15-10 VS 30 min games

Which are better for beginner players?

I have mixed thought about it..

30 minutes or longer. !5-10 and such are for people with with experience, trying to hone skills which they already posess.

Nonsense. Most long time control games end long before time trouble becomes an issue. Sure, it can happen. Tough. Deal with it. Learn to play better in the opening and middlegame, and it's rarely an issue. The increment is for wusses.

Best is 45|45. Join the DHLC is you need help finding those games.

Slower time controls are the better for any player that wants to improve. If you're happy at the level you play at then its fine to play blitz. Keep in mind you improve by thinking about the game, not by making instinctual moves the moment they occur to you. Try not to play less than game 30s and longer than that is much better, 2 hours per 40 moves is probably best but it's hard to find those games on chess.com server.

lol for me 15/10 means don't worry about time. I think in 99% of positions if u gave me 2 hours to make a move I wouldn't be able to find a better move than if u gave me 30 seconds.

15/10 is probably a bit quick, but I don't like playing without increment, so I'd prefer it over 30/0.

You could actually test this. Play a game against a computer where you will spend 10 minutes on each move (except for book opening). Write down your best move at the 10 second, 30 second, 1 minute, 5 minute, and 10 minute marks. When the game is over, have a computer analyze each of your moves that you wrote down. See how the score differs depending on the time. You should see that the move you thought was best at 30 seconds isn't as good as the move you thought was best at 10 minutes (at least on average).

My comment was based on my tournament experience. Yes, time trouble happens. "Frequently" depends on one's definition of the term. It's certainly somewhat less than 50% of the time in long time control games, therefore my statement "Most long time control games end long before time trouble becomes an issue" is accurate.

The statement, "All games without an increment are ruined in the end" is absurd. On what basis can such a claim be substantiated?

Both are not that good. I think 20 05 would be a much happier medium.

51/49 would be too close to call; 90/10 or 95/5 isn't.

I took your statement to be "All games without..." and not "All games of 30 minutes or less without...."

Most serious tournaments are longer than 30 minutes, and regarding those in which I played (prior to the advent of increments [the date of the tournament being irrelevant to the topic at hand]) two things could be said: 1. While time trouble occurred, the frequency was not high -- certainly below 10% of the time, and possibly below 5%. I have no statistics to back up any specific number; 2. In games in which time trouble occurred, not all were "ruined." Some ended with the appropriate result before time expired. Some ended with the flag falling, but the player who should have won the position still won the game. Some were "ruined."

You mentioned GM's. Certainly a few of them were able to play brilliant games before the invention of this increment crutch.

hihi semantics argument

my feelings exactly, though 15 10 is actually fairly faster. try 20 20 i guess

I missed nothing. I realize the invention of digital chess clocks allows the use of an increment, and I realize that the use of an increment is standard. I just consider it an aberration. I've heard the arguments in favor of it, but personally, I remain unconvinced that it's always the right way to go, and would prefer having an option available.

The tournaments in which I played (up to at least mid-1999) were mostly G/90 sudden death, so I am familiar with SD time controls. Since the point of discussion is what happens in games without increments, the dates of those games, and whether or not one currently plays in tournaments with different time controls is completely and utterly irrelevant. Indeed, the OP said nothing about "tournaments," therefore I submit that recreational games, including those played with friends at one of their homes (with adult beverages available) also qualify for consideration. (And I don't remember you being at Steve's house!)

The results of the past games, whether played in the mid 1990s or during the Civil War, remain unchanged. Someone who wasn't there will not convince me that I didn't witness what I saw. Most of the G/90 games were finished within two hours. A few lasted longer. It was relatively rare for one to go into time trouble, but it did happen occasionally -- about as often as a game lasted an hour or less!

Fair enough, but I did answer the OP with my opinion that  30/0 was better.

Once again, this is entirely irrelevant to the point with which I raised an objection, namely that "All games without increment are ruined in the end."

Apart from some major tournaments involving GMs, most tournaments were set up to require all rounds to end within the alotted time, either by SD in the primary, secondary, or tertiary time controls. And again, the statement which is the basis for the argument, does not relate exclusively to tournament play.

Look, I know what the current rules state. That is not the issue. The point is, your statement that "All games without increment are ruined in the end" was false. You have given no evidence to support such a claim. None. Period.

Regarding increments, I submit that it IS an aberration. The use of a clock at all, presupposes that time passes. Any system which allows, in any instance, however rare, that one may play a number of moves designed for the specific purpose of gaining time -- effectively causing the clock to run backward -- is fundamentally wrong. I could, perhaps, accept the notion of a "delay." In such an instance, one's clock would not restart immediately upon the opponent's move, but no additional time is added. While this might not be my personal preference, I accept the argument which supports this method, provided that the delay does not exceed five seconds (which I consider the maximum reasonable amount -- anything in excess affords the opponent "free" time to think, which alters the purpose of the delay).

Oh, Snap!

For the record: I like the increment.  Five seconds is alright and USCF standard although 10 seconds is becoming more and more common these days and I can't say I mind.  

60/10 is a decent time control, actually.

Manfred,

Fine. you win. I don't have either the time or inclination to address your lengthy list of logical non-sequiturs. You beat me. Congratulations.