first time control in International Title Tournaments and higher level events. Since Fischer timings became possible a plethora of different time limits have been introduced. At the Dresden meetings GM Macieja argued politely but forcefully that this made life extremely and unnecessarily difficult for professional GMs and that the only way to deal with the situation was to specify that only the recommended limits would be valid for Title Tournaments.

Dealing with a few specifics arising from the thread:

1. We're talking about the new Title Regulations. The new Rating Regulations will also contain restrictions, but these will be less prescriptive. There's no reason why FIDE Rated tournaments can't continue to have two or even three rounds a day.

2. Title Tournaments with two rounds a day will continue to be possible. The tournaments currently in progress at Coulsdon Chess Fellowship have two rounds a day and are being played at (100'/40 + G-50') + 30". From 1st July 2009 onwards they'll presumably have to switch to the faster rate b) on the list.

3. Hastings and Gibraltar, currently played at (80'/40 + G-20') + 1', will have to switch to b) (faster) or c) (slower), again from 1st July 2009.

4. The British Championship does indeed currently use f). However Stewart has always been a strong supporter of incremental limits and I imagine that he may well switch to c) at Torquay 2009. (This is speculation on my part; I've not discussed it with him.)

5. As Roger de Coverly has indicated, elite all-GM events are not subject to the restrictions. Nevertheless the absence from the list of the Corus time limit is a glaring omission and may prove to be an exception to my comment above that the Regulations won't now be further amended. The omission was pointed out at Dresden by Nick Faulks of Bermuda, but seemingly without result so far.

I agree with those who have commented that our experience in England has been that one minute increments work better than 30 second increments. Unfortunately, however, the latter have to the best of my knowledge become virtually standard elsewhere. It's only events under ECF auspices that use one minute and not all of them at that. The tournaments at Coulsdon Chess Fellowship use 30 seconds and they're serious and valuable events. I find it hard to accept that the adoption of c) or even b) at Hastings and Gibraltar would threaten the future of classical chess. The distinguished GMs who played at the EU Championship in Liverpool are all well used to playing with 30 second increments in tournaments elsewhere.

Whatever the merits of the changes, it's unfair to blame these particular ones on "crackpot" FIDE officials. The impetus and pressure came from the ACP Board, who are the elected representatives of professional GMs. The administrators who comprise the majority of those attending FIDE Committees and Commissions were reluctant to embrace the restrictions, for reasons not dissimilar to those expressed in this thread

[Roger de Coverly]

Whatever the merits of the changes, it's unfair to blame these particular ones on "crackpot" FIDE officials.

Those of us with long memories will however recall that changes away from 40/2 (or its incremental equivalent) towards the whole 90 30 concept were initiated by Kirsan and other FIDE persons on the grounds that 40/2 was too slow for television and not "sporting" enough.

[David Sedgwick]

Whatever the merits of the changes, it's unfair to blame these particular ones on "crackpot" FIDE officials.

Those of us with long memories will however recall that changes away from 40/2 (or its incremental equivalent) towards the whole 90 30 concept were initiated by Kirsan and other FIDE persons on the grounds that 40/2 was too slow for television and not "sporting" enough.

This is a fair point, but we have five alternatives all of which are longer than (G-90') + 30".

I'd intended to refer more to the effective outlawing of one minute increments.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is a fair point, but we have five alternatives all of which are longer than (G-90') + 30".

I hope this means that Kirsan/FIDE have lost interest in faster move rates - see for example

http://globalchess.eu/main.php?id=34

Q: So, your new proposal is 1 hour for the entire game?

A: Maybe more, but this is the direction we are going.

Q: Will the classical control be kept only for the most important tournaments?

A: For World Championships, yes. However, we will still decrease the time from 7 to 4-5 hours. For all other official tournaments we will use 20 or 25 minutes per player. All chess players I talked with support this idea. During the Olympiad in Turin we questioned female players, and 100% of them backed the FIDE control. I guess 90% men share their opinion. When I met Vladimir Kramnik in Paris recently, he said that the classical control should be preserved for World Championships, but rapid control can make chess more exciting for the public.

I sometimes think that FIDE don't really want people playing chess (as opposed to watching it). The phrase "more exciting for the public" conveys an anti-player attitude.