Require Increment For Rated Games

petrip

adjournements were only at top level. Weekend tournaments for normal  people may had something like 2h/40z+30 min for rest of the game. 

Ablity to ration time is part of the skill in chess. and most of OTB blitz games are 5+5 for several reasons. 

- people like them more

- make tournament schedule way more predictable 

 

although 3+2 will be the main variant. But it will take some time 

 

NelsonMoore

5+5 has a sensible increment. 3+2 doesn't.

The lower the standard of your chess the more time you are likely to need as your immediate board perception will be worse than that of a more skilled player.

An event where you are going to play more than one game in a day: the time control will be faster.

You're more likely to make a mistake but so is your opponent, but if it's one game in the day then one mistake can destroy the game and your whole day. If there are several rounds, you may lose this game but you can win a different one.

However the main topic is about increments rather than none at all, and even a reasonably small increment will change the emphasis to winning the game on the board rather than flagging.

Of course there is still time management. If you lose most of your clock time, you'll have less time to think later and may make mistakes. But the game will be lost on the mistakes you make due to time pressure, not due to the clock itself. You won't find yourself a queen ahead with an easy checkmate but unable to execute it (and getting a loss if your opponent happens to still have one pawn on the board, even one stuck behind one of yours).

Players in an opposite coloured bishop end-game will agree the draw, rather than play out to see what happens first, 50 moves or a flag.

Chess wins.

 

glamdring27

There's a world of difference between what the top players do and should do and what those of us playing online do.  I support increments for top tournaments because players nowadays are so used to them the games would be a mess without.  If increments had never been invented then players would manage their time better and ridiculous time scrambles like the Carlsen-Caruana one at Sinquefield a few years back would be much more rare,  Players play to what they are used to.

 

I haven't played chess at a club for 20 years, but how many chess clubs in towns and cities around the world have clocks with increments?  Is it only the elite that are allowed to play 'real chess' just because not all chess clubs can afford a load of fancy digital clocks?!

 

You get rubbish still with increments though.  Aimless moves or repetitions to bank time don't exactly add to the historic quality of a top game for years to come either.

 

For Crazyhouse I do play 3/0 because if I enter any other time control I'll be waiting forever for a game.  Even at 3/0 there's often a wait of a few minutes.  I've rarely had a Crazyhouse game, even at that time control in which there has been a mad time scramble at the end, but Crazyhouse games are ridiculous anyway.  Great fun, but the moves that get played are of very variable quality.

 

People losing on time without increment do so because they didn't manage their time well enough.  Even chess commentators perpetuate this myth that players making mistakes in time trouble is somehow inevitable.  It isn't.  Getting into time trouble in the first place is already a mistake.  What happens once you get there is a secondary issue,

I play no increment chess for the simple reason that I want to know that my lunch time game of chess will be bounded by 20 minutes (plus a small amount for lag, though that only counts if both players use all their time anyway).  Games with increment are less predictable.  And you can get idiots who just play on forever or to a 50-move rule far longer than is sensible since they have no danger of losing on time.

 

But the 'main topic' was an assertive opinion that games without increment shouldn't even count for a rating or be considered 'real chess'.  It wasn't setting up a discussion of the pros and cons of increments (they clearly do have both pros and cons).  It was just an arbitrary 'I think games without increments are worthless therefore the rest of the world should fall into line too' claim.

Preggo_Basashi
glamdring27 wrote:

You get rubbish still with increments though.  Aimless moves or repetitions to bank time don't exactly add to the historic quality of a top game for years to come either.

This is as old as clocks.

All the old GMs knew (and all the current ones too) to "always repeat"

They do it so they'll be closer to the time control. It can also have a psychological effect.

And these days, yes, it also gains a little time due to increment although sometimes (always?) there is no increment in the first time control at super tournaments.

 

And if you think there were no time scrambles back in analog days you're nuts.

glamdring27

Of course there were time scrambles, and why shouldn't there be?  What I said was that if players now played without increments it'd be a mess of time scrambles because they aren't used to it, but if they were used to it they'd be less frequent, not non-existent,

If people don't want time to be a factor then play without clocks at all.  If the clock is there it is a factor and managing that time is important and time scrambles are a valid part of chess.

madratter7

I don't know about clubs in general, but my club does have clocks with increment. We usually play 15/10.

Preggo_Basashi
glamdring27 wrote:

Of course there were time scrambles, and why shouldn't there be?  What I said was that if players now played without increments it'd be a mess of time scrambles because they aren't used to it, but if they were used to it they'd be less frequent, not non-existent,

If people don't want time to be a factor then play without clocks at all.  If the clock is there it is a factor and managing that time is important and time scrambles are a valid part of chess.

Altibox Norway super tournament didn't have increment until move 61. Just saying.

Preggo_Basashi

And for all I know that may be common. I only checked that one tournament.

glamdring27

So what is your point?  That it shouldn't have been rated and wasn't real chess?  Which was the point made at the top of the thread.  I've no problem with top players playing either with or without increment.  And what the rest of us do online is none of anyone else's business!

Preggo_Basashi

The point is I think your claim that the top players either don't know how to manage their time as well as past players, or don't get practice because they always play with increment, is silly. Time management is a basic skill, and they do play time periods with no increment.

NelsonMoore

With delay but no increment you can't repeat moves to add time to your clock. Time never gets added to your clock, only subtracted. However as long as you play within your delay time your clock won't lose time so you won't get to a totally won endgame and not be able to complete it, or get to a totally drawn endgame and have an opponent who tries to flag.

That there is a "time control" in an OTB game with a clock is a substitute for increment. Of course there are all sorts of strange things you can do that changes the time control at a certain point. Playing 60 moves without increment then having one after that means you can always manage your time as you will never get to a point of having a finite time to play an undetermined number of moves.

You can get digital clocks that have increment or delay feature that are not that expensive.

 

glamdring27

 Just as well if all those people playing without increment are not playing 'real chess'!

petrip

I think clubs without digital clock do not really exist anymore. Digital clocks took over something almost 20 years ago. Thats more than life expentancy of a clock.

 

as for rating: It statistical measure of your skill in given game. And people like to play 5 minutes guillotine (as they do it is still the most popular time in clubs) then it makes sense to measure it. 

And here the most typical blitz time is 10 minutes (which is extremely rare otb) then this is valid thing to measure. Just has too skills being measured: Your playing ability and your ability to steer game into situation you can handle in alloted time. 

5/5 you reliably win only very simple endgames. Many of the games I coudl win with 20 minutes on clock with 30sec increment I have 50-50 chance on 5 sec increment

 

at the end the day 5min is just as reals as 5/5. You just happen to like other one more

 

NelsonMoore

I played 2 games last night, one 5|12 on this site and one 8|12 on a different site, and both games ended up going into rook and pawn end-games. The 12-second increment meant I had time to think in these endgames.

In the first, my opponent had more time on the clock than me but didn't bother using it. He could have got a draw but didn't. In the second I had difficult winning chances but ended up drawing.

Endgames are not all simple and can't all be blitzed out.

There were a few times I had to stop and look and count a few moves to see what would happen in a sequence. e.g. when my rook grabbed an extra pawn, would I have time to get back to defend against my opponent's passed pawn?

 

glamdring27

That's fine, but 5/12 is very unpredictable for people who have limited time.  24 minutes added on if you go to 60 moves.  If you have a really long end game you could be playing for an hour.  I'd rather just play 30/0 in that case.  Then you can still spend a long time on an end game if you leave yourself enough time, and if you don't, well, that would be your fault.

NelsonMoore

You should consider that a game may last up to 80 moves and probably not beyond that. Therefore as you get a minute every 5 moves, consider that 21 minutes each.

I remember when we used to play with a bleeper and were supposed to play a move exactly on the bleep. Actually that's more similar to a delay with a short clock time.  Allow maybe a total of 20 seconds over the delay so 20 secs + 10 sec delay.

Of course a game could last for a very long time, but for a game of 70 moves you would get 12 minutes each, assuming you used your full time every move. If you have 20 secs plus 10 sec increment that's also 12 minutes each if you haven't used it you can use it later.

There's no time management though in a game with a very short clock and a delay. Just a need to come up with a reasonable move in time.

I have considered an auto-adjudicate option. After a certain number of moves each, both players would stop playing and an engine would adjudicate the position. That way you could play without any increment / delay because you'd simply have to reach a specific number of moves within your time control. 10 mins each, up to 60 moves. That's fast. But you can manage your time based on it.