Do you prefer time with increment or without?

Please state which time control specifically you are talking about.

Why this particular choice( with increment for example) over another, some props and cons please.

But I'd prefer the Bronstein clock over Fischer's.

I hate the increment since I'm not good at calculating how much time is left. Always in 15/10 games I play much faster than my opponent but he ends up winning. In the end I might have 13 minutes left and he maybe 1-2 minutes, and then the tables are turned and he wins. 

This is your 11th thread today, be careful about the spam detector.

Worry about yourself

nimzomalaysian wrote:

This is your 11th thread today, be careful about the spam detector.

Decrement 

Increment all day.  In OTB play it allows you to continue recording moves, which allow players to get better and review their games.  As a player frequently in time trouble OTB, I wish more of my games had been increment to give me more time in the endgame and to allow me to record games. I also coach some low rated students and it's hard to help them with their endgame when they can't record due to time issues.

The big problem with no increment is that it allows players in hopeless positions to literally move the king back and forth to win on time.  I understand that time is part of the game (and I love blitz chess) but I think you should have to attempt to make reasonable moves rather than just moving back and forth.  I remember seeing a Nakamura-Hanson bullet game here on chess.com with opposite bishops and a pawn each (100% drawn, even for beginners).  Each player pre-moved about 40 consecutive moves and Hanson lost on time, because he was a few seconds lower on time when the totally drawn endgame was reached.  I also recall an Armageddon game between two female GMs (forget the event) where one was down a full queen with no comp and won on time by huddling her pieces are moving the king back and forth.  Delay is fine as well, but my personal opinion is that having someone win by moving back and forth is boring and not what I want out of a chess game.  Even a one second increment is enough to allow a player to play a decent endgame 

OTB the player can claim a draw if there are less than 2 minutes remaining without increment, if he/she can demonstrate the opponent has no means or will to achieve a win by normal ways.

Pulpofeira: first off, that's only if the Insufficient Losing Chances rule is in effect, which may not be the case.  TDs have the power to say that the ILC rule doesn't apply in the tournament being run, as long as they announce it before the even begins (in the USCF).  Second, you can be down a piece or even a queen, but it you still have significant material the TD won't give the draw claim.  It also doesn't help in you are low on time in a rook and pawn ending and your opponent chooses to shuffle or otherwise extend/complicate the game to try and win primarily on time

Mmm, never heard of ILC, it is a USCF rule? Still I think it covers many strange situations, like kids playing K+R vs. K+R to death that I have witnessed many times.

I think it would be cool to have time controls with negative increment (would that be excrement)? Basically, for every move, in addition to the amount of time you spend, you also get a fixed number of seconds deducted from your clock.

It doesnt matter, as long as i get to play chess.  I understand that increments/delays are the future, so im ok with it.

The increment is very useful in long time controls, because the players have to fill the scoresheet regardless of their remaining time.

I prefer no increment just so rounds start on time.  I have seen many people play on in hopeless positions just using the increment.  It's bad enough that the opponent has to suffer due to this poor sportsmanship, but I have to wait for this game to end before the TD can pair the next round.  The last round having to wait for someone riding with me is also painful.

In the good old days, rounds started on time as there was no delay, however claims were harder to enforce.  (In the beginning of time delay, the delay clocks were set 5 minutes less than the analog clocks.)  The worst case is that the TD, who may be several hundred points below the players, spends a hundredth of the time the players thinking to decide the result of the game.  

Back then, time management was a part of the game.  If you wasted to time and you didn't have enough to play a proper endgame, this was a weakness in your game just as much as not being able to mate with a Bishop and Knight.

BOY, HELL YEAH.

I like Blitz chess without increments, the flagging factor makes up for interesting games and sacrifices. 

However if it is a serious classical time game I would preffer having increment, just to make sure Im not getting flagged. And as my father Pfren say, fill my scoresheet.

Altho I bought a little monkey on the black market that annotates the games at my tournaments for me tho, so I really dont have a problem with filling my scoresheet.

Definitely blitz without increments. There are people online who can win with increments because they have a technique to run nearly out of time, you know you're bound to win, you make a careless slip and then they hook up the engine and pump out moves at the rate of ten per second. No, it is not lag, like the deluded and naive are fond of believing.

In any case, with no increment we know exactly where we are and how much time we have, and we can play to suit. For that matter, I don't like any increment at all, in any game. I can see the point though, because many of our league games are all moves in 90 minutes, and that's too fast for a really well thought out game, especially if it's over 45 moves. If it's an eighty mover I can see the point of increments but I still don't like it because often that's exactly what the blitz specialists want. And if we can't manage our time, we don't deserve anything out of the game.

I prefer with increment . Because it is such a pitty to lose in an winning position on time.