Really LONG Intervals

Ok I rarely ask questions on the forum,

but has anyone played a game with really Long intervals-

like 2/120

that would mean you have At LEAST 2 minutes to move, and if you moved quickly in several moves you would "gain" lots of time allowing perhaps big thinks towards the endgame.

has anyone played it? and if not, why not??

whats the sell for short intervals???

Never tried, but willing to find out? Want to have a game?

sure.  can't do it now though. (work)

this weekend? 

That is 2long4me. I usually do not play long games online. I like rapid, 30 minutes or so, but 120seconds as an increment is too much, usually I blitz out the first 13 moves so I would end up with about 25 minutes at basically the start of the game.

thegreat_patzer wrote:

sure.  can't do it now though. (work)

this weekend? 

*ok, will drop you a message at the end of the week

Hey I'd like to try!

Sorry, but what is the point?

If you play 10 moves quickly in the opening, perhaps 5 seconds per move, you would have 21:10 left (used 50 seconds, gained 20 minutes)

If you then play another 10 moves with a 1 min avg you have 31:10 left (used 10 minutes, gained 20 minutes).

Why not just play a G30/30 at that point. After the same 20 moves you would have ~29 minutes left.

Lets compare for a 50 move game.

2/120 would give you about 1hr 40 minutes.
70/40 would give you about the same.

The main differences that come to mind are:

1) Less time in the beginning of the game.
In unfamiliar sharp positions you'd need a lot of time, for moves 5 to 20 lets say, to figure things out. Spending 30 or 40 minutes over the span of 4 or 5 moves wouldn't be possible.

2) Way too much time for technical endgames (like R+B vs R) which may last over 100 moves. This would make it a very unpopular time control for tournament play because games would have to be adjourned or adjudicated.

Maybe this is why multiple time controls are a thing. That way you have a big bank of time, but it's not feast or famine at either end of the game.

But the time at the beginning is where you pick up a lot. My 5 seconds per move in the first 10 may have been stretching it but not by much (I don't think).

Unless, as you say, your opponent goes out of book early and it is unfamiliar territory.

20 minutes on move 10 really isn't much time if you need to solve something difficult. Then 1, 2, or 5 moves later you might need a long think again, but you'd have no time.

Even if main lines are played, and you're at move 20 with 40 minutes, and now it's time to think, if you use all your time you don't get another long think basically for the rest of the middlegame at least.

I think you are bringing in the rarest of rare situations at move 10.

To me the control is pointless.

Agree to disagree.

Not very long like that, but I have played 1|30 and enjoy that time control. If you play your earlier moves quickly, it can lead you to having a decent amount of time to think later on.

I wish they could make 1|30 a standard time control, or at least make it easier to find games with it.

For me it's not so rare to use a lot of time for the first few moves out of book... but I'm not good at time management

Ive never heard it called interval before, only increment. But nevertheless...the "sell" for short increments is that no game will result in a mad dash end game where the person who can move pieces in the general area of the desired square and slam their clock faster is the winner. It allows for a more controlled endgame while still posing a looming threat of loosing on time.

The time control you proposed may work for some in casual play, but i doubt a serious tournament would ever consider it.  The game could be far too long (think of games of around 120 moves). Sure these games are rare, but the fact that they have a chance to occur is a logistical nightmare, especially in the US where most tournaments have multiple rounds a day.

Also, the players would not have a chance for a deep think early in the game. Anything that restricts how a player chooses to use their time is not a good idea. If someone wants to spend 15 min on move 3, they should be allowed to.

Also, i cant imagine that giving a strategic incentive to blitz out moves in the early 15 moves or so of a game could be a good thing for your chess development.

why not just play a standard time control then.  A G/2 120d would mean that regardless of the demands of the position, you only have (on average) a little over 2 min a move (less if you dont use the whole two minutes of the delay in the opening, which is likely). 

Wouldnt you rather have the freedom to use the time how you wish? Sure, i guess it "adds another element" to the game....but you are also simply removing an element. How a player decides to manage their time across an entire game is an interesting strategic element of chess, and i believe more important than witnessing the calamity that results in not giving a move the time due.

(Here, Im speaking in relative terms...Say, in bullet, a player that spends 6 sec on a move is not giving much time to the particular position, but that is 10% of the total time allotted.)