I want to make a small correction to my earlier post where I characterized a game with d/10 time controls as involving increments. My example was actually an example of a 10 second delay rather than 10 second increment. With a delay, your clock does not start for the first N seconds. With an increment, your clock time is actually increased. So in theory if you move fast enough, you can build up time, whereas, with a delay, the best you can do is prevent your time from running down.
How Long Are Official Rated Live Chess Matches?
Sort:
Has anyone ever run out of time and thereby lost a major GM championship match?
wdym
ok beginner here... tried to google ... can't find... so in ''layman's terms'' in a high level tournament or match how long would be average time of a match, what would be a short match and a long match and how long do the players take to make a move once the game gets involved and the moves have to be contemplated? thanks for you input ....
and if ubsk is there a way to set a limit for time of moves when playing a 30 minute game here ... say to 3 or 5 minutes as i have gotten in a controlling position after 10 minutes and had someone just stall and offer a draw down say a queen and a rook.....thanks again...
MrEdCollins wrote:
Last year's World Championship match between Anand and Carlsen had a primary time control of 40 moves in two hours. The secondary time control was 20 moves in 1 hour, followed by 15 minutes for the rest of the game, with a 30 second increment after move #61.
At most, 12 games might have been played.
At the recent U.S. Chess Championships help in St. Louis, the primary time control was 40 moves in 90 minutes followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game. For this tournament there was a 30 second increment beginning with move #1.
The men's tournament was 11 rounds and the women's tournament was 9 rounds.
40 moves in two hours is a fairly fast time control, compared with what they used to be. County matches in the UK tend to be played at that speed. I seem to remember they used to be rather slower too.
OldDrob wrote:
Has anyone ever run out of time and thereby lost a major GM championship match?
Of course. Many times.
thanks Optimissed, would you venture an educated guess .... as i am new to chess and play 30 minute games here, what is the usual game that a good player plays, ok I know this will be an overgeneralization and there 's no such thing as a good generality including this one but ..... and once again since as i said i have been asked during a game via chat to play quicker when i am engrossed and trying to be careful, and I also have had my own annoyance when I thought opponent was stalling .... is there a way to play a 3o minute game with 3 0r 5 minute time limits for moves .. is there any limit in a tournament other than the say 40 moves in 2 hours ... whew that's a lot ... thanks for whatever you have the time to share... much appreciated to you or others responding.
No, the point of a fixed time limit is that you have a fixed time for the entire game. It should be no-one else's business if you spend more time on a particular move thn they would like. Those who object are actually cheating by trying to break your concentration. Just close chat on them.
I now see that this is a very old thread in which I gave what I thought was a very convincing argument against increments, seven years ago, only to have people answer in a way that made it clear they didn't understand a word I was saying. I argued that increments make the standard of chess lower and also penalise those whose opponents have used a lot of time.
So a 30 second increment is a very bad idea. The most I would want to go with is a ten second increment but I don't see the need for any increment.
Imagine a hundred move game, with both opponents getting a 30 second increment, when the original time limit was an hour and a half for the whole game for each player, which is normal in league chess. 100 moves each is another 100 minutes for the game, which would bring back the necessity for adjournments, which fixed time limits were supposed to do away with, because if a match started at 7:30 pm, it wouldn't be finished til 12:20 am.
When two players play, the one who calculates deeper wins. When two players are of equal strength to calculate deeper means to think longer. Thus games between strong players tend to end in mutual time trouble, like 20 moves in 2 minutes. Then blunders decide the winner.
Increment allows to win a won position or draw a drawn position.
That is why all FIDE competitions now are with increment.
Digital clocks can accomodate increment, analog clocks of the past century could not.
If a time control isn't met, that means one of the player's clocks has reached 0:00, and that player loses. AFAIK most modern clocks will freeze the timer so that the player who has run out of time can't start the opponent's clock. So the answer to your #2 is that it's impossible for both players to not make time control.
Really ?
If I remember correctly, there is a good old tournament trick that if you lost on time but the opponent did not notice, and eventually he times out as well, you can claim a draw.
But well, maybe that was at the era where most clocks were mechanical and dinosaurs reigned on the Earth.
USCF (and I believe FIDE) rules require the opponent to point out that the opponent has run out of time. Otherwise, the game continues, and if the player who ran out of time checkmates her opponent before the opponent points out that the clock is at zero, then the player who checkmated wins even though she is out of time. If both clocks hit zero, then it is a draw when either player points out the time situation. Notably, if a player's time runs out but the other player has insufficient mating material, then this is a draw and not a loss for the player who ran out of time.